Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, March 22, 2022

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.

MARCH 22, 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 3/17/2022 11:00:33 AM
03 22 22
CC

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION – 1:00 PM (To Commence at 3:00 PM )
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Abrahamian v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 19STCV24275
b. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Montes v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 19STCV44437
c. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Badalyan v. City of Glendale, U.S.D.C. Case No. 20cv08089 JWH-JEM
d. Conference with real property negotiators: Property location – 480 Mount Carmel Drive. Negotiating parties: Raz Zardorian. Agency negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, Mike Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Philip Lanzafame, Jason Bradford, Mark Berry, and Onnig Bulanikian. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the sale of property

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 March 22, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on March 16, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, March 29, 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 15, 2022, March 1, 2022, and March 8, 2022 and the Special City Council meeting of February 15, 2022 and March 1, 2022 and the Joint City Council and Housing Authority meeting of February 15, 2022 and March 1, 2022 and the Special Joint City Council and Housing Authority meeting of March 8, 2022.
b. Glendale Water and Power, re: Construction Services for Power Line Clearance Tree Trimming

1. Resolution adopting Specification No. 3847 for Construction Services for Power Line Clearance Tree Trimming, and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids c. Glendale Water and Power, re: Rental of Crane and Rigging Truck with Operator Services for the City of Glendale Water & Power

1. Resolution adopting Specification No. 3906 for the rental of crane and rigging truck with operator services for the City of Glendale Water & Power (GWP), and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids
d. Public Works, re: Contract Amendment for the Tenant Improvements at the Glendale Police Department Crime Lab

1. Motion Amending Construction Contract 8001466 with Dorado Design and Construction, Inc., increasing the contract amount by $15,000.00 for the installation of low voltage cabling at the Computer Forensic Laboratory
2 TYPED 3/17/2022 11:00:33 AM
03 22 22
CC

2. Resolution of appropriation for $15,000 from Police Department General Fund Accounts to the Project Account

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Community Development, re: Initiation of Code Changes to the Glendale Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance (GMC 8.36) and General Plan Noise Element Relating to the Use of Amplified Sound Equipment

1. Motion to Initiate Code Revisions to the Glendale Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance (GMC 8.36) and General Plan Noise Element relating to the Use of Amplified Sound Equipment

2. Motion to determine that the Glendale Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance (GMC

8.36) and General Plan Noise Element are appropriate and no revisions are necessary for review
b. Management Services, re: Single Use Plastic Prohibition Expansion

1. Motion to direct staff to prepare an ordinance to regulate the use and distribution of single use plastics food service ware, polystyrene food service ware, polystyrene coolers, polystyrene food packaging trays and on-premises dining reusable food service ware
c. Management Services, re: Amendment to the City of Glendale Building Code to Require All Electric Design, Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic, and Higher Energy Performance for New Construction

1. Motion directing staff to hire a consultant to assist the city in preparing a reach code to incorporate requirements for all-electric design, rooftop solar photovoltaic, and higher energy performance for new construction into the City of Glendale Building & Safety Code

2. Resolution of appropriation in the amount of $50,000 to hire a consultant to prepare a reach code
d. Management Services, re: Consideration of Resolution in Support of Reproductive Freedom

1. Resolution in Support of Reproductive Freedom
e. Public Works, re: Contract Amendment for Recycling Center Operations

1. Resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing an amendment to contract 8001348 with Allan Company Inc. (Allan Company), for operation of the Glendale Recycling Center, increasing the contract amount by $1,555,200 to $2,057,264, and extending the contract duration three-years to March 31, 2025

9. HEARINGS
a. Fire Department, re: Public Hearing for the 2022 Annual Weed Abatement Program

1. Motion to approve Abatement order directing the Agricultural Commissioner/Director of Weights and Measures to abate the nuisance on each declared parcel

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
3 TYPED 3/17/2022 11:00:33 AM
03 22 22
CC

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
4 TYPED 3/17/2022 11:00:33 AM
03 22 22
CC
1 02 15 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 15, 2022 AT 6:00 PM

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:01 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 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 Regular Meetings for February 22 have been cancelled and will resume on March 1, 2022.

Items 4b and 4c pulled for separate consideration.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of February 1, 2022 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
b. Community Services and Parks, re: Approval of Specification for the Landscape Maintenance Contract
Staff Comment:

Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services and Parks

1. Resolution 22-24 adopting Specification No. 3909 for contracting the landscape maintenance of general government facilities, and authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
4A
5 of 331
2 02 15 22
CC
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
c. Community Services and Parks, re: Proposed Recreational Trails Program Grant Application for Three New Trails at Brand Park
Staff Comment:

Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services and Parks

1. Resolution 22-25 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
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Council Member Agajanian asked Council to adjourn in memory of Sarky Mouradian.

Mayor Devine asked staff to provide a report on speed bumps for the 1200 block of Bruce Avenue (Glenoaks to the south and Glenwood to the north). City Manager Roubik Golanian stated that Public Works will do a survey on the area. She asked Council to also adjourn in memory of Fire Communications Shift Supervisor Manuel Soto.

Council Member Kassakhian asked staff to provide a report on replacing coin-operated parking meters with a meter that connects to a smartphone app. Agajanian seconded.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
6 of 331
3 02 15 22
CC

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
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Yazdan Emrani, Director of PW
Public Comment:

Edwin
Devine asked staff to provide a report on instructions and information on how to separate food waste. Agajanian seconded.

1. Resolution 22-26 authorizing submission of a Notification of Intent to Comply with organic waste reduction requirements of SB 1383, in accordance with SB 619
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
b. Finance, re: Financial Status Update - December 31, 2021 Staff Comments:

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

Jason Bradford, Director of Finance and Information Technology Public Comment:

Ben Hariri

1. Motion to note and file the Financial Status Report for the period ending December 31, 2021
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
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 331
4 02 15 22
CC

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
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows

3. Resolution 22-27 of Appropriation
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
c. Glendale Water and Power, re: Environmental Impact Report for Grayson Repowering Project
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Gillian van Muyden, Chief Asst. City Attorney
Christine Godinez, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Presenting:

Mark Young, General Manager of GWP
Dave Tateosian, Clean Power Consulting Partners
Michael Weber, Stantec
Karl Lany, Montrose Environmental
Public Comments:

Glendale Environmental Coalition
Byron Chan, Attorney for Sierra Club
Jon Stickman, Attorney of Duncan & Allen
Steve Pruitt
Glenn Webb
Mike Webster
Burt Culver
Mary Aroyan
Sevan Kalpakian
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
8 of 331
5 02 15 22
CC
Vana Sarkisian
Martin Marrufo
Angelo Sarkisian
Danielle Lemone
Cole Bazemore
Francesca Smith
Kat Collardi
Larry Moorehouse
Joemy Wilson
Joan Zierhut
Soch Ruiz
Patrick Dimon
Kurt Sawitskas
Steve Hunt
Scott Frazier
Alex Calleros
Tim Imes
Deborah Burchett
Claudia Rose Jones
Scott Lowe
Catherine Jurca
David Dell
Tom Edinger
Samantha Abrahamian
Elise Kalfayan
Oliver Rizk
Maria Mendez
Jackie Echo
Ash Rosas
Jacqueline Torossian
Vivian Kanchian
Scott Peer
Sam Gharibi
Anthony Castillo
David Eisenberg
Carrie Field
Morgan Goodwin
Karen Sung
Steven Pruett
Nathaniel Yant
Edwin
Miriam Wang
Mina Kurk
Zeke Kaplan
Regina Alcazar
Laura Dominguez
Greg Astorian
Rachel Pringle
Paul Brozimer
Gor Zalyan
9 of 331
6 02 15 22
CC
Jack Walworth
Laura
Igor Tregub
Council recessed for five minutes and reconvened at 10pm.

1. Resolution 22-28 certifying the 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Grayson Repowering Project and making findings
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

2. Resolution 22-29 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
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows

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] Najarian asked staff to bring back item to consider amending alternative 7 that would put restrictions. Brotman seconded.

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Najarian, Devine
Brotman, Kassakhian
None
None
10 of 331
7 02 15 22
CC

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. ADJOURNMENT– 12:23 a.m., in memory of Sarky Mouradian and Manny Soto Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
11 of 331
1 03 01 22
CC

M I N UT E S

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

1. CLOSED SESSION – 3:40 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Gharibian v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 20STCV06410
City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is not anticipated. Council recessed to Closed Session at 3:40 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:09 PM
Roll Call – All Present
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Devine
b. Invocation: Aram Adjemian, City Clerk
c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the March 1, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on February 23, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, March 8, 2022 Deputy City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview. b. Proclamation Designating March 2022 as Women’s History Month Armine Perian

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Council Member Najarian announced that all metrolink trains now run on renewable diesel.

Council Member Kassakhian asked staff to provide a report on cost of living increases that in Calpers pension and current rate of inflation.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
4A
12 of 331
2 03 01 22
CC
Mayor Devine asked to adjourn in memory of Patty Mack. Being a Ukrainan heritage, she requested to light city hall in Ukraine’s colors for solidarity with the Ukrainian people. Brotman seconded.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Edwin

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Community Services and Parks, re: Direction Regarding 2022 Fireworks Shows in Glendale
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services and Parks

1. Motion providing direction on sponsorship of Crescenta Valley Fireworks Association’s 2022 CV Fireworks Show
Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows

2. Resolution 22-31 of Appropriation to shift $5,000 in Measure S funds from the Montrose Christmas Parade program to the CV Fireworks Show program to sponsor the 2022 CV Fireworks Show
Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows

3. Motion providing direction on the City’s 2022 Jewel City Sparkles Fireworks Show in Downtown Glendale

4. Resolution 22-32 of Appropriation to appropriate $15,000 for the 2022 Jewel City Sparkles Fireworks Show in Downtown Glendale, by shifting $5,000 in Measure S funds from the Montrose Christmas Parade program and appropriating $10,000 in donations
b. Public Works, re: Ordinance amending the Glendale Municipal Code 10.24.020 to lower the posted speed limits on nine roadway segments Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Yazdan Emrani, Director of PW
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
13 of 331
3 03 01 22
CC
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Presenting:

Pastor Casanova, Principal Traffic Engineer
Public Comments:

Mark Abajian
Valentine

1. Ordinance amending Section 10.24.020 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, pertaining to the prima facie speed limits on non-local city streets Ordinance Introduced by: Brotman
c. Glendale Water and Power, re: Grayson Repowering Project Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Christine Godinez, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Presenting:

Mark Young, General Manager of GWP
Dave Tateosian, Clean Power Consulting Partners
Public Comments:

Jordan Henry
Mark Abkjian
Danielle Lemone
Kate Unger
Victoria Kirschenbaum
Karen Brough
Jackie Gish
Glenn Webb
Stephanie Schus
Joemy Wilson
Valerie Gardner
Jessica Vaughn
Mat Yonce
Deborah Burchett
Katie McAfee
Erick Hovland
Courtney Smith
Lia Caprara
Catherine Hidalgo
Patrick Dimon
Graham Johnson
Jeffrey Vollmer
Bethany Johnson
Melissa King
14 of 331
4 03 01 22
CC
Monica Campagna
Karen Lowe
Diane Hong
Diane Matsushima
Erin Dimon
Victoria Valentine
Rick Stern
Paul Berolzheimer
Michelle Reyes
Martin Marrufo
Burt Culver
Debbie Bradshaw
Silvana Sahakian
Amy Noel
Charlie Campagna
Elise Kalfayan
Tom Ettinger
Stephanie Delgado
David Dowell
Rebecca Henretta
Amy Yazzetta
Jackie Echo
Kurt Sawitskas
Violette Sacre
Kat Talardy
Katie Gonzalez
Michael DeSousa
Angelo Sarkissian
Morgan Goodwin
Steve Dunwoody
Hasmik Burushyan
Scott Tier
Jessica LaBarbera
Samantha Brahimi
John Meyer
Jacqueline Torossian
Sam Garibi
Tim Eames
Olivia Ramirez
Lisa Shea Reynolds
Larry Moorehouse
Muriel
Ted Flannigan
Vicky Kaplan
Steve Gorman
Patty Silversher
Hank Schillinger
Susan Wolfson
Oliver Risk
Rod Bearden
15 of 331
5 03 01 22
CC
Joanna Pringle
Jennifer Ecker
Rachel Ridgway
Dave Gallagher
Angelu Lesaca
David Eisenberg
Andrew Ellis
Joanne Hedge
Roland Kedikian
Jose Luis Buenavides
Greg Astoryan

1. Motion providing direction regarding development of additional clean energy resources and negotiation of reserves

2. Resolution 22-34 amending Resolution No. 22-29 to provide direction to staff regarding the phasing and implementation of Alternative 7 (Tesla/ Wartsila Repowering)
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

9. 10.

11. HEARINGS

12. REPORTS - INFORMATION

13. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

14. 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.

15. NEW BUSINESS

16. ADJOURNMENT – 10:54 p.m., in memory Patty Mack
Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Brotman
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
16 of 331
1 02 15 22
SP CC

M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
(STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
FEBRUARY 15, 2022 AT 3:00 PM
The Special Meeting of the Glendale City Council convened in the Council Chambers, in said City, at 3:26 p.m. on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:

February 9, 2022
Date
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Community Development, re: Award of Contract to Update the Citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan
a. Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Service Agreement with Buro Happold Consulting Engineers, Inc. to update the Citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan
b. Resolution of Appropriation appropriating $75,977 from the Unassigned General Fund Balance to the Community Development Department for use in funding the Citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan update
Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

Upon Vrej Agajanian at 5:00 p.m. February 9, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. February 9, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. February 9, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. February 9, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Paula Devine at 5:00 p.m. February 9, 2022 Glendale, CA Mayor Devine called the meeting to order at 3:26 p.m.

ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, February 15, 2022 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on February 9, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.
4A
17 of 331
2 02 15 22
SP CC

1. Community Development, re: Award of Contract to Update the Citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan
Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Presenting:

Bradley Calvert, Asst. Director of Community Development a. Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Service Agreement with Buro Happold Consulting Engineers, Inc. to update the Citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
b. Resolution 22-23 of Appropriation appropriating $75,977 from the Unassigned General Fund Balance to the Community Development Department for use in funding the Citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan update
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
ADJOURNMENT – 3:41 p.m.

Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
18 of 331
03 08 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
MARCH 8, 2022 AT 6:00 PM

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION – 3:16 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Oganesyan v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 19GDCV01045
City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is anticipated. Council recessed to Closed Session at 3:16 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:06 PM
Roll Call – All Present
a. Flag Salute: Council Member Kassakhian
b. Invocation: Aram Adjemian, City Clerk
c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the March 8, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on March 2, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, March 15, 2022 All regular meetings have been cancelled and will resume on March 22, 2022.

1. Resolution 22-36 declaring that noxious weeds on certain properties are a public nuisance; that the City intends to cause abatement by removal; that a hearing will be held on March 22, 2022 for objections to removal Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
b. Public Works, re: Adopting specifications for the Corporation Yard Exterior Painting Project, per Specification No. 3915, and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids

1. Resolution 22-37 adopting specifications for the Corporation Yard Exterior Painting Project, per Specification No. 3915, and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids
4A
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
19 of 331
03 08 22
CC
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
c. City Attorney, re: Consideration of a Resolution to allow the City Council and all City legislative bodies to continue to meet remotely pursuant to the Brown Act as amended by A.B. 361

1. Resolution 22-38 authorizing the continuance of remote teleconference meetings of the City’s legislative bodies for a period of an additional 30 days in accordance with A.B. 361
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Council Member Agajanian expressed his concerns on the outcome of the vote on last Tuesday’s meeting regarding the Grayson Power Plant item.

Council Member Brotman asked staff to provide a report on SB-1255 – Dishwasher Grant Program for k-12 schools and colleges. Najarian seconded.

Council Member Kassakhian asked staff when will Council hold in-person meetings. City Manager Roubik Golanian provided his comments. Fire Chief Silvio Lanzas provided a brief update on mask mandates.

Mayor Devine announced that today is International Women’s Day. Shannon Currie Holmes and Anahid Oshagan received the Courage Award - Heart and Excellence Award from YMCA.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Tony Passarella
Malcolm Johnson

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a. Public Works, re: Adopting Ordinance 5986 amending the Glendale Municipal Code

10.24.020 to lower the posted speed limits on nine roadway segments (Brotman, 03/01/22)
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
Karen
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
4c1
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
20 of 331
03 08 22
CC

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Community Services and Parks, re: The proposed Filipino American Friendship Monument
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Presenting:

Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services and Parks Edith Fuentes, FABAG
Public Comment:

Marlene Cagatao

1. Motion authorizing the installation of a Filipino American Friendship Monument, by the Filipino American Business Association of Glendale-Greater Los Angeles County (FABAG-GLAC), adjacent to the Adult Recreation Center at Central Park Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
b. City Attorney, re: Discussion of Management and Operations Structure of City Clerk's Office; Potential Division of the City Clerk Role into a Part-Time/Ceremonial Position and a Professional Assistant City Clerk Position; Potential Adjustment of City Clerk Salary
Staff Comments:

Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Public Comment:

Mike Mohill

1. Motion Directing Staff

2. Motion to Note and File

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION
a. Update on California Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) Related to Traffic Safety Staff Comment:

Yazdan Emrani, Director of PW
Presenting:

Pastor Casanova, Principal Traffic Engineer
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
21 of 331
03 08 22
CC

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

13. NEW BUSINESS
a. Motion to resolve the lawsuit entitled Akop Oganesyan v. City of Glendale, Case No. 19GDCV01045 in exchange for a full release of all claims in the amount of $465,000 with the City to be reimbursed by its insurance carrier for all amounts in excess of its remaining self-insured retention
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

14. ADJOURNMENT – 7:57 p.m.

Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Najarian, Devine
None
None
Kassakhian
Mayor of the City of GlendaleMayor of the City of GlendaleMayor of the City of Glendale City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
22 of 331
1 03 01 22
SP CC

M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
(STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
MARCH 1, 2022 AT 2:00 PM
The Special Meeting of the Glendale City Council convened in the Council Chambers, in said City, at 2:17 p.m. on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:

February 23, 2022
Date
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 2:00 PM on Tuesday, March 1, 2022, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Management Services, re: Consideration of Public Monument & Memorial Plaque Policy
a. Resolution Establishing the Public Monument & Memorial Plaque Policy

2. Libraries, Arts, and Culture, re: City-Wide Public Art Landmarks - Artsakh Ave.

Overhead and Gateway Public Art Pieces
a. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into an Agreement for Commission of Artwork— subject to approval by the City Attorney— with Matthew Mazzotta Studio, in an amount not to exceed $500,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Program Fund, to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Bountiful,” for the Artsakh Ave. Overhead Public Art Piece
b. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into an Agreement for Commission of Artwork— subject to approval by the City Attorney— with Paul Cocksedge Studio, in an amount not to exceed $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Program Fund, to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Curtain,” for the Artsakh Ave. Gateway Public Art Piece

3. Public Works, re: Further Recommendations on the State of the Community Forest a. Motion to set Glendale's citywide tree canopy goal at 25% b. Resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to amend contract 8000974 for City Tree Services, with West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA) increasing the contract amount by $250,000 to $7,306,000, for the purpose of utilizing Measure S funds to plant trees Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

Upon Vrej Agajanian at 5:00 p.m. February 23, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. February 23, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. February 23, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. February 23, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Paula Devine at 5:00 p.m. February 23, 2022 Glendale, CA Mayor Devine called the meeting to order at 2:17 p.m.
4A
23 of 331
2 03 01 22
SP CC

ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, March 1, 2022 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on February 23, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

1. Management Services, re: Consideration of Public Monument & Memorial Plaque Policy
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Phil Lanzafame, Director of Community Development
Presenting:

Christine Powers, Sr. Executive Analyst
a. Resolution 22-30 Establishing the Public Monument & Memorial Plaque Policy Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows

2. Libraries, Arts, and Culture, re: City-Wide Public Art Landmarks - Artsakh Ave.

Overhead and Gateway Public Art Pieces
Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Presenting:

Dr. Gary Shaffer, Director of Libraries, Arts, and Culture a. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into an Agreement for Commission of Artwork— subject to approval by the City Attorney— with Matthew Mazzotta Studio, in an amount not to exceed $500,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Program Fund, to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Bountiful,” for the Artsakh Ave. Overhead Public Art Piece
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
24 of 331
3 03 01 22
SP CC
b. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into an Agreement for Commission of Artwork— subject to approval by the City Attorney— with Paul Cocksedge Studio, in an amount not to exceed $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Program Fund, to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Curtain,” for the Artsakh Ave. Gateway Public Art Piece

3. Public Works, re: Further Recommendations on the State of the Community Forest Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Yazdan Emrani, Director of Public Works
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Presenting:

Loren Klick, Urban Forester
a. Motion to set Glendale's citywide tree canopy goal at 25% Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
b. Resolution 22-35 dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to amend contract 8000974 for City Tree Services, with West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA) increasing the contract amount by $250,000 to $7,306,000, for the purpose of utilizing Measure S funds to plant trees Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
ADJOURNMENT – 3:40 p.m.

Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
25 of 331
03 01 22
CC HA

M I N U T E S
JOINT MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

AND GLENDALE HOUSING AUTHORITY
(STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
MARCH 1, 2022 AT 2:00 PM
The Joint Meeting of the Glendale City Council and Glendale Housing Authority convened in the City Hal Council Chambers, in said City, at 2:05 p.m. on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:

February 23, 2022
Date
A JOINT PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council and Housing Authority is hereby called to meet at 2:00 PM on Tuesday, March 1, 2022, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to Consider the Following Item(s) of Business, to wit;

1. Public Hearing: Community Development, re: Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act Public Hearing for California Municipal Finance Authority Proposed Issuance of Approximately $20 Million in Tax Exempt Revenue Bonds in Support of The Gardens Low-Income Senior Affordable Housing Apartments, Owned and Operated by HumanGood
a. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Glendale Approving the Issuance of Approximately $20 Million Tax Exempt Revenue Bond Obligations in Support of HumanGood and Certain Other Matters Relating Thereto by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA)
Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

Upon Robert Adjinian at 5:00 p.m. February 23, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Vrej Agajanian at 5:00 p.m. February 23, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. February 23, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. February 23, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. February 23, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Laura Parazian at 5:00 p.m. February 23, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Paula Devine at 5:00 p.m. February 23, 2022 Glendale, CA Mayor Devine called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.

ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council and Housing Authority, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, March 1, 2022 joint public meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority was posted on February 23, 2022 on the Bulletin Board outside City Hall.
4A
26 of 331
03 01 22
CC HA

Phil Lanzafame, Director of Community Development
Presenting:

Peter Zovak, Asst. Director of Community Development – Housing Hearing opened at 2:07 p.m. and closed at 2:16 p.m.
a. Resolution 22-33 of the City Council of the City of Glendale Approving the Issuance of Approximately $20 Million Tax Exempt Revenue Bond Obligations in Support of HumanGood and Certain Other Matters Relating Thereto by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA)
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Agajanian
Vote as Follows
ADJOURNMENT – 2:17 p.m.
- City Council
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
- Housing Authority
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Chair of the Glendale Housing Authority
Clerk of the Glendale Housing Authority
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
27 of 331
02 15 22
CC HA

M I N U T E S
JOINT MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL AND GLENDALE HOUSING

AUTHORITY (STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
FEBRUARY 15, 2022 AT 3:00 PM
The Joint Meeting of the Glendale City Council and Glendale Housing Authority convened in the City Hal Council Chambers, in said City, at 3:06 p.m. on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:

February 9, 2022
Date
A JOINT PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council and Housing Authority is hereby called to meet at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, February 15, 2022, in the Council Chamber, 613 E.

Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to Consider the Following Item(s) of Business, to wit;

1. Community Development, re: Affordable Housing Legislative Update - Proposed Legislation in Support of Affordable Housing Development in Glendale a. City Council Motion to Support Affordable Housing Legislative Proposal in Support of Affordable Housing Development in Glendale
b. Housing Authority Motion to Support Affordable Housing Legislative Proposal in Support of Affordable Housing Development in Glendale
Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

Upon Robert Adjinian at 5:00 p.m. February 9, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Vrej Agajanian at 5:00 p.m. February 9, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. February 9, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. February 9, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. February 9, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Laura Parazian at 5:00 p.m. February 9, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Paula Devine at 5:00 p.m. February 9, 2022 Glendale, CA Mayor Devine called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m.

ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council and Housing Authority, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, February 15, 2022 joint public meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority was posted on February 9, 2022 on the Bulletin Board outside City Hall.
4A
28 of 331
02 15 22
CC HA

1. Community Development, re: Affordable Housing Legislative Update – Proposed Legislation in Support of Affordable Housing Development in Glendale Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Presenting:

Peter Zovak, Asst. Director of Community Development - Housing a. City Council Motion to Support Affordable Housing Legislative Proposal in Support of Affordable Housing Development in Glendale
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
b. Housing Authority Motion to Support Affordable Housing Legislative Proposal in Support of Affordable Housing Development in Glendale
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Parazian
Vote as Follows
ADJOURNMENT – 3:23 p.m.
- City Council
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Agajanian
- Housing Authority
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Parazian
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Adjinian, Agajanian, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Parazian, Kassakhian None
None
None
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Chair of the Glendale Housing Authority
Clerk of the Glendale Housing Authority
29 of 331
02 15 22
CC HA
30 of 331
03 08 22
SP CC

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
(STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
MARCH 8, 2022 AT 3:00 PM
The Joint Meeting of the Glendale City Council and Glendale Housing Authority convened in the City Hal Council Chambers, in said City, at 3:10 p.m. on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:

March 2, 2022
Date
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the Joint City Council and Housing Authority is hereby called to meet at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, March 8, 2022, in the Council Chamber, 613 E.

Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. CLOSED SESSION
a. Conference with real property negotiators. Agency negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Philip Lanzafame, Jason Bradford, Onnig Bulanikian, Mark Berry, Peter Zovak, Mike Fortney, and Michelle Shahnazarians. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the acquisition of real property.

Property No. 1 Location: 120-132 N. Glendale Ave. Negotiating parties: Glendale Investments LLC / Murray S Pepper.

Property No. 2 Location: 332-346 W. Cerritos and 341 Mira Loma. Negotiating parties: Kefalonia Holdings, LLC.

Property No. 3 Location: 426 Piedmont Avenue. Negotiating Parties: Berg Senior Services, LLC
Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, March 8, 2022 Special Public Meeting of the Joint City Council and Housing Authority was posted on March 2, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

Property No. 1 Location: 120-132 N. Glendale Ave. Negotiating parties: Glendale Investments LLC / Murray S Pepper.

Property No. 2 Location: 332-346 W. Cerritos and 341 Mira Loma. Negotiating parties: Kefalonia Holdings, LLC.

Property No. 3 Location: 426 Piedmont Avenue. Negotiating Parties: Berg Senior Services, LLC
City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is not anticipated. Council recessed to Closed Session at 3:16 p.m.

ADJOURNMENT – 6:10 p.m.
- City Council
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Najarian
- Housing Authority
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Chair of the Glendale Housing Authority
Clerk of the Glendale Housing Authority
32 of 331
4b

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Construction Services for Power Line Clearance Tree Trimming.

1. Resolution adopting Specification No. 3847 for Construction Services for Power Line Clearance Tree Trimming, and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for March 22, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The current power line clearance tree trimming construction contract with West Coast Arborists, Inc. (WCA) expires on August 23, 2022. To continue this vital aspect of Glendale Water & Power Department’s (GWP) electric service reliability and Wildfire Mitigation Program, staff has prepared Specification No. 3847 for power line clearance tree trimming services.

This specification includes the applicable California Department of Industrial Relations’ Prevailing Wage Determination No. C-TT-61-47-3-2020-1. The current annual budget for power line clearance tree trimming services is $2,500,000.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Infrastructure & Mobility: The Power Line Clearance Tree Trimming Program protects GWP’s electric distribution system from trees that encroach near high voltage power lines and mitigates potential outages from tree branches making contact with power lines.

Safe & Healthy Community: Per California Senate Bill 901, GWP is required to develop, maintain, and implement a formal Wildfire Mitigation Plan. One of GWP’s primary tools for lowering wildfire risk is through vegetation management and by reducing the likelihood of overhead power lines coming into contact with trees or otherwise sparking wildfires.
33 of 331
24 b
3 1
0 6

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt Specification No. 3847 for Construction Services for Power Line Clearance Tree Trimming, and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

Specification No. 3847 will be on file and available at GWP - Electrical Engineering Office.

BACKGROUND
One of the most common causes of unplanned outages to the electrical system is tree branches making contact with power lines. As part of GWP’s reliability and Wildfire Mitigation Program, the City contracts with certified arborists to trim trees that encroach near high voltage power lines to prevent and mitigate potential power outages. GWP has an ongoing program to trim trees and, in some cases, remove trees from under and around overhead power lines, as mandated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and California Senate Bill (SB) 901 for electric system reliability and wildfire safety. Per California SB 901, GWP is required to develop, maintain, and implement a formal Wildfire Mitigation Plan. One of GWP’s primary tools in lowering wildfire risk is through vegetation management by reducing the likelihood of overhead power lines coming in contact with trees or otherwise sparking wildfires. GWP’s program is based on a periodic schedule and the tree trimming is tailored to the type of tree that needs to be trimmed. Substantial resources and a high degree of expertise are required to perform this type of work.

In 2016, following a competitive bid process, the City Council awarded a five-year contract to WCA to furnish equipment and labor for tree trimming and removal services for power line clearances and for tree removal services for water facilities under Specification No. 3599. On June 29, 2021, the City Council authorized an amendment to Contract No. C106241A with WCA to extend the Contract term for an additional one year for an amount not to exceed two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000) for the one-year term through August 2022.

ANALYSIS
In anticipation of the August 2022 contract expiration with WCA for power line clearance tree trimming, GWP staff has prepared Specification No. 3847 for approval and authorization to bid. The specification aligns the power line clearance tree trimming activities in accordance with the electric system reliability and wildfire safety standards mandated by CPUC and SB 901.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The current annual budget for the power line clearance tree trimming contract with WCA is $2,500,000. No new appropriation is being requested at this time. Funding for future years will be included as part of the annual budget process. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:
34 of 331
34 b
3 1
0 6
Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$2,500,000 GL: 43110-5820-GWP-4660-P0000- GWP Electric Works Revenue Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15301 maintenance or existing landscaping and existing utility facilities.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements. Campaign disclosure requirements will be applicable once the competitive bidding process is completed and an award of contract is requested.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt Specification No. 3847, and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

Alternative 2: Not authorize the requested action herein which will end the City’s power line clearance tree trimming program.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not currently proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Daniel Scorza, P.E., Chief Assistant General Manager - Electric Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
Not applicable.
35 of 331
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING SPECIFICATION NO. 3847 FOR CONSTRUCTION

SERVICES FOR POWER LINE CLEARANCE TREE TRIMMING FOR GLENDALE

WATER AND POWER DEPARTMENT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1. The specifications and plans on file in the Glendale Water & Power Department - Electrical Engineering Office, to furnish labor, equipment and materials for construction services for power line clearance tree trimming for Glendale Water and Power Department, including the various documents incorporated therein, are hereby approved, adopted, designated and shall hereafter be known as Specification No. 3847.

SECTION 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise for bids for work, equipment and materials described in Specification No. 3847 adopted by this Resolution.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on 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, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _______________ was adopted by a majority vote of 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
36 of 331
4c

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Rental of Crane and Rigging Truck with Operator Services for the City of Glendale Water & Power.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent
Approved for March 22, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Glendale Water & Power (GWP), in an effort to maximize staff productivity and minimize construction related delays and costs, is requesting to continue to consolidate crane and rigging services on an “as-needed” basis. This proposal will enable GWP to monitor expenditures on behalf of the entire department, provide continuity of utility services and allow GWP management to ensure services are adequately allocated among all GWP sections.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Exceptional Customer Service: GWP will have the ability to better respond to critical incidents in order to make repairs and ensure continuity of service.

Infrastructure & Mobility: To enhance efficiency and effectiveness on demand, and “as needed” contract crane and rigging services will allow GWP to complete projects and make repairs to infrastructure.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Specification No. 3906 for the rental of crane and rigging truck with operator services for GWP, and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids. Specification No. 3906 is on file and available in the City Clerk’s Office.

BACKGROUND
Cranes are utilized by the City’s various construction crews within GWP which includes the Grayson Power Plant, Electric Overhead and Underground, and Water Distribution and Operations. Each of these sections have various facilities and projects throughout the City that may require the use of a crane ranging in size from 50 to 400 tons in lifting 37 of 331
24 c
3 1
1 7
capacity, as well as heavy rigging equipment. Repairs include replacing power plant equipment, setting power poles and transformers, installing electric and water system vaults, and repairing water infrastructure at reservoirs and other water facilities.

ANALYSIS
Prior to obtaining a purchase order contract in 2017, each section within GWP obtained a separate purchase order for their respective sections. In most cases, this limited the dollar amount allocated to that section within a given fiscal year and did not allow for unanticipated construction related delays or complications. In an effort to maximize staff production and minimize construction related delays and costs, GWP is respectfully requesting to continue to consolidate crane services on an “as needed” basis and enable GWP to monitor expenditures on behalf of the entire department. This proposal will provide continuity of utility services, and allow GWP management to ensure services are adequately allocated among all GWP sections.

GWP is requesting a three-year contract in the amount of $600,000, with an option to renew for an additional two-year period in the amount of $400,000. Due to the type of services being requested on an “as needed” basis among all GWP operational sections, GWP is requesting to have the contract set up as an unencumbered, purchase order contract, enabling the department to pay invoices using the appropriate accounts where services are requested.

Specification No. 3906 is on file and available in the City Clerk’s Office.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The anticipated cost for crane rental and rigging truck services is $200,000 annually.

The Glendale Water & Power budget can absorb the estimated cost for FY 2021-22 and therefore no new appropriation is being requested at this time. Funding for future years will be requested as part of the annual budgetary process. The current funding available is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$100,000 GL: 43110-5820-GWP-4660/4690-Various
PL: N/A
Electric Utility Fund-
OH/UG & Power Plant
$30,000 GL: 43110-5850-GWP-0020-0000-
PL: Various
Electric Customer Paid Fund-
Electric Customer Paid
$18,000 GL: 43110-5920-GWP-Various-Various
PL: N/A
Water Utility Fund-
Water Distrib & Operations
38 of 331
34 c
3 1
1 7

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subject to CEQA review per CEQA Guidelines, section 15268(a).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt Specification No. 3906, and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

Alternative 2: Choose to not adopt Specification No. 3906 and consider alternative crane rental and rigging truck operator service delivery strategies.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Martin Powers, Stores Supervisor

Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
Not applicable.
39 of 331
5 2
6 4
RESOLUTION NO. ________

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

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GLENDALE WATER AND POWER DEPARTMENT SPECIFICATION NO. 3906 FOR THE RENTAL OF CRANE AND RIGGING TRUCK

OPERATOR SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF GLENDALE WATER & POWER

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

SECTION 1. The specifications on file in the Glendale City Clerk’s Office, for the rental of crane and rigging truck with operator services for the City of Glendale Water & Power Department, including the various documents incorporated therein, are hereby approved, adopted, designated and shall hereafter be known as Specification No. 3906.

SECTION 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise for bids for work, equipment and materials described in Specification No. 3906 as adopted by this Resolution.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Aram Adjemian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _______________ was adopted by a majority vote of 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
40 of 331
4d

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Contract Amendment for the Tenant Improvements at the Glendale Police Department Crime Lab

2. Resolution of appropriation for $15,000 from Police Department General Fund Accounts to the Project Account

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent
Approved for March 22, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 28, 2021, City Council awarded a contract to Dorado Design and Construction, Inc. (“Dorado”) for the Tenant Improvements at the Glendale Police Department Crime Lab project. On November 8, 2021, the City executed a construction contract with Dorado in the amount of $285,000 plus a 10% contingency of $28,500.

Dorado began construction on November 16, 2021 and achieved substantial completion on December 27, 2021.The project is yet to be occupied due to lead time in delivery of the office and lab furniture. In order for Police Department staff to be able to perform forensic examinations of electronic devices, additional low voltage cabling is needed which was not part of the original contract scope. The remaining contract contingency is not adequate to cover this needed additional cabling. A resolution of appropriation is needed to cover this additional work.
41 of 331
24 d
3 2
0 4

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Fiscal Responsibility: Effectively using available grant funding for projects that achieve public good.

Community Services and Facilities: Provide adequate space for Police Department laboratories to operate efficiently.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the Motion amending the contract with Dorado Design and Construction, Inc., to include the work necessary for the installation of low voltage cabling at the Computer Forensic Laboratory, increasing the contract amount by $15,000, and directing the City Manager or his designee, to execute the Amendment. Staff also recommends approval of a resolution of appropriation to cover these additional project costs.

BACKGROUND
Computer Forensic Laboratory conducts computer forensic examinations on cell phones, computers, digital storage devices, Cloud data, and other digital media. The computer forensic network is run separately from the Police Department Network in order to prevent malware and viruses from infecting the City’s network. Examiners may need access to websites or resources that are blocked by the City’s firewall or Web-filtering software, or that trigger alerts on the network. The easiest way to ensure privacy and eliminate false alarms is to install dedicated lines. The computer forensic lab also uses hardware which, due to confidentiality and technology, requires a connection to the vendor in order to use the forensic equipment. In addition, they often conduct investigations dealing with explicit and/or graphic materials that requires isolation from the City’s network. This dedicated low voltage cabling was inadvertently omitted from the original project scope.

ANALYSIS
Currently, all of the construction work has been completed and the 10% contingency has been utilized for unforeseen conditions that were encountered during the construction phase. For example, when the old carpet was removed it was discovered that the subfloor was damaged and had to be repaired. The remaining contingency was used for additional fire sprinklers, additional electrical wiring and receptacles, and to reinforce an interior wall.

Due to the additional cabling that is needed, Public Works is requesting and increase in the contract amount with Dorado. Utilizing Dorado for this work is the best option since they are familiar with the work site and security needs for this project, plus they are already mobilized on site.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
No outreach was performed because the laboratory is an internal service provider and not accessible to the public.
42 of 331
34 d
3 2
0 4

FISCAL IMPACT
The installation of low voltage cabling for the Tenant Improvement project at the Police Department Crime Lab will cost $15,000, which was approved as a part of the FY 2021- 22 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time, however, staff is requesting to shift appropriations from the Police Department’s General Fund Budget into a project account string. The appropriation request is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$34,591 GL: 43110-4010-GPD-0020-P0000
PL: GPD00200CN
CIP Fund
Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$11,363.22 GL: 51000-1010-
GPD-7001-P6238-
GL: 43110-4010-
GPD-0020-P0000-
PL: GPD00200CN-
Police General
Fund
$3,636.78 GL: 45350-1010-
GPD-7000-P6301-
GL: 43110-4010-
GPD-0020-P0000-
PL: GPD00200CN
Police General
Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1 exemption pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15301.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Amend the Contract (8001466) with Dorado Design and Construction, Inc., adding a not-to-exceed amount of $15,000 for the installation of Low Voltage cabling at the Computer Forensic Laboratory and resolution of appropriation to provide adequate funding for this additional work.

Alternative 2: Do not amend the Contract. In which case the Computer Forensic Lab will not be able to operate until a separate specification and bid process can be completed.

Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 43 of 331
44 d
3 2
0 4

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Arthur Asaturyan, Project Manager
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.
44 of 331
MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded
by Council Member , that the Council of the City of
Glendale hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to contract 8001466 – subject to approval by the City Attorney – with Dorado Design and Construction, Inc., for Tenant Improvements at the Glendale Police Department Crime Lab increasing the contract amount by $15,000 for the installation of low voltage cabling at the Computer Forensic Laboratory.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________
City Clerk
45 of 331
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 $30,000 of which $15,000 is a net increase in appropriation, is hereby appropriated and/or transferred from the following accounts to the following accounts:

ACCOUNTS DESCRIPTION FROM TO
51000-1010-GPD-7001-P6238-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
45350-1010-GPD-7000-P6301-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
48040-1010-NON-0050-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
39100-4010-000-0000-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
43110-4010-GPD-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
GPD00200CN
Capital Outlay, General Fund, Glendale Police
Department, Investigative Services, DNA Lab
General Supplies, General Fund, Glendale
Police Department, Field Services, Patrol
Transfer to Capital Fund, General Fund, Non-
Departmental, Transfers to Other Funds
Transfer from General Fund, Capital
Improvement Fund
Contractual Services, Capital Improvement
Fund, Glendale Police Department, Project,
PD Crime Lab Improvement Project

$11,363.22
$3,636.78
$15,000

$15,000

$15,000
To appropriate funding for the installation of low voltage cabling for the Tenant Improvement Project at Glendale Police Department Crime Lab.

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:
03/15/2022
_____________________________________
City Clerk 30,000
Director of Finance / Information Technology
46 of 331

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
/
47 of 331
8a

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Initiation of Code Changes to the Glendale Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance (GMC 8.36) and General Plan Noise Element Relating to the Use of Amplified Sound Equipment
1) Motion to Initiate Code Revisions to the Glendale Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance (GMC 8.36) and General Plan Noise Element relating to the Use of Amplified Sound Equipment
2) Motion to determine that the Glendale Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance (GMC

8.36) and General Plan Noise Element are appropriate and no revisions are necessary for review.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 22, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council directed staff to explore potential revisions to the City’s Noise Control Ordinance to allow amplified sound equipment to be used later in the evening within the Downtown Specific Plan Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts. Staff retained Meridian Consultants to perform a noise study and analysis to identify and analyze the implications of doing so. This report summarizes those findings and outlines options for Council consideration.
48 of 331
28 a
3 1
0 4

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Economic Vibrancy: Allowing amplified sound equipment later into the evening within the study area would support local businesses in the downtown. Safe & Healthy Community: Regulating amplified sound equipment to utilize conditions of approval and to comply with noise standards would ensure a safe community.
Balanced, Quality Housing: Minimizing noise impacts from amplified sound equipment to downtown residential uses will help support quality housing.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council provide direction regarding initiation of potential code changes to the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) Noise Control Ordinance (GMC 8.36), General Plan Noise Element, and Building Code, specifically:
1) Noise Ordinance:
a. Allow amplified sound later into the evening within the Downtown Specific Plan Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts, specifically, until 2am (vs 10pm) on Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
b. Create commercial indoor noise standards for amplified sound use to accommodate (a) above.
c. Require certain conditions of approval be added to amplified sound equipment permits requiring measures to reduce noise impacts. d. Clean up standards relating to sensitive uses, construction noise, and indoor noise.
2) General Plan Noise Element: Update for consistency with changes to the Noise Ordinance.
3) Building Code: If needed, update for consistency with changes to the Noise Ordinance.
49 of 331
38 a
3 1
0 4

BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2006, Council adopted the Downtown Specific Plan (“DSP”). The DSP Vision, as outlined in the document, was that “downtown Glendale will be an exciting, vibrant urban center which provides a wide array of excellent shopping, dining, working, living, entertainment and cultural opportunities within a short walking distance.” The Land Use chapter of the DSP outlined five key land use policies, including to “encourage appropriate land uses that extend the life of Downtown into the evenings and weekends so that daytime, weekend, and nighttime uses can support each other and share parking seven days a week.”
The DSP then designated various districts within its boundaries, each having their own development standards. The Alex Theatre District and Maryland District (now the Art & Entertainment District) (“study area”) (see map at Exhibit 1) encouraged a combination of entertainment, restaurant, and retail/service uses.

On March 15, 2011, Council amended the DSP to encourage the concentration of arts, cultural and entertainment venues and associated retail uses on Artsakh Avenue (formerly Maryland Avenue) between Harvard Street and Wilson Avenue, by specifically designating the area as Glendale’s “Art and Entertainment District (A&E District).” The district is anchored at each end with important civic and cultural venues, including the Alex Theatre and Downtown Central Library. The intent of the district is to encourage the clustering of theaters, music clubs, comedy clubs, art galleries, and similar uses.

The City currently regulates the use of amplified sound equipment through the GMC Noise Control chapter (GMC Chapter 8.36, or “Noise Control Ordinance” or “Noise Ordinance”). The Noise Ordinance regulates the permissible noise levels for daytime and nighttime activities and requires the use of amplified sound equipment to cease at 10pm, whereas many businesses operate until later in the evening. This restriction on the use of amplified sound equipment acts as a restriction on business operations, which may hinder the DSP goals of promoting a vibrant downtown and extending its activity into the evenings. At the same time, a significant portion of DSP development includes multi-family residential housing units. In some cases, these housing units are located in close proximity to entertainment areas where amplified sound late into the night may cause a conflict, although it should be acknowledged that urban dwellers should expect more noise when living in a vibrant commercial area. 50 of 331
48 a
3 1
0 4
The Noise Ordinance was last amended in 1991, prior to the build-out of the DSP.

Recognizing that Downtown has transformed into a vibrant evening destination within the region, Council has asked staff to explore whether it is appropriate, and what would be involved, in potentially revising the Noise Ordinance to extend the allowed hours of operation of amplified sound equipment in order to better accommodate entertainment uses that were encouraged by the DSP, while remaining consistent with the General Plan Noise Element and not creating nuisance for nearby uses.

The existing Noise Ordinance noise standards for amplified sound are summarized as follows and detailed in Exhibit 2:

Definitions:
o“Ambient noise” means the composite of noise from all sources near and far in a given environment, exclusive of occasional and transient intrusion noise sources and of the particular noise source or sources to be measured.
oThe presumed noise standard is 65 dBA anytime within Central business district and commercial zones.

Amplified Sound Noise Standard:

A. The only sound permitted shall be either music or human speech or both.

B. Sound-amplifying equipment shall only be operated between the hours of 7am and 10pm daily except on Sundays and legal holidays (when it is prohibited all day).

C. No sound emanating from sound-amplifying equipment shall exceed fifteen dBA above the actual or presumed ambient, as measured at any property line.

D. Notwithstanding subsection C of this section, sound-amplifying equipment shall not be operated within two hundred feet of churches, schools, hospitals, libraries or city or county buildings.

E. In any event, the volume of sound shall be so controlled that it will not be unreasonably loud, raucous, jarring, disturbing or a nuisance to reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness within the area of audibility, or interfere with comfort, peace, quiet, repose or endanger the health of inhabitants of the area.

On July 30, 2019, based on Council direction, staff presented to Council preliminary analysis regarding potential changes to the Noise Ordinance and requested Council direction regarding next steps (see Exhibit 3). Council moved for staff to proceed with 51 of 331
58 a
3 1
0 4
further studies to explore the implications of extending the allowed hours of operation of amplified sound equipment.

On February 14, 2020, the Community Development Department entered into contract with Meridian Consultants, LLC, to prepare a noise study and analysis to determine current noise levels from use of amplified sound equipment in the study area, recommend standard conditions of approval to help mitigate noise, determine appropriate thresholds of violation relating to the use of amplified sound equipment, and recommend any applicable revisions to the Noise Ordinance.

In March 2020, the project was put on hold due to the global pandemic, pending return of economic activity within the study area.

Meridian Consultants resumed the study in July 2021, took noise measurements within the study area between Thursday, July 29, 2021 and Monday, August 2, 2021, and presented their findings in a written report dated October 2021.

ANALYSIS
The noise study and analysis prepared by Meridian Consultants (see Exhibit 4) outlines noise readings that were taken within the subject area near operations utilizing amplified sound in the evening, how those readings compared to the existing Noise Ordinance noise standards, how noise levels would compare to the noise standards assuming amplified sound is operated later into the evening, and a proposed change to the Noise Ordinance noise standard necessary to accommodate the use of amplified sound later into the evening.

Meridian Consultants recorded short-term and-long term noise readings within the study area at 10 different locations (see Exhibit 5), including at the L Lofts residential building located adjacent to Eden on Brand (a restaurant which utilizes rooftop amplified sound equipment in the evening). The noise study makes several key observations including the following:
1) Several businesses are already operating amplified sound (both inside and outside) later than 10pm (the current required cut-off time per Code). 2) Only one location exceeded the existing amplified sound noise standard. The location was Site C on Brand Boulevard north of Wilson Avenue, next to Eden on Brand restaurant. As a note, the noise standard exceedance resulted not just from Eden on Brand, but from the cumulative noise sources in the area including vocal performances and music from Tavern on Brand facing outdoor dining guests, the Al Fresco Glendale Program for outdoor dining, valet services and traffic along Brand Boulevard, etc. Although Eden on Brand is the only location 52 of 331
68 a
3 1
0 4
that utilizes outdoor amplified sound equipment, Site C also has other nearby uses that use amplified sound indoors with the door left open. Other Sites recorded in the noise study that did not exceed the noise standard but did utilize indoor amplified sound equipment did not have their doors open. As a note, Site 1 at L Lofts residential building adjacent to Eden on Brand did not exceed the exterior (non-amplified sound) presumed noise standard (60 dBA plus 5 dBA) for multi-family residential zones, even though the site is in a central business district zone where the presumed noise standard is 65 dBA plus 5 dBA.

The current amplified sound noise standard allows no more than 15 dBA above the ambient noise level (overall noise level without amplified sound) or presumed noise level (65 dBA, which would result in a maximum allowed noise level of 80 dBA). At Site C, noise level averages were measured as high as 80.9 dBA along the public right of way at Brand Boulevard (about 25 feet from Eden on Brand restaurant located on Brand Boulevard), resulting in an exceedance of 0.9 dBA when using the presumed noise standard of 65 dBA (the ambient noise level was not available since amplified sound equipment was already in use). However, taking into account standard noise attenuation (reduction in intensity over distance), this results in noise levels of 101.9 dBA at a distance of one foot from the street front property line of Eden on Brand; as stated earlier, the noise was generated from multiple sources and not just Eden on Brand. It is important to note that Eden on Brand had its front door and windows open, and that similar noise attenuation would be expected at the other locations using amplified sound with their doors/front facade open.
3) To address the noise exceedance, the noise study and analysis includes a discussion of a different way of measuring noise impacts than the City’s Noise Ordinance, namely, using a standard based on duration of sound exposure.

Below is a chart demonstrating this standard, which according to Meridian Consultants, complies with noise levels determined acceptable by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The standard focuses on worker safety and health, specifically, preventing occupational noise-induced hearing loss.

Sound
Level
(dBA)1
100 97 94 92 91 89 88 86 85
Continuous
Duration
Exposure
(hours)
.25 .50 1.0 1.5 2 3 4 6 8
1 Amplified sound equipment within one foot from the source of noise 53 of 331
78 a
3 1
0 4
Using this new standard for commercial indoor noise, the noise study and analysis modeled allowing amplified sound later into the evening (e.g., 2am instead of 10pm on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights) and found it would result in acceptable noise levels at the surrounding multi-family residential uses and that it would comply with the current exterior noise standards.

As a note, changing the indoor noise standard could potentially require changes to the Building Code which has its own indoor noise standard, and any implications of this would require further study and analysis to make the Code consistent with any change.
4) The noise study and analysis found that conditions of approval are not required in order for noise levels to conform to the NIOSH standard, however, they should be utilized both indoors and outdoors at Site C, which exceeded the current noise standard. The below two conditions of approval could be incorporated into the City’s standards. Council may want to consider requiring these measures as part of any amplified sound permit. As a note, Eden on Brand reported that they already utilize these noise mitigation measures.
a. Speaker systems shall aim sound toward the seating areas, or other intended areas within the establishment, to minimize sound spillage onto adjacent uses.
b. The owner/operator shall use speakers that minimize the use of subwoofers and is adjusted such that low-frequency sound is inaudible at adjacent properties.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
In the staff report to Council, dated July 30, 2019, staff outlined the below Noise Ordinance inconsistencies that should be cleaned up, as well as Noise Ordinance and General Plan Noise Element text amendments that would need to be made to achieve consistency with the new policy of allowing amplified sound later into the evening, if adopted.
1) Noise Ordinance Code Cleanups
a. The Noise Ordinance currently requires a 200-foot buffer around sensitive uses (i.e., churches, schools, hospitals, libraries, and city/county buildings) where amplified sound equipment may not be used, whereas there are currently five sensitive uses located within a 200-foot buffer of the study area which currently use amplified sound equipment (see Exhibit 6).

Making this code section consistent with the City’s practice of issuing 54 of 331
88 a
3 1
0 4
amplified sound permits in the study area and other areas would require some combination of the following: reducing the buffer area; amending what constitutes a sensitive use or removing this language completely from the Noise Ordinance. Despite their current proximity to the activity in the two Downtown commercial zones, staff is not aware of any complaints from the identified sensitive uses as their occupancies frequently occur at differing times.
b. The Noise Ordinance has not been updated to reflect Noise Element Policy 4.1 (adopted by Council in 2007), which calls for shortening the hours of allowed construction noise in residential zones on Saturday from 7am – 7pm to 9am – 5pm.

The Noise Element’s recommended interior noise limit is 45 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level, which measures a weighted average of noise level over a 24-hour period, with noise during night time hours being more heavily weighted), whereas the Noise Ordinance allows 55 dBA during daytime.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Eden on Brand restaurant, L Lofts residential building, and The Brand residential building were directly contacted to ensure noise readings accommodated their uses. The property management company for L Lofts allowed noise reading equipment to be mounted on the building with a direct line of sight to Eden on Brand, to more accurately measure the noise level as perceived on the property.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Any amendments to the Glendale Municipal Code or General Plan Noise Element related to changing Noise Ordinance standards would require an analysis of potential significant impacts. After undergoing appropriate environmental review, such amendments would be brought to Council for consideration.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Council has the following alternatives to consider with respect to this agenda item:

Alternative 1: Direct staff to initiate the Glendale Municipal Code and General Plan amendments outlined in the Staff Recommendations section of this report. 55 of 331
98 a
3 1
0 4
Alternative 2: Note and file the report and maintain the existing Code standards.

Alternative 3: Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Cassandra Pruett, AICP, Planner
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Study Area Map (Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment District) Exhibit 2: Existing Noise Ordinance Noise Standards
Exhibit 3: July 30, 2019 City Council Staff Report
Exhibit 4: Meridian Consultants’ Noise Study and Analysis Report Exhibit 5: Map of Short and Long-term Noise Readings Locations Exhibit 6: Map of 200-foot Buffer Around Sensitive Uses Within Study Area MONA
56 of 331
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\CC_03222022_Motion_8a1.pdf

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , that the Council hereby directs staff to initiate amendments to the Noise Element of the General Plan and the Glendale Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance (GMC Chapter 8.36) relating to the use of amplified sound equipment, as outlined in the Report to Council dated March 22, 2022.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
57 of 331
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\CC_03222022_Motion_8a2.pdf

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , that the Council hereby notes and files the Report to Council dated March 22, 2022, pertaining to amendments to the Noise Element of the General Plan and the Glendale Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
58 of 331

59 of 331
EXHIBIT 2

Current Noise Ordinance Noise Standards

Glendale Municipal Code
Chapter 8.36 Noise Control

Article I. General Provisions – SEE HIGHLIGHTED SECTIONS BELOW RELEVANT

TO THIS REPORT

8.36.010 Purpose.

It is declared to be the policy of the city to prohibit unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise from all sources. At certain levels, noises are detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizenry and in the public interest must be systematically proscribed. (Ord. 4973 § 1, 1991: prior code § 11-50)

8.36.020 Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them unless otherwise noted:
“A-band level” means the total sound level of all noise as measured with a sound- level meter using the A-weighting network. The unit is the dbA. “Acoustic calibrator” means an instrument which measures the accuracy of a sound-level meter.
“Ambient noise” means the composite of noise from all sources near and far in a given environment, exclusive of occasional and transient intrusion noise sources and of the particular noise source or sources to be measured.
“Accelerometer” means an instrument for measuring vibration. “Amplified sound” means any sound created by the use of sound-amplifying equipment.
“Commercial purpose” means the use, operation or maintenance of any sound- amplifying equipment for the purpose of advertising any business, goods or services, or for the purpose of attracting the attention to, advertising for or soliciting patronage or customers to or for any performance, show, entertainment, exhibition or event, or for the purpose of demonstrating such sound equipment.
“Construction” means any site preparation, assembly, erection, substantial repair, alteration, demolition or similar action, for or of public or private rights-of-way structures, utilities or similar property and includes the transportation or delivery of any materials, tools or equipment to or from the site of any construction project or the loading or unloading or use of such materials, tools or equipment. “Decibel (db)” means a unit of level which denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to the power; the number of decibels corresponding to the ratio of two amounts of power ten times the logarithm to the base 10 of this ratio. 60 of 331
“Emergency machinery or vehicle” means any inanimate device used to protect, provide or restore safe conditions in the community or for the citizenry. “Emergency work” means work made necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, work required to protect persons or property from exposure to danger, or work by private or public utilities when restoring utility services. “Equivalent sound level (Leq)” means the A-weighted sound level corresponding to a steady state sound level containing the same total sound energy as the time varying signal over a given period of time. The equivalent sound level shall be determined using an integrating sound level meter as set forth in American National Standards for Sound Level Meters SI.4-1971.
“Fixed noise source” means a stationary device which creates sounds while fixed or motionless, including but not limited to, residential, agricultural, industrial and commercial machinery and equipment, pumps, fans, compressors, air conditioners and refrigeration equipment.
“Grading” means any excavating, filling of earth material or any combination thereof conducted at a site to prepare such site for construction or other improvements thereon.
“Health care institution” means any hospital, convalescent home or other similar facility which provides health care medical treatment, room, board or other services for health, recovery or convalescence.
“Impulsive sound” means any sound of short duration, usually less that one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. Examples of sources of impulsive sound include explosions, drum beats, drop forge impacts, firecrackers, discharge of firearms and one object striking another.
“Mobile noise source” means any noise source other than a fixed noise source. “Motor vehicle” means and includes any and all self-propelled vehicles as defined in the California Vehicle Code, including all on-highway type motor vehicles, subject to registration under such code, and all off-highway type motor vehicles subject to identification under such code.
“Nighttime” means the hours from and after ten p.m. until seven a.m. of the following day.
“Noise” means any sound which exceeds the appropriate actual or presumed ambient noise level or which annoys or tends to disturb humans or which causes or tends to cause an adverse psychological or physiological effect on humans. “Noise disturbance” means any sound which:

1. Endangers or injures the safety or health of human beings or animals; or

2. Annoys or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities; or

3. Endangers or injures personal or real property; or

4. Violates the provision of this chapter.
“Noncommercial purpose” means the use, operation or maintenance of any sound equipment for other than “commercial purpose.” “Noncommercial purpose” means and 61 of 331
includes, but shall not be limited to, philanthropic, political, patriotic and charitable purposes.
“Powered model vehicle” means any self-propelled, airborne, waterborne or landborne plane, vessel or vehicle, which is not designed to carry persons, including but not limited to, any model airplane, boat, car or rocket. “Public right-of-way” means any street, avenue, boulevard, highway, sidewalk or alley or similar place which is owned or controlled by a governmental entity. “Public space” means the real property or structures thereon which are owned or controlled by a governmental entity.
“Pure tone” means any sound which can be judged as audible as a single pitch or a set of single pitches by any person. Examples of a pure tone are whines, screeches or hums.
“Single event” means any sound which is continuous for a period lasting between an impulse sound and five minutes.
“Sound-amplifying equipment” means any machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, music or any other sound.
“Sound level” means the sound measured with the A-weighing and slow responses by a sound level meter, except for impulsive or rapidly varying sound for when the fast response shall be used.
“Sound level meter” means an instrument including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighing networks for the measurements of noise and sound levels in a specified manner.
“Sound truck” means any motor vehicle, or other vehicle regardless of mode of power, whether in motion or stationary, having mounted thereon or attached thereto, any sound-amplifying equipment.
“Supplementary definitions of technical terms” means those definitions of technical terms not defined in this section which shall be obtained from the American Standard Acoustical Terminology which is currently in effect at the time of the taking of the noise measurement. Such document is incorporated in this section by reference. “Vibration perception threshold” means the minimal ground or structure borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation of moving objects. The perception shall be presumed to be a motion velocity of 0.01 in./sec. over the range of one to one hundred Hz.
“Voice sound” means any sound emitted from the vocal cords or speaking mechanisms of any animate object. (Ord. 4973 § 2, 1991: prior code § 11-51)

8.36.030 Decibel measurement criteria.

A. Any sound level measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighing.

B. Exterior noise measurements shall be taken where possible, at any location on the property line and, except when impractical, the microphone shall be located four to 62 of 331
five feet above the ground and ten or more feet from the nearest reflective surface.

However, in those cases where another elevation is determined appropriate, the latter shall be utilized.

C. Interior sound level measurements shall be made at a point at least four feet from the wall, ceiling or floor nearest the noise source within the affected dwelling unit.

D. Ambient noise shall be averaged over a period of at least five minutes at a location and time of day comparable to that during which the measurement is taken of the particular noise source being measured.

E. In order to obtain the ambient level, the intrusive noise source which is being tested to determine whether a violation exists shall be eliminated either by bringing to a cessation such noise source or moving to a similar location which does not have the offending noise source and obtaining the ambient noise of that location.

F. The ambient noise level shall be the numerical average of noise measurements taken at a given location during at least a five-minute period of time.

G. Calibration of the sound level meter, utilizing an acoustic calibrator, shall be performed immediately prior to recording any sound level data.

H. Measurements shall be made in decibels using the A-weighted scale with slow response, following the manufacturer’s instructions, except the fast response shall be used for impulsive sounds or rapidly varying sounds.

I. Except as provided in subsection J of this section, measurement of the particular noise being measured shall be done for a five-minute period of time. The sound level shall be the equivalent sound level (Leq) measured.

J. The measurement of any “single event” as defined in Section 8.36.020, shall be taken during the entire single event.

K. In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a pure tone, an impulsive sound or a rapidly varying sound, the standard set forth in Section 8.36.040 shall be reduced by five dbA.

L. Vibrations shall be measured by an accelerometer at the point of maximum perceived vibration. (Ord. 4973 § 3, 1991: prior code § 11-52)

8.36.040 Presumed noise standards.

A. The following exterior noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all property within a designated zone:

Zone Decibels Time
Cemetery and residential (single family and
duplex) 45 dbA Nighttime
Cemetery and residential (single family and
duplex) 55 dbA Daytime
Residential (multifamily, hotels, motels and
transient lodgings) 60 dbA Anytime
63 of 331
Central business district and commercial 65 dbA Anytime Industrial 70 dbA Anytime

B. The following interior noise standards, unless otherwise specially indicated, shall apply to all residential property within a designated zone:

Zone Decibels Time
Residential 45 dbA Nighttime
Residential 55 dbA All other times

C. In any overlay zones, the underlying zone shall determine the presumed ambient noise level. (Ord. 4973 § 4, 1991: prior code § 11-53)

8.36.050 Minimum and maximum ambient noise levels.

A. Where the actual ambient is less than the presumed ambient, the actual ambient shall control and any noise in excess of the actual ambient, plus five dbA, shall be a violation.

B. Where the actual ambient is equal to or more than the presumed ambient, the actual ambient shall control and any noise may not exceed the actual ambient by more than five dbA; however, in no event may the actual ambient exceed the presumed noise standards by five dbA.

C. At the boundary line between two zones, the arithmetic average of the presumed ambient noise levels shall be used. (Ord. 4973 § 5, 1991: prior code § 11-54)

8.36.060 Violations.

It is unlawful for any person to operate any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, voice, air-conditioning apparatus or similar mechanical device in any manner or to allow or cause sounds, so as to create any noise or vibration which would cause the noise level as specified above to be exceeded unless a variance, exemption or some other exception allows for a greater noise. (Ord. 4973 § 6, 1991: prior code § 11-55)

8.36.070 Animals.

It is unlawful for any person to keep, maintain or permit the keeping, upon any premises owned, occupied or controlled by such person, any animal or fowl, otherwise permitted to be kept, which by any sound, cry or behavior shall cause annoyance or discomfort to a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness in any residential neighborhood. (Ord. 4973 § 7, 1991: prior code § 11-56)

8.36.080 Construction on buildings, structures and projects. 64 of 331
It is unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects within the city between the hours of seven p.m. on one day and seven a.m. of the next day or from seven p.m. on Saturday to seven a.m. on Monday or from seven p.m. preceding a holiday, as designated in Chapter 3.08 of this code, to seven a.m. following such holiday unless beforehand a permit therefor has been duly obtained from the building official. No permit shall be required to perform emergency work as defined in this chapter. (Ord. 4973 § 8, 1991:
prior code § 11-57)

8.36.090 Exhaust pipe required.

No person having charge or control of any engine in which gas, gasoline, distillate or other similar substance is used as a motive power, shall run or operate such engine, or cause the same to be run or operated, without having the exhaust pipe thereof connected with an underground air chamber or having attached to such exhaust pipe a muffler or other device so constructed as to deaden the sound of the exhaust of such engine and effectually prevent such exhaust from making any loud noise or disturbing the peace and quiet of persons in its vicinity. This section shall apply to the engine of a motor vehicle if its exhaust equipment is not regulated by state law. (Ord. 4973 § 9, 1991: prior code § 11-58)

8.36.100 Loading and unloading.

It is unlawful for any person to load, unload, open, close or otherwise handle boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans or similar objects during nighttime in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance, discomfort or annoyance to a reasonably sensitive person or which interferes with the comfort, peace, quiet, repose or endangers the health of inhabitants of the area. (Ord. 4973 § 10, 1991: prior code § 11-59)

8.36.110 Loud or unusual noises.

It is unlawful for any person to wilfully make, continue or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the comfort, peace, quiet or repose or endangers the health of inhabitants of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. The standard which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of this section exists shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

A. The volume of the noise;
B. The intensity of the noise;
C. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual; D. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; E. The volume of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; F. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; 65 of 331
G. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; H. The time of day or night the noise occurs;
I. The duration of the noise;
J. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant; and K. Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. (Ord. 4973 § 11, 1991: prior code § 11-60)

8.36.120 Motor-driven vehicles.

It is unlawful for any person to operate any motor-driven vehicle within the city in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance; or which interferes with the comfort, repose, peace or which endangers the health of inhabitants of the area; provided, however, that any such vehicle which is operated upon any public highway, street or right-of-way shall be excluded from regulation under this section. (Ord. 4973 § 12, 1991: prior code § 11-61)

8.36.130 Powered model vehicles.

It is unlawful to operate or permit the operation of powered model vehicles so as to create a noise disturbance across a residential real property boundary during nighttime in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance, discomfort or annoyance to a reasonably sensitive person or which interferes with the comfort, peace, quiet, repose or which endangers the health of inhabitants of the area. (Ord. 4973 § 13, 1991: prior code § 11-62)

8.36.140 Proposed development project.

If at any time the director of community development or the building official has reason to believe that a new development project, addition, modification or any other changes thereto may not conform with the permitted noise level standards, the director of community development or the building official may require as a condition of approval an acoustic analysis as part of the building permit process or other approval procedures. (Ord. 5803 § 16, 2013; Ord. 4973 § 14, 1991: prior code § 11-63)

8.36.150 Public entertainment.

Operating, playing or permitting the operation or playing of any radio, television, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, sound amplifier or similar device which reproduces or produces or amplifies sound in any place of public entertainment at a sound level greater than ninety-five dbA at a place of business normally occupied by customers shall be a violation unless a conspicuous and legible sign is located outside such place or near each public entrance, stating, “WARNING: SOUND LEVEL MAY CAUSE HEARING IMPAIRMENT.” (Ord. 4973 § 15, 1991: prior code § 11-64)

8.36.160 Radios, television sets and similar devices.
66 of 331
It is unlawful for any person within any residential zone of the city to use or operate any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound during nighttime in such a manner as to disturb the comfort, peace, quiet or repose or endanger the health of neighboring residents or of any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. (Ord. 4973 § 16, 1991: prior code § 11-65)

8.36.170 Schools, health care institutions and churches.

It is unlawful for any person to create any noise on any street, sidewalk or public space or public right-of-way adjacent to any school, library, health care institution or church while the same are in use, which unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution, or which disturbs the peace, quiet, repose or health of the inhabitants, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such street, sidewalk, public space or public right-of-way, indicating that the same is an area upon which a school, library, health care institution or church is located. (Ord. 4973 § 17, 1991: prior code § 11-66)

8.36.180 Service or maintenance vehicles.

It is unlawful for service or maintenance vehicles of a nonemergency nature to be operated in residential areas during nighttime. (Ord. 4973 § 18, 1991: prior code § 11- 67)

8.36.190 Street sales.

Offering for sale, selling anything, or advertising by shouting or outcry within a residential or commercial zone or central business district of the city in a manner to disturb a reasonably sensitive person or which interferes with the comfort, peace, quiet, repose or endangers the health of inhabitants of the area shall constitute a violation.

The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the selling by outcry of merchandise, food and beverages at licensed sporting events, parades, fairs, circuses or other similar licensed public entertainment events. (Ord. 4973 § 19, 1991: prior code § 11-68)

8.36.200 Vehicle repair in residential areas.

It in unlawful for any person within the city to repair, rebuild or modify or test any motor vehicle during nighttime within any residential area in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in that area is caused discomfort or annoyance or which endangers the comfort, repose, peace or health of residents of the area. (Ord. 4973 § 20, 1991: prior code § 11-69)

8.36.210 Vibration.

Operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at one hundred fifty feet from the source 67 of 331
if on a public space or public right-of-way shall be a violation. (Ord. 4973 § 21, 1991:
prior code § 11-70)

8.36.220 Yelling and shouting.

It is unlawful for any person to yell, shout, cause loud or raucous yelling, shouting, whistling or singing which causes discomfort or annoyance to persons of reasonable sensitivity; or which interferes with the comfort, peace, quiet or repose or which endangers the health of inhabitants of the area. (Ord. 4973 § 22, 1991: prior code § 11- 71)
Article II. Amplified Sound

8.36.230 Purpose.

The council enacts this article for the sole purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, safety and welfare for its citizenry. While recognizing that the use of sound-amplifying equipment is protected by the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly, the council nevertheless feels obligated to reasonably regulate the use of sound-amplifying equipment in order to protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of this community to privacy and freedom from public nuisance of loud and unnecessary noise. (Ord. 4973 § 23, 1991: prior code § 11-72)

8.36.240 Registration required.

It is unlawful for any person, other than personnel of law enforcement or governmental agencies, to install, use or operate within the city a loudspeaker or sound- amplifying equipment in a fixed or movable position, or mounted upon any sound truck for the purposes of giving instructions, directions, talks, addresses, lectures or transmitting music to any persons or assemblages of persons in, or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, park, place, public space, public right-of-way or public property without first filing a registration statement and obtaining approval thereof as provided in this chapter. (Ord. 4973 § 24, 1991: prior code § 11-73)

8.36.250 Requirements and duties.

A. Filing of Registration Statement. Every user of sound-amplifying equipment shall file a registration statement with the city clerk five days prior to the date which the sound-amplifying equipment is intended to be used and which shall contain the following information:

1. Name and address of both the owner and user of the sound-amplifying equipment;

2. The maximum sound-producing power of the sound-amplifying equipment to be used which shall include the wattage to be used; the volume in decibels of sound which will be produced, and the approximate distance for which sound will be audible from the sound-amplifying equipment;

3. License and motor number if a sound truck is to be used;

4. A general description of the sound-amplifying equipment which is to be used; 68 of 331

5. Whether commercial or noncommercial use.

B. Approval of Registration Statement. The city clerk shall return to the applicant an approved certified copy of the registration statement unless it is found that one of +the following conditions exists:

1. Conditions of motor vehicle movement are such that, in the opinion of the police chief, sound-amplifying equipment for commercial purposes would constitute a detriment to traffic safety;

2. Conditions of pedestrian movement are such that, in the opinion of the police chief, sound-amplifying equipment for commercial purposes would constitute a detriment to traffic safety;

3. There has been a failure to comply with the “Warning” requirements set forth in Section 8.36.150 where the noise level exceeds 95 dbA;

4. The application required in this chapter reveals that the applicant would violate the regulations prescribed in this article or any other provisions of this code.

C. In the event that the city clerk does not approve the registration statement, the city clerk shall endorse upon the application the reasons for disapproval and return it forthwith to applicant. (Ord. 4973 § 25, 1991: prior code § 11-74)

8.36.260 Appeals.

The provisions of Chapter 2.88 relating to appeals shall be applicable. (Ord. 4973 § 26, 1991: prior code § 11-75)

8.36.270 Fees.

Prior to the issuance of the registration statement, as provided above, a fee to be established or modified by resolution shall be paid to the city for the operation of a loudspeaker or sound-amplifying equipment for commercial purposes. No fee shall be required for the operation of a loudspeaker or sound-amplifying equipment for noncommercial purposes. (Ord. 4973 § 27, 1991: prior code § 11-75.1)

8.36.280 Regulations.

Commercial and noncommercial use of sound-amplifying equipment shall be subject to the following regulations:

A. The only sound permitted shall be either music or human speech or both.

B. The operation of sound-amplifying equipment shall only occur between the hours of seven a.m. and ten p.m. each day except on Sundays and legal holidays. No operation of sound-amplifying equipment for commercial purposes shall be permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. The operation of sound-amplifying equipment for noncommercial purposes on Sundays and legal holidays shall only occur between the hours of seven a.m. and ten p.m.

C. No sound emanating from sound-amplifying equipment shall exceed fifteen dbA above the actual or presumed ambient, as measured at any property line. 69 of 331
D. Notwithstanding subsection C of this section, sound-amplifying equipment shall not be operated within two hundred feet of churches, schools, hospitals, libraries or city or county buildings.

8.36.290 Exemptions.

The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:

A. The emission of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an emergency or the emission of sound in the performance of emergency works is exempt for as long a period of time as is necessary to constitute adequate alerting of persons to the existence of the emergency or the emergency work; B. Warning devices for the protection of public safety, as for example, police, fire, ambulance, train horns, automobile horns, vehicle alarm devices are exempt as long as they are used for the purpose of warning for the protection of public safety; C. Activities conducted on public parks or playgrounds and public or private school grounds including but not limited to school athletic and school entertainment events or outdoor activities such as public dances, shows, sporting events, and entertainment events provided such events are conducted pursuant to a permit issued by the city where otherwise required;
D. Public health and safety activities conducted by public utilities, transportation, flood control and utility company maintenance and construction operations any time on public right-of-way and these situations which may occur on private real property deemed necessary to serve the best interest of the public and to protect the public’s health and well-being, including but not limited to, police, fire, street sweeping, debris and limb removal, removal of downed wires, restoring electrical service, repairing traffic signals, unplugging sewers, house moving, vacuuming catch basins, removal of damaged poles and vehicles, repair of water hydrants and main gas lines, oil lines and sewers;
E. Any mechanical device, apparatus or equipment used, related to, or connected with emergency machinery or vehicle work;
F. All mechanical devices, apparatus or equipment which are utilized for the protection or salvage of agricultural crops during the periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather conditions or other crop sources; G. Noise sources associated with maintenance of real property, provided such activities take place between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.;
H. Testing of emergency signal devices, or testing of a station’s emergency signaling device shall not occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 7:00 p.m. Any such testing shall use only the minimum cycle test time. In no case shall such test time exceed sixty (60) seconds;
70 of 331
I. Testing of the complete emergency signaling system, including the functioning of the signaling device, and the personnel response to the signaling device, shall not occur more than once in each calendar month. Such testing shall not occur before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. The time limits specified in subsection H of this section shall not apply to such complete system testing;
J. Any activity to the extent that regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal law;
K. Any activity, operation or noise which cannot feasibly be brought into compliance with this chapter because it is technically infeasible to do so. The burden of proving that compliance is technically infeasible shall be upon the person or persons charged with a violation of this section. Technical infeasibility shall mean that such noise limitations cannot be complied with despite the use of mufflers, shields, sound barriers and/or any other noise reduction device or techniques during the operation of the equipment. (Ord. 4973 § 29, 1991: prior code § 11-75.3)

8.36.300 Violation—Injunction.

As an additional remedy to misdemeanor prosecution as provided in this chapter, the operation or maintenance of any device, instrument, vehicle or machine in violation of any provision of this chapter and which causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness or which interferes with the comfort, peace, quiet, repose or endangers the health of residents in the area shall be deemed, and is declared to be, a public nuisance and may be subject to abatement summarily by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Ord. 4973 § 30, 1991: prior code § 11-75.4)

8.36.310 Variance.

A. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, the variance procedure set forth in Title 30 of this code may be used by any person who desires to obtain a variance from these noise regulations. In addition to the grounds for granting a variance set forth in Title 30 of this code, a variance may be granted if it is not technically feasible for the activity, operation or noise to be brought into compliance with the requirements of this chapter, and no other reasonable alternatives are available to the applicant.

B. A separate application shall be filed for each noise source; provided, however, several mobile sources under common ownership, or several fixed sources on a single property may be combined into one (1) application. In addition to the contents of an application required to obtain a variance under Title 30 of this code, the application shall set forth all actions taken to comply, the reasons why compliance cannot be achieved, a proposed method achieving compliance as close as technically possible to the requirements of this chapter, the noise levels if the variance is granted, and a proposed time schedule.

C. A variance shall not exceed three hundred sixty-five (365) days from the date on which it was granted. (Ord. 4973 § 31, 1991: prior code § 11-75.5)

71 of 331

8.36.320 Appeals.

Appeals may be made to the planning commission pursuant to Title 30 of this code and then to the city council pursuant to Chapter 2.88 of this code. (Ord. 5888 § 5, 2016; Ord. 5437 § 5, 2005; Ord. 4973 § 32, 1991: prior code § 11-75.6)

72 of 331
EXHIBIT 3
73 of 331

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE:

Joint ~ City Council ~ Housing Authority L Successor Agency U Oversight Board U July 30, 2019

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Potential Revisions to the Glendale Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance (GMC

8.36) Relating to the Use of Amplified Sound Equipment
1) Motion to provide direction to staff regarding potential revisions to the Glendale Municipal Code Noise Control Ordinance (GMC 8.36) relating to the use of amplified sound equipment

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Philip Lanzafame, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Cassandra Pruett, AICP, Planner
Approved by:

Yasmin K. Beers, City Manager
Reviewed by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Carl Povilaitis, Police Chief
Michele Flynn, Interim Director of Finance .45)
Bradley Calvert, AICP, Assistant Director of CDD (Planning) Erik Krause, Deputy Director of CDD (Planning)
Chris Baghdikian, AICP, Sr. Planner

COUNCIL ACTION
Public Hearing L Ordinance El Consent Calendar E Action Item ~ Report Only U Approved for ~I~3o lie\°1 calendar
L , J~pi~ ito~~cj~~_
4 2’I
74 of 331

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council provide direction regarding potential changes to the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) Noise Control Ordinance (GMC 8.36).

BACKOROUNDIANALYSIS

BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2006, Council adopted the Downtown SØecific Plan (“DSP”). The DSP was intended to better reflect the community’s vision for Glendale, including accommodating housing. needs and ensuring downtown’s long term economic success in the region. The DSP Vision, as outlined in the document, was that “downtown Glendale will be an exciting, vibrant urban center which provides a wide array of excellent shopping, dining, working, living, entertainment and cultural opportunities within a short walking distance.” The DSP further outlined ten key goals, including to “concentrate growth in the downtown — a transit-rich entertainment, employment and cultural center — to relieve development pressures on existing residential neighborhoods.” The Land Use chapter of the DSP outlined five key land use policies, including to “encourage appropriate land uses that extend the life Of Downtown into the evenings and weekends so that daytime, weekend, and nighttime uses can support each other and share parking seven days a week. Such uses can contribute to the vitality of the downtown area and the vitality of downtown businesses.”
The DSP then designated various districts within its boundaries, each having their own development standards. The Alex Theatre District and Maryland Distric~ (now the Art & Entertainment District) (see map at Exhibit 1) e.ncouraged a combination of entertainment, restaurant, and retail/service uses.

On March 15, 2011, Council amended the DSP to encourage the concentration of arts, cultural and entertainment venues and associated retail uses on Artsakh Avenue between Harvard Street and Wilson Avenue, by specifically designating the area as Glendale’s “Art and Entertainment District (A&E District).” The district is anchored at each end with important civic and cultural venues, including the Alex Theatre and Downtown Central Library. The intent of the district is to encourage the clustering of theaters, music clubs, comedy clubs, art galleries, and similar uses.

Since adoption of the DSP and A&E District, and in concert with redevelopment efforts, Glendale’s downtown has matured into an economically vibrant area with a variety of urban amenities and a more active nightlife. One way businesses in the downtown offer entertainment to the community is by providing music via amplified sound equipment. The City currently regulates the use of amplified sound equipment through the GMC Noise Control chapter (GMC Chapter 8.36, or “Noise Control Ordinance”). The Noise Control Ordinance regulates the permissible noise levels for daytime and nighttime activities and requires the use of amplified sound equipment to cease at 10pm, whereas many businesses operate until later in the evening. This restriction on the use of amplified sound equipment acts as a restriction on business operations, which may hinder the DSP goals of promoting a vibrant downtown and extending its activity into the evenings. At the same time, a significant portion of DSP development has included multi-family residential housing units. In some cases, these housing units are located adjacent to entertainment areas where amplified sound late into the night causes a conflict.

The GMC Noise Control Ordinance was adopted in 1991, prior to the build-out of the DSP.

Recognizing that Downtown has transformed into a vibrant evening destination within the 2 75 of 331
region, staff is bringing to Council for consideration information regarding whether it is appropriate, and what would be involved, in potentially revising the GMC Noise Control Ordinance. Potential revisions would address extending the allowed hours of operation of amplified sound equipment in order to better accommodate entertainment uses that were encouraged by the DSP, while remaining consistent with the General Plan Noise Element and not creating nuisance for nearby residential uses.

Staff reviewed noise control ordinances from other cities with high-density entertainment districts interfacing with multi-family residential uses, to identify whether and/or how they are addressing the impadts of noise (specifically from amplified sound equipment). Staff identified two cities (Pasadena, CA [Old Pasadena] and Portland, OR [Pearl District]) that have less stringent noise standards in mixed-use areas; however, the noise standards were established prior to the development of multi4amily residential uses in the zone. In Long Beach, amplified sound equipment may be used until 12am on Fridays and Saturdays for special/occasional events and by permit only, with the condition that sound not be audible beyond 50 feet of the exterior of the premises and not be unreasonably loud or disturbing within the 50 feet. In Santa Monica, noise levels in the 3rd Street Promenade and Transit Mall areas are limited to 85 dBA within 25 feet of the source of the noise on Fridays and Saturdays until 12am, with the condition that any speaker or sound reproduction system not be audible inside the premises of another building or structure with its doors and windows closed and not be taller than 3 feet. In the remaining 11 cities studied, the noise ordinances are applied consistently throughout the city and amplified sound generally ceases by 10pm, consistent with the existing Glendale Noise Control Ordinance.

ANALYSIS
By state law, the GMC must be consistent with the General Plan; thus, any changes to the Noise Control Ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan Noise Element. The following descriptions of the General Plan Noise Element ancFNoise Control Ordinance identify key sections of the respective documents that are relevant to a discussion of revising the Noise Control Ordinance to extend the allowed hours of operation of amplified sound equipment in the Alex Theatre and A&E Districts.

General Plan Noise Element
The Noise Element of a General Plan is a comprehensive program for including noise management in the planning process. It is a tool for local planners to use in achieving and maintaining land uses that are compatible with environmental noise levels. Glendale’s Noise Element (adopted in 2007) identifies noise sensitive land uses and noise sources, and defines areas of noise impact for the purpose of developing programs to ensure Glendale residents will be protected from excessive noise intrusion. The Noise Element follows the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines and State Government Code Section 65302(f) relating to general plan requirements.

The Noise Element identifies and appraises noise problems in the community, and analyzes and quantifies current and projected noise levels in the community. It then provides recommended noise standards for use in assessing the compatibility of proposed land uses with the noise environment, and for use in developing city policies related to land uses and acceptable noise levels (see Exhibit 2). Although the Noise Element contains recommended noise standards, the document does not actually set those standards. Noise standards in Glendale are specified in the Building Code (i.e., indoor noise standard for non-single family residential, achieved by regulating the use of building materials for new construction to ensure 3 76 of 331
they block exterior noise) and the Noise Control Ordinance, which is identified in the Noise Element as the most effective method to control community noise from existing uses.

One of the noise issues identified in the Noise Element is the interface between noise and downtown residences. The Noise Element recognizes the revitalization of downtown, construction of mixed-use projects, and the potential conflict between clubs, late-night restaurants, banquet facilities, and residential uses located near each other; While it suggests that downtown residents must accept a certain amount of elevated noise levels, it offers the recommended noise standards as the tool for ensuring excessive noise from new development and land use policies will be avoided or mitigated.

Another relevant noise issue discussed in the Noise Element is the interface between banquet facilities and residences. A description of common noise impacts generated at banquet facilities is described, and the analysis points to the Noise Control Ordinance as regulating those impacts, including stringent noise limitations after 10pm. Any Noise Control Ordinance revisions affecting banquet facility uses would need to be evaluated in terms of this section of the Noise Element.

Noise Control Ordinance (GMC Chapter 8.36. Noise Control) The Noise Control Ordinance currently outlines definitions, the methodology for measuring noise, noise standards, and regulations. Sections of the Noise Control Ordinance specifically relating to the use of amplified sound equipment in the downtown are as follows, with a brief description of relevant issues in terms of revising the ordinance. • GMC 8.36.040 and 8.36.050 - Presumed and ambient noise levels (see Exhibit 3). Noise in excess of the presumed ambient (or actual ambient if it is less), plus five dbA, is a violation. A noise study by a professional acoustical engineer would need to be conducted to determine if the use of amplified sound equipment in the downtown during extended nighttime hours will exceed this threshold and whether this code section should be revised.
• GMC 8.36.280 — Regulates the use of sound-amplifying equipment, including permitted hours of operation for equipment, a 15 dbA noise limit above presumed/ambient noise levels, a 200-foot buffer around sensitive uses (i.e., churches, schools, hospitals, libraries, and city/county buildings) where the equipment may not be used, and a general limit on the volume to prevent it from being unreasonably loud/disturbing/etc.

A revision to this code section has the potential to result in inconsistency with the Noise Element. First, noise levels generated from the use of amplified sound equipment late in the evening could exceed the recommended noise levels in the Noise Element. Second, several sensitive uses have been identified within a 200-foot buffer of the subject area (see Exhibit 4). A noise study by a professional acoustical engineer would need to be conducted to measure the impacts of any proposed changes to the ordinance to ensure consistency with the Noise Element’s recommended noise standards, and to conduct analysis regarding proposed changes to ensure they will not impact sensitive uses. • Other sections of the ordinance that would be impacted by a revision relating to the use of amplified sound equipment are as follows. These sections should also be addressed with a noise study where applicable, and analysis:
o GMC 8.36.110 — Makes unlawful the production of loud or unusual noises that disturb the peace/comfort/health of neighboring residents, determined by / 4
77 of 331
considering certain criteria including the volume of noise to residential bedrooms, the time of day/night the noise occurs, etc.
o GMC 8.36.160 — Makes unlawful the use/operation of a machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound during nighttime which disturbs the peace/comfort/health of neighboring residents.
o GMC 8.36.210 — Makes unlawful the operation of any device which creates vibration above the threshold of an individual within a certain distance. • Council may consider an option to extend the allowed hours of amplified sound equipment use, but grant authority to Community Development to place restrictions on such use in order to avoid/mitigate negative impacts. For example, by requiring the use of sound barriers, limiting amplified sound equipment height/direction, etc. • As a note, GMC 8.36.310 currently includes a provision that any person may apply for a variance from the noise regulations under the variance procedure set forth in GMC Title 30 (Zoning).
• Any changes to the Noise Control Ordinance will still be subject to California Penal Code Title 11 of Crimes Against the Public Peace, Section 415, which prohibits a person from willfully disturbing another person by loud and unreasonable noise.

Additional Considerations
Professional planners consider the interrelated effects of policies that cause or influenãe change in communities. In doing so, they address issues such as comprehensiveness, consistency and long-term perspective, in order to ensure sound analysis and well-formed policy. As a result, staff identified the following additional considerations regarding this agenda item:
• Two minor inconsistencies between the Noise Element and Noise Ordinance were identified and may be addressed as part of an update to the Noise Ordinance: 1) Noise Element Policy 4.1 (adopted by Council in 2007) calls for shortening the hours of allowed construction noise on Saturday from 7am — 7pm to 9am — 5pm; however, the Noise Control Ordinance has not been updated to reflect this policy change; and 2) The Noise Element’s recommended interior noise limit is 45 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level, a weighted average of noise level over a 24-hour period, with noise during night time hours being more heavily weighted), whereas the Noise Control Ordinance allows 55 dBA during daytime. Staff recommends addressing these items at this time.
• Changes to the Noise Control Ordinance have the potential to trigger impacts relating to numerous other City policies, regulations, and documents. At this time, staff recommends Council provide direction on this particular agenda item per the below recommendation. Should Council direct staff to move forward with a noise study, the results of the noise study will provide some indication of the scale of impacts, and staff will conduct a full evaluation and report of related impacts at that time.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Council consider whether it wishes to proceed with exploring potential revisions to the Noise Control Ordinance to extend the allowed hours of operation of amplified sound equipment in the DSP Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts. If Council wishes to proceed, staff recommends Council specify which days and times should be studied as 5 78 of 331
potential extended hours of operation for the use of amplified sound equipment. The current limitation for commercial purposes is 7am-lOpm Monday through Saturday except legal holidays, and for non-commercial purposes the limitation is 7am-lOpm any day. As examples, Council may consider the following options for extending the nighttime hours for commercial uses:
• Friday and Saturday until 12am of the following day
• Friday and Saturday until 2am of the following day (at which time alcohol service ends) • Thursday, Friday and Saturday until 12am of the following day • Thursday, Friday and Saturday until 2am of the following day (at which time alcohol service ends)
Staff recommends that the existing hours be maintained from Sunday through Wednesday.

Staff further recommends addressing the two inconsistencies described in the “Additional Considerations” section of this staff report (hours of allowed construction noise and interior noise standards) in order to ensure consistency between the Noise Element, Noise Control Ordinance, and Building Code.

If Council wishes to proceed, staff recommends Council authorize the issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to acoustical engineering consultants to conduct the necessary studies and analysis of proposed Noise Control Ordinance changes to accommodate later hours of amplified sound equipment use, consistent with Council’s direction. Staff estimates the study will cost up to $10,000, and the Planning Division has available funds within its contractual services budget.

The study and analysis are essential to identify the appropriate process and path to make any chan~es that may be recommended by Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with providing direction to staff regarding potential revisions to the Noise Control Ordinance. If Council directs staff to move forward with studying potential revisions to the Noise Control Ordinance, staff estimates the study will cost up to $10,000. The Planning Division has available funds within its contractual services budget (43110-1010-CDD- 2500).

ALTERNATIVES
Council has the following alternatives to consider with respect to this agenda item:

Alternative 1: Council may direct staff to proceed with the exploration of potential revisions to the Noise Control Ordinance, with direction on which days and times to study for extended hours of operation of amplified sound equipment, and including addressing the two inconsistencies identified. Staff would issue an RFP to contract with a consultant to conduct necessary noise studies and analysis of potential changes. Funding for the study is available within the Planning Division contractual services budget. This alternative will enable Council to receive a thorough analysis of the potential for better accommodating nighttime uses in the downtown by extending the allowed hours of operation of amplified sound equipment.

Alternative 2: Council may direct staff to not proceed with potential revisions to the Noise Control Ordinance. This will result in the current limitation on the hours of operation of amplified sound equipment in the DSP Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts to remain in place.

The limitation will continue to somewhat restrict entertainment operations for certain businesses, which may somewhat hinder the expansion of nighttime uses in the downtown. The variance procedure in GMC Title 30 (Zoning) will remain applicable.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 6 79 of 331

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable to this agenda item as no contract is being considered at this time.

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Map of Alex Theatre and Arts & Entertainment Districts Exhibit 2: General Plan Noise Element Noise Standards
Exhibit 3: Presumed and Ambient Noise (from Noise Control Ordinance) Exhibit 4: Map of 200-foot buffer and sensitive uses
7 80 of 331
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________ seconded by Council Member _______________________________, that, with respect to the Report to Council dated July 30, 2019 regarding Potential Revisions to the Noise Control Ordinance (Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 8.36) Relating to the Use of Amplified Sound Equipment, the Council hereby directs staff as follows:

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

APPROVEDAST FORM
cIPØflO~NEY
DA4~2/2~9t~1
\\Ca2QQQ\data\ShareS~FILES\DOCFILES\FACTFIND\Direct Staff Noise Control Ordinancedoc 2A1
81 of 331
Downtown Specific Plan Districts EXHIBIT 1
E Lexinglori
I
DS IGAT• S
• z
0 1 DSPIOC DSPIM DSP/A SP/TD 2-50 R

USIA I,
4 • ~1
I E Ca iforniajo Ave
I ‘ •. C, •
a 2S
‘I,
4 SPIED
S S
E
DSPIOC DSPIOC DSPIM OSF?IAT DSP! DSI!TD
C • DSP,
z
• DSP
it -
S.

WWlsonAye Wilson Ave v0
I • 0
j
‘I
I
a
DSP/BC > DSPIM
DSPISC
— b
~DSP/M DSP
C,
OS £ Droad~Y
N~rdstTo!T. rdttmm
* Glendale i
DSP/GAL SQaU~h7i C, I— . DSPIESP/GAL
C
~1
Obndah Gbr~daIq Gle~da~ a
Gg.lIs’.a Salleria Oatlera osp
North ñ,rkin9 Nod ~,r 4Par~~tg DSPIM • DSP!M DSP 0’
I.

Americana - SP/ESAmerican,
at E’nnd at Brand
Rirfrmn~ • ~
a ...
i-larva st
‘Fl_S II —
• DSp~~~ ~,.... • U)
t * Americana
Amr~ij &i Al Brand
RIB fld.
5 ~Anre]~W~Way -.

I’ D~P/CCIn,
• Phik
45 1’
• Dsprrcsp ~
o
• 0
£C~I&adoISL E(CdlWi~döU
82 of 331
General Plan Noise Element
Table 2

INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS

LAND USE CATEGORIES NOISE STANDARDS
CATEGORIES USES INTERIOR CNEL EXTERIOR CNEI..

RESIDENTIAl. Single Family 45(I) 65(2)
Multi-Family 45(l) 65 3)
Residential within Mixed Use 45(l) --
COMMERCIAl. Hotel, Motel Transient 45 I
Lodging
UTIONAL Hospital, School Classroom, 45 --
Church. Library
OPEN SPACE Parks (4) - 65
Notes
I. Applies to the indoor envi onment excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets and corridors.

2. Applies to the outdoor environment l’mited to the pnvate yard of single family residences (norma ly the rear yard).

3. Applies to the patio area where there is an expectation of pnvacy (i.e., not a patio area which also serves as. or is adjacent to, the primary entrance to the unit). 4 Only applies to parks where peace and quiet are determined to be of prime importance, such as hills de open space a eas open to the public. Generally would not apply to urban parks or active- use parks.

EXHIBIT
2 83 of 331
Presumed and Ambient Noise

EXHIBIT
3 8.36.040 Presumed noise standards.

A. The following exterior noise standards, unless otherwise spec fically ndicated sha apply o al property with n a des gnated zone:

Zone
Cemetery and residential (sing e fam y and duplex)
Cemetery and residential (singe fam y and duplex)
Residential multifamily, hotels, motels and trans ent lodgings) Central business d strict and commercial
ndustrial
Dec’be s lime
45dbA Nighttme
55 dbA Dayt me
60 dbA Anytime
65 dbA Anytime
70 dbA Anytime
B The fo o ng nterior noise standards, unless otherwise spec a y nd cated, shal apply to a res den ial property with n a des gnated zone Zone Decibels lime
Res dentia 45 dbA N ghttime
Res dentia 55 dbA A other times
C. In any overlay zones, the underlying zone shal determ ne the presumed amb ent noise evel. (Ord. 4973 § 4, 1991: prior code § 1 -53 Where the actual ambient is less than the presumed ambient, the actual ambient shall control and any noise n excess of the act a ambient, plus five cibA, violation.

Where the actual ambient is equal to or more than the presumed ambient, the actual ambient sha control and any no se may not exceed the actua more than five dbA; however, in no event may the actual ambient exceed the presumed noise standards by five dbA.

At the boundary line between two zones, the arithmet c average of the presumed ambient nose leve s sha be used. Ord. 4973 § 5 199 prior code § 11-

8.36.050 MinImum and maximum ambient noise levels.

A.
shall be a
B
amb ent by
C.
54 84 of 331

EXHIBIT
200-foot buffer
E Lexrg on Dr
0 S
z
a
E CalI~a,nIa Ave
ffi
ao 0aa I
ICC OS
00a
a
C
a
-a
aC
C
ega
t — 1u.

WWdsonAvo ~ IIII~
I.. Z
I I’
losI
0ZDSP’ •
I
g
a
Gb
•4n’II
p.

DSP/GAl.

III
SD
a
C
00 0
0 a
• - .1 US
•~
0 we,
:‘‘ Q0:~
00 0
C
fiwad Way
ml 0
C
C pabo 0
C
DO
OSP/EB Dl
E(cdiF~’db1Sl
bndal OienaI,
llti~
r~dr Ru
atllnind
fl.iWn~
~
AiflmM
0 DSP/T
ic$ldr:adal$t
CII
a
0 00
,fl
lao
I
0 a
.

O
a
C
= Churches, schools, hospitals,
libraries, city/county buildings
85 of 331

NOISE STUDY AND ANALYSIS

ALEX THEATRE AND ART & ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICTS

PREPARED BY:

Westlake Village Office
920 Hampshire Road, Suite A5
Westlake Village, CA 91361

Los Angeles Office
706 S. Hill Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014

OCTOBER 2021
EXHIBIT 4
86 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts i City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................. 2 Fundamentals of Sound ............................................................................................... 5 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................... 9 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 12 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................... 13 Threshold of Significance ............................................................................................ 32 Analysis ................................................................................................................ 32 Extended Hours of Operation for Amplified Sound ............................................................... 42 Remedial Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 42 Appropriate Thresholds of Violation ............................................................................... 43 Improvements/Modifications to the GMC ......................................................................... 43

Appendices
A Noise Measurements
A.1 Short-term (10-minute) Noise Measurements
A.2 Long-term (24-hour) Noise Measurements
B Roadway Noise Worksheet
C SoundPLAN Output Sheets

87 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts ii City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021

Figures
Figure Page
1 Downtown Specific Plan ..................................................................................... 3 2 Noise/Land Use Compatibility Table....................................................................... 9 3 Ambient Noise Monitoring Location (Site A) ............................................................. 21 4 Ambient Noise Monitoring Location (Site B) ............................................................. 22 5 Ambient Noise Monitoring Location (Site C) ............................................................. 23 6 Ambient Noise Monitoring Location (Site D) ............................................................. 24 7 Ambient Noise Monitoring Location (Site E) ............................................................. 25 8 Ambient Noise Monitoring Location (Site F) ............................................................. 26 9 Ambient Noise Monitoring Location (Site 1) ............................................................. 27 10 Ambient Noise Monitoring Location (Site 2) ............................................................. 28 11 Ambient Noise Monitoring Location (Site 3) ............................................................. 29 12 Ambient Noise Monitoring Location (Site 4) ............................................................. 30 13 Sensitive Receptor Map ..................................................................................... 31 14 Operational Noise Level Contour Map (CNEL) ........................................................... 40 15 Operational Noise Level Contour Map (SEL) ............................................................. 41

Tables
Table Page
1 Noise Descriptors ............................................................................................. 6 2 Common Sounds on the A-Weighted Decibel Scale ...................................................... 7 3 Outside-to-Inside Noise Attenuation ....................................................................... 8 4 Exposure Levels .............................................................................................. 8 5 Interior and Exterior Noise Standards .................................................................... 11 6 Presumed Noise Standards ................................................................................. 11 7 Existing Short-term Noise Measurements ................................................................ 15 8 Existing Long-term Noise Measurements ................................................................. 18 9 Existing Roadway Noise Levels ............................................................................ 19 10 GMC Modeled Exterior Noise Levels ...................................................................... 34 11 General Plan Modeled Exterior Noise Levels ............................................................ 36

88 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 1 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Project is to conduct noise study for two districts within the City’s Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area tha t include the Alex Theatre District and the Art & Entertainment District. This noise report is intended to provide the City of Glendale (City) with an evaluation of proposed Noise Control Ordinance changes to accommodate later hours of amplified sound equipment use. This study will be used to: a) determine the appropriateness of extending the hours of operation for amplified sound within these two districts of the DSP; b) recommend remedial mitigation measures; c) recommend appropriate thresholds of violation; and d) recommend improvements/modifications to the affected Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) section. The study discusses applicable local noise regulations; applic able noise thresholds; the methodology used to analyze potential noise impacts; monitoring data; and modeled noise levels. The findings of the analyses are as follows:
• Based on field observations, existing commercial uses currently operate sound amplified equipment past the permitted hours of 10:00 PM as identified by Section 8.36.280 of the City’s GMC. • Existing short-term (10-minute) noise levels at nearby uses that operate sound amplifying equipment within the DSP during the weekend nighttime period ranged from a low of 63.6 dBA a high of 80.4 dBA between 8:00 PM – 10:00 PM. Additionally, noise levels ranged from a low of 64.8 dBA to a high of 80.9 dBA between 10:00 PM – 12:00 AM. Ambient noise levels in violation of Section 8.36.280 of the GMC which results in an excess of 15 dBA above the presumed standard for commercial uses of 65 dBA were exceeded at monitoring Site C. Noise levels were exceeded by a maximum of 0.9 dBA.

Commercial uses within this monitoring area include Mr. Furley’s Bar , Eden on Brand and Tavern on Brand. Dominant noise sources along these monitoring sites included vehicle traffic along Brand Boulevard and operation of amplified sound equipment between California Avenue and Wilson Avenue. However , existing noise levels are within the common sound ranges of ordinary (moderate) to busy street (loud) as defined in Table 2 below.
• Existing long-term (24-hour) at nearby uses that operate sound amplifying equipment within the DSP ranged from a low of 63.7 dBA CNEL at the L Lofts residential building to a high of 77.5 dBA CNEL at the corner of California Avenue and Brand Boulevard. Ambient noise levels were not in violation of Section 8.36.040 of the GMC which results in an excess of 5 dBA above the presumed noise standard of 60 dBA for residential uses at the L Lofts residential building. Additionally, ambient noise levels were not in violation of Section 8.36.280 which results in an excess of 15 dBA above the presumed standard of 65 dBA fo r commercial uses at any of the monitoring sites. Additionally, existing noise levels were within the normally acceptable noise levels for residential uses and conditionally acceptable for office buildings, business commercial, and professional land use ca tegory when compared to the City’s General Plan Land Use Compatibility to noise (refer to Figure 2) . • Existing traffic noise along Brand Boulevard range from a low of 66.7 dBA CNEL along Brand Boulevard from Broadway to Wilson Avenue to 67.6 dBA CNEL along Brand Boulevard north of Lexington Drive.

Existing roadway noise levels are not in violation of Section 8.36.040 of the GMC and does not result in an excess of 5 dBA above the presumed standard of 65 dBA for commercial uses. In terms of the City’s la nd use noise compatibility categories based on roadway traffic only, these segments are classified as normally acceptable for commercial uses and conditionally acceptable for residential multifamily.
• Future modeled exterior noise levels of amplified sound equipment operating between 7:00 AM – 2:00 AM ranged from a low of 43.3 dBA Leq to a high of 61.7 dBA Leq during the daytime and a low of 39.8 dBA Leq to a high of 58.2 dBA Leq during the nighttime at the Elevé Lofts and Skydeck Apartments and the multifamily residential uses at The Americana at Brand, respectively. Future exterior noise levels would not result in an excess of 5 dBA above the presumed noise standard of 60 dBA for multifamily residential uses and would be consistent with Section 8.36.040 of the GMC. 89 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 2 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
• Future modeled exterior noise levels of amplified sound equipment operating between 7:00 AM – 2:00 AM ranged from a low of 47 dBA CNEL at the Elevé Lofts and Skydeck Apartments to a high of 64 dBA CNEL at the multifamily residential uses located a t The Americana at Brand. Exterior noise levels would be below the 65 dBA CNEL threshold identified in the City’s General Plan Noise Element for single and multi -family residential uses. 24 -hour CNEL noise levels would fall within the normally acceptable compatibility land use category.
• Future modeled SEL (Leq- 1second) exterior noise levels of amplified sound equipment operating between 7:00 AM – 2:00 AM ranged from a low of 79 dBA (Leq-1second) at the Elevé Lofts and Skydeck Apartment to a high of 97 dBA ( Leq-1second) at The Americana on Brand. SEL (Leq-1second) noise levels would not exceed the NIOSH recommended exposure limits of 100 dBA SEL threshold for a continuous duration of 15 minutes or less.
• Noise reduction steps could include retaining an indepen dent third -party consultant monitoring services to ensure noise levels do not exceed the following limits:
− Amplified sound equipment limited to 100 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 15 minutes within the hour.
− Amplified sound equipment limited to 97 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 30 minutes within the hour.
− Amplified sound equipment limited to 94 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 1 hour.
− Amplified sound equipment limited to 92 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 1 and ½ hours.
− Amplified sound equipment limited to 91 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 2 hours.
− Amplified sound equipment limited to 89 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 3 hours.
− Amplified sound equipment limited to 88 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 4 hours.
− Amplified sound equipmen t limited to 86 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 6 hours.
− Amplified sound equipment limited to 85 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 8 hours.

In keeping with the above, the noise c ontrol ordinance recommendations with the operation of the amplified sound equipment would not be significant or detrimental to the surrounding land uses.

BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2006, Council adopted the DSP, which was intended to better reflect the com munity’s vision for Glendale, including accommodating housing needs and ensuring downtown’s long term economic success in the region. The Land Use chapter of the DSP outlines five key land use policies, including to “encourage appropriate land uses that ex tend the life of Downtown into the evenings and weekends so that daytime, weekend, and nighttime uses can support each other and share parking seven days a week.” As shown in Figure 1: Downtown Specific Plan, the DSP is divided into eleven districts each having their own development standards. The Alex Theatre District and Maryland District (now the Art & Entertainment District) encourage a combination of entertainment, restaurant, and retail/service uses.
90 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 3 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
The DSP was amended in 2011 to encourage the concentration of arts, cultural and entertainment venues and associated retail uses on Artsakh Avenue between Harvard Street and Wilson Avenue, by specifically designated the area as Glendale’s “Art and Entertainment District (A&E District).” The district is anchored at each end with important civic and cultural venues, including the Alex Theatre and Downtown Central Library. The intent of the district is to encourage the clustering of theaters, music clubs, comedy clubs, art galleries, and similar uses.

One-way businesses in downtown offer entertainment to the community is by providing music via amplified sound equipment. The City currently regulates the use of amplified sound equipment through the GMC Noise Control chapter (GMC Chapter 8.36, or “Noise Control Ordinance”). The Noise Control Ordinance regulates the permissible noise levels for daytime and nighttime activities and requires the use of amplified sound equipment to cease at 10:00 PM, whereas many businesses operate until later in the evening. This restriction on the use of amplified sound equipment acts as a restriction on business operations, which may hinder the DSP goals of promoting a vibrant downtown and extending its activity into the evenings. However, a significant portion of th e DSP development has included multifamily residential housing units adjacent to entertainment areas where amplified sound late into the night causes a conflict.

The City is considering to proceed with exploring potential revisions to the Noise Control Or dinance to extend the allowed hours of operation of amplified sound equipment in the DSP Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts. The current limitation for commercial purposes is 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM Monday through Saturday except legal holidays, and for non -commercial purposes the limitation is 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM any day.

The purpose of this Project is to conduct a noise study for two districts of the City’s DSP area that include the Alex Theatre District and the Art & Entertainment District. This s tudy will be used to: a) determine the appropriateness of extending the hours of operation for amplified sound within these two districts of the DSP; b) recommend remedial mitigation measures; c) recommend appropriate thresholds of violation; and d) recommend improvements/modifications to the affected GMC section. 91 of 331

DOWNTO WN DIST RICTS
Alex Theatre
Broadway Center
Civic Centers
East Broadway
Galleria
Gateway
Maryland “Art & Entertainment” District
Mid-Orange
Orange Central
Town Center
Transitional
Downtown Speciﬁc Plan boundary
Central Redevelopment Area boundary
San Fernando Road Corridor
Redevelopment Area boundary
Downtown Specific Plan
FIGURE 1
057-002-16
SOURCE: City of Glendale, 2014.

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
6003000 1200
N
92 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 5 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021

FUNDAMENTALS OF SOUND
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by various parameters that describe the physical properties of sound waves. These properties include the rate of oscillation (frequency); the distance between successive troughs or crests, the speed of propagation; and the pressure level or energy content of a given sound wave. In particular , the sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound level.

The unit of sound pressure expressed as a ratio to the faintest sound detectable to a person with normal hearing is called a decibel (dB). Decibels provide a logarithmic loudness scale, similar to the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitudes, which is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable range. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum. Noise levels at maximum human sensitivity are factored more heavily into sound descriptio ns in a process called A weighting, written as dBA. Further reference to decibels in this analysis should be understood to be A-weighted.

Several noise descriptors have been developed to evaluate the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since noise level fluctuates over time, an equivalent sound level (Leq) descriptor is used to describe typical time -varying instantaneous noise. Finally, because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during evening and nighttime hours, St ate law requires that an artificial decibel increment be added to noise occurring during those time periods. The 24 -hour noise descriptor with a specified evening (7:00 to 10:00 PM) and nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) penalty is called the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL).

Noise sources can generally be categorized as one of two types: (1) point sources, such as stationary mechanical equipment; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway. Sound generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically hard sites, and at a rate of 7.5 dBA at acoustically soft sites. 1 A hard or reflective
site consists of asphalt, concrete, or very hard -packed soil, which does not provide any excess ground- effect attenuation. An acoustically soft or absorptive site is characteristic of normal earth and most ground with vegetation. As an example, a 60-dBA noise level measured at 50 feet from a point source at an acoustically hard site would be 54 dBA at 100 feet from the source and 48 dBA at 200 feet from the source. Noise from the same point source at an acoustically soft site would be 52.5 dBA at 100 feet and 45 dBA at 200 feet from the source. Sound generated by a line source typically attenuates at a rate of 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source to the receptor for hard and soft sites, respectively.2
Different types of scales are used to characterize the time -varying nature of sound. Applicable scales include the maximum noise level (Lmax), equivalent noise level (Leq), and the CNEL. Lmax is the maximum noise level measured during a specified period. Leq is the average A -weighted sound level measured over a given time interval. Leq can be measured over any period, but is typically measured for

1 USDOT FHWA, Fundamentals and Abatement, 97.
2 USDOT FHWA, Fundamentals and Abatement, 97.
93 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 6 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
1-minute, 15-minute, 1-hour, or 24-hour periods. CNEL is an average A -weighted sound level measured over a 24-hour period. However, this noise scale is adjusted to account for some individuals’ increased sensitivity to noise levels during the evening and nighttime hours. A CNEL noise measurement is obtained by adding 5 dBA to sound levels occurring during the evening, from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and 10 dBA to sound levels occurring during the nighttime, from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The 5 dBA and 10 dBA “penalties” are applied to account for increased noise sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours. Day -night average level (Ldn) is the A -weighted equivalent sound level for a 24 -hour period with an additional 10 dB imposed on the equivalent sound levels for nighttime hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Table 1: Noise Descriptors identifies various terms for noise descriptors developed to measure sound levels over different periods of time, including A-weighted decibel or dBA.

TABLE 1

NOISE DESCRIPTORS
Term Definition
Decibel (dB)
The unit for measuring the volume of sound equal to 10
times the logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the
pressure of a measure sound to a reference pressure.

A-weighted decibel (dB[A])
A sound measurement scale that adjusts the pressure of
individual frequencies according to human sensitivities.

The scale accounts for the fact that the region of
highest sensitivity for the human ear is between 2,000
and 4,000 cycles per second (hertz).

Hertz (Hz) The frequency of the pressure vibration, whi ch is measured in cycles per second.

Kilo hertz (kHz) One thousand cycles per second.

Equivalent sound level (Leq)
The sound level containing the same total energy as a
time varying signal over a given time period. The Leq is the value that expresses the time averaged total energy of a fluctuating sound level. Leq can be measured over
any time period, but is typically measured for 1-minute, 15-minute, 1-hour , or 24-hour periods.

Community noise equivalent level (CNEL)
A rating of community noise exposur e to all sources of sound that differentiates between daytime, evening,
and nighttime noise exposure. These adjustments add 5
dBA for the evening, 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and add 10
dBA for the night, 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The 5 and 10 dB penalties are applied to account for increased noise
sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours. The logarithmic effect of adding these penalties to the 1 - hour Leq measurements typically results in a CNEL
measurement that is within approximately 3 dBA of the
peak-hour Leq.a
Nighttime (Lnight) Lnight is the average noise exposure during the hourly periods from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM.

Sound pressure level
The sound pressure is the force of sound on a surface
area perpendicular to the direction of the sound. The
sound pressure level is expressed in dB.

Ambient noise
The level of noise that is all -encompassing within a
given environment, being usually a composite of sounds
from many and varied sources near to and far from the
observer. No specific source is identified in the ambient environment.
a California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement; A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Sacramento, California: November 2009), pp. N51–N54.

94 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 7 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
Some common sounds on the dBA scale, relative to ordinary conservation, are provided in Table 2:

Common Sounds on the A-Weighted Decibel Scale. As shown, the relative perceived loudness of sound doubles for each increase of 10 dBA, although a 10 dBA change corresponds to a factor of 10 in relative sound energy. Generally, sounds with differences of 2 dBA or less are not perceived to be noticeably different by most listeners.

TABLE 2

COMMON SOUNDS ON THE A-WEIGHTED DECIBEL SCALE
Sound Sound Level (dBA) Subjective Evaluations
Near Jet Engine 140 Deafening
Threshold of Pain 130
Rock music, with amplifier 120
Thunder , snowmobile (operator) 110 Very Loud
Boiler shop, power mower 100
Orchestral crescendo at 25 feet,
noisy kitchen
90 Busy street 80 Loud
Interior of department store 70
Ordinary conservation, 3 feet away 60 Moderate
Quiet automobiles at low speed 50
Average office 40 Faint
City residence 30
Quiet country residence 20 Very Faint
Rustle of leaves 10
Threshold of hearing 0
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Aircraft Noise Impact – Planning Guidelines for Local Agencies, 1972
Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receiver and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, whereas a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. 3 In addition, noise is substantiall y reduced from outdoor to indoor areas as a result of structural designs that attenuate noise. Windows are a common feature used by building occupants to control the effects of outdoor noise on interior noise levels. The exterior-to-interior reduction of noise for newer residential units is generally 20 dBA or more with the windows in a closed position. The minimum attenuation of exterior-to-interior noise provided by typical structures is provided in Table 3: Outside-to-Inside Noise Attenuation.

3 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Noise Fundamentals (1980), 18. 95 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 8 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
TABLE 3

OUTSIDE-TO-INSIDE NOISE ATTENUATION
Building Type
Reduction in dBA
Open Windows
Closed
Windowsa
Residences 17 25
Schools 17 25
Churches 20 30
Hospitals/Convalescent homes 17 25
Offices 17 25
Source: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Highway Noise: A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, NCHRP Report No. 117, (1971). Prepared for Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Note: a As shown, structures with closed windows can attenuate exterior noise by a minimum of 25.0 to 30.0 dBA.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) established Recommended Exposure Limits (REL) for noise based on the best available science and practice. The NIOSH REL for noise is 85 decibels, using the A-weighting frequency response (often written as dBA) over an 8-hour average, usually referred to as a Time-Weighted Average (TWA). Exposure at or above this level are considered hazardous.

Standards specify a maximum allowable daily noise dose, expressed in percentages. For example, a person exposed to 85 dBA per NIOSH over an 8 -hour period, will reach 100 percent of their daily noise dose. The noise dose is based on both the sound exposure level and how long it lasts (duration) so for each increase or 3 -dB in noise levels, the duration of the exposure should be cut in half. Table 4:

Exposure Levels illustrates the relationship between sound exposure levels and duration.

TABLE 4

EXPOSURE LEVELS
Duration Per Day Continuous Hours Noise Level dBA
8 85
6 86
4 88
3 89
2 91
1 ½ 92
1 94
½ 97
¼ or less 100

96 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 9 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
Sound exposure level (SEL) is a time -integrated measure, expressed in decibels, of the sound energy of a single noise event at a reference duration of one second. The sound level is integrated over the period that it exceeds a threshold. Therefore, SEL accounts for both the maximum sound level and the duration of the sound. The SEL for a particular noise event is a numerically higher value than the Lmax for the same event. This is because the SEL consolidates the energy of the entire noise event into a refe rence duration of one second. The SEL is not “heard”, but is a derived value used for calculation of cumulative noise exposure as defined by the Day -night average sound level (DNL). SELs for noise events depend on the location of the noise source relative to the sensitive use.

REGULATORY SETTING
City of Glendale General Plan
The City of Glendale General Plan Noise Element is a comprehensive program for including noise management in the planning process. The Noise Element identifies noise sensitive land uses and noise sources and defines areas of noise impact for the purpose of developing programs. The Noise Element follows the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines and State Government Code Section 65302(f) relating to general plan requirements.

The Noise Element provides recommended noise standards for use in assessing the co mpatibility of proposed land uses within the noise environment, and for use in developing city policies related to land uses and acceptable noise levels. Although the Noise Element contains recommended noise standards, the document does not actually set th ose standards. Noise standards in Glendale are specified in the Building Code (i.e., indoor noise standard for non -single-family residential, achieved by regulating the use of building materials for new construction to ensure they block exterior noise) and the Noise Control Ordinance, which is identified in the Noise Element as the most effective method to control community noise from existing uses.

The Land Use Compatibility to Noise (refer to Figure 2: Noise/Land Use Compatibility Table) identifies the acceptable limit noise exposure for various land- use categories within the City. Noise exposure for multifamily uses is “normally acceptable” when the CNEL at exterior residential locations is equal to or below 65 dBA, “conditionally acceptable” when the CN EL is between 60 to 70 dBA, and “normally unacceptable” when the CNEL exceeds 70 dBA. The Noise Element established an interior noise level standard for multifamily uses of 45 dBA CNEL or less. The interior and exterior noise standards established in the Noise Element are shown in Table 5: Interior and Exterior Noise Standards. Compliance of these standards would be incorporated by conditions of approval or environmental mitigation measures and evaluated as part of City Development Review and building permit plan check.

97 of 331
Noise/Land Use Compatibility Table
FIGURE 2
057-002-16
SOURCE: City of Glendale, 2014.
98 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 11 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
TABLE 5

INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS
Land Use Categories Noise Standard CNEL
Categories Uses Interior Exterior
Residential
Single-Family 45a 65b
Multi-Family 45a 65c
Residential within Mixed Use 45a --
Commercial Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging 45a --
Institutional Hospital, School Classroom,
Church, Library
45 --
Open Space Parksd -- 65

Note:
a Applies to the indoor environment excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets and corridors. b Applies to the outdoor environment limited to the private yard of single-family residences (normally the rear yard). c Applies to the patio area where there is an expectation of privacy (i.e., not a patio area which also serves as, or is adjacent to, the primary entrance to the unit).
d Only applies to parks where peace and quiet are determined to be of prime importance, such as hillside open space areas open to the public. Generally would not apply to urban parks or active use parks.

Source: City of Glendale, Noise Element of the General Plan, May 2007.

Noise Ordinance
The most effective method to control community noise impacts from non-transportation noise sources is through application of the Community Noise Ordinance. Section 8.36.040 of the GMC provides presumed noise standards for various designated zones and are shown in Table 6: Presumed Noise Standards.

Noise in excess of the presumed ambient (or actual ambient if it is less), plus 5 dBA, is a violation.

Additionally, Section 8.36.280 of the GMC regulates the use of sound -amplifying equipment, including permitted hours of operation for equipment, a 15 dBA noise limit above presumed/ambient noise levels, a 200- foot buffer around sensitive uses (i.e., churches, schools, hospitals, libraries, and city/county buildings) where the equipment may not be used, and a gener al limit on the volume to prevent it from being unreasonably loud/disturbing/etc.

TABLE 6

PRESUMED NOISE STANDARDS
Sound Sound Level (dBA) Subjective Evaluations
Cemetery and residential (single family and duplex) 45 Nighttime Cemetery and residential (single family and duplex) 55 Daytime Residential (multifamily, hotels, motels, and transient lodgings) 60 Anytime
Central business district and commercial 65 Anytime
Industrial 70 Anytime
Source: City of Glendale GMC Section 8.36.040: Presumed Noise Standards. 99 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 12 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021

METHODOLOGY
Ambient Noise Measurements
The DSP is located in a highly urbanized area of Glendale – an active existing noise environment. To determine existing ambient noise levels in the area (ambient) for purposes of determining any forecasted increase from amplified sound from restaurants , two rounds of six (6) short-term (10-minute) [between 8:00 PM – 10:00 PM and 10:00 PM – 12:00 AM] and four (4) long-term (over 24 hours) measurements were performed at various locations within the DSP. Noise measurements were taken between Thursday, July 29, 2021, through Monday, August 2, 2021, with a Larson Davis Type 1 meter. This meter satisfies Section

8.36.030 of the City’s Municipal Code related to decibel measurement criteria and the American National Standards Institute standard for general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. Random incidence microphones with windscreens were used, given the outdoor (i.e., free field) c onditions of monitoring. The sound level averages were measured as A -weighted, slow -time-weighted (1 -minute period) sound pressure level variables, commonly used for measuring environmental sounds. Sound levels presented in this report are in terms of dBA.

Because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise comparison of a new noise source relative to the ambient to which one has adapted is an accepted method for determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise source.

Roadway Noise
In addition to the ambient noise measurements within the DSP, the existing traffic noise on local roadways in the surrounding areas was calculated to quantify the 24 -hour CNEL noise levels using available 2016 average daily trips (ADTs) provided by the Cit y. For the downtown corridors, a factor of

1.01 percent was taken into account for each year to take into growth within the DSP, as directed by the City. These intersections and connecting roadway segments were selected for the generation of existing traffic noise. Traffic noise levels were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM).

Noise Modeling
SoundPLAN (version 8.2) was utilized to model the future operational noise levels associated with changes to Noise Control Ordinance to accommodate later hours of amplified sound equipment use within the DSP. The software uses various inputs to analyze the topography, vegetation, vehicle traffic, existing and proposed noise sources, and existing and proposed barriers to depict noise contours at varying distances.

The software utilizes algorithms (based on the inverse square law) to calculate noise level projections.

The software allows the user to input specific noise sources, spectral content, sound ba rriers, building placement, topography, and sensitive receptor locations. The City’s General Plan Noise Element defines sensitive receptors as, but not limited to, areas containing residential uses, schools, hospitals, rest 100 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 13 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
homes, long-term medical or ment al-care facilities, or any other land use area deemed noise sensitive by the local jurisdiction.4
Inputs were assumed within the model related to the layout of commercial business and changes to the Noise Control Ordinance to accommodate later hours of amplified sound equipment use. For example:
• Although amplified sound equipment is permitted to be operated between 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM, based on field observations operations occurred intermittently between 9:00 PM – 1:00 AM during the weekend period. To simulate a future daily worst-case scenario, the model assumes amplified sound equipment are operated at 100 percent intensity between the proposed hours of 7:00 AM – 2:00 AM of the following day.
• To quantify events related to amplified sound equipment, point sources referencing a live band with sound system were modeled at the exterior of various commercial uses with a maximum exposure level of 100 dBA one feet from the source.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
As mentioned previously, t he DSP is located in a highly urbanized area of Glendale – an active noise environment. More specifically, the Alex Theatre District is concentrated along Brand Boulevard, north of Wilson Ave and south of Lexington Drive (refer to Figure 1), and features a variety of intimate -scale retail, restaurant and service uses located within traditional storefronts. The Alex Theatre D istrict encourages entertainment activities, restaurants, small-scale retail business, and other such pedestrian- oriented activities. The Maryland “Art & Entertainment” District is located between the Downtown core and the East Broadway mixed-use district to the east and anchored to the north by the Alex Theatre and the Central Library to the south (refer to Figure 1) . This district is concentrated by arts, cultural and entertainment venues and associated dining and retail uses on Maryland Avenue between Harvard and Wilson.

Ambient Noise Levels
The study area is conducted along Brand Boulevard between W. Lexington Drive and E. Colorado Street near commercial uses that operate sound amplifying equipment . Meridian Consultants conducted two rounds of short-term (10-minute) measurements at six (6) locations between 8:00 PM – 10:00 PM and 10:00 PM – 12:00 AM on Friday, July 30, 2021, as shown in Figures 3 through 8: Short-term Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations. Additionally, long-term (24-hour) measurements were conducted at four (4) locations between Thursday, July 29 – Monday August 2, 2021 and are shown in Figure s 9 through 12:

Long-term Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations.

Short -term Noise Levels
Table 7: Existing Short -term Noise Measurements contains the results of the noise monitoring conducted over a 1 0-minute period (refer to Figures 3 through 8) nearby uses which operate sound amplifying equipment . These measured noise levels represent two rounds of measurements from the

4 City of Glendale, General Plan: Noise Element, accessed August 2021, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/828/635231021922170000 101 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 14 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
weekend nighttime period between the hours of 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10:00 PM to 12:00 AM. Amplified sound equipment was generally used throughout various commercial uses between the hours of 9:00 PM – 1:00 AM, exceeding the permitted hours ending at 10:00 PM. As shown, noise levels during the first round of measurements between 8:00 PM – 10:00 PM ranged from a low of 63.6 dBA at Site E to a high of

80.4 dBA at Site D. Additionally, noise levels during the second round of measurements between 10:00 PM – 12:00 AM ranged from a low of 64.8 dBA at Site E to a high of 80.9 dBA at Site D. Noise levels were generally higher between 10:00 PM – 12:00 AM for Sites A, B, C and E.

As mentioned previously, Section 8.36.280 of the GMC regulates the use of sound-amplifying equipment, providing a 15 dBA noise limit above presumed/ambient noise levels. As shown in Table 7, ambient noise levels in excess of 15 dBA above the presumed standard for commercial uses of 65 dBA were exceeded at Monitoring Site C. Noise levels were exceeded by a maximum of 0.9 dBA , resulting in noise levels of

80.9 dBA (Leq 10- minute) between 10:00 PM – 12:00 AM. Commercial uses within the monitoring area include Mr. Furley’s Bar , Eden on Brand and Tavern on Brand.

When compared to the common sounds on the A-weighted decibel scale provided in Table 2, noise levels are within the range of ordinary conservation (moderate) to busy street (loud), which are common levels along major arterials such as Brand Boulevard.
102 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 15 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
TABLE 7

EXISTING SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Monitoring
Site
Land Use
Type Adjacent Use Approximate
Address Time Period 10-minute
Leq
Presumed Noise Standard
plus 15 dBA1
Exceeds Presumed
Standard?
Site A Commercial Carousel
Restaurant
304 N. Brand
Boulevard
8:00 PM –
10:00 PM 70.6 80 No
10:00 PM –
12:00 AM 73.6 80 No
Site B Commercial Giggles Night
Club
215 N. Brand
Boulevard
8:00 PM –
10:00 PM 67.8 80 No
10:00 PM –
12:00 AM 77.3 80 No
Site C Commercial Eden on Brand 214 N. Brand
Boulevard
8:00 PM –
10:00 PM 80.4 80 Yes
10:00 PM –
12:00 AM 80.9 80 Yes
Site D Commercial Jewelry Mart 200 N. Brand
Boulevard
8:00 PM –
10:00 PM 71.4 80 No
10:00 PM –
12:00 AM 71.2 80 No
Site E Commercial Public Parking 113 Artsakh Avenue
8:00 PM –
10:00 PM 63.6 80 No
10:00 PM –
12:00 AM 64.8 80 No
Site F Commercial L.A. Banquets
Hall
109 E. Harvard
Street
8:00 PM –
10:00 PM 69.7 80 No
10:00 PM –
12:00 AM 68.7 80 No
Note:
1 Presumed noise standard of 65 dBA for commercial uses plus 15 dBA for sound amplified equipment.

Source. Refer to Appendix A.1 for short-term noise monitoring sheets. 103 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 16 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
Long -term Noise Levels
The long-term noise results conducted between Thursday, July 29 through Monday, August 2, 2021, are provided in Table 8: Existing Long-term Noise Measurements and their locations are shown in Figure s 9 through 12. Noise measurements include the following periods: daytime, evening, nighttime and 24 - hour CNEL. Daytime period is the average noise exposure during the hourly periods from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Evening period is the average noise exposure during the hourly periods from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM.

Nighttime period is the average noise exposure during the hourly periods from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. 24- hour CNEL is the community noise exposure that differentiates between daytime, evening and nighttime noise exposure. These adjustments add 5 dBA for the evening period (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM) and add 10 dBA for the nighttime period (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM). As mentioned previously, the 5- and 10-dB penalties are applied to account for increase noise sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours. The following discussion provides a summary of the results for each site.

Monitoring Site 1 is located within the L Lofts residential building to east of the commercial uses that operate amplified sound equipment which includes Eden on Brand, Tavern on Brand and Mr. Furley’s Bar.

The noise meter was placed on the roof of the L Lofts reside ntial building with a direct line of sight to the commercial uses. As shown in Table 8, daytime period average noise levels ranged from 57.0 – 58.4 dBA, evening period average noise levels ranged from 59.6 – 60.7 dBA, and nighttime period average noise levels ranged from 53.3 – 57.7 dBA. 24-hour CNEL averages ranged from 60.2 – 64.8 dBA CNEL and is within the normally acceptable range of 50 to 65 dBA CNEL for residential – multifamily land use category when compared to the City’s General Plan Land Use Compatibility to Noise (refer to Figure 2).

Existing noise levels did not exceed the presumed noise standard for residential multi-family uses of 60 dBA plus 5 dBA during any period of monitoring. Noise levels remain consistent with Section 8.36.040 of the GMC.

Monitoring Site 2 is located on the corner of W. Wilson Avenue and N. Brand Boulevard. The noise meter was placed on the ground level of the Brand+ residential building, located directly to the southwest of the commercial uses that operate sound amplifying equipment which includes Eden on Brand, Tavern on Brand and Mr. Furley’s Bar. As shown in Table 8, daytime period average noise levels ranged from 68.8 –

72.6 dBA, evening period average noise levels ranged from 70.8 – 72.4 dBA, and nighttime period average noise levels ranged from 61.9 – 68.5 dBA. 24-hour CNEL averages ranged from 71.0 – 75.8 dBA CNEL and is within the conditionally acceptable range of 67.5 to 77.5 dBA CNEL for office buildings, business commercial and professional land use category when compared to the City’s General Plan Land Use Compatibility to Noise (refer to Figure 2). Existing noise levels did not exceed the presumed noise standard of sound amplified equipment for commercial uses of 65 dBA plus 15 dBA during the monitoring period.

Monitoring Site 3 is located on the corner of W. California Avenue and Brand Boulevard. The noise meter was placed on the ground level, located to the south of commercial uses that operate amplified sound equipment including Carousel restaurant. As shown in Table 8, daytime period average noise levels 104 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 17 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
ranged from 67.5 – 70.5 dBA, evening pe riod average noise levels ranged from 70.4 – 72.6 dBA, and nighttime period average noise levels ranged from 63.6 – 70.7 dBA. 24-hour CNEL averages ranged from

70.6 – 77.5 dBA CNEL and is within the conditionally acceptable range of 67.5 to 77.5 dBA CNEL for office buildings, business commercial and professional land use category when compared to the City’s General Plan Land Use Compatibility to Noise (refer to Figure 2). Existing noise levels did not exceed the presumed noise standard of sound amplified equipment for commercial uses of 65 dBA plus 15 dBA during the monitoring period.

Monitoring Site 4 is located on the corner of Americana Way and N. Brand Boulevard. The noise meter was placed on the ground level, located to the west of commercial uses that operate amplified sound equipment including L.A. Banquets Hall venue and The Famous bar. As shown in Table 8, daytime period average noise levels ranged from 65.9 – 72.6 dBA, evening period average noise levels ranged from 71.0 – 73.8 dBA, and nighttime period average noise levels ranged from 64.5 – 70.4 dBA. 24-hour CNEL averages ranged from 71.6 – 77.2 dBA CNEL and is within the conditionally acceptable range of 67.5 to 77.5 dBA CNEL for office buildings, business commercial and professional land use category when compared to the City’s General Plan Land Use Compatibility to Noise (refer to Figure 2). Existing noise levels did not exceed the presumed noise standard of sound amplified equipment for commercial uses of 65 dBA plus 15 dBA during the monitoring period.

105 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 18 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
TABLE 8

EXISTING LONG-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Monitoring Site Land Use Type Adjacent
Use
Approximate
Address
Time
Period
Thursday
7/29
Friday
7/30
Saturday
7/31
Sunday
8/1
Monday
8/2 Presumed
Noise
Standard
Exceeds
Presumed
Standard? dBA
Site 1 Residential L Lofts
Building
215 N.

Maryland
Avenue
Daytime1 N/A N/A 58.4 57.6 57.0 654 No
Evening2 N/A 60.7 60.4 59.6 N/A 654 No
Nighttime3 N/A 57.7 57.7 56.5 53.3 654 No
24-hour
CNEL N/A 64.3 64.8 63.7 60.2 654 No
Site 2 Commercial Brand+
120 W.

Wilson
Avenue
Daytime1 68.8 72.6 70.1 69.6 71.4 805 No
Evening2 71.5 72.3 72.4 70.8 N/A 805 No
Nighttime3 65.9 67.7 65.0 68.5 61.9 805 No
24-hour
CNEL 73.8 75.8 73.8 75.5 71.0 805 No
Site 3 Commercial Panera
Bread
300 N. Brand
Boulevard
Daytime1 68.5 70.5 69.6 69.8 67.5 805 No
Evening2 70.7 71.9 72.6 70.4 N/A 805 No
Nighttime3 66.8 70.7 67.3 67.5 63.6 805 No
24-hour
CNEL 74.2 77.5 75.0 74.8 70.6 805 No
Site 4 Commercial
The
Americana
on Brand
750
Americana
Way
Daytime1 65.9 72.6 71.5 70.2 69.6 805 No
Evening2 71.0 73.7 73.8 71.9 N/A 805 No
Nighttime3 64.5 66.3 66.2 70.4 64.2 805 No
24-hour
CNEL 72.4 75.3 75.1 77.2 71.6 805 No
Note:
1 Daytime = 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM
2 Evening = 7:00 PM – 10:00 PM
3 Nighttime = 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM
4 Presumed noise standard of 60 dBA for residential uses plus 5 dBA 5 Presumed noise standard of 65 dBA for commercial uses plus 15 dBA for sound amplified equipment.

N/A = No data available.

Refer to Appendix A.2 for long-term noise monitoring sheets. 106 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 19 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
Roadway Noise Levels
Table 9: Existing Roadway Noise Levels provides the calculated CNEL for the analyzed local roadway segments based on traffic volum es within the DSP and study area. CNEL levels attributed to roadway traffic in year 2021 range from 66.7 dBA CNEL along Brand Boulevard from Broadway to Wilson Avenue to 67.6 dBA CNEL along Brand Boulevard north of Lexington Drive. In terms of the City’s land use noise compatibility categories based on roadway traffic only, these segments are classified as normally acceptable for commercial uses and conditionally acceptable for residential multifamily at a distance of 75 feet from the receptor.

TABLE 9

EXISTING ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS
Street From To Year
Average Daily
Trips
Roadway Noise
(CNEL)
Brand Boulevard Colorado Street Harvard Street 2016 23,594 67.0 2021 24,798 67.3
Brand Boulevard Broadway Wilson Avenue 2016 20,917 66.5 2021 21,984 66.7
Brand Boulevard n/o Lexington Drive N/A 2016 25720 67.4 2021 27032 67.6
Note: Refer to Appendix B for roadway noise monitoring sheets.

N/A = Not Available.
n/o = north of.

Sensitive Uses
The Alex Theatre District and A&E District encourage a combination of entertainment, restaurant, and retail/service uses. Additionally, a significant portion of the DSP development includes multifamily residential housing units adjacent to entertainment where amplified sound late into the night may cause a conflict. An overview of the surrounding land uses in relation to the noise monitoring sites is provided in Figure 13: Sensitive Receptor Map and are described below:
• Site 1: Located at the L Lofts residential building (215 N. Maryland Avenue), commercial uses within this Site that may operate amplified sound equipment include Mr. Furley’s Bar (224 N. Brand Boulevard), Eden on Brand (214 N. Brand Boulevard), Tavern on Brand (208 N. Brand Boulevard). • Site 2: Located at The Brand residential building, patio/balcony areas face towards the commercial uses along Brand Boulevard and Wilson Avenue.
• Site 3: Located on the corner of W. California Avenue and Brand Boulevard, commercial u ses that may operate amplified sound equipment include the Carousel Restaurant (319 N. Maryland Avenue).

Multifamily uses are located to the east along N. Maryland Avenue with the nearest including the Maryland Capri building located at 319 N. Maryland Avenue. • Site 4: Located at the corner of Americana Way and S. Brand Boulevard, sensitive uses include the Americana residential uses on the western portion of Brand Boulevard. Uses that may operate amplified sound equipment include the commercial uses within the Americana and the banquet facility such as the L.A. Banquets Hall (109 E. Harvard Street). 107 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 20 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
• Site A: Located just north of W. California Avenue, commercial uses include Carousel Restaurant and other various restaurant uses along Brand Boulevard. Multifa mily uses such as the Maryland Capri building are located to the east at 319 N. Maryland Avenue. • Site B: Located on the western portion of Brand Boulevard, commercial uses that may operate amplified sound equipment include the Giggles Night Club. The nearest sensitive uses include the L Lofts residential building located at 215 N. Maryland Avenue. • Site C: Located at the eastern of the Brand Boulevard, commercial uses that may operate amplified sound equipment include Mr. Furley’s Bar, Eden on Brand and Tavern on Brand. The nearest sensitive uses include the L Lofts residential building located at 215 N. Maryland Avenue. • Site D: Located at the corner of Brand Boulevard and Wilson Avenue, uses that may operate amplified sound equipment include Giggles Night Club located at 215 N. Brand Boulevard. Multifamily residential uses are located to the southwest at The Brand residential building. • Site E: Located within the A&E District, uses include ground floor retail along Artsakh Avenue. The nearest sensitive uses include the Craftstay Glendale Home Suites to the east located at 111 N. Louise Street and the Elevé Lofts and Skydeck Apartments to the south located at 200 E. Broadway. • Site F: Located at the corner of Americana Way and S. Brand Boulevard, sensitive uses include the Americana residential uses on the western portion of Brand Boulevard. Uses that may operat e amplified sound equipment include the commercial uses within the Americana and the L.A. Banquet Hall along E. Harvard Street.

108 of 331
Short-term Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations (Site A)
FIGURE 3
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021
North South West East
NProject Site
109 of 331
Short-term Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations (Site B)
FIGURE 4
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021
North South West East
NProject Site
110 of 331
Short-term Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations (Site C)
FIGURE 5
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021
North South West East
NProject Site
111 of 331
Short-term Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations (Site D)
FIGURE 6
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021
North South West East
NProject Site
112 of 331
Short-term Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations (Site E)
FIGURE 7
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021
North South West East
NProject Site
113 of 331
Short-term Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations (Site F)
FIGURE 8
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021
North South West East
NProject Site
114 of 331
Long-term Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations (Site 1)
FIGURE 9
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021
West
NProject Site
115 of 331
Long-term Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations (Site 2)
FIGURE 10
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021
North South West East
NProject Site
116 of 331
Long-term Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations (Site 3)
FIGURE 11
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021
North South West East
NProject Site
117 of 331
Long-term Ambient Noise Monitoring Locations (Site 4)
FIGURE 12
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021
North South West East
NProject Site
118 of 331
Sensitive Receptor Map 1
FIGURE 13a
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
150750 300
Legend
N
Project Site
119 of 331
Sensitive Receptor Map 2
FIGURE 13b
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
150750 300
Legend
N
Project Site
120 of 331
Sensitive Receptor Map 3
FIGURE 13c
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
150750 300
Legend
N
Project Site
121 of 331
Sensitive Receptor Map 4
FIGURE 13d
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
150750 300
Legend
N
Project Site
122 of 331
Sensitive Receptor Map 5
FIGURE 13e
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
150750 300
Legend
N
Project Site
123 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 32 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021

THRESHOLDS OF S IGNIFICANCE
The City currently regulates the permissible noise levels for daytime and nighttime activities and requires the use of amplified sound equipment to occur between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, whereas many businesses operate u ntil later in the evening. Additionally, no sound emanating from sound -amplifying equipment shall exceed 15 dBA above the actual or presumed ambient, as measured at any property line.

As shown in Table 7, existing short-term noise levels (10-minute) at commercial uses that operate sound- amplifying equipment were in excess of 15 dBA above the presumed standard for commercial uses of 65 dBA at Monitoring Site C . Noise levels were exceeded by a maximum of 0.9 dBA, resulting in exterior noise levels of 80.9 dBA (Leq 10-minute). All other short-term monitoring sites were within the presumed noise standard.

This study assesses future noise levels caused by extending the allowed hours of operation of amplified sound equipment between the hours of 7:00 AM to 2:00 AM the following day in order to better accommodate entertainment uses that were encouraged by the DSP , while remaining consistent with the General Plan Noise Element. The analysis below provides an assessment of future noise levels compared to the City’s GM C presumed noise standards (refer to Table 6 ), the City’s General Plan Noise Element exterior standards (refer to Table 5 ) and cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the average -daily noise level (CNEL) compared against the City’s Nois e Compatibility Guidelines (refer to Figure 2). As mentioned previously, presumed noise standards for multi -family residential uses is 60 dBA during both daytime and nighttime periods. Additionally, presumed noise standards for commercial uses is 65 dBA during both the daytime and nighttime periods. Noise in excess of the presumed ambient (or actual ambient if it is less) plus 5 dBA is a violation. Additionally, as stated in the City’s General Plan, noise exposure for multifamily uses is “normally acceptabl e” when the CNEL at exterior residential locations is equal to or below 65 dBA, “conditionally acceptable” when the CNEL is between 60 to 70 dBA, and “normally unacceptable” when the CNEL exceeds 70 dBA.

When amplified sound equipment activities extend int o the nighttime hours, SEL (Leq 1-second) is the appropriate measure of the potential for impacts. What makes community noise continuously variable throughout a day, besides slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise sources, such as amplified sound equipment, which are readily identifiable to the individual receptor. As such, the NIOSH recommended exposure limits of 100 dBA SEL threshold for a continuous duration of 15 minutes or less (refer to Table 4 ) is used f or noise modeling purposes which is a time - integrated measure of a single noise event at a reference duration of one second.

ANALYSIS
For the purpose of presenting results of potential future noise impacts, the sensitive uses nearest to the noise monitoring sites described above have been organized into groups by geographic proximity along Brand Boulevard to represent where monitoring was conducted near commercial uses that may operate amplified sound equipment. Although the receptor groups listed may not include all sensitive uses within the proximity of these commercial uses, the identified groups represent the greatest potential for noise impacts nearest to businesses that currently and in the future operate amplified sound equipment. 124 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 33 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
Between Lexington D rive and California Avenue
• Site A & 3: Multifamily uses include the Maryland Capri building located to the east at 319 N. Maryland Avenue.
• Commercial uses that operate amplified sound equipment include the Carousel Restaurant located at 304 N. Brand Boulev ard. However, amplified sound equipment is typically operated inside the building with doors closed and are only opened for entry/exit of guests.

Between California Avenue and Wilson Avenue
• Site 1: Multifamily residential uses include L Lofts building located at 215 N. Maryland Avenue. • Site 2: Multifamily residential uses include The Brand + residential building located at 120 W. Wilson Avenue.
• Commercial uses that operate amplified sound equipment include Mr. Furley’s Bar (224 N. Brand Boulevard), Eden on Brand (214 N. Brand Boulevard), Tavern on Brand (208 N. Brand Boulevard).

Amplified sound equipment at Mr. Furley’s Bar is typically operated indoors with the doors open facing towards Brand Boulevard; amplified sound equipment at Eden on Brand is operated on the rooftop mezzanine located on the 2
nd floor of the building; amplified sound equipment at Tavern on Brand is operated on the ground floor onto Brand Boulevard. • Additionally, the Giggles Night club (215 N. Brand Boulevard) operates ampli fied sound equipment indoors. Doors are typically closed and only remain open for entry/exit of guests.

Between Wilson Avenue and Broadway
• Site E: Multifamily residential uses include the Craftstay Glendale Home Suites located at 111 N.

Louise Street and the Elevé Lofts and Skydeck Apartments located at 200 E. Broadway. • Commercial uses are located along the pedestrian paseo along Artsakh Street. Future plans include a one -way street with an extended sidewalk and ample pedestrian space , providing future opportunity for street performances operating amplified sound equipment.

Between Broadway and Harvard Street
• Site 4 & F: Multifamily residential uses include The Americana at Brand located at 889 Americana Way.
• Commercial uses that operate amplified sound equipment include the L.A. Banquet Hall located at 109 E. Harvard Street and The Famous bar located at 154 S. Brand Boulevard. However, amplified sound equipment is typically operated indoors on the 2
nd floor within the L.A. Banquet Hall building
and within The Famous building.

Results
Based on field observations, amplified sound equipment operated intermittently between 9:00 PM – 1:00 AM during the weekend period. However , to simulate a future daily worst -case scenario, the results below assume ampl ified sound equipment are operated at 100 percent intensity between the hours of 7:00 AM – 2:00 AM at 100 dBA within one feet from the source throughout the duration of each hour.

125 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 34 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
Consistency with GMC Section 8.36.040
As mentioned previously, Section 8. 36.040 of the GMC provides presumed noise standards for various designated zones (refer to Table 6). Noise in excess of the presumed ambient (or actual ambient if it is less) plus 5 dBA is a violation. The presumed noise standard for multifamily residential uses is 60 dBA for both the daytime and nighttime period. As such, noise levels resulting in an excess of 65 dBA would result in a violation of the GMC. Table 10: GMC Modeled Exterior Noise Levels provides daytime and nighttime modeled exterior noise levels at sensitive multifamily residential uses from the operation of sound amplifying equipment at adjacent commercial u ses. As shown in Table 10, daytime noise levels would range from a low of 43.3 dBA Leq at the Elevé Lofts and Skydeck Apartments to a high of 61.7 dBA Leq at the multifamily residential uses at The Americana at Brand. Additionally, nighttime noise levels would range from a low of 39.8 dBA Leq at the Elevé Lofts and Skydeck Apartments to a high of 58.2 dBA Leq at the multifamily residential uses at The Americana at Brand. Exterior noise levels would not result in an excess of 5 dBA above the presumed noise standard of 60 dBA for multifamily residential uses.

TABLE 10

GMC MODELED EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
Building Period1 Modeled Exterior Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Presumed Noise
Standard plus 5 dBA2
Exceeds
Threshold?
Between Lexington Drive & California Avenue
Maryland Capri
Daytime 47.6 65.0 No
Nighttime 44.0 65.0 No
Between California Avenue & Wilson Avenue
L Lofts
Daytime 60.3 65.0 No
Nighttime 56.7 65.0 No
The Brand+
Daytime 58.2 65.0 No
Nighttime 54.7 65.0 No
Between Wilson Avenue & Broadway
Craftstay Glendale
Home Suites
Daytime 47.1 65.0 No
Nighttime 43.6 65.0 No
Between Broadway & Harvard Street
Elevé Lofts and Skydeck
Apartments
Daytime 43.3 65.0 No
Nighttime 39.8 65.0 No
The Americana at Brand Daytime 61.7 65.0 No
Nighttime 58.2 65.0 No
Note:
1 Daytime = 7:00 AM – 10:00 PM; Nighttime = 10:00 PM – 7:00 AM. 2 Presumed noise standard of 60 dBA for multifamily residential uses plus 5 dBA.

Source: Refer to Appendix C for SoundPLAN Output Sheets.

126 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 35 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
Consistency with General Plan Noise Element
As shown in Table 5 above, the City’s General Plan Noise Element established 24-hour CNEL exterior noise standards which includes a 65 dBA CNEL threshold for single and multi -family residential uses. It is important to note, there are no exterior noise standards for residential uses within mixed use. However, for a conservative analysis, the 65 dBA CNEL threshold was also applied for residential uses within mixed use. These uses include the L Lofts building, The Brand+ building, Elevé Lofts and Skydeck Apartments, and The American at Brand. Additionally, the City’s General Plan Land Use Compatibility to Noise (refer to Figure 2) identifies the acceptable limit noise exposure for various land- use categories within the City. Noise exposure for multifamily uses is “normally acceptable” when the CNEL at exterior residential locations is equal to or b elow 65 dBA, “conditionally acceptable” when the CNEL is between 60 to 70 dBA, and “normally unacceptable” when the CNEL exceeds 70 dBA. Table 11: General Plan Modeled Exterior Noise Levels provides 24-hour (CNEL) exterior noise levels at sensitive multifa mily residential uses from the operation of sound amplifying equipment at adjacent commercial uses. As shown in Table 11, amplified sound equipment attributed modeled exterior noise levels ranged from a low of 47 dBA CNEL at the Elevé Lofts and Skydeck Apartments to a high of 6 4 dBA CNEL at the multifamily residential uses located at The Americana at Brand. Exterior noise levels would be below the 65 dBA CNEL threshold identified in the City’s General Plan Noise Element for single and multi -family residential uses. 24-hour CNEL noise levels would fall within the normally acceptable compatibility land use category.

Single Event Noise Level (SEL)
As mentioned previously, when amplified sound equipment activities extend into the nighttime hours, SEL (Leq 1 -second) is the appropriate measure of the potential for impacts. As such, the NIOSH recommended exposure limits of 100 dBA SEL threshold for a continuous duration of 15 minutes or less is used for noise modeling purposes. As shown in Table 1 1, SEL (Leq-1second) noise levels ranged from a low of 79 dBA (Leq-1second) at the Elevé Lofts and Skydeck Apartment to a high of 97 dBA (Leq-1second) at The Americana on Brand. SEL (Leq-1second) noise levels would not exceed the NIOSH recommended exposure limits of 100 dBA SEL threshold for a continuous duration of 15 minutes or less.

127 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 36 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
TABLE 11

GENERAL PLAN MODELED EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
Building
Modeled Exterior
Noise Level (24-Hour
CNEL)
Exterior Noise
Standard (CNEL)
Exceeds Noise
Standard?
General Plan Noise
Exposure Compatibility
Category
Modeled Single
Event Level
(Leq 1-second
SEL)
Exceeds 100 dBA
SEL Threshold?
Between Lexington Drive & California Avenue
Maryland Capri 52 65 No Normally Acceptable 83 No
Between California Avenue & Wilson Avenue
L Lofts 64 651 No Normally Acceptable 96 No
The Brand+ 62 651 No Normally Acceptable 94 No
Between Wilson Avenue & Broadway
Craftstay Glendale
Home Suites 51 65 No Normally Acceptable 83 No
Between Broadway & Harvard Street
Elevé Lofts and
Skydeck Apartments 47 651 No Normally Acceptable 79 No
The Americana at
Brand 64 651 No Normally Acceptable 97 No
Note:
1 No current exterior noise standard for residential within mixed use. For conservative analysis, 65 dBA CNEL is used.

Source: Refer to Appendix C for SoundPLAN Output Sheets. 128 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 37 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
Summary
The Maryland Capri multifamily residential building is located to the east of Brand Boulevard and does not have a direct line of sight to commercial uses that operate amplified sound equipment, which includes the Carousel Restaurant. Additionally, amplified sound equipment is typically operated inside the building and noise levels are typically shielded by the building itself. However, to simulate a worst - case scenario analysis, a point source was modeled at the outdoor patio area of the commercial use along Brand Boulevard as increased noise levels from the restaurant are experienced along this segment. As shown in Table 10, daytime and nighttime exterior noise levels would not result in an excess of 5 dBA above the presumed noise standard of 60 dBA for multifamily residential uses. Exterior noise levels would be consistent with the City’s GMC. Additionally, as shown in Table 11, 24-hour CNEL noise levels at the Maryland Capri multifamily residential building would 52 dBA CNEL and fall within the normally acceptable compatibility land use category. Exterior noise levels would be below the 65 dBA CNEL threshold identified in the City’s General Plan Noise Element for single and multi-family residential uses.

SEL (Leq-1second) noise levels at the Maryland Capri multifamily residential building would be 83 dBA (Leq-1second) and would not exceed the NIOSH recommended exposure limits of 100 dBA SEL threshold for a continuous duration of 15 minutes or less.

The L Lofts multifamily residential building is located to the east of Brand Boulevard and some residential units have a direct line of the sight to the rooftop mezzanine of the Eden on Brand restaurant. The analysis takes into consideration the cumulative noise generated from amplified sound equipment at the ground floor along the public right of way at Mr. Furley’s Bar, the rooftop mezzanine at Eden on Brand restaurant, and the ground floor performances on the sidewalk at Tavern on Brand. As shown in Table 10, daytime and nighttime exterior n oise levels would not result in an excess of 5 dBA above the presumed noise standard of 60 dBA for multifamily residential uses. Exterior noise levels would be consistent with the City’s GMC. Additionally, as shown in Table 11, 24-hour CNEL noise levels at the L Lofts multifamily residential building would 64 dBA CNEL and fall within the normally acceptable compatibility land use category. Exterior noise levels would be below the 65 dBA CNEL threshold identified in the City’s General Plan Noise Element for single and multi-family residential uses. SEL (Leq- 1second) noise levels at L Lofts multifamily residential building would be 96 dBA (Leq-1second) and would not exceed the NIOSH recommended exposure limits of 100 dBA SEL threshold for a continuous duratio n of 15 minutes or less.

The Brand+ multifamily residential building is located on the southwest corner of the Wilson Avenue and Brand Boulevard intersection with some residential units having a direct line of the sight of Mr. Furley’s Bar , Eden on Brand and Tavern on Brand. The analysis takes into consideration the cumulative noise generated from amplified sound equipment at the ground floor along the public right of way at Mr.

Furley’s Bar , the rooftop mezzanine at Eden on Brand restaurant, and the ground floor performances on the sidewalk at Tavern on Brand. As shown in Table 10, daytime and nighttime exterior noise levels would not result in an excess of 5 dBA above the presumed noise standard of 60 dBA for multifamily residential uses. Exterior noise levels would be consistent with the City’s GMC. Additionally, as shown in Table 11, 24-hour CNEL noise levels at The Brand+ multifamily residential building would be 62 dBA CNEL and fall within the normally acceptable compatibility land use category. Exterior noise levels would be below the 65 dBA CNEL threshold identified in the City’s General Plan Noise Element for single and multi -family 129 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 38 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
residential uses. SEL (Leq-1second) noise levels at The Brand+ multifamily residential building would be 94 dBA (Leq -1second) and would not exceed the NIOSH recommended exposure limits of 100 dBA SEL threshold for a continuous duration of 15 minutes or less.

The Craftstay Glendale Home Suites is located on the east of both Brand Boulevard and Art sakh Street located along N. Louise Street. As mentioned previously, future plans on Art sakh Street include a one - way street with an extended sidewalk providing future opportunity for street performances operating amplified sound equipment. The top residen tial units may have a direct line of sight of future street performance activities along Artsakh Street. As such the analysis takes into consideration amplified sound equipment operating within the pedestrian paseo of Artsakh Street. As shown in Table 10, daytime and nighttime exterior noise levels would not result in an excess of 5 dBA above the presumed noise standard of 60 dBA for multifamily residential uses. Exterior noise levels would be consistent with the City’s GMC.

Additionally, as shown in Table 11, 24-hour CNEL noise levels at the Craftstay Glendale Home Suites would be 51 dBA CNEL and fall within normally acceptable compatibility land use category. Exterior noise levels would be below the 65 dBA CNEL threshold identified in the City’s General Plan Noise Element for single and multi -family residential uses. SEL (Leq-1second) noise levels at the Craftstay Home Suites would be 83 dBA (Leq -1second) and would not exceed the NIOSH recommended exposure limits of 100 dBA SEL threshold for a continuous duration of 15 minutes or less.

Elevé Lofts and Skydeck Apartments are located along E. Broadway and Maryland Avenue with some residential units with a direct line of sight of Artsakh Street. As mentioned previously, future plans on Artsakh Street include a one-way street with an extended sidewalk providing future opportunity for street performances operating amplified sound equipment. The analysis takes into consideration amplified sound equipment operating within the pedestrian paseo of Artsakh Street. As shown in Table 10, daytime and nighttime exterior noise levels would not result in an excess of 5 dBA above the presumed noise standard of 60 dBA for multifamily residential uses. Exterior noise levels would be consistent with the City’s GMC. Additionally, as shown in Table 11, 24-hour CNEL noise levels at Elev é Lofts and Skydeck Apartments would be 47 dBA CNEL and fall within the normally acceptable compatibility land use category. Exterior noise levels would be below the 65 dBA CNEL threshold identified in the City’s General Plan Noise Element for single and multi -family residential uses. SEL (Leq-1second) noise levels at the Elevé Lofts and Skydeck Apartments would be 79 dBA (Leq -1second) and would not exceed the NIOSH recommended exposure limits of 100 dBA SEL threshold for a continuous duration of 15 minutes or less.

The Americana at Brand includes residential units above the ground floor commercial units along Brand Boulevard and Americana Way/Harvard Street. Some of these residential units have a direct line of sight of commercial uses along Brand Boulevard that may operate amplified soun d equipment including The Famous Bar and the L.A. Banquets Hall. It’s important to note, these commercial uses operate amplified sound equipment indoors and are shielded by the building itself . However, to simulate a worst -case scenario, a point source was modeled at the exterior of these commercial uses along Harvard Street and Brand Boulevard. As shown in Table 10, daytime and nighttime exterior noise levels would not result in an excess of 5 dBA above the presumed noise standard of 60 dBA for multifamily residential uses. Exterior noise levels would be consistent with the City’s GMC. Additionally, as shown in Table 11, 24-hour CNEL noise levels at The Americana on Brand would be 6 4 dBA CNEL and fall within the normally acceptable 130 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 39 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
compatibility land use ca tegory. Exterior noise levels would be below the 65 dBA CNEL threshold identified in the City’s General Plan Noise Element for single and multi-family residential uses. SEL (Leq- 1second) noise levels for the multifamily residential units at The Americana a t Brand Apartments would be 97 dBA (Leq-1second) and would not exceed the NIOSH recommended exposure limits of 100 dBA SEL threshold for a continuous duration of 15 minutes or less.

For information and illustrative purposes, CNEL noise levels are shown gra phically in Figure 14:

Operational Noise Level Contour Map (CNEL). Additionally, for information and illustrative purposes, SEL noise levels are shown graphically in Figure 15: Operational Noise Level Contour Map (SEL).

131 of 331
FIGURE 14
Operational Noise Level Contour Map (CNEL)
30-35
35-40
20-25
50-55
70-75
25-30
Columbus Ave
Brand
Wilson Ave
Broadway
60-65
Harvard St
California Ave
Central Ave
Glendale Ave
Isabel St
Kenwood St
Maryland Ave
Site 1
Site 3
Site 4
Site 2
Site F
Site C
Site A
Site D
Site B
Site E
70-75
Maryland Capri
Carousel Restaurant
Mr. Furley’s Bar
Eden on Brand
Tavern on Brand
Lofts
Craftstay Glendale
Home Suites
L.A. Banquet Hall
Eleve Lofts
and Skydeck
Apartments
The Americana
Apartments N
The Americana
Apartments S
The Brand
Giggles Night Club

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN METERS
100 50 0 200
N
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021
132 of 331
FIGURE 15
Operational Noise Level Contour Map (SEL)
Columbus Ave
Brand
Wilson Ave
Broadway
Harvard St
California Ave
Central Ave
Glendale Ave
Isabel St
Kenwood St
Maryland Ave
Site 1
Site 3
Site 4
Site 2
Site F
Site C
Site A
Site D
Site B
Site E
Maryland Capri
Carousel Restaurant
Mr. Furley’s Bar
Eden on Brand
Tavern on Brand
Lofts
Craftstay Glendale
Home Suites
L.A. Banquet Hall
Eleve Lofts
and Skydeck
Apartments
The Americana
Apartments N
The Americana
Apartments S
The Brand
Giggles Night Club

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN METERS
100 50 0 200
N
70-75
60-65
55-60
75-80
80-85
70-75
60-6555-60
75-80
50-55
65-70
057-003-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021
133 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 42 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021

EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION FOR AMPLIFIED SOUND
Current regulations of Section 8.36.280 of the GMC allow the operation of sound -amplifying equipment to occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM each day except on Sundays and legal holidays. No operation of sound-amplifying equipment for commercial purposes shall be permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. Additionally, the operation of sound -amplifying equipment for nonc ommercial purposes on Sundays and legal holidays shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM.

To simulate a future worst -case scenario, the analysis above assumed sound amplifying equipment are operated at 100 percent intensity between the proposed hours of 7:00 AM – 2:00 AM of the following day.

As shown in Table 10 and 11 above, the extended hours of operation of 7:00 AM – 2:00 AM would not result in significant impacts and would be consistent with the City’s GMC and General Plan. As such the following permitted hours are proposed:

The operation of sound -amplifying equipmen t within the Alex Theatre District and the Art & Entertainment District shall be permitted from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM on Sunday through Thursday and from 7:00 AM to 2:00 AM on Friday and Saturday of the following day.

REMEDIAL MITIGATION MEASURES
As shown in Table 7 above, short -term (10-minute) ambient noise levels in current violation of Section

8.36.280 of the GMC which results in an excess of 15 dBA above the presumed noise standard for commercial uses of 65 dBA were exceeded by 0.9 dBA at Monitoring Site C along Brand Boulevard.

Commercial uses within this monitoring area include Mr. Furley’s Bar , Eden on Brand and Tavern on Brand.

Dominant noise sources along these monitoring sites included vehicle traffic along Brand Boulevard and operation of amplified sound equipment between California Avenue and Wilson Avenue. The following remedial mitigation measures are proposed for the commercial uses between California Avenue and Wilson Avenue:
• Speaker systems shall be capable of aiming the sound toward the seating areas, or other intended areas within the establishment, to minimize sound spillage onto Brand Boulevard and adjacent properties.
• The owner/operator shall use speakers that minimizes the use of subwoofers and is adjusted such that low-frequency sound is inaudible at adjacent properties.

Additionally, as shown in Table 8 above, long -term (24-hour) ambient noise levels at nearby uses that operate sound amplifying equipment within the DSP was not in violation of Section 8.36.040 of the GMC which results in an excess of 5 dBA above the presumed noise standard for residential uses. Furthermore, long-term (24-hour) ambient noise levels were not in violation of Section 8.36.280 which results in an excess of 15 dBA above the presumed standard of 65 dBA for commercial uses at any of the monitoring sites. Therefore, no remedial mitigation measures are required for long-term ambient noise. 134 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 43 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021

APPROPRIATE THRESHOLDS OF VIOLATION
The following thresholds of violations are recommended to be incorporated within the GMC.

Any noise that is measured in excess of the parameters set forth in table below is declared to be a nuisance. No sound is permitted within the city that exceeds the parameters set forth in the table below.

SOUND LEVEL LIMITATIONS
Duration Per Day Continuous Hours Noise Level dBA
8 85
6 86
4 88
3 89
2 91
1 ½ 92
1 94
½ 97
¼ or less 100

IMPROVEMENTS/MODIFICATIONS TO THE GMC
The following modifications are recommended for Section 8.36.280 of the GMC.

Commercial and noncommercial use of sound-amplifying equipment shall be subject to the following regulations:
a) The only sound permitted shall be either music or human speech or both. b) The operation of sound-amplifying equipment shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM each da y except on Sundays and legal holidays. No operation of sound -amplifying equipment for commercial purposes shall be permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. The operation of sound -amplifying equipment within the Alex Theatre District and the Art & Entertainment District shall only occur between 7:00 AM through 10:00 PM on Monday through Thursday and 7:00 AM through 2:00 AM between Friday through Saturday of the following day provided all of the following are met:
a. Amplified sound equipment limited to 100 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 15 minutes within the hour
b. Amplified sound equipment limited to 97 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 30 minutes within the hour.
c. Amplified sound equipment limited to 94 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 1 hour.
135 of 331
Alex Theatre and Art & Entertainment Districts 44 City of Glendale Noise Study October 2021
d. Amplified sound equipment limited to 92 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 1 and ½ hours.
e. Amplified sound equipment lim ited to 91 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 2 hours.
f. Amplified sound equipment limited to 89 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 3 hours.
g. Amplified sound equipment limited to 88 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 4 hours.
h. Amplified sound equipment limited to 86 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 6 hours.
i. Amplified sound equipment limited to 85 dBA within one foot from the source of noise for continuous duration of 8 hours.
c) No sound emanating from sound -amplifying equipment shall exceed 15 dBA above the actual or presumed ambient, as measured at any property line.
d) Notwithstanding subsection D of this section, sound-amplifying equipment shall not be operated within 200 feet of churches, and schools, hospitals, libraries or city or county buildings. e) In any event, the volume of sound shall be so controlled that it will not be unreasonably loud, raucous, jamming, disturbing or a nuisance to reasonable persons of normal sensitiveness within the area of audibility, or interfere with comfort, peace, quiet, repose or endanger the health of inhabitants of the area.

136 of 331

APPENDIX A
Noise Measurements
137 of 331
APPENDIX A.1
Short-term (10-minute) Noise Measurements
138 of 331
Monitoring Location: Site A
Monitoring Date: 7/30/2021
Round 1 Round 2
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
20:00:01 68.0 73.8 63.5 22:07:11 78.3 83.2 63.6
20:01:01 69.0 71.8 65.7 22:08:11 67.5 75.4 59.1
20:02:01 71.6 78.5 66.1 22:09:11 77.8 90.3 63.2
20:03:01 72.8 82.7 65.3 22:10:11 70.7 77.6 61.2
20:04:01 71.1 74.2 66.9 22:11:11 67.7 74.1 61.4
20:05:01 69.6 77.7 63.1 22:12:11 77.8 89.9 59.7
20:06:01 70.5 74.5 66.8 22:13:11 71.0 81.3 60.7
20:07:01 69.6 75.6 63.8 22:14:11 67.4 78.7 59.2
20:08:01 72.6 78.1 62.8 22:15:11 70.1 75.8 60.9
20:09:01 68.8 73.6 62.3 22:16:11 68.9 75.8 60.2
20:10:01 70.3 72.0 70.9 22:17:11 66.1 67.9 63.2

82.7 62.3 90.3 59.1
10-minute LAeq 70.6 10-minute LAeq 73.6
139 of 331
Monitoring Location: Site B
Monitoring Date: 7/30/2021
Round 1 Round 2
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
20:13:14 68.1 75.9 61.4 22:20:32 77.7 84.2 71.2
20:14:14 64.3 68.3 57.9 22:21:32 75.9 80.0 71.2
20:15:14 66.6 80.5 60.3 22:22:32 76.1 80.5 69.8
20:16:14 67.7 71.3 60.0 22:23:32 78.2 80.8 73.5
20:17:14 67.2 78.3 59.3 22:24:32 78.3 82.8 74.2
20:18:14 71.6 82.9 63.5 22:25:32 78.3 84.1 75.0
20:19:14 69.6 81.0 61.5 22:26:32 78.4 83.1 73.0
20:20:14 64.4 68.8 59.7 22:27:32 76.8 82.9 71.3
20:21:14 67.3 72.8 62.0 22:28:32 76.3 83.3 69.5
20:22:14 68.9 77.7 61.5 22:29:32 75.7 79.0 72.8
20:23:14 62.0 62.3 61.8 22:30:32 77.2 77.1 76.4

82.9 57.9 84.2 69.5
10-minute LAeq 67.8 10-minute LAeq 77.3
140 of 331
Monitoring Location: Site C
Monitoring Date: 7/30/2021
Round 1 Round 2
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
21:06:22 76.2 78.2 73.2 22:31:33 80.0 83.8 76.3
21:07:22 76.4 80.9 73.8 22:32:33 80.9 85.0 77.3
21:08:22 77.0 81.9 73.7 22:33:33 77.9 81.5 72.0
21:09:22 76.3 78.7 72.5 22:34:33 79.0 81.8 73.6
21:10:22 77.2 79.9 73.8 22:35:33 79.8 82.5 76.8
21:11:22 76.2 78.9 74.5 22:36:33 83.1 86.3 78.8
21:12:22 75.9 77.8 73.1 22:37:33 83.9 87.6 78.6
21:13:22 76.9 80.4 74.0 22:38:33 83.4 87.6 75.1
21:14:22 76.9 80.9 73.5 22:39:33 77.9 80.6 75.3
21:15:22 79.5 83.8 74.4 22:40:33 78.0 80.3 73.0
21:16:22 88.6 94.9 78.6 22:41:33 79.1 79.1 77.9

94.9 72.5 87.6 72.0
10-minute LAeq 80.4 10-minute LAeq 80.9
141 of 331
Monitoring Location: Site D
Monitoring Date: 7/30/2021
Round 1 Round 2
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
21:18:15 70.0 74.2 64.8 22:42:54 70.2 75.6 64.1
21:19:15 70.9 81.6 66.0 22:43:54 69.7 75.8 63.9
21:20:15 73.3 82.9 65.5 22:44:54 68.7 74.0 64.5
21:21:15 70.0 77.0 64.2 22:45:54 70.5 77.5 64.3
21:22:15 71.0 78.7 65.3 22:46:54 73.4 82.2 63.7
21:23:15 75.0 84.3 62.9 22:47:54 69.0 77.1 62.1
21:24:15 70.8 77.0 65.8 22:48:54 68.3 80.1 61.5
21:25:15 71.9 82.1 62.9 22:49:54 67.5 72.7 62.8
21:26:15 70.5 78.1 64.4 22:50:54 70.2 80.7 63.4
21:27:15 70.5 76.3 64.4 22:51:54 71.0 77.7 63.9
21:28:15 66.9 68.0 66.7 22:52:54 76.3 75.6 70.3

84.3 62.9 82.2 61.5
10-minute LAeq 71.4 10-minute LAeq 71.2
142 of 331
Monitoring Location: Site E
Monitoring Date: 7/30/2021
Round 1 Round 2
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
21:31:12 60.1 68.3 54.5 22:56:10 65.5 73.9 57.7
21:32:12 63.0 70.5 58.5 22:57:10 62.8 69.1 56.9
21:33:12 70.3 78.1 58.3 22:58:10 58.7 65.9 54.1
21:34:12 61.2 65.6 57.2 22:59:10 55.5 60.6 51.1
21:35:12 63.2 68.7 58.4 23:00:10 58.4 64.3 52.2
21:36:12 60.8 63.7 57.5 23:01:10 58.2 63.9 53.9
21:37:12 61.2 66.8 56.5 23:02:10 56.6 60.4 52.0
21:38:12 61.0 65.6 57.8 23:03:10 56.1 64.6 51.4
21:39:12 62.9 69.8 58.9 23:04:10 57.2 60.5 53.5
21:40:12 63.5 72.6 57.6 23:05:10 73.7 83.9 53.5
21:41:12 55.2 57.5 56.5 23:06:10 58.4 59.4 57.3

78.1 54.5 83.9 51.1
10-minute LAeq 63.6 10-minute LAeq 64.8
143 of 331
Monitoring Location: Site F
Monitoring Date: 7/30/2021
Round 1 Round 2
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
21:47:13 64.9 69.7 62.1 23:13:09 69.7 79.2 57.9
21:48:13 70.8 76.7 63.5 23:14:09 69.5 76.0 62.9
21:49:13 67.4 77.6 61.6 23:15:09 67.6 74.0 60.4
21:50:13 70.4 75.6 62.0 23:16:09 65.4 76.3 60.4
21:51:13 70.2 79.4 64.3 23:17:09 68.4 74.1 60.0
21:52:13 67.0 72.7 61.4 23:18:09 69.5 79.9 59.4
21:53:13 70.7 77.0 65.0 23:19:09 70.8 81.6 58.5
21:54:13 72.7 82.3 63.7 23:20:09 70.1 76.3 60.7
21:55:13 69.7 79.6 62.7 23:21:09 66.7 72.6 60.6
21:56:13 70.2 76.1 64.3 23:22:09 65.5 70.5 61.2
21:57:13 68.2 68.9 68.0 23:23:09 69.1 68.9 68.3

82.3 61.4 81.6 57.9
10-minute LAeq 69.7 10-minute LAeq 68.7
144 of 331
APPENDIX A.2
Long-term (24-hour) Noise Measurements
145 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 1 10 3
am 1:00 100 1 10 3 0 dBA
2:00 200 1 10 3
3:00 300 1 10 3
4:00 400 1 10 3 0 dBA
5:00 500 1 10 3
6:00 600 1 10 3
7:00 700 1 10 3 57.7 dBA
8:00 800 1 10 3
9:00 900 1 10 3
10:00 1000 1 10 3 53.7 dBA 0.0 dBA 60.7 dBA
11:00 1100 1 10 3
12:00 1200 1 10 3
pm 1:00 1300 1 10 3 56 dBA
2:00 1400 1 10 3
3:00 1500 1 10 3
4:00 1600 1 10 3 64 dBA
5:00 1700 1 10 3
6:00 1800 1 10 3
7:00 1900 1 10 3 64.3 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 59.5 897850 8978504 2839252
9:00 2100 64.2 2636659 26366592 8337849
10:00 2200 63.2 2086993 20869930 6599651 Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 65.1 3218600 32185999 10178107 CNEL - Ldn = 0.550152861 Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

L Lofts Building Time(s): Friday, July 30 8:00 PM - 12:00 AM Adjustments
Evening/Night
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-10:00 p.m.

Monitoring Location: Site 1
Midnight
Monitoring
Period
Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
146 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 60.5 1112761 11127613 3518860
am 1:00 100 60.2 1041593 10415929 3293806 55 dBA
2:00 200 57.6 572509 5725086 1810431
3:00 300 51.2 130350 1303503 412204
4:00 400 50.1 102903 1029030 325408 59 dBA
5:00 500 51.9 155592 1555919 492025
6:00 600 54.1 254878 2548778 805994
7:00 700 54.8 298645 2986448 944398 57.7 dBA
8:00 800 54.9 305739 3057391 966832
9:00 900 56.1 402761 4027606 1273641
10:00 1000 57.7 583713 5837125 1845861 59 dBA 58.4 dBA 60.4 dBA 11:00 1100 59.0 801730 8017298 2535292
12:00 1200 60.2 1042759 10427591 3297494
pm 1:00 1300 59.3 845115 8451154 2672489 58 dBA
2:00 1400 59.1 805959 8059591 2548666
3:00 1500 59.2 828600 8286001 2620264
4:00 1600 59.2 829717 8297170 2623796 64 dBA
5:00 1700 58.9 769315 7693146 2432787
6:00 1800 59.0 797014 7970141 2520380
7:00 1900 60.5 1112897 11128971 3519290 64.8 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 60.1 1018099 10180990 3219512
9:00 2100 60.8 1192606 11926060 3771351
10:00 2200 59.8 961789 9617894 3041445 Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 59.9 986370 9863703 3119177 CNEL - Ldn = 0.4566156 Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m. Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m.

Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight
Monitoring Location: Site 1
L Lofts Building Time(s): Saturday, July 31 12:00 AM through Sunday, August 1, 12:00 AM Evening/Night
147 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 57.8 602593 6025929 1905566
am 1:00 100 57.7 585108 5851080 1850274 55 dBA
2:00 200 58.6 731727 7317269 2313924
3:00 300 52.2 164149 1641489 519084
4:00 400 50.9 123780 1237799 391426 59 dBA
5:00 500 49.3 85434 854339 270166
6:00 600 50.6 115250 1152503 364453
7:00 700 52.1 162144 1621437 512743 56.5 dBA
8:00 800 53.6 227497 2274966 719408
9:00 900 57.1 514728 5147282 1627714
10:00 1000 56.2 421183 4211832 1331898 58.1 dBA 57.6 dBA 59.6 dBA 11:00 1100 56.8 476666 4766658 1507350
12:00 1200 58.2 656956 6569556 2077476
pm 1:00 1300 58.1 646466 6464665 2044306 58 dBA
2:00 1400 58.7 736563 7365632 2329217
3:00 1500 58.5 708548 7085475 2240624
4:00 1600 58.9 780148 7801480 2467045 63 dBA
5:00 1700 58.9 772337 7723373 2442345
6:00 1800 58.9 778065 7780652 2460458
7:00 1900 59.0 788546 7885459 2493601 63.7 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 60.9 1223833 12238326 3870098
9:00 2100 58.4 693923 6939225 2194376
10:00 2200 60.4 1093891 10938909 3459187 Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 57.5 557105 5571049 1761720 CNEL - Ldn = 0.4790556 Monitoring Location: Site 1
L Lofts Building Time(s): Sunday, August 1 12:00 AM through Monday, August 2 12:00 AM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m. Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB 148 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 55.0 313526 3135256 991455
am 1:00 100 54.4 278149 2781487 879583 56 dBA
2:00 200 51.6 143456 1434558 453647
3:00 300 50.5 112723 1127231 356462
4:00 400 51.4 139440 1394402 440949 0 dBA
5:00 500 55.3 339085 3390853 1072282
6:00 600 57.9 609976 6099764 1928915
7:00 700 56.9 487017 4870169 1540083 53.3 dBA
8:00 800 55.8 383603 3836030 1213059
9:00 900 56.7 462768 4627677 1463400
10:00 1000 64.0 2531314 25313139 8004717 56.0 dBA 57.0 dBA 0.0 dBA 11:00 1100 60.9 1237425 12374253 3913082
12:00 1200 59.7 929281 9292809 2938644
pm 1:00 1300 1 10 3 55 dBA
2:00 1400 1 10 3
3:00 1500 1 10 3
4:00 1600 1 10 3 60 dBA
5:00 1700 1 10 3
6:00 1800 1 10 3
7:00 1900 1 10 3 60.2 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 1 10 3
9:00 2100 1 10 3
10:00 2200 1 10 3 Difference between CNEL and Ldn
pm 11:00 2300 1 10 3 CNEL - Ldn = 1.109E-06
Monitoring Location: Site 1
L Lofts Building Time(s): Monday, August 2 12:00 AM through 1:00 PM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m. Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB 149 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 1 10 3
am 1:00 100 1 10 3 0 dBA
2:00 200 1 10 3
3:00 300 1 10 3
4:00 400 1 10 3 71 dBA
5:00 500 1 10 3
6:00 600 1 10 3
7:00 700 1 10 3 65.9 dBA
8:00 800 1 10 3
9:00 900 1 10 3
10:00 1000 1 10 3 69.5 dBA 68.8 dBA 71.5 dBA
11:00 1100 1 10 3
12:00 1200 1 10 3
pm 1:00 1300 1 10 3 68 dBA
2:00 1400 1 10 3
3:00 1500 77.4 54445877 544458773 172172981
4:00 1600 71.5 13969858 139698583 44176571 73 dBA
5:00 1700 70.3 10715563 107155631 33885586
6:00 1800 71.0 12493669 124936691 39508451
7:00 1900 72.7 18802474 188024741 59458644 73.8 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 69.4 8790448 87904478 27797837
9:00 2100 71.7 14874830 148748296 47038341
10:00 2200 68.8 7552000 75520003 23881522 Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 74.4 27323291 273232905 86403831 CNEL - Ldn = 0.756122506 Monitoring Location: Site 2
Brand+ Building Time(s): Thursday, July 29 3:00 PM through July 30 12:00 AM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m. Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB 150 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 65.6 3634653 36346534 11493783
am 1:00 100 64.2 2658631 26586306 8407328 69 dBA
2:00 200 60.7 1170003 11700031 3699875
3:00 300 59.4 878784 8787837 2778958
4:00 400 61.6 1461544 14615444 4621809 71 dBA
5:00 500 62.5 1785702 17857021 5646886
6:00 600 66.1 4060065 40600651 12839053
7:00 700 68.4 6893345 68933448 21798670 67.7 dBA
8:00 800 68.8 7535291 75352905 23828681
9:00 900 69.4 8717942 87179425 27568555
10:00 1000 79.4 87094354 870943536 ######### 72.5 dBA 72.6 dBA 72.3 dBA 11:00 1100 71.7 14889222 148892218 47083854
12:00 1200 70.1 10256637 102566373 32434335
pm 1:00 1300 73.2 20894934 208949338 66075582 71 dBA
2:00 1400 70.2 10584345 105843453 33470639
3:00 1500 70.0 9904054 99040540 31319369
4:00 1600 70.9 12223878 122238778 38655296 75 dBA
5:00 1700 71.3 13398556 133985561 42369955
6:00 1800 71.4 13790150 137901503 43608284
7:00 1900 70.6 11541148 115411477 36496314 75.8 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 70.1 10120804 101208037 32004791
9:00 2100 74.7 29764254 297642539 94122835
10:00 2200 69.9 9820690 98206899 31055748 Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 74.5 27960054 279600536 88417453 CNEL - Ldn = 0.56396381 Monitoring Location: Site 2
Brand+ Building Time(s): Friday, July 30 12:00 AM through Saturday, July 31 12:00 AM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 151 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 66.6 4587045 45870450 14505510
am 1:00 100 66.0 3987420 39874202 12609330 68 dBA
2:00 200 65.8 3830275 38302754 12112394
3:00 300 59.7 932505 9325046 2948839
4:00 400 58.2 654112 6541118 2068483 71 dBA
5:00 500 59.1 806063 8060630 2548995
6:00 600 63.6 2290915 22909151 7244510
7:00 700 65.1 3221321 32213210 10186711 65.0 dBA
8:00 800 68.5 7032164 70321642 22237656
9:00 900 68.7 7415322 74153218 23449306
10:00 1000 69.6 9201169 92011688 29096651 70.6 dBA 70.1 dBA 72.4 dBA 11:00 1100 70.6 11459931 114599309 36239484
12:00 1200 72.7 18800050 188000498 59450978
pm 1:00 1300 71.3 13387824 133878242 42336017 69 dBA
2:00 1400 70.4 11059080 110590800 34971882
3:00 1500 70.5 11153907 111539065 35271749
4:00 1600 70.2 10353400 103534002 32740326 73 dBA
5:00 1700 69.4 8748105 87481053 27663938
6:00 1800 69.8 9560267 95602665 30232217
7:00 1900 73.2 20801612 208016124 65780474 73.8 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 72.6 18382179 183821794 58129555
9:00 2100 71.3 13426753 134267530 42459121
10:00 2200 68.1 6481507 64815071 20496325 Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 66.8 4822042 48220421 15248636 CNEL - Ldn = 0.963619638 Monitoring Location: Site 2
Brand+ Building Time(s): Saturday, July 31 12:00 AM through Sunday, August 1 12:00 AM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 152 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 66.9 4855199 48551986 15353486
am 1:00 100 64.3 2664821 26648207 8426903 68 dBA
2:00 200 64.4 2727991 27279914 8626666
3:00 300 60.5 1127589 11275894 3565751
4:00 400 61.3 1360548 13605484 4302432 70 dBA
5:00 500 57.5 557757 5577570 1763782
6:00 600 61.3 1358226 13582259 4295087
7:00 700 64.2 2660517 26605168 8413293 68.5 dBA
8:00 800 66.2 4161175 41611752 13158791
9:00 900 71.4 13887466 138874657 43916023
10:00 1000 69.2 8363576 83635759 26447949 69.9 dBA 69.6 dBA 70.8 dBA 11:00 1100 69.0 7949302 79493021 25137900
12:00 1200 70.2 10573749 105737491 33437130
pm 1:00 1300 69.9 9777999 97779993 30920749 69 dBA
2:00 1400 70.4 11074267 110742673 35019908
3:00 1500 71.0 12577462 125774616 39773426
4:00 1600 69.5 8900861 89008606 28146993 75 dBA
5:00 1700 70.2 10452231 104522310 33052857
6:00 1800 69.6 9089688 90896885 28744119
7:00 1900 69.2 8344571 83445707 26387850 75.5 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 73.3 21370762 213707616 67580282
9:00 2100 68.2 6595140 65951397 20855663
10:00 2200 75.9 39118032 391180322 ######### Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 69.7 9348545 93485445 29562693 CNEL - Ldn = 0.418075102 Monitoring Location: Site 2
Brand+ Building Time(s): Sunday, August 1 12:00 AM through Monday, August 2 12:00 AM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 153 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 63.7 2323015 23230149 7346018
am 1:00 100 62.5 1760447 17604472 5567023 69 dBA
2:00 200 61.3 1355018 13550178 4284943
3:00 300 58.0 623871 6238713 1972854
4:00 400 61.4 1376496 13764961 4352863 0 dBA
5:00 500 63.3 2130061 21300608 6735844
6:00 600 66.3 4250304 42503041 13440642
7:00 700 68.1 6423726 64237259 20313605 61.9 dBA
8:00 800 69.5 8871560 88715601 28054336
9:00 900 69.0 8011392 80113923 25334247
10:00 1000 79.1 80560286 805602861 ######### 70.4 dBA 71.4 dBA 0.0 dBA 11:00 1100 72.6 18405686 184056856 58203888
12:00 1200 74.5 27913417 279134168 88269974
pm 1:00 1300 71.7 14667125 146671252 46381522 69 dBA
2:00 1400 1 10 3
3:00 1500 1 10 3
4:00 1600 1 10 3 71 dBA
5:00 1700 1 10 3
6:00 1800 1 10 3
7:00 1900 1 10 3 71.0 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 1 10 3
9:00 2100 1 10 3
10:00 2200 1 10 3 Difference between CNEL and Ldn
pm 11:00 2300 1 10 3 CNEL - Ldn = 9.29628E-08
Monitoring Location: Site 2
Brand+ Building Time(s): Monday, August 2 12:00 AM through Monday, August 2 1:00 PM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 154 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 1 10 3
am 1:00 100 1 10 3 0 dBA
2:00 200 1 10 3
3:00 300 1 10 3
4:00 400 1 10 3 70 dBA
5:00 500 1 10 3
6:00 600 1 10 3
7:00 700 1 10 3 66.8 dBA
8:00 800 1 10 3
9:00 900 1 10 3
10:00 1000 1 10 3 69.0 dBA 68.5 dBA 70.7 dBA
11:00 1100 1 10 3
12:00 1200 1 10 3
pm 1:00 1300 1 10 3 68 dBA
2:00 1400 1 10 3
3:00 1500 77.2 52887861 528878607 #########
4:00 1600 70.0 9972522 99725219 31535883 74 dBA
5:00 1700 70.7 11841562 118415622 37446308
6:00 1800 70.2 10439363 104393630 33012164
7:00 1900 71.0 12611536 126115365 39881180 74.2 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 69.7 9335208 93352080 29520520
9:00 2100 71.2 13254795 132547945 41915341
10:00 2200 68.8 7515692 75156924 23766706 Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 75.5 35778984 357789837 ######### CNEL - Ldn = 0.559777434 Monitoring Location: Site 3
Panera Bread Time(s): Thursday, July 29 3:00 PM through July 30 12:00 AM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 155 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 74.9 30801155 308011548 97401804
am 1:00 100 74.1 25468830 254688303 80539513 69 dBA
2:00 200 62.8 1885328 18853284 5961932
3:00 300 59.9 972389 9723889 3074964
4:00 400 63.0 1980815 19808154 6263888 71 dBA
5:00 500 64.3 2665569 26655694 8429271
6:00 600 66.2 4173871 41738708 13198938
7:00 700 68.4 6893821 68938210 21800176 70.7 dBA
8:00 800 69.2 8226157 82261571 26013393
9:00 900 69.8 9615348 96153478 30406400
10:00 1000 70.5 11300353 113003527 35734853 70.8 dBA 70.5 dBA 71.9 dBA 11:00 1100 69.7 9387696 93876956 29686500
12:00 1200 71.2 13302798 133027981 42067141
pm 1:00 1300 71.8 15019069 150190686 47494465 71 dBA
2:00 1400 69.9 9669767 96697668 30578487
3:00 1500 70.6 11488544 114885442 36329967
4:00 1600 70.7 11710866 117108657 37033009 77 dBA
5:00 1700 70.6 11403968 114039683 36062514
6:00 1800 72.3 16824261 168242611 53202985
7:00 1900 70.4 11018615 110186148 34843919 77.5 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 70.8 12009834 120098339 37978429
9:00 2100 73.7 23646289 236462894 74776133
10:00 2200 68.9 7851362 78513620 24828187 Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 74.8 30131864 301318641 95285321 CNEL - Ldn = 0.339605509 Monitoring Location: Site 3
Panera Bread Time(s): Friday, July 30 12:00 AM through Saturday, July 31 12:00 AM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 156 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 70.3 10680609 106806086 33775050
am 1:00 100 72.1 16241944 162419437 51361536 68 dBA
2:00 200 64.9 3109074 31090736 9831754
3:00 300 61.2 1316964 13169643 4164607
4:00 400 60.1 1034194 10341940 3270408 70 dBA
5:00 500 61.2 1326133 13261327 4193600
6:00 600 63.2 2104728 21047281 6655735
7:00 700 65.3 3422599 34225988 10823208 67.3 dBA
8:00 800 67.5 5672885 56728853 17939238
9:00 900 69.0 7979102 79791017 25232135
10:00 1000 69.0 7969572 79695720 25202000 70.4 dBA 69.6 dBA 72.6 dBA 11:00 1100 69.9 9807741 98077413 31014801
12:00 1200 70.2 10388169 103881688 32850274
pm 1:00 1300 70.2 10411804 104118044 32925016 69 dBA
2:00 1400 71.3 13414763 134147629 42421205
3:00 1500 70.7 11711863 117118634 37036164
4:00 1600 70.1 10195722 101957223 32241705 74 dBA
5:00 1700 69.4 8677288 86772878 27439993
6:00 1800 70.2 10460513 104605134 33079048
7:00 1900 69.6 9019241 90192412 28521345 75.0 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 73.0 20111664 201116638 63598665
9:00 2100 74.2 26041800 260418000 82351403
10:00 2200 68.7 7340996 73409962 23214268 Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 66.7 4658124 46581235 14730280 CNEL - Ldn = 0.738706474 Monitoring Location: Site 3
Panera Bread Time(s): Saturday, July 31 12:00 AM through Sunday, August 1 12:00 AM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 157 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 68.4 6879565 68795653 21755096
am 1:00 100 66.2 4172410 41724102 13194320 69 dBA
2:00 200 66.0 4003078 40030775 12658843
3:00 300 62.1 1628328 16283284 5149227
4:00 400 62.9 1944603 19446032 6149375 70 dBA
5:00 500 58.9 774128 7741284 2448009
6:00 600 61.7 1471946 14719464 4654703
7:00 700 64.2 2619660 26196604 8284094 67.5 dBA
8:00 800 65.5 3581542 35815416 11325829
9:00 900 72.0 15837550 158375500 50082731
10:00 1000 69.3 8565663 85656633 27087006 69.9 dBA 69.8 dBA 70.4 dBA 11:00 1100 70.9 12256515 122565150 38758503
12:00 1200 69.2 8272161 82721614 26158871
pm 1:00 1300 71.7 14924988 149249883 47196957 69 dBA
2:00 1400 69.6 9127335 91273352 28863168
3:00 1500 70.8 11899919 118999189 37630848
4:00 1600 69.9 9775005 97750053 30911281 74 dBA
5:00 1700 69.3 8593756 85937556 27175841
6:00 1800 69.6 9098043 90980433 28770539
7:00 1900 71.7 14822655 148226550 46873351 74.8 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 70.4 10869135 108691354 34371224
9:00 2100 68.7 7358885 73588847 23270837
10:00 2200 74.0 25213318 252133179 79731512 Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 66.5 4428962 44289625 14005609 CNEL - Ldn = 0.451194128 Monitoring Location: Site 3
Panera Bread Time(s): Sunday, August 1 12:00 AM through Monday, August 2 12:00 AM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 158 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 67.6 5694518 56945184 18007648
am 1:00 100 64.5 2836887 28368868 8971024 69 dBA
2:00 200 61.4 1380101 13801014 4364264
3:00 300 59.5 894769 8947691 2829508
4:00 400 62.2 1666679 16666791 5270502 0 dBA
5:00 500 63.9 2446409 24464086 7736223
6:00 600 67.6 5694256 56942562 18006819
7:00 700 67.8 5992499 59924994 18949947 63.6 dBA
8:00 800 68.7 7349825 73498250 23242187
9:00 900 69.4 8780333 87803333 27765852
10:00 1000 69.8 9556085 95560849 30218994 66.5 dBA 67.5 dBA 0.0 dBA 11:00 1100 73.7 23487511 234875112 74274032
12:00 1200 70.6 11586653 115866530 36640214
pm 1:00 1300 1 10 3 66 dBA
2:00 1400 1 10 3
3:00 1500 1 10 3
4:00 1600 1 10 3 71 dBA
5:00 1700 1 10 3
6:00 1800 1 10 3
7:00 1900 1 10 3 70.6 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 1 10 3
9:00 2100 1 10 3
10:00 2200 1 10 3 Difference between CNEL and Ldn
pm 11:00 2300 1 10 3 CNEL - Ldn = 1.03236E-07
Monitoring Location: Site 3
Panera Bread Time(s): Monday, August 2 12:00 AM through Monday, August 2 12:00 PM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 159 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 1 10 3
am 1:00 100 1 10 3 0 dBA
2:00 200 1 10 3
3:00 300 1 10 3
4:00 400 1 10 3 72 dBA
5:00 500 1 10 3
6:00 600 1 10 3
7:00 700 1 10 3 64.5 dBA
8:00 800 1 10 3
9:00 900 1 10 3
10:00 1000 1 10 3 67.5 dBA 65.9 dBA 71.0 dBA
11:00 1100 1 10 3
12:00 1200 1 10 3
pm 1:00 1300 1 10 3 67 dBA
2:00 1400 1 10 3
3:00 1500 1 10 3
4:00 1600 71.0 12465250 124652502 39418582 71 dBA
5:00 1700 71.2 13130099 131300990 41521019
6:00 1800 73.3 21379916 213799163 67609232
7:00 1900 70.3 10669769 106697686 33740771 72.4 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 70.9 12382833 123828325 39157955
9:00 2100 71.6 14368618 143686180 45437560
10:00 2200 71.2 13175345 131753451 41664100 Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 70.9 12227791 122277908 38667670 CNEL - Ldn = 0.931031981 Monitoring Location: Site 4
The Americana on Brand Time(s): Thursday, July 29 4:00 PM through July 30 12:00 AM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 160 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 65.5 3584462 35844622 11335065
am 1:00 100 64.5 2844219 28442188 8994210 73 dBA
2:00 200 63.0 1998918 19989181 6321134
3:00 300 59.3 852796 8527957 2696777
4:00 400 63.6 2314739 23147388 7319847 72 dBA
5:00 500 64.4 2737966 27379657 8658208
6:00 600 67.0 4955129 49551294 15669495
7:00 700 74.9 31127483 311274827 98433743 66.3 dBA
8:00 800 70.3 10616687 106166867 33572911
9:00 900 72.0 15669098 156690981 49550039
10:00 1000 70.2 10440132 104401322 33014597 72.9 dBA 72.6 dBA 73.7 dBA 11:00 1100 77.0 49792278 497922785 #########
12:00 1200 71.5 14160937 141609373 44780816
pm 1:00 1300 70.9 12164521 121645207 38467592 71 dBA
2:00 1400 71.9 15379067 153790674 48632881
3:00 1500 71.4 13704021 137040205 43335918
4:00 1600 71.4 13800442 138004421 43640830 74 dBA
5:00 1700 70.8 11998474 119984736 37942505
6:00 1800 73.1 20212638 202126381 63917974
7:00 1900 73.2 21058624 210586245 66593218 75.3 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 72.4 17316814 173168143 54760575
9:00 2100 75.1 32275650 322756502 #########
10:00 2200 70.0 10063059 100630586 31822185 Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 69.3 8609045 86090454 27224192 CNEL - Ldn = 0.892840982 Monitoring Location: Site 4
The Americana on Brand Time(s): Friday, July 30 12:00 AM through Saturday, July 31 12:00 AM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 161 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 67.0 5012623 50126225 15851304
am 1:00 100 66.4 4320172 43201716 13661582 68 dBA
2:00 200 66.8 4757272 47572722 15043816
3:00 300 63.6 2277084 22770837 7200771
4:00 400 59.5 883959 8839588 2795323 71 dBA
5:00 500 59.8 947364 9473643 2995829
6:00 600 66.2 4128545 41285448 13055605
7:00 700 66.5 4480825 44808252 14169613 66.2 dBA
8:00 800 68.9 7808201 78082013 24691700
9:00 900 69.3 8465702 84657025 26770902
10:00 1000 70.1 10127051 101270511 32024547 72.1 dBA 71.5 dBA 73.8 dBA 11:00 1100 75.7 37403824 374038236 #########
12:00 1200 71.9 15355926 153559256 48559701
pm 1:00 1300 72.0 16016145 160161453 50647498 71 dBA
2:00 1400 72.8 19158125 191581249 60583310
3:00 1500 71.8 14976661 149766610 47360361
4:00 1600 70.9 12409778 124097776 39243163 74 dBA
5:00 1700 70.7 11875667 118756667 37554155
6:00 1800 70.3 10675544 106755436 33759033
7:00 1900 72.4 17360091 173600911 54897428 75.1 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 71.6 14582098 145820976 46112641
9:00 2100 76.0 40074582 400745819 #########
10:00 2200 69.6 9126137 91261373 28859380 Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 67.7 5940062 59400623 18784126 CNEL - Ldn = 0.980641368 Monitoring Location: Site 4
The Americana on Brand Time(s): Saturday, July 31 12:00 AM through Sunday, August 1 12:00 AM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 162 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 67.7 5856700 58567003 18520512
am 1:00 100 72.4 17270504 172705035 54614128 67 dBA
2:00 200 64.2 2649903 26499031 8379730
3:00 300 69.1 8165203 81652033 25820640
4:00 400 64.3 2676233 26762335 8462993 72 dBA
5:00 500 59.5 882560 8825595 2790898
6:00 600 62.9 1953876 19538760 6178698
7:00 700 64.5 2824256 28242556 8931080 70.4 dBA
8:00 800 67.5 5623556 56235557 17783245
9:00 900 67.0 5052136 50521356 15976256
10:00 1000 69.5 8903648 89036484 28155808 70.6 dBA 70.2 dBA 71.9 dBA 11:00 1100 71.2 13099478 130994783 41424188
12:00 1200 69.3 8531532 85315315 26979072
pm 1:00 1300 72.2 16766716 167667157 53021010 71 dBA
2:00 1400 70.9 12298241 122982410 38890453
3:00 1500 70.3 10803538 108035379 34163787
4:00 1600 70.9 12318051 123180511 38953098 77 dBA
5:00 1700 72.6 18247694 182476944 57704276
6:00 1800 70.5 11198555 111985553 35412941
7:00 1900 72.9 19291056 192910559 61003675 77.2 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 71.0 12448929 124489293 39366971
9:00 2100 71.5 14198910 141989098 44900895
10:00 2200 75.4 34620952 346209515 ######### Difference between CNEL and Ldn pm 11:00 2300 74.0 25003454 250034536 79067863 CNEL - Ldn = 0.356117349 Monitoring Location: Site 4
The Americana on Brand Time(s): Sunday, August 1 12:00 AM through Monday, August 2 12:00 AM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 163 of 331
Monitored Logarithmic
Leq Equivalent 10 dB 5 dB
0 / 24 64.2 2612655 26126546 8261939
am 1:00 100 65.5 3544892 35448919 11209933 71 dBA
2:00 200 64.1 2567249 25672490 8118354
3:00 300 59.6 902716 9027157 2854638
4:00 400 65.4 3499444 34994436 11066212 0 dBA
5:00 500 65.8 3801605 38016051 12021731
6:00 600 68.2 6631565 66315645 20970848
7:00 700 71.6 14580721 145807210 46108288 64.2 dBA
8:00 800 70.3 10692100 106920997 33811388
9:00 900 70.1 10167941 101679406 32153851
10:00 1000 71.4 13832574 138325739 43742440 68.6 dBA 69.6 dBA 0.0 dBA 11:00 1100 75.3 33650847 336508470 #########
12:00 1200 71.2 13287216 132872162 42017867
pm 1:00 1300 70.8 11982433 119824327 37891779 67 dBA
2:00 1400 1 10 3
3:00 1500 1 10 3
4:00 1600 1 10 3 72 dBA
5:00 1700 1 10 3
6:00 1800 1 10 3
7:00 1900 1 10 3 71.6 dBA adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m. 8:00 2000 1 10 3
9:00 2100 1 10 3
10:00 2200 1 10 3 Difference between CNEL and Ldn
pm 11:00 2300 1 10 3 CNEL - Ldn = 8.1944E-08
Monitoring Location: Site 4
The Americana on Brand Time(s): Monday, August 2 12:00 AM through Monday, August 2 1:00 PM Evening/Night
Monitoring Adjustments
Period
Midnight Leq Morning Peak Hour 7:00-10:00 a.m.

Leq Evening Peak Hour 4:00-8:00 p.m.

Leq Nighttime 10:00 pm-7:00 a.m. (not adjusted)
Leq Daytime 7:00 am-10:00 p.m.

Leq 24-Hour
Ldn: 10 dB adjustment between 10:00 p.m. & 7:00 a.m.

CNEL: 5 dB adjustment between 7:00p.m. & 10:00 p.m., & 10 dB Leq Daytime 7:00 am-7:00 p.m. Leq Evening 7:00 pm-:00 p.m. 164 of 331

APPENDIX B
Roadway Noise Worksheets
165 of 331
NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS -Off-Site ADT Volumes
Traf f i c V ol umes Ref . Energy Level s Di st Ld Le Ln Desi gnDi st. f rom Barri er Ve hic le Mix
ROADWAY NAME M edi an ADT SpeedCenter to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) Day Eve Ni ght MTd HTd MTe HTe MTn HTn A MT HT Adj A MT HT Total A MT HT Total A MT HT Total Segment Land Use Lanes Width Vol ume (mph) ReceptorFactor (1 dB(A) Trucks Trucks CNEL Brand Blvd (Colorado to Harvard
2016 6 10 23,594 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.0 18,333 2,996 2,265 371 147 21 5 32 13 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.3 66.4 58.6 59.4 67.8 63.5 51.0 49.3 63.9 50.3 49.1 50.2 54.7 2021 6 10 24,798 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.3 19,268 3,149 2,381 390 155 23 5 34 14 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.3 66.7 58.8 59.6 68.0 63.7 51.2 49.5 64.1 50.5 49.4 50.4 54.9 Brand Boulevard (Broadway to Wilson)
2016 6 10 20,917 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.5 16,253 2,656 2,008 329 130 19 4 28 12 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.3 65.9 58.1 58.9 67.3 62.9 50.5 48.7 63.3 49.7 48.6 49.7 54.1 2021 6 10 21,984 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 66.7 17,082 2,792 2,110 346 137 20 4 30 12 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.3 66.1 58.3 59.1 67.5 63.2 50.7 48.9 63.6 50.0 48.8 49.9 54.4 Brand Boulevard (n/o Lexington Drive)
2016 6 10 25,720 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.4 19,984 3,266 2,469 405 160 23 5 35 15 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.3 66.8 59.0 59.8 68.2 63.8 51.4 49.6 64.2 50.6 49.5 50.6 55.0 2021 6 10 27,032 40 75 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 67.6 21,004 3,433 2,595 425 169 25 5 37 15 67.4 76.3 81.2 -1.3 67.0 59.2 60.0 68.4 64.1 51.6 49.8 64.5 50.9 49.7 50.8 55.3 Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Ni ght Total ADT V ol umes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
(1) Alpha Factor:Coef f i ci entof absorpti onrel ati ngto the ef f ectsof the groundsurf ace.An alphaf actorof 0 i ndi catesthat the si teis an a c o us tic a lly " hard" si te such as aspal t. An al pha f actor of 0.5 i ndi cates that the si te i s an acousti cal l y " sof t" si te such as vegetati ve ground cover. 166 of 331

APPENDIX C
SoundPLAN Output Sheets
167 of 331
SoundPLAN Output Sheets
Receiver Ldn/dB(A) Leq,d/dB(A) Leq,e/dB(A) Leq,n/dB(A) Time slice 500Hz dB(A) Americana Way (Site 4) 63.7 59.6 59.6 56.1 Ldn 63.7
Leq,d 59.6
Leq,e 59.6
Leq,n 56.1
Craftstay Glendale Home Suites 51.2 47.1 47.1 43.6 Ldn 51.2 Leq,d 47.1
Leq,e 47.1
Leq,n 43.6
Elevé Glendale 47.4 43.3 43.3 39.8 Ldn 47.4
Leq,d 43.3
Leq,e 43.3
Leq,n 39.8
L Lofts (215 N. Maryland) 64.3 60.3 60.3 56.7 Ldn 64.3
Leq,d 60.3
Leq,e 60.3
Leq,n 56.7
Maryland Capri (215 N. Maryland) 51.6 47.6 47.6 44 Ldn 51.6 Leq,d 47.6
Leq,e 47.6
Leq,n 44
The Brand (120 W. Wilson Ave) 62.3 58.2 58.2 54.7 Ldn 62.3 Leq,d 58.2
Leq,e 58.2
Leq,n 54.7
168 of 331

EXHIBIT 5
Map of Short- and Long-Term Noise Reading Locations

A
B C
D
E
F
1 2
3 4
169 of 331

2 170 of 331
EXHIBIT 6
171 of 331
8b

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Single Use Plastic Prohibition Expansion

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 22, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council has adopted two ordinances tackling the use and distribution of single use plastics.

Ordinance No. 5964 adopted in April 2021 prohibits the use of single use plastic products in the serving of prepared foods at certain City-managed, City-run concessions or at City- sponsored events located on City-owned or controlled Facilities. Ordinance No. 5973 adopted in September 2021 regulates the distribution of disposable food ware accessories.

To continue efforts to reduce the use, sale and distribution of polystyrene materials and other single use plastic food ware items, staff recommend that any new ordinance would address the sale and distribution of:
1) Single use plastics such as utensils, stirring sticks or straws; 2) The sale or distribution within the City, any meat fish or poultry tray, produce tray or egg carton made in whole or in part from polystyrene; 3) The sale or distribution of polystyrene packing material; 4) Regulations for on premises dining for food or beverages to be served on or in 172 of 331
28 b
3 1
5 4
food service ware that is reusable;
5) No person or regulated entity shall sell any polystyrene food service ware or sell polystyrene coolers;
6) No City officer, official, employee, representative, contractor or agent, shall sell or distribute, or otherwise provide any plastic water bottles.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Safe & Healthy Community: Prohibiting the use, sale and distribution of single use plastic reduces littering in our community.

Sustainability: Prohibiting the use, sale and distribution of single-use plastic reduces pollution, and reduces demand for plastic production that’s contributing to global climate change.

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance to regulate the use and distribution of single use plastics food service ware, polystyrene food service ware, polystyrene packaging material polystyrene coolers, polystyrene food packaging trays and on premises dining reusable food service ware.

BACKGROUND
Single-use plastics are not just a problem in Glendale but across the globe. Locally, single-use plastics are a major source of litter and may contaminate recycling programs as confusion abounds around which forms of plastic are acceptable to discard in recycling bins.

Recycling of single-use plastics, especially food service ware plastic, is difficult. One of the main reasons why recycling can be burdensome is the Resin Identification Codes.

These codes are imprinted on plastic products to indicate the type of materials they are composed of. This code system helps waste collectors and facilities identify if they can effectively process the recovered materials. The problem is that most, if not all recycling facilities, cannot process all plastic waste.

The recycling of small items such as straws, utensils, lids, stirrers, and lid plugs are also not economically viable at the municipal level. Items that are sent to the recycling facility are sorted on a conveyor belt and baled before being shipped to buyers. Small, lightweight items easily fall off the conveyor belt or become stuck in confined spaces within the equipment. The operational and labor costs of bundling these items exceed the value of 173 of 331
38 b
3 1
5 4
the items and therefore they are typically sent to the landfill rather than recycled.

Some disposable food service ware is made with plant-based polymers known as bioplastics. Unlike petroleum-based plastics, bioplastics are made from renewable resources such as corn, sugar, and soy protein and are often labeled “compostable.” Bioplastics are not recyclable like petroleum-based plastics; however, they are capable of decomposing in some industrial compost facilities (but not in the natural environment.) There is currently no facility in the Southern California region that can compost them.

Because bioplastics look and feel very similar to petroleum-based plastics, it can be difficult for consumers and sorters to distinguish them from recyclable plastics. However, because they are not recyclable like petroleum-based plastics, bioplastics are viewed as contaminants by recycling processors. Bioplastics that end up in recycling and composting bins are separated and sent to landfills.

This fact, coupled with the increased usage of disposable plastic products over the years, means ocean pollution is growing at an alarming rate. The World Economic Forum predicts that by 2050 there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish by weight.

Additionally, the recycling market has recently experienced a huge disruption. China, traditionally the largest importer of U.S. recyclable material, began enforcing stricter requirements for importing solid waste. Since January 1, 2018, China has prohibited 24 types of solid waste materials, including household waste plastics such as food service ware. This has significantly impacted the recycling industry in the U.S., making recycling of many waste streams, including plastics and mixed paper, uneconomical.

In response to the issues described above, the Glendale City Council has adopted two ordinances tackling the use and distribution of single use plastics.

The ordinance states: All Disposable Food Service Ware that Food or Beverage Providers use to serve prepared food and beverages at a City Event must be Marine-degradable.

And, the City, its departments, contractors, agents and employees acting in their official capacity, shall not purchase, acquire or distribute for public use non-marine degradable food service ware for use at City Event.

Ordinance No. 5973 adopted in September 2021 regulates the distribution of disposable food ware accessories.
174 of 331
48 b
3 1
5 4
The ordinance states: No Food and Beverage Facility shall provide self-serve Disposable Food Ware Accessories dispensers, or provide, or offer Disposable Food Ware Accessories to a Dine-in or Take-out Customer, except upon Customer Request.

However, a Food and Beverage Facility may ask a Drive-through Customer or Delivery Customer if the Customer wants any Disposal Food Ware Accessories.

And, Prepared Food Facilities that use Online Food Ordering Platforms are required to provide options on the Online Ordering Platform that enable customers to choose which Disposable Food Ware Accessories to include with each Online Order via an opting in option.

ANALYSIS
City Council asked staff to report back on the effectiveness’s of the two (2) ordinances once in operation and to provide a report on expanding the prohibition of single-use plastics beyond the confines of City operations and skip-the-stuff provisions. Any possible extensions or new ordinance would extend to all food and beverage providers within Glendale’s City limits and would prohibit the distribution of non-marine degradable food service ware including plates, bowls, trays, containers, straws, utensils, stirrers, and lid plugs.

What Other Cities Have Done
Currently, over 100 municipalities within the State of California have either restricted or prohibited the use of polystyrene and single-use plastics within their communities at large.

Of these cities, more than 28 municipalities also prohibited the distribution of polystyrene straws, utensils, and lids at food establishments within their ordinances. On July 18, 2016, the City of Pasadena approved a Styrofoam ban that prohibited the distribution of Styrofoam food containers within City limits. The City of Culver City adopted an ordinance to regulate the sale and distribution of polystyrene disposable food service ware on May 8, 2017. This ordinance also prohibits the distribution and sale of polystyrene straws, utensils, and lids, as well as a “Cutlery Upon Request” policy.
On August 18, 2018, the City of Santa Monica adopted a revision to their existing ordinance to prohibit the distribution of non-marine degradable disposable food ware.
On May 2, 2018, the City of Long Beach approved a Styrofoam ban that prohibited the distribution of Styrofoam food containers within City limits. On July 31, 2019, Burbank officials took the first steps to free the City of polystyrene and other single-use plastic materials. They plan to hire a consultant to develop the ban. At this time, they do not prohibit the use of polystyrene and single-use plastic items.
175 of 331
58 b
3 1
5 4
On June 5, 2018, the City of Manhattan Beach adopted a revision to their existing ordinance to prohibit the sale and distribution of plastic straws, utensils, and stirrers within its City limits.
On April 24, 2018, the City of Berkley proposed an ordinance to prohibit dine-in restaurants from serving food in disposable food ware. Berkeley proposes that businesses charge customers $0.25 for each take-out container and to-go cup distributed. The proposed ordinance is still pending.
Other cities have recently taken additional measures to reduce the environmental impact of plastic straws and utensils. In 2017, both the City of Davis and the City of San Luis Obispo adopted a “Straw Upon Request” ordinance impacting only dine-in customers. On February 26, 2018, the City of Malibu adopted an ordinance to prohibit the sale and distribution of plastic straws, utensils, and stirrers within its City limits.
On July 1, 2010, the City of Seattle authorized its General Manager/ CEO of Public Utilities to promulgate rules in accordance with the Chapter on Disposable Food Service Ware. Effective July 1, 2018, the City of Seattle adopted Director Rule SW- 500.1 prohibiting the distribution of non-compostable straws and utensils.

Corporations have recently adopted or pledged to adopt similar policies in their food service and operations. Alaska Airlines began serving paper straws upon request July 16, 2018. Starbucks has removed plastic straws from its inventory. The Marriott hotel chain also eliminated plastic straws and stirrers from all its hotels.

Lessons Learned
Lessons learned from the implementation of the ordinances prohibiting the use and distribution of single use plastics have provided staff with insight to what has been working effectively and areas of required improvement. These include:
a) Simplify the ordinance language – using terms such as marine degradable leads to confusion about what items are compostable, recyclable and accepted in the City’s waste management program. On future ordinances, it may be more appropriate to use the terminology “utilize materials which are accepted by the City’s organic waste collection program”
b) Take the opportunity to address the sale, use, or distribution of other polystyrene items such as packaging peanuts, meat trays, egg cartons and polystyrene coolers.
c) Undertake a more all-inclusive education and outreach program that includes social media information programs, education videos, and in-person community workshops.

Expanded Single Use Plastic Prohibitions
City Council asked staff to review the current single use plastic prohibition and report back 176 of 331
68 b
3 1
5 4
to Council on options available to further prohibit the use and distribution of single use plastics. The table below outlines the first two phases of the City’s single use plastic prohibitions, as well as a potential Phase III single use plastics ban.

Phase I – City Facilities Phase II – Skip-the-
Stuff
Phase III – City Wide
All disposable food service
ware to serve prepared food
and beverages at City events
must be marine degradable
Provide disposable
food ware accessories
to dine-in and take out
customers upon
request
Implement a City wide
regulation for sale and
distribution of plastic/PLA
utensils, stirring sticks or
straws
City Staff, contractors,
agents shall not purchase or
acquire non marine
degradable food service
wares
May ask drive through
an delivery customers
if they want disposable
food ware accessories
Implement a City wide
regulation prohibiting the
use of polystyrene food
trays
A food and beverage
provider serving food at a
city events shall only
provide marine degradable
straws and utensils upon
request
Online opt-in feature to
request disposable
food ware accessories
Implement a City wide ban
on polystyrene packaging
material and polystyrene
coolers
Implement a reusable food
service ware requirement
for on-premise dining
Disposable food service
ware for take-out and
delivery must be
acceptable in the City’s
organic collection program
All regulations can make provisions to provide plastic straws to persons with disabilities.

Regulated Entities:

The proposed expanded single use plastics prohibition would impact a regulated entity.

A regulated entity is any business, regardless of whether it consists of a sole proprietor, corporation, partnership or any other matter of organization, association or group.

To Whom the ban may apply:
a) All City facilities
177 of 331
78 b
3 1
5 4
b) All City special events that are open for public attendance, regardless if they are privately produced or City sponsored
c) All citywide prepared food service providers including restaurants, grocery stores delicatessens, retailers, hotels/motels with restaurants, convenience stores and farmer’s markets
Staff recommend that any extension of current ordinances or new ordinance should comprise the following actions:

1. Plastics: No regulated entity shall sell or distribute plastic/PLA utensils, stirring sticks or straws.

2. Produce Trays/Egg Cartons: No regulated entity would be allowed to sell, offer for sale or distribute within the City, any meat, fish or poultry tray, produce tray, or egg carton made in whole or in part from polystyrene. Also, no egg cartons made from plastic shall be used, sold or distributed?

3. Packaging Materials: A regulated entity shall not use, sell or distribute polystyrene packing material, including, but not limited to foam peanuts, packing peanuts, foam popcorn, packing noodles, or shipping boxes. Any reusable packaging items that are acceptable to the City recycling or composting programs will be allowed.

4. Regulations for on-premises dining: Food or beverages served for consumption on the premises of any regulated entity to be served on or in food service ware that is reusable. Paper liner, paper napkins or foil wrappers acceptable to the City’s recyclables or organics collection program may be used when required. Also, condiments, such as sauces, ketchup, or mustard, provided for on-site consumption, shall not be served in disposable, individual-serving packets.

5. Take Out and Delivery Regulations: Disposable food service ware for take-out or delivery shall be made from materials that are acceptable in the City’s organics collection program and be free of fluorinated chemicals.

Starting in 2023

6. No person or regulated entity shall sell any polystyrene food service ware.

7. No person or regulated entity shall sell polystyrene coolers.

8. No City officer, official, employee, representative, contractor or agent, shall sell, distribute, or otherwise provide any plastic water bottles while acting on behalf of the City or while acting pursuant to a contract or agreement with the City.

Waste Management Considerations
The City of Glendale organics waste will be sent to City Terrace, a transfer station operated by Southland. The food waste will be sent to Puente Hills for co-digestion with biosolids. This means that acceptable products within the City’s organics waste stream have to be paper or biodegradable plates, cups, and utensils. 178 of 331
88 b
3 1
5 4
Food waste items accepted at the Puente Hills facility in minimal quantities include:
Oil, grease and bones;
Packaging and cardboard;
Paper or biodegradable plates, cups, and utensils;
Plastic containers; and
Clear plastic bags.

Paper items include napkins, bowls, boxes, cups, plates, paper straws and bags. Plant- fiber-based products made from wheatgrass fiber, sugarcane/bagasse and rice include hinged containers, trays and cup holders. There are also compostable wood items such as stirrers.

Consideration has to be given to the limited food service ware items for take-out and delivery accepted in the City’s organics waste collection program and the capability of regulated entities to comply with regulations for these items.

Similar to the regulations for the distribution of disposable food ware accessories, staff recommends the City adopt a phased approach for adoption of the ordinance. The phased in approach would initially consist of an education phase. Post this education phase, defined large entities would have to comply with the ordinance within three months, followed by defined small entities that would have six months to comply.

Enforcement Considerations
At this early stage, staff’s opinion is that Neighborhood Services-Code Enforcement does not have the staffing capacity to take on additional tasks relative to the enforcement of any potential new ordinance regulating the use, sale and distribution of single use plastic and polystyrene products. Due to the expanded volume of work directly related to code enforcement caseloads, recent new ordinances adopted by the City Council in the last two years, and other new ordinances in the planning stage, this proposed ordinance would be difficult to effectively enforce in the timely and responsive manner. With that in mind, staff is in the process of gathering data from other cities with similar ordinances to better understand resource requirements, both from an enforcement and an education process. Once the data gathering is complete, staff will determine whether the City has sufficient existing resources to effectively respond to any potential violation complaints that may arise with the implementation of such an ordinance.

Other possible enforcement options include:

1. Ask regulated establishments to self-certify that they are complying with the ordinance through the Business Registration Certificate process, which only occurs on an annual basis so that information and any compliance would be 179 of 331
98 b
3 1
5 4
staggered over time.

2. Investigate developing an agreement to work with LA County Department of Public Health on enforcement of the ordinances through their food establishment inspection program.

3. Only enforce the ordinance when complaints are received and in the order they are received, within existing caseloads. The City does not have the staff capacity to proactively enforce the ordinance. Further, current caseloads have response times of 2-3 weeks from their initial filing date. To many who make the effort to report such violations, this response time is considered unacceptable and is not reflective of community expectations.

Also, if City Council directs staff to prepare an ordinance further regulating the use, sale and distribution of single use plastics food service ware, polystyrene food service ware, polystyrene packaging material polystyrene coolers, polystyrene food packaging trays and on-premises dining reusable food service ware, a substantial stakeholder education program would also have to be developed.

Impacts on Regulated Entities
The ordinance will potentially change the way food service providers handle food service, take-out orders and drink service. The primary change will be the sourcing of alternative products to single-use plastic straws, stirrers and utensils. The City will assist food and beverage providers by providing information on where alternate items may be sourced from. However, it must be recognized that alternatives to plastic, in some circumstances, comes with a cost increase. Food and service may mitigate these costs by using reusable items and following the City regulations on distribution of disposable food ware accessories.

The table below outlines examples of cost differences between plastic and alternative items.

Item Plastic Alternative
Stirrers $2.49/1000 $2.89/1000
Straws $10.19/1000 $16.25/1000
Utensils Pack $71.96/1000 $229/1000
To-go clamshell $315/1000 $349/1000
Meat Tray $33.98/1000 $122/1000
Egg Cartons $559/1000 $202/1000
Packing Peanuts $22/7 cu ft. bag $18/7 cu ft. bag
180 of 331
108 b
3 1
5 4
For operations using Styrofoam packaging materials, there should be no change in required processes, as the alternative products behave in the same way.

For on-premises dining, the use of reusable food service ware is seen as a cost effective option for the operator’s perspective. Other benefits include:
Reduced disposable food service ware costs
Improved customers’ dining experience
Prevention of litter near business
Lower waste collection service costs
Fiscal Impact
The fiscal impact associated with the implementation of a new ordinance will depend on the desired levels and duration of outreach and community education and enforcement.

Community outreach and education will be handled by existing City staff and therefore no new cost will be associated with this aspect of implementation. The Education Program will include, but is not limited to, an electronic media campaign, community workshops, and informational educational videos. All content will be created by staff.

With respect to enforcement, staff is in the process of gathering data from other cities.

This data will help determine whether the City has sufficient existing resources to respond to violation complaints without adding new personnel. Accordingly, the total potential fiscal impact of implementing such an ordinance cannot be definitively determined until data gathering and assessment of existing capacity is complete.

Next steps
Based on recommendations from the City Council, staff will prepare an ordinance to regulate the use and distribution of single use plastics, polystyrene packaging materials, polystyrene coolers, polystyrene produce trays, egg cartons and food service ware for on-premises dining.

Staff will be gathering data from other Cities to better understand the staffing resource requirements for the enforcement of an ordinance.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
To gain an understanding of the acceptance associated with implementing a prohibition on the use and distribution of single use plastics Citywide, staff asked food and beverage providers to respond to a survey. The survey solicited information on their current practices regarding on-premises dining and their use and distribution of single use plastic food service ware. Key takeaways from the survey are:
181 of 331
118 b
3 1
5 4
a) A majority of establishments are likely to offer reusable food service ware to dine in customers;
b) 70% of establishments have dishwashing appliances;
c) Disposable food service items offered to customers include:
a. To go containers - 75%
b. Straws - 50%
c. Utensils - 50%
d. Cups, plates and stirrers - 25%
d) Alternatives to single use plastics used include:
a. PLA Plastics food service ware
b. Fiber based food service ware
c. Paper/edible food service ware
e) Only 25% of respondents indicated they are working toward eliminating or reducing the use or distribution of single use plastics in their establishments

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is not subject to CEQA as it is not a project approval.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternate 1: Direct staff to prepare an ordinance to regulate the use of single use plastics food service ware, polystyrene food service ware, polystyrene coolers, polystyrene food packaging trays and on premises dining reusable food service ware.

Alternate 2: Recommend that a single use plastics ordinance exempt single use plastics food service ware, and instead focus on prohibiting the use and distribution of polystyrene packaging materials, polystyrene food service ware, polystyrene meat, fish, poultry, produce tray and egg cartons, polystyrene coolers and reusable dine-in food service wares.

Alternate 3: Consider any other alternative not presented by Staff 182 of 331
128 b
3 1
5 4

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

David Jones, Sustainability Officer
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Culver City Ordinance Waste Reduction Regulations 183 of 331
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\CC_03222022_Motion_8b1.pdf MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________________, that the Council directs staff to prepare an ordinance to regulate the use and distribution of single use plastics food service ware, polystyrene food service ware, polystyrene coolers, polystyrene food packaging trays and on-premises dining reusable food service ware as outlined in the Report to Council dated March 22, 2022.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
184 of 331
185 of 331
186 of 331
187 of 331
188 of 331
189 of 331
190 of 331
191 of 331
192 of 331
193 of 331
194 of 331
195 of 331
196 of 331
8c

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Amendment to the City of Glendale Building Code to Require All Electric Design, Rooftop Solar Photovoltaic, and Higher Energy Performance for New Construction.

2.Resolution of appropriation in the amount of $50,000 to hire a consultant to prepare a reach code

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 22, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To date, 50+ Cities and Counties have adopted reach codes covering building electrification and or building energy efficiency measures to further their sustainability goals. To adopt a reach code, a jurisdiction must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and result in buildings consuming less energy than is permitted by Title 24 and obtaining regulatory approval.

Studies completed for the City of Glendale in 2021 show that adopting a reach code pursuing an all electrification strategy for all new construction of low rise residential, high rise residential (including mid-rise), hotels, and non-residential motels, offices, and retail would meet the cost-effectiveness threshold.

There are two primary reach code strategies:

1. Adopt an all-electric building pathway requiring all new constructions to be all- electric.
197 of 331
28 c
3 1
8 4

2. Adopt an electric-preferred pathway that incentivizes the construction of all- electric buildings by mandating energy efficiency measures for mixed fuel new construction.

The transition to electrification of transportation and the built environment is gathering pace. The rising demand for electrification will impact grid infrastructure, operations, and planning. Glendale Water and Power will also have to procure sufficient energy resources and upgrade its infrastructure to manage these impacts. The City can mitigate these impacts through programming, planning, and investment. Modeling load increases for building electrification and EV charging will inform the development and language of any expected reach code and the corresponding infrastructure investments and energy procurement strategy.

Due to the complexity of this issue, staff recommends hiring a consultant to provide technical assistance and support to City staff. The consultant would also assist City staff in developing a potential reach code and associated ordinances for the City of Glendale.

The estimated cost to retain a consultant to develop a reach code is about $50,000.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES

1. Safe and Healthy Community: Electrification can improve air quality and provide public health benefits.

2. Sustainability: Pursuing building electrification is a comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff regarding the hiring of a consultant to assist the City in preparing a reach code to amend the City of Glendale Building Code to require all-electric design, rooftop solar photovoltaic, and higher energy performance for new construction. Should Council wish to direct staff to hire a consultant, it would require a resolution of appropriation in the amount of $50,000.

BACKGROUND
In September 2020, staff presented a report to City Council asking for direction on requiring commercial development in Glendale to provide rooftop solar photovoltaic systems. In the report, staff concluded: “Should City Council decide to pursue adoption of a Reach Code requirement for commercial photovoltaic, further study would need to be conducted toward that aim. In addition to a Glendale-specific cost-effectiveness study for commercial photovoltaics, City Council may desire to include other provisions within the Reach Code, which would require further study.” 198 of 331
38 c
3 1
8 4
City Council directed staff to explore hiring a consultant team to determine the feasibility of adopting a commercial photovoltaic requirement. In addition, City Council also asked that any reach code study include information on building electrification, EV charging, battery storage, and cool roof requirements.

City Council also suggested that staff connect with the Building De-carbonization Coalition (BDC) for assistance regarding the development of reach codes and guidance on navigating the California Energy Commission approval process for adopting a reach code. The BDC assisted City staff in connecting with the local Energy Codes team.

Their experts have developed robust toolkits and provided specific technical assistance to local jurisdictions (cities and counties) on adopting energy reach codes. The toolkits include cost-effectiveness research and analysis, model ordinance language and other code development and implementation tools, and specific technical assistance throughout the code adoption process.

In addition to connecting with the BDC and local Energy Codes team, staff researched Reach Codes adopted by other jurisdictions. Based upon that research, jurisdictions, in general, are adopting building reach codes that require all new construction to be all- electric or electric-preferred with additional energy efficiency requirements. All reach codes must show cost-effectiveness. Money saved from the reduced energy costs needs to cover the initial cost within a reasonable period.

Staff invited the BDC and local Energy Codes team to provide the Sustainability Commission updates on reach codes adopted in the state and review the results of a cost-effectiveness study completed for the City of Glendale. At the November 4, 2021 Sustainability Commission meeting, staff provided Commissioners a report recommending that the City Council hire a consultant to assist the City in preparing a reach code that includes building electrification, photovoltaics systems, EV charging, battery storage, and cool roof requirements. The Sustainability Commission voted in favor of this recommendation.

ANALYSIS
This report uses information from the Statewide Reach Codes Program. The California Codes and Standards Reach Codes Program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) to meet local and/or statewide energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The program facilitates the adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation.
199 of 331
48 c
3 1
8 4
This report references all-electric buildings and mixed fuel buildings. These are defined as follows:
ALL-ELECTRIC BUILDING is a building that uses electricity as the source of energy for all of its space heating, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying appliances and has no gas plumbing in the building for these end-uses. MIXED-FUEL BUILDING is a building that is built for the use of natural gas or propane as fuel for space heating, water heating, cooking, or clothes drying appliances.

The State has set ambitious renewable energy targets for new construction. It aims to achieve zero-net-energy (ZNE) for all new residential buildings by 2020 and all nonresidential buildings (including high-rise residential) by 2030.

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards or Title 24, Part 6 (referred to in this report as “Title 24” or the “State Energy Code”) (California Energy Commission, 2018a) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: The California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards).

The current version of the State Energy Code (the 2019 State Energy Code) became effective on January 1, 2020. A new version, the 2022 State Energy Code, was approved by the California Energy Commission in December 2021 and will become effective on January 1, 2023.

The 2019 State Energy Code moved in the direction of ZNE performance, but there are opportunities to achieve greater energy savings and accelerate de-carbonization by improving energy efficiency and renewable standards. The 2022 version of the State Energy Code will revise energy efficiency standards for newly constructed buildings as well as alterations to existing buildings, in several areas, including:
New standards for heat pumps (an electric technology for water and space heating that increases efficiency, reduces GHGs, and enables local flexibility); New single-family homes will be required to be electric-ready; and Extension of solar and introduction of battery storage standards for high-rise multifamily, hotel-motel, tenant space, office, medical, and clinics, retail, restaurants, schools, and civic buildings.
200 of 331
58 c
3 1
8 4
To date, some 50+ Cities and Counties have adopted some form of ordinance to adopt a reach code covering photovoltaics, energy efficiency measures, all electric in new construction and electric vehicle ordinances. Cities and Counties consider adopting reach codes to further their sustainability goals. The City of Glendale will be developing a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), with de-carbonization being a central tenet of the CAAP. The transition to all-electric buildings will be a key strategy of de- carbonization.

Higher energy standards are critical to de-carbonization. High-efficiency equipment and design will lower energy requirements and reduce demand for fossil fuels and on-site renewables. Likewise, all-electric buildings are one of the key strategies to decarbonizing the state’s building stock. The state’s electric system is rapidly becoming cleaner, driven by escalating renewable portfolio standards and cleaner product offerings by the utilities and community choice aggregators (CCAs) and by GWP. And while it is theoretically possible to power buildings with renewable natural gas, there currently is no plan for large-scale conversion to renewable natural gas for residential and commercial application.

In addition, advances in electric heat pumps and other electrical equipment are yielding much higher overall efficiencies than their natural gas counterparts. Electric heat pumps, unlike traditional electric resistance heaters, do not generate heat, but concentrate and transfer it for end uses such as space conditioning and water heating.

This process uses less primary energy and emits much less carbon, particularly when it is powered by renewable energy.

Many forms of renewable energy are not dispatchable; that is, the energy cannot be ramped up to match demand on a real-time basis. However, energy storage and load shifting technologies, combined with dynamic electricity pricing structures, can help overcome these limitations. Batteries, smart buildings, and financial incentives enable alignment of the consumer demand and supply from intermittent renewable sources such as solar and wind.

If a local jurisdiction is to adopt a reach code, it must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and result in buildings consuming less energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable. This process involves submitting an application to the Energy Commission Executive Director with the proposed energy standards, findings and supporting analysis on the energy savings and cost effectiveness of those standards including complying with Title 24, and any required environmental review documents.

The process includes a 60-day public comment period and final review and approval by the Energy Commission.
201 of 331
68 c
3 1
8 4
Local jurisdictions must also demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are:
oBased on local climatic, geological, and topographical, conditions (for purposes of the Green Building Standards Code, such conditions include local environmental conditions);
oCost-effective;
oNot less restrictive than the State requirements; and
oDo not pre-empt federal appliance efficiency standards.

Ordinance Options
The proposed approaches are based on cost-effectiveness studies commissioned by City of Glendale in 2021. The studies analyzed several prototypical buildings. For each prototype, the studies simulated operating the buildings with different combinations of energy efficiency, solar, and battery measures to determine the impacts on energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, costs, and savings. Costs include incremental capital costs, and, in some cases higher energy costs. In general, the initial costs of an all-electric building are lower than a mixed-fuel building due to the lack of gas plumbing.

There are multiple approaches available to adopt a reach code to further the sustainability goals of the City, which may include a mix of the following:
All new newly constructed residential, and non-residential buildings shall be all electric buildings, and or
Newly constructed buildings are to comply with stricter energy standards through a combination of energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy storage, and
A requirement that buildings be “Electric Ready,” meaning that the building must include the necessary infrastructure to convert to all-electric in the future, with exceptions for industrial processes yet to be determined. (Under the new 2022 State Energy Code, “electric readiness” is required for new single-family homes).

Option A: Building Electrification – All Electric Building Pathway A proposed all-electric pathway, where cost effective, would require, with some limited exemptions, that all new construction for low-rise residential, high-rise residential (including mid-rise) hotels, and non-residential motels, office and retail be all electric.

All other nonresidential would require energy efficiency measures and solar, where:
202 of 331
78 c
3 1
8 4
i.All newly constructed residential, office, retail, hotel and motel buildings shall be All- Electric Buildings
ii.Newly constructed nonresidential buildings that are designed to utilize mixed-fuel (natural gas or propane in addition to electricity) shall comply with either the prescriptive requirements or meet stricter compliance margins. iii.All newly constructed nonresidential buildings, hotels and motels and high-rise (including mid-rise) residential buildings shall be required to install a solar photovoltaic (PV) system.

Staff would recommend including guaranteed exemptions to this requirement for hospitals and certain other health care facilities. It will be necessary to determine if any other operations, such as commercial kitchens, or critical facilities are exempt, and the scope and scale of any such exemptions from the reach code, in order to quantify the impact of exemptions upon the effectiveness of any reach code.

Table 1: Examples All Electric Ordinances
Jurisdiction Ordinance
type
Nonresidential Requirement
Berkeley AE New – All Electric
Brisbane AE New – Except Life science occupancies and gas specific for profit kitchen
Cupertino AE New – Exception for Fire, High Hazard, Laboratory, and “Essential Facilities” occupancies – pre wire for all
electric
Hayward AE New – All Electric or 10% Compliance margin (15% for office and retail)
Healdsburg AE New – Exception for cooktops, fireplaces, pool/spa, Essential Services, technical processes; pre wire for
electric
Pacifica AE New – Exception for Fire and Police occupancies and for-profit kitchen cooking equipment
Option B: Electric Preferred- Energy Efficiency Pathway A proposed electric preferred pathway is designed to prioritize the construction of all- electric buildings through incentives and amendments to Building Code. Incentives to adopt this approach will be requiring all new mixed-fuel buildings to achieve higher 203 of 331
88 c
3 1
8 4
energy performance over the California Energy Code. The program may include the following components:

All other new mixed-fuel buildings must comply with higher performance standards or prescriptive requirements.
All-Electric Buildings would have to comply with the latest edition of the California Energy Code.
Requiring new buildings with natural gas to include the necessary infrastructure to convert to all-electric in the future, known as “retrofit ready” requirements (the 2022 Building Code will require this for single family residential new buildings).
All new buildings must install a PV system as a mandatory measure.

As with option A, it will be necessary to determine the scope and scale of any exemptions from the reach code to quantify the impact of exemptions upon the effectiveness of any reach code.

Similar to the structure of the State Energy Code, the City of Glendale may offer two pathways for compliance with the program: all-electric design and mixed-fuel design. As an incentive to design all-electric buildings, the reach code may require mixed-fuel buildings to have a higher level of energy efficiency.

Based upon an analysis of the 2019 Building Code, staff proposed the following potential compliance pathway options:

Low Rise Residential and Single Family Approach
All Electric 1. Comply with 2019 California Energy Code Mixed Fuel 1. Comply with 2019 California Energy Code including City requirements for enhanced building energy performance

2. Pre-wire to be electric ready
Nonresidential Approach
All Electric 1. Comply with 2019 California Energy Code

2. Comply with City Solar Requirements to be included in the reach code
Mixed Fuel 1. Comply with 2019 California Energy Code including City requirements for enhanced building energy performance
204 of 331
98 c
3 1
8 4

2. Comply with City Solar requirements to be included in the reach code

3. Pre-wire to be electric ready
Because the 2022 California Energy Code changes certain requirements from the 2019 California Energy Code, certain adjustments to the proposed reach code will be necessary. Some of the “reach” requirements will no longer be required to the extent they are already made part of the 2022 California Energy Code. For example, the 2022 California Energy Code will require new single family residential homes to be electric ready. The consultant will analyze the effect of the 2022 California Energy Code changes on the proposed reach codes, update the cost-benefit analysis, and provide recommendations.

Based upon the earlier cost-effectiveness studies prepared for the City of Glendale, the Proposed Energy Performance Standards vary by building type as follows:

Table 2: Examples of Improved Energy Performance Standards for Mixed Fuel Buildings based on Cost Effectiveness Studies
Building Type Performance
Requirement
Justification
Single family Exceed EDR* by 8.5 points Maximum cost effective TEDR*
Detached Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Exceed EDR by 12.90
points
Maximum cost effective
TEDR
Low-rise multifamily
(1 to 3 habitable stories)
Exceed EDR by 9.5 points Maximum cost effective
TEDR
Mid-rise multifamily
(4 to 7 habitable stories)

6.5% Compliance Margin* Maximum cost effective
compliance margin
High-rise multifamily
(8 and above habitable
stories)

7.6% Compliance Margin Maximum cost effective
compliance margin
Medium Office 16% Compliance Margin Maximum cost effective compliance margin
Medium Retail 10% Compliance Margin Maximum cost effective compliance margin
Small Hotel 5% Compliance Margin Maximum cost effective compliance margin
*The Energy Design Rating (EDR) score is based on total estimated energy use. 100 represents a home built to 2006 building code. 0 represents a zero net energy home. An EDR score of around 20 points meets compliance with the 2019 code. “TEDR” refers to Total Energy Design Rating. The “Compliance Margin” represents improvement relative to the energy budget calculated for the Standard Design Building. 205 of 331
108 c
3 1
8 4
Below are examples of Energy Efficiency Pathways from other California jurisdictions:

Table 3: Energy Efficiency Pathway Examples
Jurisdiction Ordinance
type
Nonresidential Requirement
Berkeley EE New – All Electric OR Mixed-Fuel: 10% compliance margin AND electric ready. Exception: labs, industrial
manufacturing occupancies
Milpitas EE New – All Electric OR Office & Retail > 14% compliance margin; Industrial/Manufacturing + 0%; All
other non-residential occupancies >6% compliance
margin AND electric ready
San
Anselmo
EE New – All Electric OR limited mixed fuel: 5%
compliance margin, prewired for induction OR mixed
fuel: 10% compliance margin, pre wired for induction
San Luis
Obispo
AE New – All Electric OR Office/retail 15% compliance
margin, others 5% compliance margin AND electric
ready
Santa
Monica
AE New – All Electric OR mixed fuel and > 10%
Compliance margin
Solar Requirements
City Council directed staff to explore hiring a consultant team to determine the feasibility of adopting a commercial photovoltaic requirement.

The 2019 Building Code, which includes Title 24, went into effect on January 1, 2020. It requires solar PV systems on all new single-family and low-rise multifamily buildings (three stories or less). The 2019 Building Code also requires nonresidential buildings to reserve at least 15 percent of the roof area as a “solar zone”. Other Cities have adopted alternate options. Examples are in Table 4.

Table 4: Example Local PV Requirements
Jurisdiction Ordinance
type
Nonresidential Requirement
Berkeley EE PV system to fill solar zone (>15% of roof area) Brisbane EE PV of 3 kW min for < 10,000sq. ft. and 5 kW min for > 10,000sq. ft. or solar thermal
206 of 331
118 c
3 1
8 4
Carlsbad PV PV that offsets 80%;
15 kW per 10,000 sf.;
5 kW for < 10,000 sf
Santa Monica PV 2 watts per sq. ft.

West
Hollywood
EE, Cool
Roofs
PV to offset 15% of usage OR solar thermal with min

0.5 solar fraction or vegetative roof covering minimum
30%
Electric Ready
The all-electric readiness requirements from the 2019 State Energy Code apply only to buildings and additions plumbed for gas. These requirements include circuits and/or conduits for water and space heating equipment, cooking equipment, and clothes dryers, as well as space requirements for water heaters. The requirements may not apply to industrial processes and commercial kitchens.

Cost-Effective Studies
Information contained within this report relies on information provided by the Local Energy Codes Cost-Effective Studies. The report is an addendum to the 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study and 2020 New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units to accurately represent the City of Glendale, California. The study analyzed the cost- effectiveness of measure packages that exceed the minimum state requirements as set forth in the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2020 - for design in newly constructed buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities - collectively known as the Reach Code Team.

The prototypes analyzed in these studies are:
oDetached Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
oSingle-family homes
oLow-rise multifamily
oMid-rise multifamily
oHigh-rise multifamily
oMedium Office
oMedium Retail
oSmall Hotel

207 of 331
128 c
3 1
8 4
Summary of Findings
The Reach Code team developed packages of energy efficiency measures and packages combining energy efficiency with PV generation and/or battery storage systems. They simulated them in building modeling software and gathered costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Code team coordinated assumptions with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions that were considered reasonable in the current market at the time the study was performed. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs, are likely to change results.

The Reach Code team provided the following high-level takeaways from the results:
Detached ADU: All-electric detached ADUs have near-zero or positive ‘Total EDR Margins’ implying that they comply with the code or exceed the 2019 Title 24 minimum requirements. They are cost-effective in Glendale using the On-Bill metric.
Medium Office: Both mixed-fuel energy efficiency packages are cost-effective and have positive compliance margins with and without solar PV and battery. All- electric packages are cost-effective and compliant against the standard mixed- fuel baseline model with efficiency measures and/or solar PV and battery. The all-electric office is cost-effective but requires additional efficiency measures to achieve compliance with federal minimum efficiency equipment and support an all-electric reach code.
Medium Retail: All mixed fuel and all-electric energy efficiency packages are cost-effective with positive compliance margins.
Small Hotel: Mixed-fuel efficiency and PV with battery packages are cost- effective with positive compliance margin but not On-Bill cost-effective with efficiency measures alone. Electrification packages are cost-effective but require additional efficiency measures to achieve compliance with federal minimum efficiency equipment. Hence, an all-electric reach code can be required when combined with efficiency measures alone or with efficiency plus solar PV and/or battery.

Reach code policies requiring all-electric buildings with added efficiency and/or solar PV are feasible for detached ADUs, medium office, medium retail, and small hotel building types. Electric- preferred policies, where a mixed-fuel prototype must achieve a higher compliance margin than an all-electric building, are supported for all building types. In addition, PV only and PV + Battery reach codes policies are feasible for nonresidential 208 of 331
138 c
3 1
8 4
new construction building types. In practice, PV system size is optimized for the specific building.
Mid-Rise and High-Rise Multifamily New Construction: This analysis found cost-effective, non-preempted packages for mid-rise multifamily buildings under both mixed-fuel and all-electric cases. The analysis results support the City of Glendale's adoption of reach codes.
Single Family and Low-Rise Multifamily New Construction: The analysis found cost-effective, non-preempted packages for both single-family and low-rise multifamily buildings, for both mixed fuel and all-electric cases.

The Cost-Effectiveness studies are included as Exhibits 1 & 2 in this report. It is important to note that the Cost-Effectiveness studies analyze potential reach code measures based on the 2019 State Energy Code. Determining the cost-effectiveness of potential reach codes based upon the forthcoming 2022 State Energy Code would require further study.

Grid Impacts of Electrification
Over the last decade, US energy consumption has increased at a slower pace than it had previously. However, this trend is expected to change significantly in the future, and energy consumption is expected to accelerate more rapidly as the transition to electrification for transportation and the built environment gathers pace. These electrification scenarios show a low electrification rate of 32% and a high scenario of 85% by 2050. The projected growth requires changes in grid infrastructure, operation, and planning (Blonsky et al 2019).

Transportation electrification will increase primarily due to light-duty electric vehicles (the family car) as countries and states put in place policies to reduce GHG emissions from transportation. For example, in 2017, approximately 580,000 EVs were sold in the USA, accounting for 1 TWh per year. California has a goal of 5 million EVs on the road by 2030, accounting for approximately 11 TWh per year, and in September 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom adopted an Executive Order requiring that, by 2035, all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles.

Building electrification will rise internationally, nationally, and locally, as residential and commercial buildings electrify space heating/cooling, water heating, electric dryers, and cooking. Heat pumps will be the primary driver of building electrification. Heat pumps in the US currently account for 10-15% of space heating. To reduce carbon emissions in 209 of 331
148 c
3 1
8 4
line with California state mandates, an estimated 75% of space heating will need to be supplied by heat pumps.

Grid operators must ensure that supply meets demand and prepare grid infrastructure, operations, and planning for increased demand. The potential impacts of electrification on grid infrastructure, operations, and planning are summarized below.

1.Capacity: Electrification will increase electricity demand and affect the time and scale of that demand. Tailored incentives and rate structures can help shift EV charging demand. Demand for space heating, cooling, and cooking will increase peak demand at certain times and is subject to less flexibility. Therefore, programs, policies, technologies, and adequate electrical capacity will need to be developed, deployed, and available to manage these demand curves.

2.Integrated Resource Planning: In general, utilities will need new power plants to meet the forecasted demand increase. Additionally, state mandates and the public demand that new power utilize low carbon technology.

3.Voltage Regulation: Higher demand for electricity increases current levels in the distribution systems, which means a lower voltage at the customer connection point. Voltage requirements at the customer point need to meet ANSI limits of +/- 5%. Disruptions to voltage regulation needs effective management to maintain the stability and reliability of the electric system.

4.Distribution Upgrades: Increases in electricity consumption require significant investment in infrastructure and may include increasing the capacity of lines, updating transformers, and upgrading electrical substations.

The impacts of electrification summarized above are also of concern to GWP. GWP has additional unique issues to consider, as outlined below.

GWP Specific Impacts
Supporting the transition to electrification of the transportation and building sectors will impact GWP infrastructure, operations, and planning. Any ordinance requiring all- electric or electric preferred buildings and supporting the expansion of EV charging capacity needs to manage where the potential load increases are not detrimental to GWP operations. Programming and planning need to mitigate these impacts.

A number of the implications of building electrification for GWP, and issues that will need to be considered and addressed, are summarized below. 210 of 331
158 c
3 1
8 4
Modeling of load increases for building electrification and EV chargers.

Electrification will increase the load on the GWP system. Understanding when the load demand is expected and from what source (building or transportation) will inform the development and language of any expected reach code. Analysis of transmission and distribution upgrades needed to meet the growth in electric demand. In order to plan for and support a future with increased electrification, GWP needs to understand what infrastructure developments are required, when they are needed, and which part of the system needs to be upgraded. One option would be to develop a phased-in schedule for building electrification. This may focus initially on new residential and non-residential construction (including ADUs). Retrofitting existing building stock may be a later phase of building electrification.
Analysis of financial impacts of the upgrades that will be needed to GWP’s infrastructure to accommodate additional electrification, and the preparation of a cost of service analysis to develop rates to fund such costs. Analysis of the impact of PV Solar and battery storage on the GWP distribution grid and on load.

NEXT STEPS
Due to the complexity of this issue, staff recommend hiring a consultant to provide technical assistance and support to City staff in developing potential reach codes and associated ordinances for the City of Glendale. The consultant's work may include assisting staff in developing draft ordinances for building electrification, photovoltaics, and EV infrastructure in new construction, supporting outreach and engagement processes, and helping staff and City Council in the reach code adoption process.

The reach code consultant will bring expertise to address multiples items that staff have not addressed in this report, including but not limited to:

1.Community Outreach. At this time, staff have not undertaken outreach activities with potentially affected communities to obtain their input on any of the proposed ordinance options. Community outreach is a critical step, especially when determining when exemptions to any proposed ordinance may apply and what those exemptions are. Outreach will also assist in preparing builders, architects, and property owners to prepare for the proposed local amendments to the State Energy code.

2.Determine which of the many reach code options are appropriate for the City of Glendale. This would include recommending any exemptions from any proposed reach code.
211 of 331
168 c
3 1
8 4

3.Updates on the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards became effective January 1, 2020. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards will update in 2022 and take effect on January 1, 2023. It will be necessary to determine how the 2022 State Electric Code standards will influence proposed reach code ordinances and impact affected communities, and to evaluate the cost-benefit of proposed reach codes changes to the 2022 State Electric Code.

4.Consider impacts to GWP and propose solutions to plan for electrification.

While the consultant would interface with GWP, the consultant’s scope of work will not include any studies of GWP system upgrades, integrated resource planning, cost of service analysis, or rate development associated with the reach codes.

5.Assist staff in preparing building electrification, solar photovoltaic, EV charging, and battery storage ordinances for adoption by the City Council.

6.Assist staff in preparing the required documentation for submission to the California Energy Commission and Building Standards Commission.

The estimated cost of a consultant to perform these tasks is around $50,000.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
On November 4, 2021, the Glendale Sustainability Commission held a public meeting to discuss hiring a consultant to assist the City in preparing reach codes to amend the City of Glendale's Building Code to require all-electric design, solar power, and higher energy performance for new construction.

Staff from the Sustainability Office reached out to Glendale Water and Power (GWP) staff regarding pursuing a building electrification strategy and will be further coordinating with GWP to discuss and collaborate on the development of the proposed reach codes.

FISCAL IMPACT
If Council provides direction to staff to hire a consultant to assist in the development of a reach code, the consultant contract will cost $50,000 which was not included as a part of the FY 2021-22 approved budget. Therefore, staff is requesting for an appropriation of $50,000 from General Fund Undesignated Fund Balance. The appropriation request is outlined below:
212 of 331
178 c
3 1
8 4
Requesting Appropriation
Amount From To Funding Source
$50,000 GL: 25300-1010-
000
GL: 43110-1010-
MSD-6510-P0000
General Fund –
Undesignated Fund
Balance
The fiscal impacts of the reach code itself, including the cost of any necessary upgrades to GWP infrastructure, will dependent upon the terms of the reach code ordinance and will require further study. Such fiscal impacts are not included in this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is not subject to CEQA as it is not a project approval.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Direct staff to hire a consultant to assist the city in the preparation of a reach code to amend the 2019 City of Glendale Building Code to require all-electric design, rooftop solar photovoltaic, and higher energy performance for new construction and adopt a resolution of appropriation in the amount of $50,000 to hire a consultant.

Alternative 2: Direct staff to hire a consultant to assist the city in the preparation of a reach code based upon the forthcoming 2022 California Energy Codes and to prepare cost-effectiveness studies related to such reach codes.

Alternative 3: Direct staff not to pursue the preparation of a reach code at this time and to wait until the 2022 California Building Efficiency Standards become effective on January 1, 2023.

Alternative 4: Council may choose to direct staff to not hire a consultant to assist staff in the development of a reach code at this time.

Alternative 5: Council may consider any other alternative not presented by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

David Jones, Sustainability Officer
213 of 331
188 c
3 1
8 4
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: 2020 Analysis of Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, Medium Office, Medium Retail and Small Hotel – City of Glendale
Exhibit 2: 2020 Analysis of Residential Construction Cost Effectiveness – City of Glendale
214 of 331

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the City Council directs staff to hire a consultant to provide professional services to assist the City in preparing a “reach code” for the City Council’s consideration, to incorporate requirements for all-electric design, rooftop solar photovoltaic, and higher energy performance for new construction as part of the Glendale Building & Safety Code.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
215 of 331
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 $50,000 is hereby appropriated and/or transferred from the following accounts to the following accounts:

ACCOUNTS DESCRIPTION FROM TO
25300-1010-000
43110-1010-MSD-6510-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
Undesignated Fund Balance, General Fund
Contractual Services, General Fund,
Management Services Department, Office of
Sustainability
$50,000
$50,000
To appropriate funds to hire a consultant to prepare a reach code.

SECTION 2: The Director of Finance is authorized to make such other revisions, individual appropriation line-items, changes in summaries, fund totals, grand totals, and other portions of the budget document as necessary to reflect and implement the changes specified in this resolution.

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

Adopted this________day of _______________, 2022.
_______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
3/10/22
___________________________________
City Clerk 50,000

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________________
City Clerk
216 of 331

2019 New Construction Cost-Effectiveness
Study Addendum:
2020 Analysis of Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit, Medium Office, Medium Retail and Small Hotel – City of Glendale

Prepared by:

TRC

Prepared for:

Christopher Kuch
Codes and Standards Program
Southern California Edison
Last Modified: April 22, 2021

217 of 331

LEGAL NOTICE

This report was prepared by Southern California Edison and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Neither SCE nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks or copyrights.

Acronym List

B/C – Benefit-to-Cost
CBECC - California Building Energy Code Compliance
CEC - California Energy Commission
CZ – Climate Zone
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
IOU - Investor Owned Utility
kWh – Kilowatt Hour
NPV – Net Present Value
PV - Solar Photovoltaic
TDV - Time Dependent Valuation
Title 24 – California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6

218 of 331

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 1 2 Methodology and Assumptions ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 Cost-Effectiveness ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 2

2.1.1 Benefits ...............................................................................................................................................2

2.1.2 Costs ...................................................................................................................................................2

2.1.3 Cost Effectiveness Metrics .................................................................................................................2

2.1.4 Utility Rates .........................................................................................................................................3 3 Measure Description ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 5 Detached ADU ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 5 Nonresidential Prototypes ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5 4 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7 Detached ADU ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 8 Nonresidential Prototypes ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 8

4.2.1 Medium Office .....................................................................................................................................9

4.2.2 Medium Retail .................................................................................................................................. 11

4.2.3 Small Hotel....................................................................................................................................... 13

4.2.4 PV-only and PV+Battery .................................................................................................................. 15 5 Summary of Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 17 6 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 7 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 19 8 Appendices ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 20 Map of California Climate Zones ................................ ................................ ............................ 20 Utility Rate Schedules ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 21

8.2.1 GWP Utilities .................................................................................................................................... 21

8.2.2 SoCalGas......................................................................................................................................... 23 Mixed Fuel Baseline Energy Figures ................................ ................................ ..................... 27 PV-only and PV+Battery-only Cost Effectiveness Results Details ................................ .......... 28

8.4.1 Medium Office .................................................................................................................................. 28

8.4.2 Medium Retail .................................................................................................................................. 29

8.4.3 Small Hotel....................................................................................................................................... 30

219 of 331

List of Figures
FIGURE 1. UTILITY RATE TARIFFS IN GLENDALE ..............................................................................................................4 FIGURE 2. MEASURES FOR DETACHED ADU ..................................................................................................................5 FIGURE 3. NONRESIDENTIAL PROTOTYPE – MEASURE PACKAGE SUMMARY .....................................................................6 FIGURE 4. COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR ADU: ALL-ELECTRIC PACKAGES ..........................................................................8 FIGURE 5. COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR MEDIUM OFFICE PACKAGES - GLENDALE ........................................................... 10 FIGURE 6. COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR MEDIUM RETAIL PACKAGES - GLENDALE ............................................................ 12 FIGURE 7. COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR SMALL HOTEL PACKAGES - GLENDALE .............................................................. 14 FIGURE 8. COST EFFECTIVENESS PV AND BATTERY ONLY PACKAGES ........................................................................... 16 FIGURE 9. DETACHED ADU SUMMARY OF EDR MARGIN AND COST EFFECTIVENESS .................................................... 17 FIGURE 10. MEDIUM OFFICE SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE MARGIN AND COST EFFECTIVENESS ....................................... 17 FIGURE 11. MEDIUM RETAIL SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE MARGIN AND COST EFFECTIVENESS ....................................... 17 FIGURE 12. SMALL HOTEL SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE MARGIN AND COST EFFECTIVENESS .......................................... 17 FIGURE 13. MAP OF CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ZONES ....................................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 14. REAL UTILITY RATE ESCALATION RATE ASSUMPTIONS - NONRESIDENTIAL .................................................. 25 FIGURE 15. REAL UTILITY RATE ESCALATION RATE ASSUMPTIONS: RESIDENTIAL ......................................................... 26 FIGURE 16. DETACHED ADU: MIXED FUEL BASELINE .................................................................................................. 27 FIGURE 17. MEDIUM OFFICE: MIXED FUEL BASELINE ................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 18. MEDIUM RETAIL: MIXED FUEL BASELINE ................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 19. SMALL HOTEL: MIXED FUEL BASELINE ...................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 20. PV-ONLY AND PV+BATTERY-ONLY RESULTS – MEDIUM OFFICE ................................................................. 28 FIGURE 21. PV-ONLY AND PV+BATTERY-ONLY RESULTS – MEDIUM RETAIL ................................................................. 29 FIGURE 22. PV-ONLY AND PV+BATTERY-ONLY RESULTS – SMALL HOTEL .................................................................... 30

220 of 331

1 2021-04-22
1 Introduction
The California Codes and Standards Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting ordinances may contact the program for support through its website, LocalEnergyCodes.com.

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards or Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (California Energy Commission, 2018a) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies:
the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and result in buildings consuming less energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.

This report is an addendum to the 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study and 2020 New Construction Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units modified to accurately represent the city of Glendale, California. The study analyzes cost-effectiveness of measure packages that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2020, for design in newly constructed buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities - collectively known as the Reach Code Team.

The prototypes analyzed in this study are:
• Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
• Medium Office
• Medium Retail
• Small Hotel
The methodology, prototype characteristics, and measure packages are retained from the main studies referenced above except for the energy costs are calculated using local Glendale utility rates and updated modeling software since the 2019 study. Measure packages include combinations of energy efficiency, electrification, solar photovoltaics (PV), and battery storage.

The cost effectiveness is evaluated for California Climate Zone 9 (see Appendix 8.1) covering the City of Glendale.
221 of 331

2 2021-04-22
2 Methodology and Assumptions
The Reach Code team analyzed four prototypes, with a common approach for the three nonresidential prototypes (medium office, medium retail, and small hotel) and a separate one for the residential detached ADU prototype. However, the general cost effectiveness methodology below applies commonly to all the prototypes.

Cost-Effectiveness
This section describes the approach to calculating cost effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection.

2.1.1 Benefits
Across all prototypes, this analysis used both On-Bill and time dependent valuation (TDV) energy-based approaches to evaluate cost-effectiveness. Both On-Bill and TDV require estimating and quantifying the energy savings and costs associated with energy measures. The primary difference of On-Bill and TDV is how energy is valuated:
• On-Bill: Customer-based lifecycle cost approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer On-Bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 15-year duration for nonresidential buildings and 30-year duration for the detached ADU, accounting for a 3 percent discount rate and energy cost inflation per Appendix 8.2.
• TDV: TDV was developed by the Energy Commission to reflect the time dependent value of energy including long-term projected costs such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs including projected costs for carbon emissions and grid transmission impacts. With the TDV approach, electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season (E3 2016).

The Reach Code team performed energy simulations using the most recent software available for 2019 Title 24 code compliance analysis, EnergyPro 8.2 (CBECC-Com 2019.1.3 ruleset engine) and CBECC-Res 2019.1.3 for nonresidential and residential prototypes respectively. The Team also used CBECC-Res 2022.0.1 RV for testing the impacts of updated weather files and 2022 TDV multipliers on cost-effectiveness. 2022 weather files have more cooling loads and less heating loads, and 2022 TDV multipliers increased significantly for fossil-fuel sources to reflect CO2 price forecasts and emissions abatement, while comparatively reducing for electricity to reflect increased renewable generation penetration (California Energy Commission, 2019).

2.1.2 Costs
The Reach Code team assessed the incremental costs and savings of the energy packages over 15 years for nonresidential prototypes, and 30 years for the detached ADU. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacements, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2019 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements.

2.1.3 Cost Effectiveness Metrics
Cost effectiveness results are presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics.
222 of 331

3 2021-04-22
• NPV: The Reach Code Team uses net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs) as the cost effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost effective. Negative savings represent net costs. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the measure are more negative (i.e., construction and maintenance cost savings).
• B/C Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 15 or 30 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criterion for cost effectiveness is a B/C ratio greater than 1.0. A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment.

Improving the energy performance of a building often requires an initial investment. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual On-Bill utility or TDV savings, and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs. However, some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). In cases where both construction costs and energy- related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the benefit while the increased energy costs are the cost. In cases where a measure or package is cost-effective immediately (i.e. upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost-effectiveness is represented by “>1”. Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values.

2.1.4 Utility Rates
Glendale Water & Power (GWP)1 is the main electric utility with SoCalGas2 as the gas utility in the City of Glendale. In coordination with the utilities in Glendale, the Reach Code team determined appropriate utility rates based on the annual load profile of each prototype, the corresponding packagepackage, and the most prevalent rate in each territory. L-1-A is the standard service rate for residential customers in Glendale. L-1-D rate is applied to customers with a self-generation source such as solar PV. The customer charge and energy charges are the same for L-1-A and L-1-D except L-1-D is applied on net energy usage for self-generation customers and used to identify Net Energy Metering (NEM) customers. The residential detached ADU prototype analyzed in this study has solar PV installed in all packages including the baseline, hence L-1-D is the selected rate.

Nonresidential GWP rates are based on small, medium, or large categories depending on their monthly peak loads. The peak loads of the nonresidential prototype packages are between 20 and 500kW, hence “medium” and “large” category rates are applied in this analysis. Mixed fuel and all-electric packages of medium office as well as all-electric small hotel packages fall under “large” category and medium retail and small hotel mixed fuel packages falls under “medium” category. Similar to residential, L-2-A and L-2-C have the same rate structure except that L-2-C is applied for solar PV customers.

1 GWP: https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/city-departments/glendale-water-and-power/rates 2 SoCal Gas: https://www2.socalgas.com/regulatory/tariffs/tariffs-rates.shtml

223 of 331

4 2021-04-22
Figure 1Figure 1 below summarizes the utility rates that the Reach Codes Team used for this analysis.

Figure 1. Utility Rate Tariffs in Glendale
Electric / Gas Utility Electricity Natural Gas
Residential (Detached ADU)
GWP/SoCalGas L-1-D GM
(GM-E)
Nonresidential
GWP (Small 0-20kW)/SoCalGas L-2-A/L-2-C G-10
(GN-10)
GWP (Medium 20-150kW)/SoCalGas LD-2-A/LD-2-C G-10
(GN-10)
GWP (Large 150-500kW)/SoCalGas PC-1A G-10
(GN-10)
The cost-effectiveness methodology assumes utility rates escalating over time, using assumptions detailed in Appendix 8.2. Please see the main 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study for further details on methodology.

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
224 of 331

5 2021-04-22
3 Measure Description
Detailed descriptions of the prototypes, measures and cost breakdowns are included in the two main studies referenced above. This section provides a summary of the package development and individual measure breakdown for each prototype.

Detached ADU
The Reach Code team evaluated two electrification packages against a prescriptively built mixed fuel baseline model:
• All-Electric Prescriptive Minimum: All-electric prescriptively built, including heat pump water heater located in conditioned space per 2019 Residential Alternate Calculation Method (ACM). The cost includes electric utility upgrade from the primary dwelling to the detached ADU and avoided cost of gas utility extension. • All-Electric Energy Efficiency + PV: All-electric prescriptively built, heat pump water heater located in conditioned space per 2019 Residential ACM, plus energy efficiency measures, and additional solar PV to improve cost effectiveness based on prior reach code research.

The energy efficiency and solar PV measures for the Glendale region are detailed in Figure 2Figure 2 below. Please refer to the 2019 New Construction Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit Analysis report for further details on measures, incremental cost and methodology.

Figure 2. Measures for Detached ADU
Measure Incremental Cost Cost for ADU
Prototype
Verified low leakage ducts in
conditioned space (including HERS
verification)
$0.31/ft2 of floor area + $110 HERS
test
$343
Low pressure drop ducts - 2% vs 5% $96/hr labor for installation $96 Reduced infiltration: 3ACH50 vs
5ACH50 $0.115/ft2 + $100 HERS test $186
High performance attics: R-38 attic
floor + R-30 Under Deck $0.34/ft2 attic floor + $1.61/ft2 roof $1,563 Improved fenestration $4.23/ft2 of window $381
Solar PV to offset 90% annual
electricity use $3.72/W-DC $7,839
Total (Present Value $) $9,722
The Reach Code team evaluated the electrification packages using 2022 TDV multipliers and updates in CBECC-Res 2022 software like the weather data and update in algorithms.

Nonresidential Prototypes
The Reach Code team evaluated cost effectiveness of the following measure packages over a 2019 mixed-fuel code compliant baseline for three nonresidential prototypes (medium office, medium retail and small hotel), summarized in Figure 3.Figure 3. • Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE: Mixed-fuel design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies.

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
225 of 331

6 2021-04-22
• Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 1A, plus solar PV and batteries.
• Package 1C – Mixed-fuel + HE: Alternative design with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption. Federal preemption prohibits mandatory local reach codes from requiring high efficiency covered appliances. However, in practice, builders may install any package of compliant measures to achieve the performance requirements. • Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: All-electric design with federal code minimum appliance efficiency. No solar PV or battery. Note that the office and hotel models in this package are included for reference only, as they do not meet minimum compliance requirements.
• Package 3A – All-Electric + EE: All-electric design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies.
• Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 3A, plus solar PV and batteries.
• Package 3C – All-Electric + HE: All-electric design with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption.

Figure 3. Nonresidential Prototype – Measure Package Summary Package
Fuel Type
Energy
Efficiency
Measures
PV &
Battery
(PV + B)
High
Efficiency
Appliances
(HE) Mixed
Fuel
All-
Electric

Mixed-Fuel Code Minimum
Baseline ✓
1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE ✓ ✓
1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV
+ B ✓ ✓ ✓
1C – Mixed-fuel + HE ✓ ✓
2 – All-Electric Federal
Code-Minimum Reference ✓
3A – All-Electric + EE ✓ ✓
3B – All-Electric + EE + PV
+ B ✓ ✓ ✓
3C – All-Electric + HE ✓ ✓
See 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study for further details on measure descriptions and cost breakdowns for each package. 226 of 331

7 2021-04-22
4 Results
In this section the Reach Code team presents results per the prototype-specific measure packages described in Section 3.

The TDV and On-Bill based cost effectiveness results are presented in terms of B/C ratio and NPV. Designation of a ‘benefit’ or a ‘cost’ varies with the scenarios because both energy savings and incremental construction costs may be negative depending on the package. Typically, utility bill savings are categorized as a ‘benefit’ while incremental construction costs are treated as ‘costs.’ In cases where both construction costs and utility bill savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ and the utility bill negative savings as the ‘cost.’
Overarching factors impacting the results include:
• All-electric packages will have lower GHG emissions than mixed-fuel packages in all cases, due to the cleaner power sources currently available from California’s power providers.
• To pass the Energy Commission’s application process, local reach codes amend Title 24, Part 6 must be both cost effective and have a positive compliance margin compared to the standard baseline model in the compliance software. To emphasize these requirements, the figures in this section highlight in green the positive compliance margin or cost- effective modeling results. This will allow readers to identify whether a scenario is fully or partially supportive of a reach code, and the opportunities/challenges that the scenario presents. Section 5 highlights results that have both a positive compliance margin and are cost effective, identifying reach code-ready scenarios. • In the performance modeling of residential buildings of three stories or less (including the Detached ADU), compliance software uses an electric Standard Design when the Proposed Design is electric, removing TDV-related penalties and associated negative compliance margins. This approach allows for a compliance pathway for all-electric residential buildings. Nonresidential buildings are not treated in the same way and are compared to a mixed-fuel standard design.
• The Energy Commission does not currently allow compliance credit for either solar PV or battery storage in nonresidential buildings. Thus, compliance margins are the same for nonresidential packages with and without these technologies. However, the Reach Code team did include the impact of solar PV and battery when calculating overall TDV cost- effectiveness.
• As a point of comparison, mixed-fuel baseline energy figures are provided in Section 08.3. • The cost-effectiveness results for 2022 analysis differs from 2019 mainly in $TDV savings, but also differs slightly in energy consumption which translates in minor difference in on- bill energy savings. The Reach Code Team has not reported the software outputs for 2022 EDR margins as the 2022 Title 24 Part 6 code is still being developed.

227 of 331

8 2021-04-22
Detached ADU
Figure 4Figure 4 shows results of the two all-electric packages modeled for detached ADU compared to a mixed-fuel baseline. The all-electric prescriptive minimum package with heat pump water heater located in conditioned space, federal-minimum efficiencies for mechanical equipment, and minimum PV system capacity is On-Bill cost effective under GWP rates.

Furthermore, the all-electric prescriptive minimum with 1) the heat pump water heater located in conditioned space, 2) energy efficiency measures, and 3) additional solar PV is cost effective on both On-Bill and TDV basis.

The figure below also shows cost-effectiveness results for the TDV approach using 2022 Title24 compliance software. The TDV was calculated using 30-year residential TDV hourly multipliers for the detached ADU.3 The all-electric detached ADU with additional measures is cost effective on both On-bill and TDV basis under both utility rates. The EDR margin for compliance is not shown for 2022 TDV scenarios because the 2022 Title 24 ruleset is not finalized yet.

Figure 4. Cost Effectiveness for ADU: All-Electric Packages Package
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
Reductions
(mtons)
Total
EDR
Margin
Incremental
Package
Cost
Lifecycle
Utility Cost
Savings
$TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-
Bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV
(On-Bill)
NPV
(TDV)
2019 TDV
AE code min (1,669) 128 0.6 0.20 (1,674) (772) (2,476) 2.2 0.7 $902 ($803) AE+EFF +PV (439) 128 0.2 12.90 1,317 3,572 2,170 2.7 1.6 $2,256 $853 2022 TDV
AE code min
(2022) (1,517) 119 0.4 - (1,674) (527) 239 3.2 >1 $1,146 $1,912 AE+EFF+PV
(2022) (434) 119 0.3 - 1,049 3,291 4,002 3.1 3.8 $2,243 $2,954

Nonresidential Prototypes
This section includes cost effectiveness results of the following mixed fuel and all-electric measure packages over a 2019 mixed-fuel code compliant baseline for the three nonresidential prototypes, medium office, medium retail and small hotel in subsections 4.2.1, 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 respectively:
• Package 1A – Mixed-Fuel + EE: Mixed-fuel design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies.
• Package 1B – Mixed-Fuel + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 1A, plus solar PV and batteries.

3 TDV multipliers can be found in the “2022 TDV CH4 20yr 15RA” workbook. https://www.energy.ca.gov/event/workshop/2020-03/staff-workshop-2022-energy-code-compliance- metrics
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
228 of 331

9 2021-04-22
• Package 1C – Mixed-fuel + HE: Alternative design with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption.
• Package 2 – All-Electric Federal Code-Minimum Reference: All-electric design with federal code minimum appliance efficiency. No solar PV or battery. • Package 3A – All-Electric + EE: All-electric design with energy efficiency measures and federal minimum appliance efficiencies.
• Package 3B – All-Electric + EE + PV + B: Same as Package 3A, plus solar PV and batteries.
• Package 3C – All-Electric + HE: All-electric design with high efficiency appliances, triggering federal preemption.

Subsection 4.2.4 below presents the results of the PV-only and PV+Battery analysis.

4.2.1 Medium Office
Figure 5Figure 5 contains the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Office packages.

Notable findings for each package include:
• Mixed fuel package with efficiency measures (package 1A) and with added PV and battery (package 1B) is cost effective on both an On-Bill and TDV basis. • Mixed fuel package with high efficiency appliances (package 1C) is not cost-effective in Glendale.
• All of the all-electric packages are cost-effective in Glendale. However, Package 2 does not achieve a positive compliance margin.

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
229 of 331

10 2021-04-22
Figure 5. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Office Packages - Glendale CZ Utility
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
Reductions
(mtons)
Comp-
liance
Margin (%)
Incremental
Package
Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
$TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-Bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV
(On-Bill)
NPV
(TDV)
Package 1A: Mixed Fuel + EE
CZ09 GWP 42,568 -178 10.4 16% $66,649 $98,775 $117,079 1.5 1.8 $32,125 $50,430 Package 1B: Mixed Fuel + EE + PV + B
CZ09 GWP 265,661 -178 55.3 16% $376,705 $488,674 $633,363 1.3 1.7 $111,969 $256,658 Package 1C: Mixed Fuel + HE
CZ09 GWP 7,273 183 3.2 4% $61,311 $25,637 $30,642 0.4 0.5 ($35,674) ($30,669) Package 2: All-Electric Federal Code Minimum
CZ09 GWP -16,462 1310 1.8 -2% ($63,102) $5,250 ($12,600) >1 5.0 $68,352 $50,501 Package 3A: All-Electric + EE
CZ09 GWP 27,281 1310 13.6 15% $3,547 $108,625 $110,254 30.6 31.1 $105,077 $106,706 Package 3B: All-Electric + EE + PV + B
CZ09 GWP 250,384 1310 58.6 15% $313,603 $498,531 $626,585 1.6 2.0 $184,928 $312,982 Package 3C: All-Electric + HE
CZ09 GWP -9,192 1310 3.9 2% ($10,282) $28,613 $14,796 >1 >1 $38,895 $25,078 230 of 331

11 2021-04-22

4.2.2 Medium Retail
Figure 6Figure 6 contains the cost-effectiveness findings for the Medium Retail packages.

Notable findings for each package include:
• All mixed fuel and all-electric packages are cost-effective on both an On-Bill and TDV basis.

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
231 of 331

12 2021-04-22
Figure 6. Cost Effectiveness for Medium Retail Packages - Glendale CZ Utility
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
Reductions
(mtons)
Comp-
liance
Margin (%)
Incremental
Package
Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
$TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-
Bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV
(On-Bill)
NPV
(TDV)
Package 1A: Mixed Fuel + EE
CZ09 GWP 13,489 299 5.50 10% $5,569 $36,282 $29,337 6.5 5.3 $30,713 $23,768 Package 1B: Mixed Fuel + EE + PV + B
CZ09 GWP 194,310 299 42.94 10% $263,374 $372,251 $467,716 1.4 1.8 $108,878 $204,342 Package 1C: Mixed Fuel + HE
CZ09 GWP 4,221 87 1.72 4% $10,446 $14,973 $17,602 1.4 1.7 $4,527 $7,156 Package 2: All-Electric Federal Code Minimum
CZ09 GWP -7,099 951 3.26 0.4% ($32,113) $11,312 $1,714 >1 >1 $43,426 $33,827 Package 3A: All-Electric + EE
CZ09 GWP 8,537 951 7.74 10% ($26,545) $46,378 $30,479 >1 >1 $72,923 $57,024 Package 3B: All-Electric + EE + PV + B
CZ09 GWP 189,375 951 45.32 10% $231,260 $381,991 $469,034 1.7 2.0 $150,730 $237,774 Package 3C: All-Electric + HE
CZ09 GWP -1,953 951 4.77 4% ($8,268) $26,422 $19,777 >1 >1 $34,690 $28,046 232 of 331

13 2021-04-22

4.2.3 Small Hotel
The following issues must be considered when reviewing the Small Hotel results:
• The Small Hotel is a mix of residential and nonresidential space types, which results in different occupancy and load profiles than the office and retail prototypes. • The Reach Code team modeled individual heat pump water heaters as an approximation for central heat pump water heating performance, but integrated costs associated with tank and controls for central heat pump water heating into cost effectiveness calculations. • Assuming central heat pump water heating also enabled the inclusion of a solar hot water thermal collection system.

Figure 7Figure 7 contains the cost-effectiveness findings for the Small Hotel packages. Notable findings for each package include:
• Mixed fuel model with efficiency measures (package 1A) is cost effective on TDV basis only.
• Mixed fuel model with efficiency measures, PV and battery (package 1B) is cost effective on both On-Bill and TDV basis.
• All all-electric scenarios (packages 2, 3A and 3B) are cost effective on both On-Bill and TDV basis, and just achieve compliance for package 3A and 3B.

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
233 of 331

14 2021-04-22
Figure 7. Cost Effectiveness for Small Hotel Packages - Glendale CZ Utility
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
Reductions
(mtons)
Comp-
liance
Margin (%)
Incremental
Package
Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-
Bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On-
Bill) NPV (TDV)
Package 1A: Mixed Fuel + EE
CZ09 GWP 4,950 467 1.19 5% $21,824 $17,173 $23,697 0.8 1.1 ($4,650) $1,874 Package 1B: Mixed Fuel + EE + PV + B
CZ09 GWP 133,093 467 29.24 5% $216,927 $252,233 $352,534 1.2 1.6 $35,306 $135,607 Package 1C: Mixed Fuel + HE
CZ09 GWP 1,633 156 1.39 2% $20,052 $8,491 $10,339 0.4 0.5 ($11,561) ($9,714) Package 2: All-Electric Federal Code Minimum
CZ09 GWP -89,780 9355 28.77 -12% ($1,298,174) ($179,228) ($54,194) 7.2 24.0 $1,118,947 $1,243,981 Package 3A: All-Electric + EE
CZ09 GWP -58,575 9355 30.26 0% ($1,266,302) ($153,684) ($150) 8.2 8457.8 $1,112,618 $1,266,152 Package 3B: All-Electric + EE + PV + B
CZ09 GWP 69,841 9355 57.48 0% ($1,071,198) $77,609 $328,232 >1 >1 $1,148,807 $1,399,431 Package 3C: All-Electric + HE
CZ09 GWP -85,363 9355 30.05 -9% ($1,285,139) ($168,064) ($38,439) 7.6 33.4 $1,117,075 $1,246,699 234 of 331

15 2021-04-22

4.2.4 PV-only and PV+Battery
The Reach Code team also ran packages of PV-only and PV + Battery measures, without additional efficiency measures, to assess cost effectiveness for the mixed-fuel baseline and the all-electric federal code minimum reference building (Package 2 in Section 3.2).

Each of the following eight packages were evaluated against a mixed fuel baseline designed as per 2019 Title 24 Part 6 requirements.
• Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV Only
• Mixed-Fuel + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh battery
• Mixed-Fuel + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller
• Mixed-Fuel + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery • All-Electric + 3 kW PV Only
• All-Electric + 3 kW PV + 5 kWh Battery
• All-Electric + PV Only: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller
• All-Electric + PV + 50 kWh Battery: PV sized per the roof size of the building, or to offset the annual electricity consumption, whichever is smaller, along with 50 kWh battery Figure 8Figure 8 summarize the On-Bill and TDV B/C ratios for each prototype for the two PV only packages and the two PV plus battery packages. The compliance margins are not impacted by renewables and battery storage measures and hence not shown in the tables. The figure is formatted in the following way:
• Cells highlighted in green have a B/C ratio greater than 1 and are cost-effective. The shade of green gets darker as cost effectiveness increases. • Cells not highlighted have a B/C ratio less than one and are not cost effective.

Please see Appendix 8.4 for results in full detail. Generally, for mixed-fuel packages across all prototypes, PV-only measure is cost effective on both On-Bill and TDV basis, while the addition of a battery slightly reduces cost effectiveness.

In all-electric packages, the results for larger PV systems or larger PV+Battery systems are cost effective using both TDV and On-Bill approaches. The results for small 3 kW PV systems or small PV+Battery systems are also found to be cost effective using the On-Bill and TDV method. The addition of a battery slightly reduces the cost effectiveness for all-electric buildings with PV.

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
235 of 331

16 2021-04-22
Figure 8. Cost Effectiveness PV and Battery only packages Prototype
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
PV 3kW 3kW Large PV Large PV 3kW 3kW Large PV Large PV
Battery 0 50kWh 0 50kWh 0 50kWh 0 50kWh
Utility On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
On-
Bill TDV
On-
Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
Medium Office GWP 1.7 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.7 >1 49.6 >1 47.2 1.8 2.3 1.6 2.1 Medium Retail GWP 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.9 1.3 1.7 >1 >1 >1 >1 1.7 2.2 1.5 1.9 Small Hotel GWP 1.7 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.5 7.7 30.8 7.7 30.8 >1 >1 >1 >1

236 of 331

5 Summary of Results
Figure 9Figure 9 through Figure 12Figure 12 summarize results for each prototype showing the EDR margin (for detached ADUs) and compliance margin (nonresidential prototypes) percentages achieved for each measure package. Because local reach codes must both meet or exceed the Energy Commission performance budget (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) and be cost-effective, The Reach Code team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify options for potential reach code policies:
• Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches.
• Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.
• Cells not highlighted either depict a negative compliance margin or a package that was not cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach, and do not support a reach code.

For more detail on the results in the Figures below, please refer to Section 4. As described in Section 4.2.4, PV-only and PV+Battery packages in the mixed-fuel building were found to be cost effective across all nonresidential prototypes using both On-Bill and TDV approach, and results are not reiterated in the following figures.

Figure 9. Detached ADU Summary of EDR Margin and Cost Effectiveness Utility All Electric, 2019 TDV All Electric, 2022 TDV
Code Minimum EE + PV Code Minimum EE + PV
GWP 0.2 12.9 0.5 9.8
Figure 10. Medium Office Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness Utility Mixed Fuel All Electric
EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE
GWP 16% 16% 4% -2% 15% 15% 2%
Figure 11. Medium Retail Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness Utility Mixed Fuel All Electric
EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE
GWP 10% 10% 4% 0.4% 10% 10% 4%
Figure 12. Small Hotel Summary of Compliance Margin and Cost Effectiveness Utility Mixed Fuel All Electric
EE EE + PV + B HE Fed Code EE EE + PV + B HE
GWP 5% 5% 2% -12% 0% 0% -9%

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
237 of 331

6 Conclusions
The Reach Code team developed packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with PV generation and/or battery storage systems, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Code team coordinated assumptions with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely to change results.

The Reach Code team provides the following high-level takeaways from results:
• Detached ADU: All-electric detached ADUs have near zero or positive ‘Total EDR Margins’ implying that they comply with the code or exceed the 2019 Title 24 minimum requirements. They are cost effective in Glendale using the On-Bill metric. • Medium Office: Both mixed fuel energy efficiency packages are cost effective and have positive compliance margins with and without solar PV and battery. All-electric packages are cost effective and compliant against the standard mixed fuel baseline model with efficiency measures and/or solar PV and battery. All-electric office is cost effective but requires additional efficiency measures to achieve compliance with federal minimum efficiency equipment and support an all-electric reach code. • Medium Retail: All mixed fuel and all-electric energy efficiency packages are cost effective with positive compliance margins.
• Small Hotel: Mixed fuel efficiency and PV with battery packages are cost effective with positive compliance margin but not On-Bill cost effective with efficiency measures alone.

Electrification packages are cost effective but require additional efficiency measures to achieve compliance with federal minimum efficiency equipment. Hence, an all-electric reach code can be required when combined with efficiency measures alone or with efficiency plus solar PV and/or battery.

Reach code policies requiring all-electric buildings with added efficiency and/or solar PV are feasible for detached ADUs, medium office, medium retail and small hotel building types. Electric- preferred policies, where a mixed-fuel prototype must achieve a higher compliance margin than an all-electric building, are supported for all building types. In addition, PV only and PV + Battery reach codes policies are feasible for nonresidential new construction building types. In practice system size must be optimized for the specific building.

238 of 331

7 References
Environmental Energy + Economics (E3). Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards 2019 Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) Data Sources and Inputs.

July 2016.
https://www.ethree.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/TN212524_20160801T120224_2019_TDV_Methodology_Report_7222 016.pdf

Statewide Reach Code Team. 2019a. 2019 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study. Prepared for Southern California Edison. Prepared by TRC. July 2019. https://localenergycodes.com/download/801/file_path/fieldList/2019%20NR%20NC%20Cost%20 Effectiveness%20Study-2019-07-25.pdf

Statewide Reach Code Team. 2019b. 2019 Cost-effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy.

August 2019.
https://localenergycodes.com/download/800/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Res%20NC%20Reach% 20Codes

239 of 331

8 Appendices
Map of California Climate Zones
Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 13Figure 13. The map in Figure 13Figure 13 along with a zip-code search directory is available at:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 13. Map of California Climate Zones

Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
240 of 331

Utility Rate Schedules

8.2.1 GWP Utilities

8.2.1.1 Residential

8.2.1.2 Nonresidential – Small

241 of 331

8.2.1.3 Nonresidential – Medium

8.2.1.4 Nonresidential – Large

242 of 331

8.2.2 SoCalGas

8.2.2.1 Residential (GN-10)

243 of 331

8.2.2.2 Nonresidential (GN-40)

244 of 331

Escalation of natural gas rates between 2019 and 2022 is based on the currently filed General Rate Cases for PG&E, SoCalGas, and SDG&E. From 2023 through 2025, gas rates are assumed to escalate at 4 percent per year above inflation, which reflects historical rate increases between 2013 and 2018. Escalation of electricity rates from 2020 through 2025 is assumed to be 2 percent per year above inflation, based on electric utility estimates. After 2025, escalation rates for both natural gas and electric rates are assumed to drop to a more conservative 1 percent escalation per year above inflation for long-term rate trajectories beginning in 2026 through 2050. Figure 14Figure 14 and Figure 15Figure 15 below demonstrate the escalation rates used for nonresidential and residential (detached ADU and high-rise multifamily) buildings respectively.

Figure 14. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions - Nonresidential Year
Statewide Electric
Nonresidential
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
Natural Gas Nonresidential Core Rate
(%/yr escalation, real)
PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E
2020 2.0% 0.67% 6.37% 5.00%
2021 2.0% 5.69% 4.12% 3.14%
2022 2.0% 1.11% 4.12% 2.94%
2023 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2024 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2025 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2026 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2027 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2028 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2029 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2030 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2031 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2032 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2033 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2034 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial
245 of 331

Figure 15. Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions: Residential Year
Statewide Electric
Residential Average Rate
(%/year, real)
Natural Gas Residential Core Rate
(%/yr escalation, real)
PG&E SoCalGas SDG&E
2020 2.0% 1.48% 6.37% 5.00%
2021 2.0% 5.69% 4.12% 3.14%
2022 2.0% 1.11% 4.12% 2.94%
2023 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2024 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2025 2.0% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%
2026 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2027 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2028 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2029 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2030 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2031 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2032 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2033 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2034 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2035 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2036 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2037 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2038 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2039 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2040 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2041 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2042 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2043 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2044 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2045 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2046 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2047 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2048 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%
2049 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

246 of 331

Mixed Fuel Baseline Energy Figures
Figure 16Figure 16 through Figure 19Figure 19 show the annual electricity and natural gas consumption and cost, compliance TDV, and GHG emissions for each prototype under the mixed fuel design baseline. The compliance margins are non-zero in some cases and represent typical baseline compliance margins with prescriptive prototypes. The non-zero compliance margins are largely a result of compliance software complexities, and they are not expected to significantly impact the proposed case results or nature of recommendations.

Figure 16. Detached ADU: Mixed Fuel Baseline
Climate
Zone Utility
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Electricity
Cost
Natural
Gas Cost
Total EDR
Margin
GHG
Emissions
(mtons)
CZ09 GWP 0 128 $158 $193 0.1 1.1
Figure 17. Medium Office: Mixed Fuel Baseline
CZ Utility
Electricity
Consumptio
n (kWh)
Natural Gas
Consumptio
n (Therms)
Electricity
Cost
Natural
Gas Cost
Compliance
Margin TDV
GHG
Emissions
(mton)
CZ09 GWP 452,715 1,310 $90,326 $,1918 -1.92 127.8
Figure 18. Medium Retail: Mixed Fuel Baseline
CZ Utility
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Electricity
Cost
Natural
Gas Cost
Compliance
Margin TDV
GHG
Emissions
(mton)
CZ09 GWP 232,374 951 $42,090 $1,540 18.13 67.7
Figure 19. Small Hotel: Mixed Fuel Baseline
CZ Utility
Electricity
Consumption
(kWh)
Natural Gas
Consumption
(Therms)
Electricity
Cost
Natural
Gas Cost
Compliance
Margin TDV
GHG
Emissions
(mton)
CZ09 GWP 214,047 9,355 $36,504 $8,776 -17.08 118.4
247 of 331

PV-only and PV+Battery-only Cost Effectiveness Results Details

8.4.1 Medium Office
Figure 20. PV-only and PV+Battery-only Results – Medium Office CZ IOU
territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Comp-
liance
Margin (%)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
Lifecycle $-
TDV Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-Bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On-
Bill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV
CZ09 GWP 4,968 0 1.0 0% $6,270 $10,767 $11,455 1.7 1.8 $4,497 $5,185 Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + Battery
CZ09 GWP 4,968 0 1.0 0% $9,060 $10,767 $11,455 1.2 1.3 $1,707 $2,395 Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV
CZ09 GWP 223,561 0 44.0 0% $282,156 $393,542 $515,281 1.4 1.8 $111,386 $233,126 Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + Battery
CZ09 GWP 223,115 0 45.0 0% $310,056 $392,914 $516,379 1.3 1.7 $82,859 $206,323 All-Electric + 3kW PV
CZ09 GWP -11,494 1310 2.8 -2% ($56,832) $16,575 ($1,145) >1 49.6 $73,406 $55,686 All-Electric + 3kWPV + Battery
CZ09 GWP -11,494 1310 2.8 -2% ($54,107) $16,575 ($1,145) >1 47.2 $70,681 $52,961 All-Electric + 135kW PV
CZ09 GWP 207,099 1310 45.8 -2% $216,128 $399,360 $502,681 1.8 2.3 $183,232 $286,553 All-Electric + 135kW PV + Battery
CZ09 GWP 206,660 1310 46.8 -2% $244,028 $398,742 $503,779 1.6 2.1 $154,714 $259,750

248 of 331

8.4.2 Medium Retail
Figure 21. PV-only and PV+Battery-only Results – Medium Retail CZ IOU
territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Comp-
liance
Margin (%)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
Lifecycle $-
TDV Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-Bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On-
Bill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV
CZ09 GWP 4,968 0 0.98 0% $6,270 $12,015 $11,449 1.9 1.8 $5,745 $5,179 Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + Battery
CZ09 GWP 4,968 0 0.98 0% $9,060 $12,015 $11,449 1.3 1.3 $2,955 $2,389 Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV
CZ09 GWP 182,161 0 35.83 0% $229,905 $326,717 $430,204 1.4 1.9 $96,812 $200,300 Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + Battery
CZ09 GWP 180,860 0 37.36 0% $257,805 $333,662 $430,204 1.3 1.7 $75,858 $172,400 All-Electric + 3kW PV
CZ09 GWP -2,131 951 4.23 0.4% ($25,843) $23,327 $13,383 >1 >1 $49,171 $39,226 All-Electric + 3kWPV + Battery
CZ09 GWP -2,131 951 4.23 0.4% ($23,118) $23,327 $13,383 >1 >1 $46,446 $36,501 All-Electric + 135kW PV
CZ09 GWP 175,062 951 39.08 0.4% $195,407 $338,029 $421,788 1.7 2.2 $142,622 $226,381 All-Electric + 135kW PV + Battery
CZ09 GWP 173,784 951 40.77 0.4% $223,307 $344,914 $432,314 1.5 1.9 $121,606 $209,007

249 of 331

8.4.3 Small Hotel
Figure 22. PV-only and PV+Battery-only Results – Small Hotel CZ IOU
territory
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
GHG
savings
(tons)
Comp-
liance
Margin (%)
Incremental
Package Cost
Lifecycle
Energy Cost
Savings
Lifecycle $-
TDV Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-Bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On-
Bill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV
CZ09 GWP 4,852 0 0.9 0% $6,270 $10,953 $11,013 1.7 1.8 $4,683 $4,743 Mixed Fuel + 3kW PV + Battery
CZ09 GWP 4,852 0 0.9 0% $9,060 $10,953 $11,013 1.2 1.2 $1,893 $1,953 Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV
CZ09 GWP 129,378 0 25.3 0% $167,203 $236,953 $293,750 1.4 1.8 $69,749 $126,546 Mixed Fuel + 135kW PV + Battery
CZ09 GWP 128,249 0 27.9 0% $195,103 $236,182 $296,058 1.2 1.5 $41,079 $100,955 All-Electric + 3kW PV
CZ09 GWP -84,415 9336 29.9 -12% ($1,291,904) ($168,127) ($41,894) 7.7 30.8 $1,123,777 $1,250,010 All-Electric + 3kWPV + Battery
CZ09 GWP -84,415 9336 29.9 -12% ($1,289,179) ($168,127) ($41,894) 7.7 30.8 $1,121,052 $1,247,285 All-Electric + 135kW PV
CZ09 GWP 40,111 9336 54.3 -12% ($1,132,705) $56,412 $240,843 >1 >1 $1,189,116 $1,373,548 All-Electric + 135kW PV + Battery
CZ09 GWP 39,280 9336 56.0 -12% ($1,104,805) $55,249 $242,130 >1 >1 $1,160,054 $1,346,934

250 of 331
2021-03-10 1

2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study:
2020 Analysis of Residential Construction Cost
Effectiveness – City of Glendale
Prepared by:

Frontier Energy, Inc.

Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC

Prepared for:

Kelly Cunningham
Codes and Standards Program
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Last Modified: 2021-03-10

251 of 331
2021-03-10 2

LEGAL NOTICE

This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Neither PG&E nor any of its employees makes any warranty, express or implied; or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any data, information, method, product, policy, or process disclosed in this document; or represents that its use will not infringe any privately-owned rights including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, or copyrights.

252 of 331
2021-03-10 3
Acronym List

2020 PV$ Present value costs in 2020
B/C Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
BSC Building Standards Commission
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11)
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
CZ California Climate Zone
HERS Home Energy Rating System Rater
HPWH Heat Pump Water Heater
IOU Investor-Owned Utility
kWh Kilowatt Hour
kWDC Kilowatt Direct Current. Nominal rated power of a photovoltaic system LCC Lifecycle Cost
NEM Net Energy Metering
NPV Net Present Value
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PV Photovoltaic
SHGC Solar Heat Gain Coefficient
CASE Codes and Standards Enhancement
TDV Time Dependent Valuation
Therm Unit for quantity of heat that equals 100,000 British thermal units Title 24 California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6

253 of 331
2021-03-10 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronym List .............................................................................................................................................................3 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................5 2 Methodology and Assumptions ......................................................................................................................6

2.1 Single Family and Low-Rise Multifamily New Construction .......................................................................7

2.2 Mid-Rise and High-Rise Multifamily New Construction ..............................................................................8

2.3 Single Family Existing Buildings .................................................................................................................8 3 Results and Discussion ...................................................................................................................................9

3.1 Single Family and Low-Rise Multifamily New Construction .......................................................................9

3.2 Mid-Rise and High-Rise Multifamily New Construction ........................................................................... 12

3.3 Single Family Existing Buildings .............................................................................................................. 14

3.3.1 On-Bill Cost Effectiveness ............................................................................................................... 14

3.3.2 TDV Cost Effectiveness ................................................................................................................... 14 4 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 5 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................... 20

5.1 Appendix A – Utility Tariff Details ............................................................................................................ 20

5.1.1 Glendale Water and Power.............................................................................................................. 20

5.1.2 SoCalGas......................................................................................................................................... 21

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: UTILITY TARIFFS APPLIED BASED ON CASE ......................................................................................................7 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF TARGET TOTAL EDR REDUCTIONS FOR CLIMATE ZONE 9 ............................................................9 TABLE 3: SINGLE FAMILY CITY OF GLENDALE CLIMATE ZONE 9 COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS SUMMARY................... 10 TABLE 4: LOW-RISE MULTIFAMILY CITY OF GLENDALE CLIMATE ZONE 9 COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS SUMMARY ..... 11 TABLE 5: MID-RISE MULTIFAMILY RESULTS (PER DWELLING UNIT)1 ............................................................................. 13 TABLE 6: HIGH-RISE MULTIFAMILY RESULTS (PER DWELLING UNIT)1 ............................................................................ 13 TABLE 7: SINGLE FAMILY EFFICIENCY UPGRADE COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS – CLIMATE ZONE 9 ........................... 15 TABLE 8: SINGLE FAMILY EFFICIENCY PACKAGES COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS – CLIMATE ZONE 9 .......................... 16 TABLE 9: SINGLE FAMILY PV & BATTERY COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS – CLIMATE ZONE 9 ...................................... 17 TABLE 10: SINGLE FAMILY EQUIPMENT FUEL SUBSTITUTION COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS – CLIMATE ZONE 9 .......... 18 TABLE 11: SOCALGAS MONTHLY GAS RATE ($/THERM) FOR GR AND GM TARIFF ........................................................ 22

List of Figures
NO TABLE OF FIGURES ENTRIES FOUND.
254 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 5
1 Introduction
The California Codes and Standards Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost -effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation. Local jurisdictions that ar e considering adopting ordinances may contact the program for support through its website, LocalEnergyCodes.com .

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, or Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (C alifornia Energy Commission, 2018a) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances —or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Res ources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and result in buildings consuming less energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.

This report documents cost-effective combinations of measures that exceed the minimum state requirements, 2019 Title 24, effective January 1, 2020. Local jurisdictions in California may consider adopting local energy ordinances to achieve energy savings beyond what will be accomplished by enforcing building efficiency requirements that apply statewide. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities —collectively known as the Statewide Reach Codes Team.

This analysis was conducted for the City of Glendale to present results from the Reach Code Team residential statewide analyses for Climate Zone 9 using Glendale Water and Power (GWP) electric rates. The evaluation covers the following residential new construction building types: single family, low-rise multifamily (1 to 3 habitable stories), mid-rise multifamily (4 to 7 habitable stories), and high-rise multifamily (8 and above habitable stories). It also covers energy retrofits for single family existing homes. This analysis builds upon the results of the statewide reports which evaluated all sixteen California climate zones.

255 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 6
2 Methodology and Assumptions
The same methodology used in the statewide analyses was applied to this analysis except local GWP electric utility tariffs were used in place of SCE tariffs. Refer to the following statewide studies for further details:
• 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019)
• 2019 Mid-Rise New Construction Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2020)
• 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: 2020 Analysis of High-Rise Residential New Construction (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2021a)
• 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Building Upgrades (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2021b)
Key components of the methodology are repeated below.

Cost-effectiveness
This analysis uses two different metrics to assess cost-effectiveness. Both methodologies require estimating and quantifying the incremental costs and energy savings associated with energy efficiency measures as compared to the 2019 prescriptive Title 24 requirements. The main difference between the methodologies is the way they value energy and thus the cost savings of reduced or avoided energy use. • Utility Bill Impacts (On-Bill): Customer-based Lifecycle Cost (LCC) approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill impacts using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year duration accounting for discount rate and energy inflation. • Time Dependent Valuation (TDV): Energy Commission LCC methodology, which is intended to capture the “societal value or cost” of energy use including long-term projected costs such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs such as projected costs for carbon emissions, as well as grid transmission and distribution impacts. This metric values energy uses differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season.

Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than el ectricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods (Horii et al, 2014). This is the methodology used by the Energy Commission in evaluating cost-effectiveness for efficiency measures in Title 24, Part 6. 2019 TDV is used for all analyses presented in this report. Additionally, 2022 TDV is used for the high-rise multifamily new construction and existing single family upgrades.
1 On-Bill analysis was completed using the utility rates described in Table 1. GWP and SoCalGas residential rates are used for the single family and low-rise multifamily buildings and the in-unit portion of the mid-rise and high-rise multifamily buildings. Central water heating in the mid-rise and high-rise multifamily buildings is metered separately and therefore was evaluated under GWP’s commercial electric rate and SoCalGas’ multifamily service.

GWP L-1-A and L-1-D are volumetric rates with three tiers. They are identical except that L-1-D allows for customer owned generation under the Net Energy Metering (NEM) Resolution which allows for energy generated and sent to the grid to be credited at the retail rate. At the end of the 12-month period if the customer is a net electricity generator, the customer is compensated for excess kilowatt-hours at the feed-in-tariff price. In this analysis the Statewide Reach Code Team used the Q1 2021 feed-in-tariff price of $0.05753 per kWh.

L-1-D is used when onsite photovoltaics (PV) are included in the building design. In multifamily buildings the Statewide Reach Code Team assumed either virtual NEM is available or individual PV systems are connected to each residential electric meter. In the latter case no additional metering costs were considered.

1 The 2022 TDV was not available at the time the low-rise and mid-rise residential new construction statewide analyses were conducted.
256 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 7
The central electric water heating in the mid-rise and high-rise buildings uses greater than 5,000 kWh monthly and therefore qualifies for the LD-2-A rate, which includes demand in addition to volumetric charges. The designs are evaluated under both the LD-2-A and the L-2-A rate to demonstrate the impact of the demand charge on total costs. L-2-A is also applied to the central gas water heating cases for the electric load which is primarily represented by hot water recirculation pumping.

See Appendix A – Utility Tariff Details for details on the tariffs applied.

Table 1: Utility Tariffs Applied Based on Case
Case Electricity (GWP) Natural Gas (SoCalGas)
Residential Dwelling Unit Energy L-1-A
L-1-D (with PV) GR
Central Water Heating (for mid-rise and
high-rise buildings only) L-2-A and LD-2-A GM-E
Source: Utility websites, see Appendix A – Utility Tariff Details for details on the tariffs applied.

Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions from research conducted by Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) in the 2019 study Residential Building Electrification in California (Energy & Environmental Economics, 2019). Escalation of electric utility rates for GWP was not available and the assumptions used in this analysis are based on those from the statewide studies (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019). Natural gas escalation between 2019 and 2022 is based on the currently filed General Rate Cases (GRCs) for SoCalGas. Consistent with the E3 study, gas rates are assumed to escalate at four percent per year above inflation from 2023 through 2025, which reflects historical rate increases between 2013 and 2018. Escalation of electricity rates from 2019 through 2025 is assumed to be two percent per year above inflation, based on electric utility estimates. After 2025, escalation rates for both natural gas and electric rates are assumed to drop to a more conservative one percent escalation per year above inflation for long-term rate trajectories beginning in 2026 through 2050. See Appendix A – Utility Tariff Details for additional details.

Results are presented as a lifecycle benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio, a net present value (NPV) metric which represents the cost-effectiveness of a measure over a 30-year lifetime considering discounting of future savings and costs and financing of incremental first costs. A value of one indicates the NPV of the savings over the life of the measure is equivalent to the NPV of the lifetime incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment.

2.1 Single Family and Low-Rise Multifamily New Construction Three to four packages were evaluated for each prototype, as described below.

1. Efficiency – Non-Preempted: This package uses only efficiency measures that do not trigger federal preemption issues including envelope, and water heating and duct distribution efficiency measures.

2. Efficiency – Equipment, Preempted: This package shows an alternative design that applies HVAC and water heating equipment that are more efficient than federal standards. The Reach Code Team considers this more reflective of how builders meet above code requirements in practice. Note that this is a representative package only and may not be used to demonstrate cost-effectiveness for the purpose of an ordinance.

3. Efficiency & PV: Using the Efficiency – Non-Preempted Package as a starting point, PV capacity is added to offset most of the estimated electricity use. This only applies to the al l-electric case, since for the mixed fuel cases, 100 percent of the projected electricity use is already being offset as required by 2019 Title 24.

4. Efficiency & PV/Battery: Using the Efficiency & PV Package as a starting point, PV capacity is added as well as a battery storage system.

In comparing mixed fuel and all-electric cases, three scenarios were evaluated for each prototype:

1. 2019 Code Compliant: Compares a 2019 code compliant all-electric home with a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home.

2. Efficiency & PV Package: Compares an all-electric home with efficiency and PV sized to 90 percent of the annual electricity use to a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home. The first cost savings in the code 257 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 8
compliant all-electric house is invested in above code efficiency and PV reflective of the Efficiency & PV packages described above.

3. Neutral Cost Package: Compares an all-electric home with PV beyond code minimum with a 2019 code compliant mixed fuel home. The PV system for the all-electric case is sized to result in a zero lifetime incremental cost relative to a mixed fuel home.

Refer to the 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Low-Rise Residential New Construction report (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2019) for further details on building prototypes used and efficiency measures evaluated.

2.2 Mid-Rise and High-Rise Multifamily New Construction Four packages were evaluated as described below.

1. Efficiency – Mixed-Fuel: This package applies efficiency measures that don’t trigger federal preemption including envelope, water heating distribution, and duct distribution efficiency measures.

2. Efficiency – All Electric: This package applies efficiency measures that don’t trigger federal preemption in addition to converting any natural gas appliances to electric appliances. For the residential spaces, only water heating is converted from natural gas to electric.

3. Efficiency & PV – Mixed-Fuel: Beginning with the Efficiency Package, PV was added to offset a portion of the apartment estimated electricity use.

4. Efficiency & PV – All Electric: Beginning with the Efficiency Package, PV was added to offset a portion of the apartment estimated electricity use.

Refer to the statewide mid-rise and high-rise studies (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2020) and (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2021a) for further details on building prototypes used and efficiency measures evaluated.

2.3 Single Family Existing Buildings
The primary objective of the evaluation is to identify cost-effective energy upgrade measures and packages for existing single family buildings to support the design of local ordinances requiring upgrades, which may be triggered by different events, such as at the time of a significant remodel or addition. Cost-effectiveness analysis was completed based on the single family existing homes prototype and designs representing building features commonly used during three vintage periods.

Refer to the 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Building Upgrades (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2021b) for further details on building assumptions used and efficiency measures evaluated.

258 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 9
3 Results and Discussion

3.1 Single Family and Low-Rise Multifamily New Construction This analysis found cost-effective, non-preempted packages for both single family and low-rise multifamily buildings, under both mixed fuel and all-electric cases. The results of this analysis can be used by the City of Glendale to support the adoption of reach codes.

For the efficiency-only packages, measures were refined to ensure that the non-preempted package was cost- effective based on one of the two metrics applied in this study: TDV or On-Bill. The preempted equipment package, which the Reach Code Team considers to be a package of upgrades most reflective of what builders commonly apply to exceed code requirements, was designed to be cost-effective based on the On-Bill cost- effectiveness approach. The packages presented are representative examples of des igns and measures that can be used to meet the requirements. In practice, a builder can use any combination of non- preempted or preempted compliant measures to meet the requirements.

Table 2 summarizes recommended target EDR reductions by case. Results are presented as EDR Margin instead of compliance margin. EDR is the metric used to determine code compliance for residential buildings in the 2019 cycle. Target EDR Margin is based on taking the calculated EDR Margin for the case and rounding down to the next half of a whole number. The maximum Target EDR Margin for the Efficiency Package is defined based on the EDR Margin of the non-preempted package. Although the equipment, preempted package often results in better performance, it may not be used as the basis for a local ordinance.

Table 2: Summary of Target Total EDR Reductions for Climate Zone 9 Climate
Zone
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
Efficiency Efficiency &
PV/Battery Efficiency Efficiency &
PV
Efficiency &
PV/Battery
Single Family 2.5 8.5 2.5 11.5 21.0
Low-Rise Multifamily 1.5 9.5 1.5 11.0 23.0
Table 3 and Table 4 present total energy cost savings over the 30-year analysis period and B/C ratios for single family and low-rise multifamily homes, respectively. All packages are cost-effective based on the On-Bill approach except for the Efficiency Non-Preempted and Efficiency & PV/Battery packages. All packages are cost-effective based on TDV.
259 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 10
Table 3: Single Family City of Glendale Climate Zone 9 Cost-Effectiveness Results Summary Climate Zone 9
GWP/SoCalGas
Single Family
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
Average
Annual
Utility Cost
Savings
(2020 PV$)
First Incremental
Cost ($)
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio
On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 229 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 216 2.5 $14 $871 $912 0.47 1.97 Efficiency-Equipment 0 201 2.5 $30 $445 $574 1.55 3.66 Efficiency & PV/Battery (14) 216 8.5 $17 $4,111 $4,785 0.10 1.48

All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 2,801 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 2,645 0 2.5 $20 $1,101 $1,180 0.51 1.96 Efficiency-Equipment 2,460 0 3.0 $42 $629 $846 1.50 3.69 Efficiency & PV 745 0 11.5 $246 $4,863 $5,778 1.28 1.64 Efficiency & PV/Battery (9) 0 21.0 $334 $9,579 $11,454 0.87 1.53

Mixed Fuel to
All-Electric 3
Code Compliant 2,801 0 0.0 ($37) ($6,171) ($12,257) ($5,349) ($11,872) 4.86 2.90 Efficiency & PV 745 0 11.5 $209 ($1,308) ($7,394) $429 ($6,094) 15 >1 Neutral Cost 594 0 10.0 $226 ($1,786) ($7,872) $0 ($6,513) >1 >1 1 All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2 All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3 All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the costs used in the On-Bill cost-effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs. 4 This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages.

260 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 11
Table 4: Low-Rise Multifamily City of Glendale Climate Zone 9 Cost-Effectiveness Results Summary Climate Zone 9
GWP/SoCalGas
Multifamily
Annual
Net
kWh
Annual
therms
EDR
Margin4
Average
Annual
Utility Cost
Savings
(2020 PV$)
First Incremental
Cost ($)
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost (2020 PV$) B/C Ratio
On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV On-Bill TDV
Mixed Fuel 1 Code Compliant 0 111 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 0 109 1.5 $2 $140 $136 0.54 3.35 Efficiency-Equipment 0 101 2.5 $11 $204 $274 1.18 2.87 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 109 9.5 $4 $1,892 $2,234 0.05 1.49

All-Electric 2 Code Compliant 1,468 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Efficiency-Non-Preempted 1,414 0 1.5 $7 $216 $231 0.85 2.70 Efficiency-Equipment 1,334 0 1.5 $15 $270 $361 1.28 2.26 Efficiency & PV 441 0 11.0 $118 $1,813 $2,232 1.59 1.91 Efficiency & PV/Battery (7) 0 23.0 $170 $4,287 $5,236 0.97 1.67

Mixed Fuel to
All-Electric 3
Code Compliant 1,468 0 0.0 ($0.12) ($3,361) ($6,684) ($2,337) ($5,899) 673 2.55 Efficiency & PV 55 0 11.0 $118 ($1,548) ($4,872) ($104) ($3,667) >1 >1 Neutral Cost 331 0 11.0 $130 ($1,495) ($4,819) $0 ($3,561) >1 >1 1 All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home. 2 All reductions and incremental costs relative to the all-electric code compliant home. 3 All reductions and incremental costs relative to the mixed fuel code compliant home except the EDR Margins are relative to the Standard Design for each case which is the all-electric code compliant home. Incremental costs for these packages reflect the cots used in the On-Bill cost-effectiveness methodology. Costs differ for the TDV methodology due to differences in the site gas infrastructure costs. 4 This represents the Efficiency EDR Margin for the Efficiency-Non-Preempted and Efficiency-Equipment packages and Total EDR Margin for the Efficiency & PV, Efficiency & PV/Battery, and Neutral Cost packages. 261 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 12

3.2 Mid-Rise and High-Rise Multifamily New Construction This analysis found cost-effective, non-preempted packages for mid-rise multifamily buildings under both mixed- fuel and all-electric cases. The results of this analysis can be used by the City of Glendale to support the adoption of reach codes. The packages presented are representative examples of designs and measures that can be used to meet the requirements. In practice, a builder can use any combination of non-preempted or preempted compliant measures to meet the requirements.

This analysis evaluated a package of efficiency measures applied to a mixed-fuel design and a similar package for an all-electric design. PV was also evaluated in conjunction with the efficiency packages. The base case prototype model assumes individual heat pumps for space heating and all-electric appliances in the dwelling units; therefore, the central domestic hot water system is the only equipment serving the dwelling unit spaces that was electrified in the all-electric design.

The Statewide Reach Codes Team evaluated two configurations for electric HPWHs. The clustered design uses residential integrated storage HPWHs to serve more than one dwelling unit and was evaluated for both the mid- rise and high-rise prototypes. A central HPWH with recirculation which meets the 2019 Title 24 prescriptive approach for central heat pump water heating systems was also evaluated for the high- rise prototype (California Energy Commission, 2019b).

Table 5 and Table 6 present results for the mid-rise and high-rise buildings, respectively. The results show cost- effectiveness for Efficiency Only and Efficiency plus PV packages (assuming a PV system sized based on 0.1 kW
DC per dwelling unit). Both mixed-fuel and all-electric results are relative to a mixed-fuel 2019 Title 24 prescriptive baseline (with gas water heating and heat pump space heating). B/C ratios for all packages are presented according to both the On-Bill and TDV methodologies.

The compliance margins for the mixed-fuel cases range from 6.5 to 7.6 percent, which meet the CALGreen Tier 1 energy performance requirement for high-rise residential buildings of 5 percent. The mixed fuel packages are cost effective based on TDV and On-Bill methodologies, both with and without PV.

The all-electric packages were evaluated differently for the mid-rise and high-rise prototypes due to timing between the release of enhanced HPWH modeling capabilities in the CBECC-Com compliance software relative to completion of the two reports. The clustered HPWH design was evaluated for both buildings while the central recirculation design was only evaluated for high-rise.2 The clustered design is cost effective On-Bill for both mid- rise and high-rise buildings using GWP’s L-2-A small business electric tariff. If the project is not eligible for this tariff and instead falls under the LD-2-A medium business tariff, none of the evaluated HPWH scenarios are cost effective. While the volumetric charge under LD-2-A is lower than under L-2-A, the LD-2-A includes demand charges that result in higher overall electric utility costs. The central recirculation HPWH design in the high-rise building is not cost-effective under either L-2-A or LD-2-A tariffs. Adding PV to the all-electric packages improves cost effectiveness slightly and is cost-effective when evaluated under the L-2-A tariff, but still not cost-effective under the LD-2-A tariff.

All cases are cost effective based on TDV except for the central recirculation HPWH in the high-rise building under 2019 TDV.

2 For further details refer to the statewide reports (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2020) (Statewide Reach Code Team, 2021a). 262 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 13
Table 5: Mid-Rise Multifamily Results (Per Dwelling Unit)1 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.
2 PV capacity per dwelling unit in kWDC.
3Results are presented comparing two commercial electric tariffs for the central water heating system. Gas and dwelling unit electric tariffs are the same under both scenarios.

Table 6: High-Rise Multifamily Results (Per Dwelling Unit)1 1 Values in red indicate B/C ratios less than 1.
2 PV capacity per dwelling unit in kWDC.
3Results are presented comparing two commercial electric tariffs for the central water heating system. Gas and dwelling unit e lectric tariffs are the same under both scenarios.

Case PV2
Total
Electric
Savings
(kWh)
Total
Gas
Savings
(therm)
Comp.

Margin
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost (2020
PV$)
On-Bill (L-2-A3) On-Bill (LD-2-A3) 2019 TDV
Avg. Annual
Utility
Cost Savings
(2020 PV$)
B/C
Ratio NPV
Avg. Annual
Utility
Cost Savings
(2020 PV$)
B/C
Ratio NPV
B/C
Ratio NPV
Mixed
Fuel
n/a 83 0 6.5% $144 $12 2.4 $204
n/a

3.1 $297

0.1 kW 246 0 6.5% $460 $33 2.2 $532 2.4 $631
All-
Electric
Clustered
n/a (633) 104 3.8% ($561) $22 >1 $1,211 ($55) 0.3 ($1,089) >1 $1,300

0.1 kW (469) 104 3.8% ($244) $43 >1 $1,538 ($34) 0.2 ($762) >1 $1,634 Case PV2
Total
Electric
Savings
(kWh)
Total
Gas
Savings
(therm)
Comp.

Margin
Lifetime
Incremental
Cost (2020
PV$)
On-Bill (L-2-A3) On-Bill (LD-2-A3) 2019 TDV 2022 TDV
Avg.

Annual
Utility
Cost
Savings
(2020 PV$)
B/C
Ratio NPV
Avg.

Annual
Utility
Cost
Savings
(2020 PV$)
B/C
Ratio NPV
B/C
Ratio NPV
B/C
Ratio NPV
Mixed
Fuel
n/a 125 0 7.6% $144 $18 3.8 $398
n/a

4.2 $461 3.9 $413

0.1 kW 303 0 7.6% $460 $43 2.8 $836 2.8 $807 2.5 $697 All-
Electric
Clustered
n/a (503) 76 1.9% ($715) $12 >1 $1,085 ($53) 0.4 ($878) >1 $1,062 >1 $2,202

0.1 kW (325) 76 3.4% ($399) $37 >1 $1,524 ($28) 0.5 ($440) >1 $1,407 >1 $2,486 All-
Electric
Central
n/a (428) 76 4.2% $702 $22 0.9 ($35) $4 0.2 ($588) 0.9 ($64) 2.7 $1,217

0.1 kW (250) 76 5.8% $1,018 $47 1.4 $403 $29 0.9 ($150) 1.3 $281 2.5 $1,501 263 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 14

3.3 Single Family Existing Buildings
Table 7 through Table 10 summarize cost-effectiveness of the efficiency measures and packages evaluated.

Cost-effectiveness analysis was evaluated using both On-Bill and TDV cost-effectiveness criteria. Site energy savings, cost savings, measure cost, and cost effectiveness including lifecycle B/C ratio and NPV of savings are provided. Where measures are dependent on building vintage (envelope efficiency measures), cost effectiveness is reported for each vintage. Some measure results do not differ by vintage such as LED lamp replacement and water heating upgrades.

3.3.1 On-Bill Cost Effectiveness
Efficiency measures that are cost-effective On-Bill include attic insulation in the pre-1978 vintage home and duct sealing, new ducts, and cool roof (at time of roof replacement) in the two older vintages. Some of the envelope packages combining attic insulation and duct measures are also cost-effective On-Bill in the two older vintages.

The water heating and LED lighting measures are cost-effective in all cases.

Adding a PV system is cost-effective in all cases based on the On-Bill approach. However, when this is coupled with a battery storage system it is no longer cost-effective.

The fuel substitution measures are not cost-effective on their own based on the On-Bill approach. However, when they are coupled with PV both the heat pump at HVAC replacement and HPWH at water heater replacement are cost-effective across all vintages.

3.3.2 TDV Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness improves for most measures based on the 2019 and 2022 TDV metric. Additional measures or measures in additional home vintages become cost-effective based on 2019 and 2022 TDV including attic insulation, duct sealing, cool roof (at time of roof replacement), wall insulation, envelope and duct packages, heat pump at HVAC replacement, and HPWH at water heater replacement. PV system installation is more cost- effective On-Bill using GWP rates than with the TDV metrics but is still cost-effective in all cases. Cost effectiveness improves with TDV when a battery system is coupled with PV.

264 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 15
Table 7: Single Family Efficiency Upgrade Cost-Effectiveness Results – Climate Zone 9 Measure Vintage
Measure
Cost
(2020
PV$)
Electricity
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Customer On-Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV
Year 1 Avg
Annual
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
R-49 Attic
Insulation
Pre-1978 $3,332 840 19 $210 $168 1.35 $1,306 2.22 $4,054 2.04 $3,463 1978-1991 $2,874 455 9 $112 $90 0.84 -$530 1.36 $1,021 1.21 $603 1992-2010 $2,333 115 3 $27 $22 0.31 -$1,432 0.73 -$507 0.66 -$631 Reduced
Infiltration
Pre-1978
$1,474
25 6 $13 $11 0.20 -$1,331 0.55 -$665 0.44 -$826
1978-1991 12 3 $7 $6 0.11 -$1,480 0.29 -$1,042 0.35 -$956 1992-2010 7 2 $4 $3 0.06 -$1,551 0.26 -$1,094 0.21 -$1,169 Duct Sealing
Pre-1978 $683 544 11 $138 $110 4.32 $2,543 10.65 $6,593 8.86 $5,372 1978-1991 $683 322 6 $79 $63 2.48 $1,137 6.75 $3,929 5.26 $2,909 1992-2010 $423 54 2 $13 $10 0.66 -$162 2.38 $582 1.76 $320 New Ducts
Pre-1978
$3,986

1,018 21 $256 $205 1.37 $1,675 3.28 $9,068 2.79 $7,144
1978-1991 764 13 $188 $150 1.01 $38 2.55 $6,165 2.17 $4,670 1992-2010 198 5 $47 $38 0.25 -$3,337 0.86 -$573 0.64 -$1,437 Cool Roof
Pre-1978
$778
396 -3 $85 $67 2.30 $1,136 4.13 $2,437 3.75 $2,137
1978-1991 284 -2 $61 $48 1.64 $559 2.91 $1,486 2.68 $1,305 1992-2010 128 -2 $24 $18 0.63 -$320 1.63 $490 1.29 $225 Wall Insulation Pre-1978 $3,360 170 21 $63 $52 0.42 -$2,205 1.02 $62 0.88 -$393 Windows
Pre-1978
$9,810
1,141 0 $252 $199 0.54 -$5,038 0.94 -$621 0.82 -$1,719
1978-1991 929 0 $203 $160 0.44 -$6,203 0.78 -$2,122 0.70 -$2,897 LED lamp vs
CFL All $2.26 1.2 0 $0.24 $0.19 2.50 $3.38 n/a n/a n/a n/a Exterior
photosensor All $42.58 12.1 0 $2.39 $1.89 1.33 $14.06 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 Values in red and grey shaded rows indicate option is not cost-effective with B/C ratio less than 1. Cells with “n/a” reflect lighting and water heating efficiency measures and packages that did not look at TDV cost effectiveness or GHG impacts.

265 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 16
Table 8: Single Family Efficiency Packages Cost-Effectiveness Results – Climate Zone 9 Measure Vintage
Measure
Cost
(2020
PV$)
Electricity
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Customer On-Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV
Year 1 Avg
Annual
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
R49 Attic & Air
Sealing Package
Pre-1978 $4,806 864 25 $222 $178 0.99 -$42 1.70 $3,358 1.54 $2,580 1978-1991 $4,348 464 13 $119 $95 0.59 -$2,025 1.06 $244 0.94 -$243 1992-2010 $3,807 121 6 $31 $25 0.20 -$2,985 0.55 -$1,494 0.46 -$1,808 R49 Attic & Duct
Sealing Package
Pre-1978 $4,015 1,294 28 $324 $259 1.73 $3,276 3.45 $9,841 2.96 $7,887 1978-1991 $3,557 735 14 $181 $145 1.09 $350 2.26 $4,497 1.89 $3,163 1992-2010 $2,756 165 5 $39 $31 0.37 -$1,615 1.03 $58 0.81 -$438 R49 Attic, Air
Sealing & Duct
Sealing Package
Pre-1978 $5,489 1,303 34 $332 $266 1.30 $1,831 2.70 $9,352 2.31 $7,188 1978-1991 $5,031 739 17 $186 $149 0.79 -$1,181 1.72 $3,599 1.43 $2,167 1992-2010 $4,230 171 7 $43 $35 0.25 -$3,174 0.72 -$1,062 0.56 -$1,647 R49 Attic, Air
Sealing & New
Ducts Package
Pre-1978 $8,792 1,747 42 $441 $354 1.08 $746 2.34 $11,812 2.00 $8,828 1978-1991 $8,334 1,153 24 $285 $228 0.73 -$2,506 1.71 $5,939 1.44 $3,657 1992-2010 $7,793 305 11 $74 $59 0.22 -$6,428 0.68 -$2,306 0.54 -$3,378 Advanced
Envelope
Package
Pre-1978 $18,659 2,105 62 $537 $432 0.62 -$7,989 1.32 $5,955 1.15 $2,881 Water Heating
Package All Vintages $208 n/a n/a $29 $318 1.36 $84 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 Values in red and grey shaded rows indicate option is not cost-effective with B/C ratio less than 1. Cells with “n/a” reflect lighting and water heating efficiency measures and packages that did not look at TDV cost effectiveness or GHG impacts.

266 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 17
Table 9: Single Family PV & Battery Cost-Effectiveness Results – Climate Zone 9 Measure Vintage
Measure
Cost
(2020
PV$)
Electricity
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Customer On-Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV
Year 1 Avg
Annual
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
Prescriptive 2.38
kWDC PV System
Pre-1978
$7,570 4,154 0
$743 $586 2.10 $9,211 1.99 $7,507 1.87 $6,599
1978-1991 $720 $568 2.04 $8,684 1.99 $7,475 1.87 $6,568 1992-2010 $653 $515 1.85 $7,092 1.98 $7,440 1.86 $6,513

2.38 kWDC PV &
10kWh Battery
Pre-1978
$19,512 4,006 0
$718 $566 0.81 -$4,016 1.09 $1,674 0.94 -$1,201
1978-1991 $696 $550 0.78 -$4,521 1.11 $2,118 0.98 -$478 1992-2010 $632 $498 0.71 -$6,054 1.00 $15 1.02 $482
1 Values in red and grey shaded rows indicate option is not cost-effective with B/C ratio less than 1. Cells with “n/a” reflect lighting and water heating efficiency measures and packages that did not look at TDV cost effectiveness or GHG impacts.

267 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 18
Table 10: Single Family Equipment Fuel Substitution Cost-Effectiveness Results – Climate Zone 9 Measure Vintage
Measure
Cost
(2020
PV$)
Electricity
Savings
(kWh)
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost
Savings Customer On-Bill 2019 TDV 2022 TDV
Year 1 Avg
Annual
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
Heat Pump at
HVAC
Replacement
Pre-1978
$1,555
-921 86 -$55 -$32 0.00 -$2,556 0.00 -$1,956 0.37 -$976
1978-1991 -638 57 -$39 -$23 0.00 -$2,298 0.00 -$1,915 0.16 -$1,310 1992-2010 -405 51 -$2 $5 0.10 -$1,444 0.99 -$20 1.26 $412 High-Effic. Heat
Pump at HVAC
Replacement
Pre-1978
$4,024
-601 86 $15 $23 0.16 -$3,481 0.66 -$1,357 0.77 -$922
1978-1991 -389 57 $13 $18 0.13 -$3,634 0.52 -$1,915 0.57 -$1,734 1992-2010 -239 51 $30 $30 0.22 -$3,261 0.83 -$697 0.85 -$622 Heat Pump at
HVAC
Replacement +

2.38 kWDC PV
Pre-1978
$9,125
3,233 86 $670 $540 1.63 $6,233 1.61 $5,571 1.62 $5,629
1978-1991 3,516 57 $658 $527 1.59 $5,838 1.61 $5,574 1.58 $5,257 1992-2010 3,763 58 $669 $536 1.61 $6,103 1.82 $7,441 1.76 $6,931 HPWH at Water
Heater
Replacement
Pre-1978
$2,594

-913 150 -$1 $17 0.18 -$2,368 0.37 -$1,626 1.83 $2,142
1978-1991 -921 150 -$1 $18 0.18 -$2,363 0.36 -$1,672 1.82 $2,121 1992-2010 -932 150 $4 $22 0.22 -$2,242 0.38 -$1,612 1.82 $2,136 NEEA Tier 3
HPWH at
Replacement
Pre-1978
$2,775
-744 150 $30 $42 0.41 -$1,818 0.70 -$819 2.01 $2,816
1978-1991 -755 150 $30 $42 0.41 -$1,827 0.68 -$888 2.09 $3,018 1992-2010 -764 150 $34 $45 0.44 -$1,726 0.72 -$767 2.01 $2,802 HPWH at Water
Heater
Replacement +

2.38 kWDC PV
Pre-1978
$10,163
3,242 150 $767 $624 1.66 $7,463 1.60 $6,077 1.88 $8,931 1978-1991 3,233 150 $749 $610 1.62 $7,030 1.59 $6,005 1.87 $8,879 1992-2010 3,222 150 $690 $563 1.50 $5,631 1.59 $6,030 1.87 $8,842

2.38 kWDC PV +
Pre-wire &
panel upgrade
Pre-1978
$11,661
4,154 0 $743 $586 1.36 $4,618 1.29 $3,416 1.22 $2,508
1978-1991 4,154 0 $720 $568 1.32 $4,090 1.29 $3,384 1.21 $2,477 1992-2005 4,154 0 $653 $515 1.19 $2,498 1.29 $3,349 1.21 $2,422 1 Values in red and grey shaded rows indicate option is not cost-effective with B/C ratio less than 1. Cells with “n/a” reflect lighting and water heating efficiency measures and packages that did not look at TDV cost effectiveness or GHG impacts. 268 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 19
4 References
Statewide CASE Team. (2020). Multifamily Indoor Air Quality Draft CASE Report. . Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/MF-IAQ_Draft-CASE-Report_Statewide- CASE-Team.pdf
Statewide Reach Code Team. (2019). Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances. 2019 Cost- effectiveness Study: Low-rise Residential New Construction. Last modified August 1, 2019. Retrieved from
https://localenergycodes.com/download/800/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Res%20NC%20Reach%20Cod es
Statewide Reach Code Team. (2020). Title 24, Parts 6 and 11 Local Energy Efficiency Ordinances. 2019 Mid-Rise New Construction Reach Code Cost-Effectiveness Study. Last modified June 22, 2020. Retrieved from https://localenergycodes.com/download/492/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Mid-rise%20NC%20Cost- Eff%20Report.pdf
Statewide Reach Code Team. (2021a). 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: 2020 Analysis of High-Rise Residential New Construction.

Statewide Reach Code Team. (2021b). 2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Residential Building Upgrades.

269 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 20
5 Appendices

5.1 Appendix A – Utility Tariff Details

5.1.1 Glendale Water and Power
Following are the GWP electricity tariffs applied in this study.

Glendale Water and Power L-1-A Residential Electric Rate:

Glendale Water and Power L-2-A Small Business Electric Rate:

270 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 21
Glendale Water and Power LD-2-A Medium Business Electric Rate:

The Net Energy Metering (NEM) Resolution allows for energy generated and sent to the grid by customer owned generation to be credited at the retail rate. At the end of the 12-month period if the customer is a net electricity generator, the customer is compensated for excess kilowatt-hours at the feed-in-tariff price. In this analysis the Statewide Reach Code Team used the Q1 2021 feed-in tariff price of $0.05753/kWh.

Glendale Water and Power Feed-In Tariff Rates:

5.1.2 SoCalGas
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. For Climate Zone 9 the baseline territory is 1.

The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis for the 12-month period ending January 2021 according to the rates shown in Table 11. Historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges.3 To estimate total costs by month, the baseline and excess transmission charges were assumed to be consistent and applied for the entire year based on January 2021 costs.

3 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site: https://www.socalgas.com/for- your-business/energy-market-services/gas-prices
271 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 22
Table 11: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) for GR and GM Tariff Month Procurement
Charge
Transmission Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
Jan 2021 0.39764 0.82358 1.21382 1.22122 1.61146
Feb 2020 0.36766 0.82358 1.21382 1.19124 1.58148
Mar 2020 0.22108 0.82358 1.21382 1.04466 1.4349
Apr 2020 0.20307 0.82358 1.21382 1.02665 1.41689
May 2020 0.25654 0.82358 1.21382 1.08012 1.47036
June 2020 0.2758 0.82358 1.21382 1.09938 1.48962
July 2020 0.26816 0.82358 1.21382 1.09174 1.48198
Aug 2020 0.26239 0.82358 1.21382 1.08597 1.47621
Sept 2020 0.25498 0.82358 1.21382 1.07856 1.4688
Oct 2020 0.25268 0.82358 1.21382 1.07626 1.4665
Nov 2020 0.3432 0.82358 1.21382 1.16678 1.55702
Dec 2020 0.36159 0.82358 1.21382 1.18517 1.57541
Source: SoCalGas.

272 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 23

273 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 24

274 of 331
2019 Cost-Effectiveness Study for City of Glendale
2021-03-10 25

275 of 331
8d

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Consideration of Resolution in Support of Reproductive Freedom

1. Resolution in Support of Reproductive Freedom

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 22, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A resolution to support reproductive freedom is being presented at the request of Council Member Brotman in response to legislative efforts in states around the country that are attempting to make abortions illegal.
276 of 331
28 d
3 1
8 8

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Safe & Healthy Community: Support of this resolution would support maintaining the ability for those who can become pregnant the ability to make health care decisions that are in their best interest.

RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction on a resolution in support of reproductive freedom.

BACKGROUND
At the January 25, 2022 City Council meeting, Council Member Brotman requested the Council’s support to bring forward a resolution in support of reproductive freedom. This resolution is in response to legislative efforts in states around the country that are attempting to make abortions illegal.

With the U.S. Supreme Court expected to rule on a case challenging Roe v. Wade this June, putting the constitutional right to bodily autonomy at risk for millions of people, Planned Parenthood Advocates is reaching out to cities to pass a resolution to uphold every person’s right to self-determination and dignity.

ANALYSIS
This resolution in support of Glendale as a “Reproductive Freedom City” is a symbolic gesture for the City of Glendale to declare its commitment to protecting access to safe, high-quality reproductive health care, including abortion. Restrictions and bans that violate reproductive freedom disproportionately impact populations that already face barriers to care: people of color, people with low incomes, immigrants, and young people.

In Los Angeles County, maternal mortality rates among Black women are over four times higher than rates for women overall1. This rate is independent of age, education, socioeconomic status, or the number of children they have had. Across the United States, Black, American Indian, and Alaska Native women are two to three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women2. A vast majority of maternal deaths are unrelated to any preexisting medical condition, and considered low- risk pregnancies. Given that pregnancies pose a risk to women’s health, particularly women of color, state initiatives to restrict abortions could lead to more deaths, especially among people of color.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
1 Office of Women’s Health and Office of Assessment & Epidemiology. (2017). Health Indicators for Women in Los Angeles County: Highlighting Disparities by Ethnicity and Poverty Level, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/owh/docs/DataReport/2017- HealthIndicatorsforWomeninLACounty.pdf
2 Petersen EE, Davis NL, Goodman D, et al. Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Pregnancy-Related Deaths — United States, 2007–2016. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Repot 2019;68:762–765. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6835a3external icon.
277 of 331
38 d
3 1
8 8
Planned Parenthood Advocates provided a recent statewide poll conducted by David Binder Research indicating that Californians strongly support protecting the right to abortion. The public opinion research summary provided by David Binder Research has been included as Exhibit 1 of this report.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This matter is exempt from CEQA as there is no reasonable likelihood it will result in a significant impact to the environment.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve a resolution in support of reproductive freedom, as presented.

Alternative 2: Amend the resolution in support of reproductive freedom prior to approval.

Alternative 3: Take no action on this item.

Alternative 4: Provide any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Christine Powers, Senior Executive Analyst
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
California Likely Voter Survey Public Opinion Research Summary 278 of 331
5 3
5 2
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT OF REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM
WHEREAS, for four decades, California has worked to make reproductive freedom a fundamental right for all Californians by guaranteeing people who can become pregnant control over their bodies, privacy regarding their most intimate choices, and the right to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy; and WHEREAS, these rights – recognized time and time again in California jurisprudence, law, and policy – are critical to a person's autonomy and liberty and to ensuring that everyone has an equal role in our social and civic life; and WHEREAS, in 1969, more than three years before the United States Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, the California Supreme Court recognized that the fundamental right of people who can become pregnant to decide whether to bear children is protected by the U.S. Constitution; and
WHEREAS, in 1972, the people of California recognized the significance of a person's right to decide by amending the California Constitution to enshrine a right to privacy.

WHEREAS, in 2002, California enacted the Reproductive Privacy Act, which makes the fundamental right to decide to bear a child or to decide and to obtain an abortion the official public policy of the State of California; and WHEREAS, restrictions and bans that violate reproductive freedom disproportionately impact populations that already face barriers to accessing care— people of color, people with low incomes, immigrants, and young people; and WHEREAS, access to abortion continues to be a right in name only, with many unable to access the medical procedure due to restrictive laws, financial hardships, and other barriers; and
WHEREAS, as states around the country enact extreme laws that violate the fundamental rights of people who can become pregnant, the City of Glendale will continue to uphold everyone's equality and liberty by protecting their reproductive freedom, educating residents about their rights to reproductive freedom, welcoming anyone into Glendale to fully exercise their reproductive rights, and acting as a model for other cities that want to uphold full reproductive freedom for all.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Glendale, California that those seeking abortion and other reproductive care in Glendale have the right to privacy recognized in the Constitution and law of California, including:
279 of 331
5 3
5 2
SECTION 1. Constitutional Right to Privacy: Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution guarantees that privacy is an inalienable right enjoyed by all Californians.

This right of privacy includes a person's right to decide.

SECTION 2. Right to Access: The right to choose should not depend on the ability to pay.

SECTION 3. Right to Confidentiality in Exercising Choice: The City of Glendale recognizes that abortion providers and others who assist people in exercising their right to choose often face harassment, threats and acts of violence. California law protects the personal information of these individuals as well as that of the patients themselves.

Further, an individual may decide to have an abortion without consent or involvement of their parent or guardian, spouse, or the biological parent of the fetus.

Adopted this ______ day of ____________________, 2022.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
City Clerk
280 of 331
5 3
5 2

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
281 of 331

California Likely Voter Survey
Public Opinion Research Summary

KEY FINDINGS

A recent survey conducted by David Binder Research on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California shows that voters in California are paying very close attention to the potential loss of the constitutional right to abortion and feel strongly that the right to an abortion should be legal and accessible to anyone who needs it. Voters in California will hold elected officials accountable, and reward candidates for office who fight to protect abortion access.

This survey was conducted in the days following the December 1st Supreme Court arguments on the Mississippi case that is directly challenging Roe v Wade. Key findings include:

✔ 89% of likely voters have heard about the Mississippi case at the Supreme Court on December 1st, with over one-third saying they’ve heard a lot about the case.

✔ Over two-thirds of likely voters in California say they would not like to see the Supreme Court overturn Roe v
Wade. (The exact question wording used appears in the
text box to the right.)

o There is strong support for not overturning Roe v
Wade from Democrats (90% to 7% overturn) and
Independents (59% to 29%).
o Republicans are divided, with 36% of likely Republican voters in California not wanting the law overturned and 18% unsure, leaving less than half (46%) who do want to see it overturned.

✔ The vast majority of voters say they will be “angry”, “disappointed” or “fearful” if Roe v Wade is weakened or overturned. When asked to choose which feeling describes them best about the weakening or overturning of Roe v Wade, two-thirds choose “angry” (31%), “disappointed” (25%) or “fearful” (10%). 13% say they don’t know how they would feel, with fewer than one-quarter expressing a positive feeling (16% say they would be “satisfied” and only 6% say they would be “excited”).

✔ Voters are proud that California will serve as a refuge for women from other states, though some are concerned about the impact on their own health care. Upon being asked about California’s role in providing abortions, particularly in light of studies that indicate there will be a 3000% increase in the number of people who would find the nearest abortion clinic in California, voters mostly express pride:

o 46% of likely voters say they are “Proud that California will serve as a refuge for women from other states”
o 16% say: “Proud that California will offer this service, but concerned about the impact on my own health care”
o 25% say: “Angry and disappointed that California would provide abortions to so many women from out of state”
o 13% are unsure
As you may know, the 1973
Supreme Court case Roe v Wade
established a woman’s
constitutional right to have an
abortion. Would you like to see the
Supreme Court overturn the Roe v
Wade decision, or not?
282 of 331

The survey included a representative sample of voters who have previously voted in midterm elections and are likely to participate in November of 2022, and also included a separate sample of voters who have typically only voted in Presidential elections. Both sets of voters – likely voters and surge voters – feel similarly in their strong support for protecting abortion rights and support for elected officials who will fight for abortion rights.

✔ Among likely voters, and even stronger among surge voters, there is an urgency to protect abortion rights and support candidates for office who will support new protections. Upon hearing about the risk to the constitutional right of an abortion, 56% of all likely voters and over two-thirds of surge voters say protecting the right to safely access abortions in the United States is an extremely urgent or very urgent issue.

o Over three-quarters of surge voters – and 62% of all likely voters – say they prefer a candidate who will support expanding reproductive freedom and legal access to abortion, over someone who supports significant restrictions on abortion access. o About three-quarters of surge voters – and 60% of all likely voters – say they are much more likely to support a candidate for office who supports new protections safeguarding the right to an abortion and expanding access. Only 9% say they would prefer a candidate who opposes access to abortion and wants to restrict access. 8% are unsure.

✔ A majority of the surge voters, a group critical to Democratic majorities in 2022, say they are more likely to vote in 2022 because of the attacks on abortion access in states outside of California. In this surge voter group, the majority are non-White, with the plurality Latino, and nearly half are under 35. These voters are paying attention, and appear more likely to both cast a ballot and support candidates who will protect abortion rights in 2022.

The message from voters is clear: Likely voters and surge voters in California do not want to see Roe v Wade overturned and will reward elected officials who fight to protect abortion access in California and expand reproductive freedom nationwide.

Survey Methodology

David Binder Research (DBR) conducted a survey of 800 voters in California, 600 of whom have a prior history of voting in non-Presidential elections and 200 of whom who have not voted in non -Presidential elections. Interviews were conducted between December 4th and 8th, 2021, with a total margin of error of ±3.5%. Voters were interviewed by cell phone, landline, and online (email and text to web) utilizing information from the voter file, with interviews conducted in English or Spanish (at the preference of the voter). 283 of 331
8e

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Contract Amendment for Recycling Center Operations

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 22, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The contractor Allan Company operates the Glendale Recycling Center, Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station located at 540 West Chevy Chase Drive. Due to the continuing depressed market for recyclable materials, this contract was converted from a revenue contract to a standard contract where the vendor receives payment from the City for services provided. City staff completed a cost benefits analysis of the Glendale Recycling Center to determine its viability and cost-effectiveness in a volatile market for recyclables. Staff determined that the best option at this time is to continue operations as they are with the current contractor. Extending the continued contract is the most cost- effective option at this time plus it will allow the time necessary to assess further changes in waste management both statewide and locally, and develop a long-term solution for the future of the recycling center.
284 of 331
28 e
3 2
0 3

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Exceptional Customer Service: Having a local municipal recycling center provides desired recycling services to Glendale residents and businesses.

Sustainability: The recycling of metals, cardboard, plastic and other commodities in Glendale reduces pollution, preserves resources and extends landfill capacity.

Fiscal Responsibility: Staff determined continuing operations of the Glendale Recycling Center with the current contractor is the most cost effective option for the City.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council approve a Resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing an amendment to contract 8001348 with Allan Company, for operation of the Glendale Recycling Center, increasing the contract amount by $1,555,200 to $2,057,264, and extending the contract duration three-years to March 31, 2025.

BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department has collected recyclables from Glendale’s residential and commercial customers for over 30 years. The City first entered into a contract with Allan Company for processing services in July 2006. Since that time, collected recyclables have been delivered to Allan Company at the Glendale Recycling Center for processing and marketing these materials. At the execution of the original contract, Allan Company agreed to pay the City $26 per ton for recyclable material collected by the City and delivered to the contractor at the recycling center. In 2008, the contract was amended to increase this rate to $31 per ton. In 2011, the contract was amended again to extend the term through October 2021 plus an option for five additional years to 2026, and increase the rate to $36 per ton.

In 2017, China implemented their National Sword Policy that significantly disrupted the market for recyclables. While China had previously been the largest importer of recyclables, this policy which banned several hard-to-process materials and set stringent contamination levels essentially diverted the import of recyclables to other smaller countries with less capacity to process this material such as Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand. As a result, the value of recyclable materials collapsed.

Due to this recyclables market disruption, on May 4, 2021, the Glendale City Council approved an amendment to the contract so that the city could begin paying the Allan Company $54 per ton for processed curbside recyclables through October 2021, to continue uninterrupted recycling service in Glendale. Based on the tonnage of recyclables and residuals processed at the Glendale Recycling Center, the total annual cost was projected to be $616,834. Once this ceased to be a revenue contract, staff initially endeavored to select a new operator for the Glendale Recycling Center via a request for proposals process. Staff prepared the request for proposals to be released to qualified operators; however, based on the significant capital investment that would be required by any new Recycling Center operator, the continuing depressed market for recyclables, and 285 of 331
38 e
3 2
0 3
a reasonable standard for Glendale to commit to a minimum five-year contract, staff determined the City was unlikely to receive competitive proposals from multiple companies.

On October 19, 2021, the Glendale City Council approved an amendment to the contract with Allan Company increasing the contract amount by $350,000 and extending the contract duration to March 31, 2022. The purpose of this extension was to afford staff time to conduct a cost benefits analysis of the recycling center to determine its viability and cost-effectiveness and to bring a long-term solution for the Glendale Recycling Center to the City Council for consideration.

ANALYSIS
While once a source of revenue, most cities are dealing with the reality of having to pay for recycling processing. Given the continuing state of recyclable markets in both the United States and locally, there is little competition from recycling center operators for these types of municipal contracts. After initially preparing a request for proposals for a recycling center operator, staff performed additional analyses of the current market for these types of contracts, reaching out to other municipalities and examining other contracts. Further, staff completed a broader cost benefits analysis of the recycling center itself, including the redemption or “buy-back” center, to analyze the viability and cost- effectiveness of the center, and examine other regional alternatives for the processing of the City’s recyclable material and the associated costs; particularly in light of the reduction of City recyclable material being brought to the center as a result of the commercial franchise program.

The City of Glendale is mandated by the State of California to collect and divert from the landfills residential recyclable materials. Staff analyzed the option of closing the Glendale recycling center and instead taking recycling materials to other local facilities. Since the Glendale Recycling Center is located next door to the Ginger Bremberg Integrated Waste Management facility, this will result in new transportation costs. In examining other alternative locations for the processing of Glendale’s residential recyclables, an annual average of around 9,600 tons was used for this comparison. Staff considered relative distance of other processing facilities and the associated hauling costs, as well as the expected tipping fees for each facility over the next three years.

As shown below, maintaining the delivery of recyclable materials at the Glendale Recycling Center at the City’s current tipping fee remains the most cost-effective option.

Delivery of materials at Burbank, City Terrace and Athens Sun Valley, the nearest feasible processing facilities, are considerably more due to the increase in hauling costs and tipping fees.
286 of 331
48 e
3 2
0 3
Facility Annual hauling
cost
Tipping fee
(per ton)
Annual
materials cost
(9,600 tons)
Total Estimated
3-year cost
American
Reclamation $66,816 $62.25 $597,600 $1,993,248
Burbank
Recycling
Center
$208,800 $121 $1,161,600 $4,111,200
City Terrace
Recycling $392,544 $75 $720,000 $3,337,632
Athens Sun
Valley $442,656 $65 $624,000 $3,199,968
Therefore, soliciting a new company to operate the Glendale Recycling Center is not advisable at this time. A new operator would be required to invest in new equipment such as a sorting line, baler, conveyer, scale and separators. They would also need to hire staff to manage and operate the facility. This type of investment is cost prohibitive for a three- year contract under current market conditions.

The Glendale Recycling Center is permitted as a Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station. It is currently underutilized as a city asset and its evolution and usefulness to the City needs further time and research. The current contract with Allan Company for processing the City’s recycling remains the most suitable and cost effective approach for managing our recyclable materials at this time.

Lastly, in addition to accepting recyclable materials from the City, the Glendale Recycling Center is also a public facility that receives material dropped off from the public. With recycling centers closing throughout the region, Glendale residents and others will continue to receive these desired services under the proposed contract extension.

Staff recommends that the current contract be extended for three years to maintain the current favorable cost per ton, and allow for the City to thoroughly analyze the changing waste processing landscape in the City and the region over the next few years in order to facilitate good long term decisions on waste management in the future. As a result of negotiations with the Allan company, they have agreed to hold the current rate of $54 per ton for the proposed three-year extension.

Project Description: Recycling Center Operations

RFP Approved: May 2006
Advertisement Method: Newspaper

RFP Issued: May 2006

RFP Due Date: June 20, 2006
287 of 331
58 e
3 2
0 3
Company Name(s) and
Proposal Amount(s):

Allan Company
Recycle America
Burbank Recycling
Selection Criteria
(If SS, list applicable
Provision):

Revenue per ton

Recommended
Consultant(s):

Allan Company

New / Existing
Consultant(s):

Existing
Procurement Method
(RFP / SS):

Original contract RFP, extension SS

Contract Term:

Original 5 years

Project Begins:

July 2006

Project Ends:

March 31, 2022

Change Orders (When Applicable)
Company name: Allan Company
Original Approved
Contract Amount:
$0
Approved Contingency: $0
Change Order History: Increase amount $502,064 and duration to March 31, 2022
This Change Order
(Increase):
$1,555,200 and three additional years
New Contract Total (If
Approved):
$2,059,264

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The City will continue to provide outreach to customers regarding Glendale recycling Center services.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Glendale Recycling Center operation will cost $518,400. The Public Works Department budget can absorb this cost and therefore no new appropriation is being requested at this time. The funding is outlined below:
288 of 331
68 e
3 2
0 3
Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$518,400 43110-5300-PWD-7523 Refuse Disposal Fund

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

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

Allan Company, Inc.

Full Name Title Business
Address City State Zip
Jason A.

Young President/CEO 14620 Joanbridge
Street Baldwin Park CA 91706
Stephen A.

Young Secretary 14620 Joanbridge
Street Baldwin Park CA 91706
Michael
Ochniak CFO 14620 Joanbridge
Street Baldwin Park CA 91706
Donald R.

Rogers VP Marketing 14620 Joanbridge
Street Baldwin Park CA 91706
Richard
Hubbard VP Operations 14620 Joanbridge
Street Baldwin Park CA 91706

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve the attached Motion to amend the contract with Allan Company for the operation of the Recycling Center extending the duration.

Alternative 2: Not approve the recommended Motion. The Recycling Center will cease operations on March 31, 2022 and the City would have to take recyclable material to a location outside of Glendale, at a higher cost.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Etienne Ozorak, Integrated Waste Superintendent
289 of 331
78 e
3 2
0 3
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None
290 of 331
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\CC_03222022_Resolution_8e1.pdf RESOLUTION NO. ______ _

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE DISPENSING

WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT #8001348 WITH ALLAN COMPANY, INC. FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GLENDALE

RECYCLING CENTER
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2006, following a request for proposals process, the City Council awarded a five-year contract to Allan Company, Inc. for operation of the Glendale Recycling Center and processing and marketing of recyclables; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the contract, Allan Company agreed to pay the City $26 per ton for recyclable material collected by the City and delivered to the contractor at the recycling center, which was amended in 2008 to increase this rate to $31 per ton and increased again in 2011 to $36 per ton; and
WHEREAS, in 2017, China disrupted the market for recyclables when it implemented its National Sword Policy, banning hard-to-process materials and setting extremely stringent contamination levels essentially causing the value of recyclable materials to collapse; and WHEREAS, due to this recyclables market disruption, on May 4, 2021, the City Council approved an amendment to the contract so that the City could begin paying the Allan Company $54 per ton for processed curbside recyclables through October 2021 at an estimated annual cost of $616,834, to continue uninterrupted recycling service in Glendale; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2021, the City Council approved a further amendment to the contract with Allan Company increasing the contract amount by $350,000 and extending the contract duration to March 31, 2022, to afford staff time to conduct a cost benefits analysis of the recycling center to determine its viability and cost-effectiveness and to bring a long-term solution for the Glendale Recycling Center to the City Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, while once a source of revenue, cities are now dealing with the reality of having to pay for recycling processing, resulting in less competitiveness by contractors for the processing of recyclables; and
WHEREAS, staff initially endeavored to select a new operator for the Glendale Recycling Center via a request for proposals; however, based on the significant capital investment that would be required by any new Recycling Center operator, the continuing depressed market for recyclables, and a reasonable standard for Glendale to commit to a minimum five-year contract, staff determined the City was unlikely to receive competitive proposals from multiple companies; and
WHEREAS, staff conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Recycling Center itself, including the redemption or “buy-back” center, to analyze the viability and cost-effectiveness of the Center, and examine other regional alternatives for the processing of the City’s recyclable material and the associated costs; particularly in light of the reduction of City recyclable material being brought to the center as a result of the commercial franchise program; and 291 of 331
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\CC_03222022_Resolution_8e1.pdf WHEREAS, the City of Glendale is mandated by the State of California to collect and divert from the landfills residential recyclable materials; and WHEREAS, at this time, the City of Glendale cannot commit to a contract for Glendale Recycling Center operations longer than three-years due to the imminent closure of the Scholl Canyon Landfill, changes in the quality of recyclable materials and uncertainty over the future of the Glendale Recycling Center site; and WHEREAS, the Glendale Recycling Center is permitted as a Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station and is currently underutilized as a city asset and its evolution and usefulness to the City needs further time and research; and WHEREAS, the Glendale Recycling Center is one of the few public facilities that receives material dropped off from the public and with the closure of recycling facilities throughout the region, Glendale residents and others will continue to receive these desired services under the proposed contract extension; and
WHEREAS, Allan Company, Inc. has agreed to continue charging the rate of $54 per ton for recyclable materials; and
WHEREAS, Glendale Charter Art. VI Section 9 provides an exception to competitive bidding where City Council determines that it is in the best interest of the City to dispense with competitive bidding; and

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

1. The foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct, and are a basis for dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the execution of an amendment to contract #8001348 with Allan Company, Inc., and that the City Council finds that it is the City's best interest for a contract amendment.

2. The City Council hereby dispenses with competitive bidding and authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute an amendment to the contract #8001348 with Allan Company, Inc. for Operation of the Glendale Recycling Center increasing the contract amount by $1,555,200 to $2,057,264, and extending the contract duration three-years to March 31, 2025.
292 of 331
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\CC_03222022_Resolution_8e1.pdf Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on this _______ day of _________ , 2022. ____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Aram Adjemian, Clerk of the City of Glendale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _________ was adopted by the City 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
293 of 331
9a

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Public Hearing for the 2022 Annual Weed Abatement Program

1. Motion to approve Abatement order directing the Agricultural Commissioner/Director of Weights and Measures to abate the nuisance on each declared parcel.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for March 22, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This annual public hearing follows the approval on March 8, 2022 by the City Council of the resolution declaring noxious weeds on unimproved properties can constitute a public nuisance. Property owners having any objections to the proposed abatement of the declared public nuisance may appear before the Council at this time to show cause why said public nuisance should not be removed.

The Fire Department Vegetation Management Program includes 9,667 parcels within the very high fire hazard area that receive an annual inspection. Of those, 609 are unimproved, vacant properties. The City has an agreement with Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner for weed abatement services on those unimproved properties. 294 of 331
29 a
3 1
4 6

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Safe and Healthy Community: Inspecting for, and removing noxious weeds that present an actual or potential fire hazard within 100 feet of a structure will allow the City to be more prepared to prevent a destructive wildfire.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully requests that following the public hearing, and after consideration of public input, City Council approve the abatement order directing the Agricultural Commissioner/Director of Weights and Measures to abate the nuisance on each declared parcel.

BACKGROUND
At the City Council meeting of March 8, 2022, the Council set the date of March 22, 2022 for a public hearing regarding the list of unimproved vacant parcels in the city containing noxious weeds and brush, as determined by the County of Los Angeles Agricultural Commissioner. Attached as an Exhibit are those properties which the Council declared to be a public nuisance on March 8, 2022. Notification of the hearing was provided by the County, verified by a sworn statement signed by Deputy Director of the County of Los Angeles Agricultural Commissioner of Weights and Measures Bureau. Any and all property owners having any objections to the proposed abatement of the declared public nuisance may appear before the Council and show cause why said public nuisance should not be removed.

The “Annual Weed Abatement Notice” sent by the County serves a dual purpose: 1) to notify property owners of the public hearing date and 2) to notify property owners that the County crews may begin clearing on April 1, 2022 on those properties not cleared by the owner. No secondary notice is either required or provided unless the County estimates cost of the clearing will exceed $750.00. In those cases, a letter is sent to the property owner with the estimate and a notice to abate the hazards in two weeks.

Property owners may attend the hearing in order to express their concerns about being placed on the declaration list. Fire department staff have been able to meet with many property owners personally and resolve most of their concerns without the need to speak at the hearing (most involve change of property ownership or the cost of clearing from the previous year). Also, a tear-off portion of the notice can be returned to the County if the property owner has any remarks to make or intends to complete the abatement themselves. Responses can also be submitted using the County’s website at https://acwm.lacounty.gov/weed-abatement-response/. The LA County ACWM Hazard Abatement Program telephone number is included on the notices to encourage property owners to call with their concerns. The hearing provides the public an opportunity to address the City Council if necessary.

Since property tax bills are mailed in November of each year, some property owners may use this hearing as an opportunity to express their concerns about the billing process or the charges incurred for work performed in prior years. There is a separate hearing specifically for this purpose scheduled in July of each year, whereby the City passes a 295 of 331
39 a
3 1
4 6
resolution confirming the Weed Abatement Charge List generated by the County during the fiscal year ending June 30. Concerns about this portion of the program should be addressed at the July hearing.

Properties on the list are unimproved vacant lots within the City of Glendale. Each property placed on the list will incur an annual inspection fee (approximately $45.00).

ANALYSIS
N/A

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The stakeholders include the owners of the 609 properties identified in the attached declaration list. A notice has been mailed to the property owners informing them of the program.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
N/A

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Private hazard abatement vendors may be contracted with by the City of Glendale to provide the aforementioned services. This alternative would require the City to assume the lead role in key program tasks including notification, inspection and cost recovery, thereby increasing the direct cost for the City.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Foster McLean, Assistant Fire Marshal
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
296 of 331
49 a
3 1
4 6

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: 2022 Glendale Dec List-122721
Exhibit 2: 2022 Glendale Sample Notice
Exhibit 3: 2022 Glendale Resolution Approved
297 of 331
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\CC_03222022_Motion_9a1.pdf

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________________, that pursuant to a public hearing in the Glendale City Council Chambers on March 8, 2022 Agricultural Commissioner of the County of Los Angeles is hereby ordered and directed to abate the nuisances on the properties listed in Exhibit "1" to the Report to Council dated March 8, 2022, incorporated herein by reference, by having the weeds, rubbish and refuse on said properties removed pursuant to this Motion, and the objections presented to the City Council are hereby overruled, except for those objections which have been allowed.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:
298 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIP
5459 019 012 VINCENT WAY 29TH STREET STUDENT HOUSING LLC 1911 UPPERTON AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90042 5459 020 017 MARION DR BRAVO,ROMEL 3172 VERDUGO PL LOS ANGELES CA 90065 5459 020 018 MARION DR BRAVO,ROMEL 3172 VERDUGO PL LOS ANGELES CA 90065 5601 032 030 MARKRIDGE RD ANANDA ASHRAMA PO BOX 8555 LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 5601 032 900 3100 MARKRIDGE RD L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5601 032 901 3100 MARKRIDGE RD L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5601 033 020 COOKS CYN LOH INVESTMENT LP 3870 MURPHY CANYON RD STE 150 SAN DIEGO CA 92123 5601 033 021 COOKS CYN ARIES HOLDINGS LLC 413 CANYON GREENS DR LAS VEGAS NV 89144 5601 033 901 MARKRIDGE RD L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5601 033 902 MARKRIDGE RD L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5601 036 020 MARKRIDGE RD TRACT 42836 HOMEOWNER ASSN 3501 JAMBOREE RD STE 2000 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 5601 037 035 SKY RIDGE DR TRACT 42836 HOMEOWNER ASSN 3501 JAMBOREE RD STE 2000 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 5601 038 009 SKY RIDGE DR TRACT 42836 HOMEOWNER ASSN 3501 JAMBOREE RD STE 2000 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 5603 011 004 EL CAMINITO WEST,MICHAEL M AND ALICE G 3835 EL CAMINITO LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 5607 020 003 NEW YORK AVE FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 020 004 NEW YORK AVE FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 021 001 CANYON LANE MONTGOMERY,ROBERT P AND CYNTHIA L 3861 EL LADO DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5607 021 002 CANYON LANE MONTGOMERY,ROBERT P AND CYNTHIA L 3861 EL LADO DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5607 021 003 CANYON LANE FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 021 006 CELITA HWY BEVERLY PALM PROPERTIES INC 269 S BEVERLY DR STE 1194 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 5607 021 008 CELITA HWY STEUART,STEVEN O TR 1913 VERDUGO LOMA DR APT 1 GLENDALE CA 91208 5607 021 009 CELITA HWY TAN, SACHA TR 440 S CANON DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 5607 021 034 CELITA HWY M JORJEZIAN INVESTMENTS INC 17425 CHATSWORTH ST 202 GRANADA HILLS CA 91344 PARCEL
1 299 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5607 022 001 CELITA HWY STANWYCK,RUTH G DECD EST OF 738 S UNION AVE NO 303 LOS ANGELES CA 90017 5607 022 003 CELITA HWY MCLEMORE,KENNETH S AND ELISABETH C 4 MOUNTAIN OAKS PARK GLENDALE CA 91214 5607 022 005 CELITA HWY MCLEMORE,KENNETH S AND ELISABETH C 4 MOUNTAIN OAKS PARK GLENDALE CA 91214 5607 022 008 CELITA HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 018 CELITA HWY SCHWARTZ,KAREN M TR PO BOX 4276 ORANGE CA 92863 5607 022 022 CELITA HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 023 MIGOR LANE FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 024 FERN LANE BERTRAM,JOYCE L TR 12 MOUNTAIN OAKS PARK GLENDALE CA 91214 5607 022 025 MIGOR LANE BERTRAM,JOYCE L TR 12 MOUNTAIN OAKS PARK GLENDALE CA 91214 5607 022 027 FERN LANE MATHERS, NOAH 10 MOUNTAIN OAKS PARK LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 5607 022 028 MIGOR LANE SANTOS,MIRIAM 5643 SMILEY DR LOS ANGELES CA 90016 5607 022 032 FERN LANE LOPEZ,HECTOR 13421 GLADSTONE AVE SYLMAR CA 91342 5607 022 034 FERN LANE FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 035 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 042 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 043 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 044 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 045 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 046 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 047 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 048 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 049 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 2 300 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5607 022 050 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 051 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 054 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 055 VERDUGO WOODS HWY ARROYO, CHAYANNE 345 E 20TH ST UNIT 2 LONG BEACH CA 90806 5607 022 056 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 022 057 VERDUGO WOODS HWY ARROYO, CHAYANNE 345 E 20TH ST UNIT 2 LONG BEACH CA 90806 5607 023 001 VERDUGO WOODS HWY BALISY, HUSAM S CO TR 521 KNIGHT WAY LA CANADA CA 91011 5607 023 003 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 023 004 VERDUGO WOODS HWY MARUTYAN, ARMEN AND AVA M 725 OMAR ST GLENDALE CA 91202 5607 023 006 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 023 009 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 023 010 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 023 014 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 024 007 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 024 015 VERDUGO WOODS HWY GUZMAN,HECTOR AND
GUZMAN,MARGARET 1105 W CLARK AVE APT C BURBANK CA 91506 5607 024 016 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 024 019 SEINA LANE FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 024 021 SEINA LANE VELASCO,JOSEPHINE F 23219 ORCHARD AVE CARSON CA 90745 5607 024 022 SEINA LANE CASTRO,ELOY AND EULALIA 4301 BERENICE AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90031 5607 024 023 VERDUGO WOODS HWY LEE,AARON AND DELSENIA 6726 ALVERN ST LOS ANGELES CA 90056 5607 024 025 VERDUGO WOODS HWY ISHKANIAN,THOMAS S TR 11 MOUNTAIN OAKS PARK LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 5607 024 030 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 3 301 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5607 025 001 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 025 002 VERDUGO WOODS HWY BARTON,DAVID L AND PATRICIA G 17 MOUNTAIN OAKS PARK LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 5607 025 003 VERDUGO WOODS HWY ABOUJAOUDE,PIERRE 3276 KENNETH DR LOS ANGELES CA 90032 5607 025 008 MOUNTAIN OAKS DR MAUPIN, ELLLA M TR 6828 BECKETT ST TUJUNGA CA 91042 5607 025 010 VERDUGO WOODS HWY LAUGHREY,FRED E AND SUSAN L TRS 2405 TEASLEY ST LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 5607 025 013 VERDUGO WOODS HWY WILSON,PAMILLA J PO BOX 3326 SEWARD AK 99664 5607 025 014 VERDUGO WOODS HWY LAUGHREY,FRED E AND SUSAN L TRS 2405 TEASLEY ST LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 5607 025 015 VERDUGO WOODS HWY WILSON,PAMILLA J PO BOX 3326 SEWARD AK 99664 5607 025 016 VERDUGO WOODS HWY WILSON,PAMILLA J PO BOX 3326 SEWARD AK 99664 5607 025 021 VERDUGO WOODS HWY MARTIN,GREG AND DIANNE H 1 MOUNTAIN OAKS PARK LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 5607 025 023 VERDUGO WOODS HWY CHEESEMAN,JOHN 9 MOUNTAIN OAKS PARK LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 5607 025 024 VERDUGO WOODS HWY CHEESEMAN,JOHN 9 MOUNTAIN OAKS PARK LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 5607 025 025 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 025 026 VERDUGO WOODS HWY FORTNER,JIMMIE D ET AL TRS 918 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5607 026 010 VERDUGO LANE GILMORE,BYRON D&ISABELLA H PO BOX 31490 PHOENIX AZ 85046 5607 026 012 VERDUGO LANE MARTIN,DIANNE 1 S END NEW YORK AVE GLENDALE CA 91214 5607 026 013 VERDUGO LANE MARTIN,DIANNE 1 S END NEW YORK AVE GLENDALE CA 91214 5610 002 020 MONTROSE AVE COOPER, NORMA G TR 2015 MONTROSE AVE MONTROSE CA 91020 5610 002 021 MONTROSE AVE COOPER, NORMA G TR 2015 MONTROSE AVE MONTROSE CA 91020 5610 002 902 PENNSYLVANIA AVE LA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5610 029 060 MONTROSE AVE CHIU, IVAN W TR 2300 COOLEY PL PASADENA CA 91104 5611 009 070 ROSELAWN AVE ALEXANIANS,HAIK AND 1601 WABASSO WAY GLENDALE CA 91208 4 302 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5611 010 024 HALL'S CANYON CHANNEL URQUIDEZ, WILLIAM J ET AL 917 MEADOWDALE CIR GARLAND TX 75043 5613 015 003 MENLO DR KHATCHATURIAN,RAFIK M ET AL TRS 1007 S CENTRAL AVE 100 GLENDALE CA 91204 5613 016 027 MENLO DR REGANYAN, NORO M 17164 DONMETZ ST GRANADA HILLS CA 91344 5613 017 017 EL TOVAR DR MAPP,JOHN AND MARIA 3180 VISTA DEL MAR DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5613 018 007 SPARR BLVD TREMAYNE,KENNETH & AZUMAKO TRS 3141 MENLO DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5613 020 012 VERDUGO RD HYUN SOON SUH AND 207 DONG 701HO 92CHUNWANG-RO GUR SEOUL KOREA 152-130 99999 5613 020 013 VERDUGO RD HARRIS,KENTON W 1714 ARLINGTON AVE GLENDALE CA 91208 5613 023 005 BAYBERRY DR MOZILO, ERIC R AND TERRI M TRS 2020 EL ARBOLITA DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5613 023 006 BAYBERRY DR MOZILO, ERIC R AND TERRI M TRS 2020 EL ARBOLITA DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5613 023 007 BAYBERRY DR SHAINMAN,ROBERT L AND KARIN 220 NEWPORT CENTER DR STE 11 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 5613 023 008 BAYBERRY DR SHAINMAN,ROBERT L AND KARIN 220 NEWPORT CENTER DR 11-570 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 5613 023 009 BAYBERRY DR WOO,CANDICE L 2050 EL ARBOLITA DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5613 023 034 BAYBERRY DR DICKINSON,DAVID G TR 13664 DERRING DR CORAL GABLES FL 33158 5613 024 017 AMARILLO DR ELIADES, BARBARA J TR 2057 EL ARBOLITA DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5613 024 018 AMARILLO DR PRYOR, WILLIAMS AND 2033 EL ARBOOLITA DR GLENDALE CA 99320 5613 024 019 AMARILLO DR JACOBSON,LLOYD AND JENNIFER TRS 82 ALASKA PL FRIDAY HARBOR WA 98250 5613 024 022 AMARILLO DR IZZARD,ALEXANDER E III CO TR 2024 MONTECITO DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5613 024 041 AMARILLO DR JAVADIAN,VACHIK AND 3108 PADDINGTON RD GLENDALE CA 91206 5613 024 043 AMARILLO DR ELIADES, BARBARA J TR 2057 EL ARBOLITA DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5613 026 001 BAYBERRY DR SARKISSIAN,CARNIG A 4210 GAYLE DR TARZANA CA 91356 5613 026 002 BAYBERRY DR HERTZ,MICHAEL A PO BOX 3807 GLENDALE CA 91221 5613 026 003 BAYBERRY DR MARQUETTE,JEANNE 412 GLENNEYRE ST LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 5 303 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5613 026 014 BAYBERRY DR DASSIAN,SAIFOLLAH S 2233 RAFAEL TER GLENDALE CA 91208 5614 015 029 LA VISTA TER TSARUKYAN, ARIS 8441 GRENOBLE ST SUNLAND CA 91040 5614 015 030 LA VISTA TER TSARUKYAN, ARIS 8441 GRENOBLE ST SUNLAND CA 91040 5614 016 007 LA VISTA TER TSARUKYAN, ARIS 8441 GRENOBLE ST SUNLAND CA 91040 5614 025 053 HILLSIDE DR LETHIN,CLARKE AND WENDY 1310 HILLSIDE DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5616 002 801 COUNTRY CLUB DR SO CALIF EDISON CO 2 INNOVATION WAY POMONA CA 91768 5616 008 005 BEAUDRY TER SOO MI KIM 12027 PARAMOUNT BLVD DOWNEY CA 90242 5616 019 011 DORA VERDUGO RD HO,WILLIAM K AND SUNEE K PO BOX 9454 GLENDALE CA 91226 5616 021 036 ESPERANZA TER LIU,CHANG H 14429 VICTORY BLVD VAN NUYS CA 91401 5617 012 027 CELITA HWY SARIAN,ARSEN J AND LIZA TRS 28241 BAKERTON AVE CANYON COUNTRY CA 91351 5617 012 029 SUMMIT LANE KARAMANOUKIAN,ALBER K TR 2226 HOLLISTER TER GLENDALE CA 91206 5617 014 037 LOCKERBIE CT OMIDGHAEMI, MOHAMMAD 3817 LOCKERBIE CT GLENDALE CA 91208 5617 019 800 MESA LILA RD SO CALIF EDISON CO 2 INNOVATION WAY POMONA CA 91768 5617 023 033 EILINTA AVE KNOX,CHESTER AND DOLORES TRS 900 EILINITA AVE GLENDALE CA 91208 5618 022 004 1759 ALLEN AVE NORHADIAN,ARMEN CO TR 1759 ALLEN AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5618 022 902 ALLEN AVE L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5618 023 014 VISTA DR RENFRO,HAL D AND SHEENA TRS 220 S JACKSON ST NO 307 GLENDALE CA 91205 5618 023 015 VISTA DR RENFRO,HAL D AND SHEENA TRS 220 S JACKSON ST NO 307 GLENDALE CA 91205 5618 025 006 FOOTHILL DR SIMHAEE, ENAYAT 410 S BARRINGTON AVE UNIT 303 LOS ANGELES CA 90049 5618 026 001 FOOTHILL DR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CANDLE 2021 N SAN FERNANDO RD LOS ANGELES CA 90065 5618 028 901 ALLEN AVE L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5621 035 007 GLENOAKS BLVD ZYGOMA LLC 1500 PASEO DE ORO PACIFIC PALIS. CA 90272 6 304 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5626 007 005 RIVERSIDE DR DARGENZIO, LOUIS AND CATHERINE 624 N FREDERIC ST BURBANK CA 91505 5626 026 270 FAIRFIELD ST LA CITY DEPT OF WATER & POWER PO BOX 51111 LOS ANGELES CA 90051 5627 014 011 532 HAZEL ST HAZEL COLE INVESTMENT LLC PO BOX 35148 LOS ANGELES CA 90035 5630 003 030 MONTAIN ST DULGERYAN, KEVORK G AND 1011 W MOUNTAIN ST GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 003 036 RIDGEWAY DR GRIGORYAN,SATENIK 1875 IDLEWOOD RD GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 009 023 ROBIN GLEN DR ARD EEVIN PROPERTY LLC PO BOX 3538 GLENDALE CA 91221 5630 010 037 CALEB ST BAGHRAMIAN,ARMOND M AND FIMA S 2315 MONTROSE AVE NO 101 MONTROSE CA 91020 5630 010 056 HILLCREST AVE AMIRKHANIAN,VAHIK AND HASMIK TRS 550 CALEB ST GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 010 900 CALEB ST L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5630 010 901 HILLCREST AVE L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5630 011 025 HILLCREST AVE KARAPETYAN, ARPINE 1544 W KENNETH RD GLENDALE CA 91201 5630 011 027 ROHR ST B AND J CAPITAL GROUP INVESTMENTS 511 CAMINO REAL REDONDO BEACH CA 90277 5630 011 028 HILLCREST AVE MORALES, BRIAN J AND 2106 S BENTLEY AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90025 5630 011 030 VALENTINE DR ROACH,JOSEPH A III AND OLGA I 491 NOLAN AVE GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 011 031 VALENTINE DR ROACH,JOSEPH A III AND OLGA I 491 NOLAN AVE GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 011 032 VALENTINE DR ROACH,JOSEPH A AND OLGA I 491 NOLAN AVE GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 011 033 VALENTINE DR KHATCHATOURIAN, ALAN TR 879 W MOUNTAIN ST. GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 011 035 VALENTINE DR HARTOUNIAN, MATILDA 2706 N KENNETH RD BURBANK CA 91504 5630 011 038 VALENTINE DR COX, PAUL J AND 1758 ROHR ST GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 017 024 MAGINN DR NGUYEN,TOAN VY CO TR 935 HERON CIR SEAL BEACH CA 90740 5630 022 001 VALENTINE DR ROACH,JOSEPH A AND OLGA I 491 NOLAN AVE GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 022 006 VALENTINE DR WITTERT,TERRY L 23306 PARK SORRENTO CALABASAS CA 91302 7 305 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5630 022 007 VALENTINE DR VALLEY CASA LLC 23901 CALABASAS RD STE 1050 CALABASAS CA 91302 5630 022 009 VALENTINE DR GARDNER,BRIAN R 100 W GLENOAKS BLVD GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 022 011 NOLAN AVE CHEGENIZADEH,ABDUL K AND 7 BUCKSKIN CT BELL CANYON CA 91307 5630 022 015 NESMUTH RD BABAYANS, ALFRED AND ANAHID 4609 OCEAN VIEW BLVD LA CANADA FLINT CA 91011 5630 022 017 NOLAN AVE MONKARSH, JOYCE L ET AL TRS ET AL 9061 SANTA MONICA BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90069 5630 022 018 VALENTINE DR MONKARSH, JOYCE L ET AL TRS ET AL 9061 SANTA MONICA BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90069 5630 022 019 VALENTINE DR POULSEN,HELGA F TR 3738 CROWN HILL DR SANTA ROSA CA 95404 5630 022 020 NOLAN AVE ROACH,JOSEPH A AND OLGA I 491 NOLAN AVE GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 022 024 NOLAN AVE ROACH,JOSEPH A AND OLGA I 491 NOLAN AVE GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 022 025 NOLAN AVE ROACH,JOSEPH A III AND OLGA I 491 NOLAN AVE GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 022 026 NOLAN AVE ROACH,JOSEPH A AND OLGA I 491 NOLAN AVE GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 022 027 NOLAN AVE ROACH,JOSEPH A III AND OLGA I 491 NOLAN AVE GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 022 028 NOLAN AVE ROACH,JOSEPH A III AND OLGA I 491 NOLAN AVE GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 022 029 NOLAN AVE ROACH,JOSEPH A III AND OLGA I 491 NOLAN AVE GLENDALE CA 91202 5630 022 901 VALENTINE DR L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5630 023 010 CARDIGAN AVE VALLEY CASA LLC 23901 CALABASAS RD STE 1050 CALABASAS CA 91302 5630 023 011 CARDIGAN AVE VALLEY CASA LLC 23901 CALABASAS RD STE 1050 CALABASAS CA 91302 5630 023 012 CARDIGAN AVE VALLEY CASA LLC 23901 CALABASAS RD STE 1050 CALABASAS CA 91302 5630 023 013 NESMUTH RD VALLEY CASA LLC 23901 CALABASAS RD STE 1050 CALABASAS CA 91302 5630 023 016 NESMUTH RD VALLEY CASA LLC 23901 CALABASAS RD STE 1050 CALABASAS CA 91302 5630 023 902 NESMUTH RD L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5630 024 904 BEAUDRY TER L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 8 306 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5630 025 002 VIA SALDIVAR LEHRER AND CO 2601 N COMMONWEALTH AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90027 5632 001 006 KEMPTON RD HEMELRIJCK, RAYMUNDO V 1061 SMOKETREE DR CORONA CA 92882 5632 001 014 KEMPTON RD 265 KEMPTON VILLA LLC 1136 1/2 N PACIFIC AVE GLENDALE CA 91202 5632 025 051 ASPEN OAK LN MAR AND COMPANY INC PO BOX 5939 GLENDALE CA 91221 5632 025 052 ASPEN OAK LN MAR AND COMPANY INC PO BOX 5939 GLENDALE CA 91221 5636 011 002 1146 MELROSE AVE PROPERTY RESERVE INC PO BOX 511196 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84151 5636 011 044 227 W DRYDEN ST ICON INVESTMENT LLC 1031 S CENTRAL AVE GLENDALE CA 91204 5638 020 035 238 CONCORD ST MY CONCORD LLC 2151 N HOBART BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90027 5640 005 023 311 W CYPRESS ST GOLBAHAR VENTURES LLC 2020 COTNER AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90025 5640 015 043 MARYLAND AVE KAZAZIAN,TAGUHI AND HOVSEP 3132 EMERALD ISLE DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5640 015 044 MARYLAND AVE KAZAZIAN,TAGUHI AND HOVSEP 3132 EMERALD ISLE DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5640 017 017 129 W LOS FELIZ RD KARAMANOUKIAN, ALBER K 800 S CENTRAL AVE STE 101B GLENDALE CA 91204 5640 017 018 133 W LOS FELIZ RD KARAMANOUKIAN, ALBER K 800 S CENTRAL AVE STE 101B GLENDALE CA 91204 5641 013 038 211 W WINDSOR RD SHEP DEVELOPMENT INC 348 PEACH ST MONTEREY PARK CA 91755 5643 018 024 LOUISE ST NORTH BRAND MIXED USE LLC 1125 E 17TH ST # 559 SANTA ANA CA 92701 5643 018 025 625 N LOUISE ST NORTH BRAND MIXED USE LLC 1125 E 17TH ST # 559 SANTA ANA CA 92701 5648 008 003 DWIGHT DR THOMPSON,ROBERT L AND MARTIN, ANN E 1485 DWIGHT DR GLENDALE CA 91207
5648 024 010 GLENMONT DR MARDEROSS,SHAHIK 307 W BROADWAY UNIT 10 GLENDALE CA 91204 5648 024 013 RIMCREST DR LUZURIAGA,ADEL T TR 147 CUMBERLAND RD GLENDALE CA 91202 5649 011 005 GLEENBRIAR AVE VITOLO,KURT TR PO BOX 40547 NASHVILLE TN 37204 5649 018 004 MOUNTAIN ST GEER,ROBERT J AND 841 E MOUNTAIN ST GLENDALE CA 91207 5649 018 030 CEDAR COURT RD BAGHRAMIAN,ARMOND M AND FIMA S 2315 MONTROSE AVE NO 101 MONTROSE CA 91020 9 307 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5649 019 006 CAVANAGH RD ARNOLD, CLYDE B TR 843 CAVANAGH RD GLENDALE CA 91207 5649 025 032 CAVANAGH RD ROWELL,JOHN D 3511 COUNTRY CLUB DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5649 026 014 CORDOVA AVE AGG COMPANY INC 11271 VENTURA BLVD #100 STUDIO CITY 91604 5649 026 024 MELWOOD DR TATOS,RAZMIK AND SILVA L TRS 290 E VERDUGO AVE STE 104 BURBANK CA 91502 5649 027 012 HILLCROFT RD HARDWARD HOLDINGS LLC 210 LOUISE TERR GLENDALE CA 91207 5650 001 016 ESMERALDA DR PIRJANIAN,SOUREN TR 701 IVY ST GLENDALE CA 91204 5650 001 017 ESMERALDA DR GTS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 1400 GREENBRIAR RD GLENDALE CA 91207 5650 039 011 SUNSHINE DR ARROYOS AND FOOTHILLS CORP PO BOX 1 PASADENA CA 91102 5652 012 014 ARVIN DR KESABYAN,MKRTICH 1132 RAYMOND AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5652 012 015 ARVIN DR CHAKYAN,KHOREN AND MARINE 14747 BESSEMER ST VAN NUYS CA 91411 5652 012 063 VERDUGO RD SCHIAVONE,JOHN R AND MARIA M 1914 SHERER LN GLENDALE CA 91208 5652 012 064 VERDUGO RD KESABYAN,MKRTICH 1132 RAYMOND AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5652 018 031 VERDUGO KNOLLS RD OLAH,GEORGE JR TR 9824 ALTMAN AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90034 5652 023 003 VERDUGO KNOLLS RD SARKISIAN,JACK H AND MARIA 17055 OAK VIEW DR ENCINO CA 91436 5653 022 031 1840 CALAFIA ST HUA,RANDY AND DANA D 1840 CALAFIA ST GLENDALE CA 91208 5653 030 800 FERN LANE SO CALIF EDISON CO LTD 2 INNOVATION WAY POMONA CA 91768 5653 030 801 FERN LANE SO CALIF EDISON CO 2 INNOVATION WAY POMONA CA 91768 5654 002 124 ALPHA RD DANIELIAN, SAM & ANAHID TRS 557 W GLENOAKS BLVD GLENDALE CA 91202 5654 002 125 ALPHA RD DANIELIAN, SAM & ANAHID TRS 557 W GLENOAKS BLVD GLENDALE CA 91202 5654 004 008 OAKWOOD AVE WHITTICK, VARD A & RITA E TRS 8941 ATLANTA AVE HUNTINGBEACH CA 92646 5654 004 024 OAKWOOD AVE MARUTYAN,KARAPET AND KHATUN 1846 CALAFIA ST GLENDALE CA 91208 5654 006 001 SPARR BLVD GABOR,MICHAEL G AND VICKI N 3000 SPARR BLVD GLENDALE CA 91208 10 308 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5654 011 005 VISTA DEL VERDE DR PAGE,TANYA M 2818 MIRA VISTA DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5654 011 009 VISTA DEL VERDE DR WEBB, JENNIFER P TR 1850 LOS ENCINOS AVE GLENDALE CA 91208 5654 011 010 VISTA DEL VERDE DR EL DARZI,GEORGETTE AND 345 N KENWOOD ST UNIT 301 GLENDALE CA 91206 5654 011 014 VISTA DEL VERDE DR KARAGIOSIAN,HAKOP AND CHANUM 2051 CHILTON DR GLENDALE CA 91201 5654 011 019 VISTA DEL VERDE DR CLEMENTE,JESSIE O AND 1884 LOS ENCINOS AVE GLENDALE CA 91208 5654 011 020 VISTA DEL VERDE DR QUINTANA,MARIA L 5824 MERIDIAN ST LOS ANGELES CA 90042 5654 011 023 VISTA DEL VERDE DR HAKOBYAN, YEGHISHE 9661 BLEEDING HEART AVE LAS VEGAS NV 89178 5654 011 024 VISTA DEL VERDE DR HOFFMAN, MARK J AND ELLIS, JADE C 1878 LOS ENCINOS AVE GLENDALE CA 91208 5654 011 900 VISTA DEL VERDE DR STATE OF CALIF MTNS RECREATION 570 W AVENUE 26 STE 100 LOS ANGELES CA 90065 5654 012 003 VISTA DEL VERDE DR SUTER,THOMAS G AND KAREN S TRS 4622 MARELLEN PL LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 5654 012 005 VISTA DEL VERDE DR MC HUGH, FRANK TR 25 S RAYMOND AVE STE 319 ALHAMBRA CA 91801 5654 012 010 VISTA DEL VERDE DR CALLES,MICHAEL J AND 9306 ELM AVE FONTANA CA 92335 5654 012 011 VISTA DEL VERDE DR VICZIAN,ANDREA TR 951 HUGO REID DR ARCADIA CA 91007 5654 012 015 VISTA DEL VERDE DR VICZIAN,ANDREA TR 951 HUGO REID DR ARCADIA CA 91007 5654 012 016 VISTA DEL VERDE DR D AGUIAR,RAYMOND A AND ANAFLOR 9304 REVERIE RD TUJUNGA CA 91042 5654 012 021 VISTA DEL VERDE DR RODRIGUEZ, ANA ET AL TRS 162 E FAIRFIELD DR CLAREMONT CA 91711 5654 012 023 VISTA DEL VERDE DR BLIKIAN,ANAHIT 4020 HAMPSTEAD RD LA CANADA FLINT. 91011 5654 012 024 VISTA DEL VERDE DR STEPANYAN,VAGE 1125 E BROADWAY #196 GLENDALE CA 91205 5654 012 034 VISTA DEL VERDE DR SRISATHAPAT,CHAD CO TR 8701 VINE VALLEY DR SUN VALLEY CA 91352 5654 025 027 VISTA DEL VERDE DR ROJAS,FRANK 1353 KENT PL GLENDALE CA 91205 5654 025 028 VISTA DEL VERDE DR EL DARZI,GEORGETTE AND 345 N KENWOOD ST UNIT 301 GLENDALE CA 91206 5654 027 800 EMBURNS DR SO CALIF EDISON CO 2 INNOVATION WAY POMONA CA 91768 11 309 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5654 027 801 EMBURNS DR SO CALIF EDISON EDISON CO 2 INNOVATION WAY POMONA CA 91768 5654 028 003 PASA GLEN DR GODOY, LIZA M ET AL 1090 COUNTRY RD MONTEREY PARK CA 91755 5654 028 009 PASA GLEN DR GONZALEZ,CONRADO E AND JULIA R 4930 ALDAMA ST LOS ANGELES CA 90042 5654 028 010 PASA GLEN DR JAMGOTCHIAN,ARAXI 5206 STRATFORD RD LOS ANGELES CA 90042 5654 028 011 PASA GLEN DR JAMGOTCHIAN,ARAXI 5206 STRATFORD RD LOS ANGELES CA 90042 5654 028 013 VISTA DEL VERDE DR DANIELIAN,DAJAT ET AL 1540 CLEVELAND RD GLENDALE CA 91202 5654 028 014 PASA GLEN DR HARRINGTON,ALBERT E 2784 MIRA VISTA DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5654 028 015 PASA GLEN DR SAYADIAN,MARIAM 8018 LOREL AVE SKOKIE IL 60077 5654 028 020 PASA GLEN DR SAYADIAN,MARIAM 4939 BRUMMEL ST SKOKIE IL 60077 5654 028 800 PASA GLEN DR SO CALIF EDISON CO 2 INNOVATION WAY POMONA CA 91768 5654 029 800 LOS ENCINOS AVE SO CALIF EDISON CO 2 INNOVATION WAY POMONA CA 91768 5654 030 006 PASA GLEN DR COFFEY,CHARLES L AND LEILA C 1240 E LEXINGTON DR APT D GLENDALE CA 91206 5654 030 007 PASA GLEN DR COFFEY,CHARLES L AND LEILA C 1240 E LEXINGTON DR APT D GLENDALE CA 91206 5654 030 020 PASA GLEN DR BONSTIN, PHILIP B AND SHANA 1818 PASA GLEN DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5654 030 022 PASA GLEN DR BONSTIN, PHILIP B AND SHANA 1818 PASA GLEN DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5659 004 015 GRACELAND WAY RIBISI,ALBERT A 2860 GRACELAND WAY GLENDALE CA 91206 5659 005 017 2958 EDGEWICK RD OH,JONATHAN 3450 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 1005 LOS ANGELES CA 90010 5659 005 021 EDGEWICK RD 2940 EDGEWICK LLC 621 PASQUAL AVE SAN GABRIEL CA 91775 5659 007 001 EDGEWICK RD JUAREZ, ISABEL 4151 N TRAVERSE MOUNTAIN BLVD LEHI UT 84043 5659 007 013 EDGEWICK RD HOLZINGER, ANDREW AND 3045 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE CA 91206 5659 007 015 EDGEWICK RD ANURJ PROPERTIES LLC 2544 1/2 MONTROSE AVE MONTROSE CA 91020 5659 007 024 PADDINGTON RD GIRARD,DAVID H AND H JEAN TRS 3016 ANNITA DR GLENDALE CA 91206 12 310 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5659 009 011 EDGEWICK RD GOLNICK,LARRY D CO TR 2865 GRACELAND WAY GLENDALE CA 91206 5659 009 014 EDGEWICK RD OLIVER,BETTY A TR 2885 EDGEWICK DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5659 020 008 GOLF CLUB DR COE, WAYNE D & ROBYN P 67 KINDERHOOK ST CHATHAM NY 12037 5659 023 904 CHEVY CHASE DR STATE OF CALIF MTNS RECREATION 570 W AVENUE 26 STE 100 LOS ANGELES CA 90065 5659 023 905 CHEVY CHASE DR STATE OF CALIF MTNS RECREATION 570 W AVENUE 26 STE 100 LOS ANGELES CA 90065 5659 024 009 CHEVY CHASE DR VAHDANI, MIR MOHAMAD ALI 1983 ASHINGTON DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5659 025 901 CHEVY CHASE DR STATE OF CALIF MTNS RECREATION 570 W AVENUE 26 STE 100 LOS ANGELES CA 90065 5659 026 008 CHEVY CHASE DR SARKISSIAN, SAKO CO TR 416 E BROADWAY UNIT 408 GLENDALE CA 91205 5659 028 023 ASHINGTON DR SUNSET RIDGE COMMUNITY ASSOC 16461 SHERMAN WAY NO 325 VAN NUYS CA 91406 5660 003 008 CHEVY CHASE DR GOSSETT,SCOTT R AND ELIZABETH G 15800 BEAVER RUN RD CANYON COUNTRY CA 91387 5660 005 006 FIGUEROA ST LEBLANC,KENNETH F 27949 GIBSON PL SANTA CLARITA CA 91350 5660 005 012 FIGUEROA ST TICHENOR,PAUL W AND NORIKO K TRS 2024 BUCKINGHAM PL GLENDALE CA 91206 5660 005 013 FIGUEROA ST LEBLANC,KENNETH F 27949 GIBSON PL SANTA CLARITA CA 91350 5660 005 014 FIGUEROA ST MGERIAN,ANNA AND HAROUTIOUN 2016 BUCKINGHAM PL GLENDALE CA 91206 5660 006 018 LINDA VISTA RD VINCENTI, PALMA TR 3365 FIGUEROA ST GLENDALE CA 90206 5660 006 020 FIGUEROA ST HOTCHKISS, CURTIS R JR AND 5051 S KENSINGTON AVE ONTARIO CA 91762 5660 007 001 LINDA VISTA RD DEBLASIS,ROBERT J TR 183 KENWORTHY DR PASADENA CA 91105 5660 007 007 LINDA VISTA RD FU, WEI 6613 KARIN PL SAN GABRIEL CA 91775 5660 008 002 LINDA VISTA RD BEHFARIN,FRED PO BOX 70220 LOS ANGELES CA 90070 5660 008 004 LINDA VISTA RD ROBERT HALL AND SONS CORPS PO BOX 8557 LA CRESCENTA CA 91224 5660 008 023 LINDA VISTA RD KOZANIAN,KNARIK 3470 LINDA VISTA RD GLENDALE CA 91206 5660 008 024 LINDA VISTA RD KOZANIAN,ANDRANIK AND KNARIK TRS 3470 LINDA VISTA RD GLENDALE CA 91206 13 311 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5660 008 027 LINDA VISTA RD KOZANIAN,KNARIK 3470 LINDA VISTA RD GLENDALE CA 91206 5660 013 003 BUCKINGHAM RD OFLAHERTY, MELODY J AND 1703 N AVENUE 55 LOS ANGELES CA 90042 5660 013 005 LINDA VISTA RD DAVERN,DONALD J TR 113 N SKYLINE DR CHATHAM MA 02633 5660 014 800 LINDA VISTA RD SO CALIF EDISON CO 2 INNOVATION WAY POMONA CA 91768 5660 015 006 CHARING CROSS NAZARYAN,SAM 2048 ASHINGTON DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5660 015 014 BUCKINGHAM RD HOGAN, PETER V AND YASINTA P 3255 BUCKINGHAM RD GLENDALE CA 91206 5660 015 016 BUCKINGHAM RD ROGALSKI, RYAN 3229 BUCKINGHAM RD GLENDALE CA 91206 5660 015 018 CHARING CROSS NAZARYAN,SAM 2048 ASHINGTON DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5660 015 029 BUCKINGHAM RD ROGALSKI, RYAN 3229 BUCKINGHAM RD GLENDALE CA 91206 5660 015 800 E CHEVY CHASE DR SO CALIF EDISON CO 2 INNOVATION WAY POMONA CA 91768 5660 017 007 DUNSMERE RD OTT,JOHN L TR 2587 E WAHSINGTON BLVD #321 PASADENA CA 91107 5660 018 903 LINDA VISTA RD L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5660 019 014 CORNWELL DR GASTELUM, ART M 300 N LAKE AVE 12TH FL PASADENA CA 91101 5660 019 015 CORNWELL DR COHEN,PINCHAS CO TR 315 24TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90402 5660 019 900 LINDA VISTA RD L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5660 019 901 LINDA VISTA RD L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5660 020 034 HOLLYWELL PL KLINTWORTH,PHILIP G AND 318 WILLIS RD SALINE MI 48176 5660 020 035 CORNWELL DR KLINTWORTH,PAUL AND 7701 PORT ARTHUR DR EASTVALE CA 82880 5660 021 027 ST GREGORY RD BABAIAN, ARTHUR 14268 LORNE ST PANORAMA CITY CA 91402 5660 022 001 GREENWICH RD LEDESMA,JULIAN AND SHAMIM, A 1503 N CAHUENGA BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90028 5660 022 003 GREENWICH RD NAMJO,HOMAYOUN ET AL 15515 E SUNSET BLVD NO 221 PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272 5660 022 004 GREENWICH RD NAMJO,HOMAYOUN ET AL 15515 E SUNSET BLVD NO 221 PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272 14 312 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5660 022 005 GREENWICH RD SWIFT,CHARLES W AND DOLLY J TRS 10306 BECKFORD AVE PORTER RANCH CA 91411 5660 022 007 GREENWICH RD LAU,CHUNG M 115 LOS HIGOS ST ALHAMBRA CA 91801 5660 022 008 GREENWICH RD KOTOLYAN, ALEKSANDR AND 6130 COLDWATER CANYON AVE UNIT 13 N HOLLYWOOD CA 91606 5660 023 012 GREENWICH RD NEUWEG,ERIC 2919 GREENWICH RD GLENDALE CA 91206 5660 023 014 GREENWICH RD CHEN,CHU CHI CO TR 3807 SW CHELMSFORD RD TOPEKA KS 66610 5660 023 018 GREENWICH RD PARK, SOON WON AND PIL HEE 3722 PARAISO WAY LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 5660 024 002 TRAMMELL RD WONG,KATHY P TR PO BOX 3803 SOUTH PASADENA CA 91031 5660 024 012 TRAMMELL RD groner, mark p and 2750 E CHEVY CHASE DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5660 024 013 GREENWICH RD KASABYAN,JOSEPH 725 S GLENDALE AVE STE D GLENDALE CA 91205 5660 024 014 GREENWICH RD BALSAM, JODY A 3727 W MAGNOLIA BLVD UNIT 155 BURBANK CA 91505 5660 024 015 GREENWICH RD COLVIN,DEAN E AND THERESA R TRS 2816 E CHEVY CHASE DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5660 024 025 GREENWICH RD YEGANYAN,EMMA 7931 GREENBUSH AVE PANORAMA CITY CA 91402 5660 024 027 GREENWICH RD VARILLA,ERLINDA CO TR 18046 ESPITO ST ROWLAND HEIGHTS CA 91748 5660 024 028 GREENWICH RD VARILLA,ERLINDA CO TR 18046 ESPITO ST NO 2988 ROWLAND HEIGHTS CA 91748 5660 024 029 TRAMMELL RD GALYON,JOHN TR 1210 E TUJUNGA AVE BURBANK CA 91501 5660 024 034 GREENWICH RD GRONER, MARK P AND 2750 E CHEVY CHASE DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5660 026 027 STORM DRAIN EAS LOGAN GASTROENTEROLGY CONS INC 13942 WESTWOOD WAY RO. CUCAMONGA CA 91739 5660 032 024 FIGUEROA ST ROBINS,IAN PO BOX 9904 GLENDALE CA 91226 5660 032 044 FIGUEROA ST PANGESTU,JULARDI S AND 333 S MANHATTAN PL UNIT 7 LOS ANGELES CA 90020 5660 033 005 DUNSMERE RD LEWIS, CRAIG W AND JANA 1308 E COLORADO BLVD STE 604 PASADENA CA 91106 5660 033 270 FIGUEROA ST PASADENA WATER DEPT 150 S LOS ROBLES AVE STE 200 PASADENA CA 91101 5660 033 800 FIGUEROA ST SO CALIF EDISON CO 2 INNOVATION WAY POMONA CA 91768 15 313 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5660 034 026 FIGUEROA ST FAIR OAKS COMMUNITY ASSN 7969 FOOTHILL BLVD SUNLAND CA 91040 5660 037 039 FIGUEROA ST FAIR OAKS COMMUNITY ASSN 7969 FOOTHILL BLVD SUNLAND CA 91040 5661 006 037 SINCLAIR AVE CRISTIN-POUCHER,STEVEN AND LILLI 755 LUTON DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5661 007 035 SINCLAIR AVE TSASU LLC AND CHANG, HUI WEN 15350 GALE AVE HACIENDA HEIGHTS CA 91745 5661 007 036 SINCLAIR AVE TSASU LLC AND CHANG, HUI WEN 15350 GALE AVE HACIENDA HEIGHTS CA 91745 5661 017 021 357 HARVEY DR KSI INVESTMENTS I LLC PO BOX 811511 LOS ANGELES CA 90081 5662 009 002 LILAC LANE CHARUM,SHEILA 2050 LILAC LN GLENDALE CA 91206 5662 009 003 LILAC LANE TRIAS CHARUM,SHEILA 2050 LILAC LN GLENDALE CA 91206 5662 009 020 MOUNT CARMEL DR ROBLES,JUAN 2100 S HOBART BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90018 5662 012 010 HOLLISTER TER CHUNG,THOMAS Y AND CHANY N TRS 5525 WILSHIRE BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90036 5662 018 016 DRURY LANE MANDEKIE,MICHAEL 2430 E CHEVY CHASE DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5662 019 001 OLYMPIC DR BRUEHL,DIETER CO TR ET AL 1857 N CURSON AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90046 5662 019 002 OLYMPIC DR RAUHUT,SVEN CO TR 521 CENTRAL AVE SEAL BEACH CA 90740 5662 019 011 CHEVY CHASE DR MUNRO, RAYMOND TR 59 GLENFLOW CT GLENDALE CA 91206 5662 019 012 CHEVY CHASE DR LOPEZ, SHADIA K 1224 E HARVARD ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5662 020 006 OLYMPIC DR SHATS,IRINA TR 826 N HOLLYWOOD WAY BURBANK CA 91505 5662 020 007 OLYMPIC DR SHATS,IRINA TR 826 N HOLLYWOOD WAY BURBANK CA 91505 5662 020 008 OLYMPIC DR BEDROSIAN,HOREN AND VAHE 405 E PALMER AVE NO 7 GLENDALE CA 91205 5662 020 009 OLYMPIC DR HERNANDEZ,FERNANDO C CO TR 225 THOMPSON AVE GLENDALE CA 91201 5662 020 010 OLYMPIC DR BRUEHL,DIETER CO TR ET AL 1857 N CURSON AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90046 5662 020 011 OLYMPIC DR D AGUILAR, MICHAEL A 4170 W 122ND ST HAWTHORNE CA 90250 5662 020 014 OLYMPIC DR BRUEHL,DIETER CO TR ET AL 1857 N CURSON AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90046 16 314 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5662 021 008 OLYMPIC DR SONG, YOOHA 800 W 1ST ST UNIT 610 LOS ANGELES CA 90012 5662 021 009 OLYMPIC DR SONG, YOOHA 800 W 1ST ST UNIT 610 LOS ANGELES CA 90012 5662 021 010 OLYMPIC DR DREAM HOME FUNDING INC 2029 VERDUGO BLVD NO 108 MONTROSE CA 91020 5662 021 011 OLYMPIC DR DREAM HOME FUNDING INC 2029 VERDUGO BLVD NO 108 MONTROSE CA 91020 5663 003 002 CHEVY CHASE DR DOVLATIAN,ARMEN AND 213 N ORANGE ST STE A GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 007 008 BARNETT DR PRESLO,KENNETH M AND JANICE B 405 CALLE DE ARAGON TORRANCE CA 90277 5663 007 023 CHEVY CHASE DR TODD,MIA D AND PETERSON, JESSE W 2225 E CHEVY CHASE DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 009 001 BARNETT DR SHAHRYAR LLC 28880 MICHELLE DR AGOURA HILLS CA 91301 5663 009 002 BARNETT DR NATIAN,ALBERT 2321 CASCADIA DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 009 003 BARNETT DR HONG,SUNG P AND YOUNG Z TRS 2770 SANBORN AVE LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 5663 009 004 BARNETT DR KASSABIAN,HRATCH AND ARPI 9260 LA SHELL DR TUJUNGA CA 91042 5663 009 005 BARNETT DR KASSABIAN,HRATCH AND ARPI 9260 LA SHELL DR TUJUNGA CA 91042 5663 009 006 BARNETT DR SCHNEIDER,LAURAL L AND 6455 BIXBY TERRACE DR LONG BEACH CA 90815 5663 009 007 BARNETT DR NAZARI,TOMIK 20202 COHASSET ST UNIT 14 WINNETKA CA 91306 5663 009 008 BARNETT DR JOOMA,MAHOMED S 510 17TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90402 5663 009 010 CASCADIA DR PRESLO,KENNETH M AND JANICE B 405 CALLE DE ARAGON TORRANCE CA 90277 5663 009 015 RAMSAY DR TURNER, THOMAS C 501 JUNIPER DR PASADENA CA 91105 5663 009 016 BARNETT DR TURNER, THOMAS C 501 JUNIPER DR PASADENA CA 91105 5663 011 001 RAMSEY DR LAI, CHRISTINE 1105 OUTLOOK LN GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 011 008 BARNETT DR BINZLEY,WARREN G TR 2401 CASCADIA DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 011 009 BARNETT DR BINZLEY,WARREN G TR 2401 CASCADIA DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 011 011 CASCADIA DR BINZLEY,WARREN G TR 2401 CASCADIA DR GLENDALE CA 91206 17 315 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5663 011 012 CASCADIA DR BINZLEY,WARREN G TR 2401 CASCADIA DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 011 014 BARNETT DR BINZLEY,WARREN G TR 2401 CASCADIA DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 011 016 BARNETT DR BINZLEY,WARREN G TR 2401 CASCADIA DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 011 017 BARNETT DR TOROSSIAN,ROOBINA TR 1170 ALLEN AVE UNIT 1 GLENDALE CA 91201 5663 011 018 BARNETT DR TOROSSIAN,ROOBINA TR 1170 ALLEN AVE UNIT 1 GLENDALE CA 91201 5663 011 020 BARNETT DR KOO,VILCAR AND KIM, SANGHYO PO BOX 2317 PASADENA CA 91102 5663 012 003 ST ANDREWS DR VARTANIAN,ARA R 4150 HAMPSTEAD RD LA CANADA FLINT. CA 91011 5663 013 003 ST ANDREWS DR MINAS,CARO AND REBECCA F TRS 4742 SAN FERNANDO RD GLENDALE CA 91204 5663 013 007 ST ANDREWS DR OHANIAN, DAVID AND BEAINY AND 1661 RIVERSIDE DR GLENDALE CA 91201 5663 013 008 ST ANDREWS DR JAFFE, TALIESIN 2565 SAINT ANDREWS DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 013 009 ST ANDREWS DR CHONG,YEW CHOY AND MAY TRS 1620 SANTA ROSA AVE GLENDALE CA 91208 5663 013 012 ST ANDREWS DR HAKOPIAN,ALBERT M AND PO BOX 3762 BURBANK CA 91508 5663 013 013 ST ANDREWS DR VINELOGIC HOLDINGS INC 3081 E COMERCIAL BLVD STE 200 FORT LAUDERDALE FL 33308 5663 013 014 ST ANDREWS DR MI CASA PROPERTY LLC 1330 OAK VIEW AVE SAN MARINO CA 91108 5663 014 007 ST ANDREWS DR SIMONIAN, ARTIN T TR 501 W GLENOAKS BLVD UNIT 556 GLENDALE CA 91202 5663 014 008 ST ANDREWS DR SIMONIAN, ARTIN T TR 501 W GLENOAKS BLVD UNIT 556 GLENDALE CA 91202 5663 014 011 CHEVY CHASE DR SANFILIPPO, JEFFREY T 789 PLUM TREE RD BARRINGTON IL 60010 5663 014 012 CHEVY CHASE DR SANFILIPPO, JEFFREY T 789 PLUM TREE RD BARRINGTON IL 60010 5663 014 015 KENNINGTON DR MCREE,SHARON S 2660 KENNINGTON DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 014 016 CHEVY CHASE DR CANAL,YOLANDA 26848 MARINA POINT LN NO 45 VALENCIA CA 91355 5663 014 021 ST ANDREWS DR 101 CENTRAL PACIFIC 101 N VERDUGO RD STE 9231 GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 014 023 ST ANDREWS DR JAFFE, TALIESIN 2565 SAINT ANDREWS DR GLENDALE CA 91206 18 316 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5663 014 024 ST ANDREWS DR JAFFE, TAIESIN 2565 SAINT ANDREWS DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 014 026 ST ANDREWS DR SAMADZADEH,ABBASS T 3151 ARDMORE LN OXNARD CA 93036 5663 014 027 ST ANDREWS DR SAMADZADEH,ABBASS T 3151 ARDMORE LN OXNARD CA 93036 5663 014 028 ST ANDREWS DR SAMADZADEH,ABBASS T 3151 ARDMORE LN OXNARD CA 93036 5663 014 039 ST ANDREWS DR SANFILIPPO, JEFFREY 789 PLUM TREE RD BARRINGTON IL 60010 5663 014 040 ST ANDREWS DR SANFILIPPO, JEFFREY 789 PLUM TREE RD BARRINGTON IL 60010 5663 014 041 KENNINGTON DR KUIUMDJIAN,ALEX CO TR 1005 VIA CARMELITA BURBANK CA 91501 5663 015 002 KENNINGTON DR NORTHRUP,MEGAN ET AL PO BOX 261570 PLANO TX 75026 5663 015 007 CASCADIA DR YOUNG BLUE LLC 1910 W SUNSET BLVD STE 450 LOS ANGELES CA 90026 5663 015 009 CASCADIA DR YOUNG BLUE LLC 625 FAIR OAKS AVE STE 390 SOUTH PASADENA CA 91030 5663 016 001 SOMERSET RD BASILYAN, GREGORI TR 3240 MENLO DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5663 016 002 BARNETT DR ATLANTIC INVESTORS GROUP CORP 1146 N CENTRAL AVE UNIT 340 GLENDALE CA 91202 5663 017 002 EDMONTON RD KEVORKIAN, GARO 2811 KENNINGTON DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 017 003 EDMONTON RD D W AND G ARMSTRONG TRS 2955 EDMONTON RD GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 017 005 EDMONTON RD YZAGUIRRE,JESSIE PO BOX 285 LA CANADA 91012 5663 019 003 KENNINGTON DR 101 CENTRAL PACIFIC PO BOX 9231 GLENDALE CA 91226 5663 019 004 KENNINGTON DR SHAHBANDARIAN,ALFRED 8709 GLENOAKS BLVD SUN VALLEY CA 91352 5663 019 005 KENNINGTON DR SHIN, DAVID 1452 KENSINGTON RD SAN MARINO CA 91108 5663 019 006 KENNINGTON DR HSIAO, CHIN 26 NORWICH IRVINE CA 92620 5663 019 010 KENNINGTON DR HABIB, MOHAMMAD I 11578 MARIPOSA BAY LN PORTER RANCH CA 91326 5663 020 008 KENNINGTON DR CHOE,SOO SANG AND CHA NAM PO BOX 52080 IRVINE CA 92619 5663 020 011 CHEVY CHASE DR ORTIZ, MIGUEL AND 501 MAGNOLIA ST UNIT 103 SOUTH PASADENA CA 91030 19 317 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5663 020 015 KENNINGTON DR KIRK,SUNG H 1111 SILVERLEAF CANYON RD BEAUMONT CA 92223 5663 020 016 KENNINGTON DR KIRK,SUNG H 1111 SILVERLEAF CANYON RD BEAUMONT CA 92223 5663 020 017 KENNINGTON DR KIM,CHUL HO AND SUNG HYUN 1111 SILVERLEAF CANYON RD BEAUMONT CA 92223 5663 022 004 KENNINGTON DR MOON ROBERT AND 2801 E CHEVY CHASE DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5663 022 011 CHEVY CHASE DR KELEDJIAN, EILEEN TR PO BOX 2894 MISSION VIEJO CA 92690 5663 028 900 CALLE SONRISA L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5663 028 904 CALLE CONTENTO L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5663 032 078 CAMINO SAN RAFAEL HOMES BY POLYGON 23161 MILL CREEK DR STE 200 LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653 5663 037 021 CASCADIA DR RANCHO SAN RAFAEL COMM ASSN 3415 S SEPULVEDA BLVD STE 720 LOS ANGELES CA 90034 5663 038 900 CAMINO SAN RAFAEL L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5663 038 901 CALLE DEL SOL L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5663 038 902 CALLE DEL SOL L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5663 038 903 CALLE DEL SOL L A CO FLOOD CONTROL DIST 900 S FREMONT AVE ALHAMBRA CA 91803 5663 041 066 CALLE SIRENA KIM,TAE WOO 1950 CALLE SIRENA GLENDALE CA 91208 5665 006 004 AVONOAK TERR TORRELLAS, MAGDA PO BOX 232 SAN DIMAS CA 91773 5665 006 014 SWATHMORE DR BASILYAN,GREGORI CO TR 3240 MENLO DR GLENDALE CA 91208 5665 008 017 LURKING DR FANSELAU,ELEANOR R 1100 FURMAN PL GLENDALE CA 91206 5665 014 029 GLADYS DR BOGHOSSIAN,ERIC 1111 N BRAND BLVD STE 202 GLENDALE CA 91202 5665 014 031 GLADYS DR BOGHOSSIAN,ERIC 1090 KILDONAN DR GLENDALE CA 91207 5665 014 038 GLADYS DR BOGHOSSIAN,ERIC 1090 KILDONAN DR GLENDALE CA 91207 5665 014 040 GLADYS DR BOGHOSSIAN,ERIC 1090 KILDONAN DR GLENDALE CA 91207 5665 015 004 LURKING DR BARBIERI, JUAN AND RENEE 135 S JACKSON ST STE 201B GLENDALE CA 91205 20 318 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5665 015 005 LURKING DR JAGHOURI, MOHAMMAD R PO BOX 1814 GLENDALE CA 91209 5665 015 006 LURKING DR COJACK LLC 13563 S 27TH PL BELLEVUE WA 98005 5665 015 007 LURKING DR COJACK LLC 13563 S 27TH PL BELLEVUE WA 98005 5665 015 016 GLADYS DR OUZOUNIAN, VIKEN 3218 KIRKHAM DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5665 015 017 GLADYS DR JOU, MONICA 12338 PRIMROSE AVE WHITTIER CA 90602 5665 015 019 1719 GLADYS DR BARBIERI, JUAN AND RENEE 135 S JACKSON ST STE 201B GLENDALE CA 91205 5665 015 024 GLADYS DR HI-LITE DEVELOPMENT CO PO BOX 841 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067 5665 017 028 CARLA DR SEWER,IHSAN M AND 621 N KENWOOD ST UNIT 8 GLENDALE CA 91206 5665 017 029 CARLA DR SEWER,IHSAN M AND 621 N KENWOOD ST UNIT 8 GLENDALE CA 91206 5665 017 030 CARLA DR SEWER,IHSAN M AND 621 N KENWOOD ST UNIT 8 GLENDALE CA 91206 5665 017 031 CARLA DR SEWER,IHSAN M AND 621 N KENWOOD ST UNIT 8 GLENDALE CA 91206 5665 017 032 CARLA DR SEWER,IHSAN M AND 621 N KENWOOD ST UNIT 8 GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 001 001 GLENOAKS BLVD TONOYAN, TIGRAN 2276 HOLLISTER TERRACE GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 002 901 GLENOAKS CYN DR L A COUNTY 500 W TEMPLE ST RM 754 LOS ANGELES CA 90012 5666 003 002 PENNERTON DR BENVANI INC PO BOX 158 VERDUGO CITY CA 91046 5666 004 018 2241 HOLLISTER TER BENVANI INC PO BOX 158 VERDUGO CITY CA 91046 5666 004 019 ARCH PL HAUS OF FROST INC 1388 BALMORAL DR GLENDALE CA 91207 5666 004 020 ARCH PL RIZK, ANTHONY A AND RITA 3781 GLENALBYN DR LOS ANGELES CA 90065 5666 004 038 WESTFIELD ST BENVANI INC PO BOX 158 VERDUGO CITY CA 91046 5666 007 013 SUNCOURT TER VONRAK, ALEXIA C CO TR 2027 W GIDDINGS ST CHICAGO IL 60625 5666 007 014 SUNCOURT TER VONRAK, ALEXIA C CO TR 2027 W GIDDINGS ST CHICAGO IL 60625 5666 007 015 SUNCOURT TER LENTZ,FRANK AND TRACEY 542 SUNCOURT TER GLENDALE CA 91206 21 319 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5666 008 007 ARCH PL GERAGOS,MICHAEL 2155 VERDUGO BLVD STE 614 MONTROSE CA 91020 5666 008 034 PENNERTON DR ASLANIAN, VAROUJAN CO TR 4807 CLOUDSDALE AVE GLENDALE CA 91214 5666 008 039 PENNERTON DR BARD,BRIAN D TR 2351 PENNERTON DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 008 040 PENNERTON DR BARD,BRIAN D TR 2351 PENNERTON DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 008 041 PENNERTON DR MBELU, UGONNA 14623 HAWTHORNE BLVD LAWNDALE CA 90260 5666 009 014 GARDNER PL ROCHA,COLLETTE G 454 DEL COURT PL GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 013 005 HOLLISTER TER BISTAGNE, ROBERT E 1400 E CHEVY CHASE DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 014 008 DEVONSHIRE LN COFFMAN,TIMOTHY D AND ANGELA P 458 DEVONSHIRE LN GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 016 013 GLENOAKS BLVD TONOYAN, TIGRAN 2276 HOLLISTER TERRACE GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 017 008 GLENOAKS BLVD GUTIERREZ, JONATHAN R AND 2700 E GLENOAKS BLVD GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 017 014 SLEEPY HOLLOW PL ALMADA,LOURDES PO BOX 254 NORCO CA 92860 5666 018 005 CORLINGTON RD FORMICA,DALIA TR 1461 BELLEAU RD GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 018 006 GLENOAKS BLVD METS HAYQ LLC 801 N BRAND BLVD STE 210 GLENDALE CA 91203 5666 018 019 GLENOAKS BLVD ESPARZA, ISMAEL JR AND 4524 BOWMAN BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90032 5666 018 020 GLENOAKS BLVD ESPARZA, ISMAEL JR AND 4524 BOWMAN BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90032 5666 018 021 GLENOAKS BLVD AYNEHCHI, YAGHOUB AND HAIDEH H 204 S OAKHURST DR BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 5666 019 012 CORLINGTON RD CAILIPAN,CHRISTINA R 353 N PROSPECTORS RD DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 5666 019 016 GLENOAKS BLVD CAILIPAN,ROBERT R 24199 HIGHCREST DR DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 5666 019 017 GLENOAKS BLVD OGAWA,FAYE M 2528 E GLENOAKS BLVD GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 019 030 EDWARDS PL SWAN, JEREMY AND VANESSA 2445 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 019 031 EDWARDS PL CORPUZ,JEFFREY S CO TR 435 LEWIS ST LOS ANGELES CA 90042 5666 019 036 CORLINGTON RD CARDENAS, MARIA 14545 VICTORY BLVD STE 418 VAN NUYS CA 91411 22 320 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5666 020 004 EDWARDS PL BABOUDJIAN, VARDAN CO TR 1002 S ADAMS ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5666 020 005 EDWARDS PL BABOUDJIAN, VARDAN CO TR 1002 S ADAMS ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5666 020 006 EDWARDS PL BABOUDJIAN, VARDAN CO TR 1002 S ADAMS ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5666 020 048 EDWARDS PL PAPAZYAN, ARUTYUN 2025 PARKMOUNT DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 021 001 EDWARDS PL DE LEON,J ALEX 9514 WORKMAN AVE TEMPLE CITY CA 91780 5666 021 012 ARGUS DR METS HAYQ LLC 801 N BRAND BLVD STE 210 GLENDALE CA 91203 5666 021 013 WYNDALE PL METS HAYQ LLC 801 N BRAND BLVD STE 210 GLENDALE CA 91203 5666 021 014 WYNDALE PL METS HAYQ LLC 801 N BRAND BLVD STE 210 GLENDALE CA 91203 5666 021 015 WYNDALE PL METS HAYQ LLC 801 N BRAND BLVD STE 210 GLENDALE CA 91203 5666 021 023 WYNDALE PL METS HAYQ LLC 801 N BRAND BLVD STE 210 GLENDALE CA 91203 5666 021 024 SLEEPY HOLLOW PL METS HAYQ LLC 801 N BRAND BLVD STE 210 GLENDALE CA 91203 5666 022 013 VALLE VISTA DR DELSON INVESTMENT COMPANY 9735 WILSHIRE BLVD 122 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 5666 022 031 VALLE VISTA DR KHAJEHKIAN,GEORGE 7239 KESTER AVE VAN NUYS CA 91405 5666 022 032 VALLE VISTA DR DUNN,STEVEN D AND 2601 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 022 033 VALLE VISTA DR DUNN,STEVEN D AND 2601 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 022 034 VALLE VISTA DR DUNN,STEVEN D AND 2601 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 023 005 VALLE VISTA DR AKHVERDYAN, GENRIK H AND HELEN 2922 N LINCOLN ST BURBANK CA 91504 5666 023 006 VALLE VISTA DR AKHVERDYAN, GENRIK H AND HELEN 2922 N LINCOLN ST BURBANK CA 91504 5666 023 007 VALLE VISTA DR AKHVERDYAN, GENRIK H AND HELEN 2922 N LINCOLN ST BURBANK CA 91504 5666 023 025 VALLE VISTA DR COHENMAYS,LEAH L 888 N ALAMEDA ST APT 525E LOS ANGELES CA 90012 5666 023 026 VALLE VISTA DR FRANKLIN, IAN S AND MARIGOLD 1242 SWARTHMORE DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 023 028 VALLE VISTA DR T AND M WHOLESALE PLUMBING 4918 W WASHINGTON BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90016 23 321 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5666 023 029 VALLE VISTA DR WOJDAK,PAUL 2605 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 023 030 SLEEPY HOLLOW PL WOJDAK,PAUL 2605 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5666 023 031 SLEEPY HOLLOW PL HERNANDEZ, JAMES I 6221 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 310 LOS ANGELES CA 90048 5666 027 019 SLEEPY HOLLOW PL RESERVE GLENDALE I COMMUNITY 4730 WOODMAN AVE #200 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91423 5666 027 020 SLEEPY HOLLOW PL RESERVE GLENDALE I COMMUNITY 4730 WOODMAN AVE STE 200 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91423 5672 008 001 GLEN IVY DR MARRUJO,ERNEST AND GUDELIA TRS PO BOX 9758 GLENDALE CA 91226 5672 008 002 GLEN IVY DR MARRUJO,ERNEST AND GUDELIA TRS PO BOX 9758 GLENDALE CA 91226 5672 009 001 GLEN IVY DR MARRUJO,ERNEST AND GUDELIA TRS PO BOX 9758 GLENDALE CA 91226 5672 009 002 GLEN IVY DR MARRUJO,ERNEST AND GUDELIA PO BOX 9758 GLENDALE CA 91226 5672 009 003 GLEN IVY DR MARRUJO,ERNEST AND GUDELIA TRS PO BOX 9758 GLENDALE CA 91226 5672 021 001 SCHOLL DR SHAOLIN TEMPLE GROUP LLC 2248 S OAK KNOLL AVE PASADENA CA 91108 5672 022 024 SCHOLL DR MUFG UNION BANK TR 445 S FIGUEROA ST LOS ANGELES CA 90071 5672 022 026 SLEEPY HOLLOW PL BASELINE CAPITAL INVESTMET LLC 15260 VENTURA BLVD STE 700 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91403 5672 022 027 BLACKMORE DR BASELINE CAPITAL INVESTMET LLC 15260 VENTURA BLVD STE 700 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91403 5672 022 028 BLACKMORE DR P A R MT CARMEL LLC 115 1/2 VERDUGO RD GLENDALE CA 91206 5672 022 029 BLACKMORE DR GABRIELIAN, CRAIG TR PO BOX1534 SYKESVILLE MD 21784 5672 022 030 BLACKMORE DR MUFG UNION BANK TR 445 S FIGUEROA ST LOS ANGELES CA 90071 5672 022 039 BLACKMORE DR FREUDENBERG,SCOTT M 2252 E GLENOAKS BLVD GLENDALE CA 91206 5672 023 017 GREENGROVE DR MORET, LUIS 8333 GLENCREST DR SUN VALLEY CA 91352 5672 023 018 GREENGROVE DR BRAJNIKOFF, MARK V 2419 S VERMONT AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90007 5672 023 019 GREENGROVE DR NEBBITT, AUSANTA 741 VENICE WAY STE 2 INGLEWOOD CA 90302 5672 023 020 GREENGROVE DR DELOS SANTOS, SNDRES P JR AND 3401 EL CONLON AVE APT 106 LAS VEGAS NV 89102 24 322 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5672 023 021 GREENGROVE DR DELOS SANTOS, SNDRES P JR AND 3401 EL CONLON AVE APT 106 LAS VEGAS NV 89102 5672 023 022 GREENGROVE DR MUDDASANI,SRICHARAN R 132 N ALLEN AVE NO 1 PASADENA CA 91106 5672 023 023 GREENGROVE DR MUDDASANI,SRICHARAN R 132 N ALLEN AVE NO 1 PASADENA CA 91106 5672 025 003 GREENGROVE DR ROSENMAN,JEFFREY AND HEATHER TRS 2442 BYWOOD DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5672 025 006 GREENGROVE DR HAMMER, KAREN L 2450 BYWOOD DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5672 025 007 SOUTHWOOD DR MARTINEZ, BERTHA C AND 5328 NEWCASTLE AVE UNIT 16 ENCINO CA 91316 5672 025 008 SOUTHWOOD DR HSU,JONG N AND HUEY M 20050 WASHINGTON AVE UNIT 202 CERRITOS CA 90703 5672 025 009 SOUTHWOOD DR GOLDEN ABACUS GROUP LLC PO BOX 91852 PASADENA CA 91109 5672 025 011 SOUTHWOOD DR CARNAHAN,ROBERT B AND EDWINA S 2570 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5672 025 012 SOUTHWOOD DR CARNAHAN,ROBERT B AND EDWINA S 2570 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5672 025 013 HARLOW DR CARNAHAN,ROBERT B AND EDWINA S 2570 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5672 025 041 HARLOW DR CARNAHAN,ROBERT B AND EDWINA S 2570 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5672 025 043 HARLOW DR CARNAHAN,ROBERT B AND EDWINA S 2570 SLEEPY HOLLOW DR GLENDALE CA 91206 5672 026 001 HARLOW DR SHUM,ERIC W AND WENDY S 8 BRUNSWICK LN LINCOLNSHIRE IL 60069 5677 007 007 MISSION RD HIGHBERGER,WILLIAM F AND 1509 LACHMAN LN PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272 5677 007 008 MISSION RD HIGHBERGER,WILLIAM F AND 1509 LACHMAN LN PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272 5677 007 009 MISSION RD HIGHBERGER,WILLIAM F AND 1509 LACHMAN LN PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272 5677 007 010 MISSION RD HIGHBERGER,WILLIAM F AND 1509 LACHMAN LN PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272 5677 008 028 MISSION RD HSUEH,HERMANN H AND JULIE B TRS 499 CASUDA CANYON DR MONTEREY PARK CA 91754 5677 008 031 COLBY DR HSUEH,HERMAN H AND JULIE B TRS 499 CASUDA CANYON DR MONTEREY PARK CA 91754 5677 018 001 ALTA VISTA DR FOREST LAWN MORTUARY 1712 S GLENDALE AVE GLENDALE CA 91205 5677 018 003 CYPRESS ST BENISTY, JACK 1160 S SWALL DR LOS ANGELES CA 90035 25 323 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5677 018 005 PROSPECT DR DORAN, MORGAN B TR 644 E CYPRESS ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5677 018 007 PROSPECT DR DORAN, MORGAN B TR 644 E CYPRESS ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5677 018 008 PROSPECT DR DORAN, MORGAN B TR 644 E CYPRESS ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5677 018 014 CYPRESS ST BERROCAL,ALEX TR 5536 MORELLA AVE N HOLLYWOOD CA 91607 5677 019 006 CYPRESS ST BARHOUM MALOUF PROPERTIES LLC 1109 N MICHIGAN AVE PASADENA CA 91104 5677 025 011 COLUMBIA DR HOLLIS,STEPHEN S 4013 ALADDIN DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
5677 025 017 1303 COLUMBIA DR FOREST LAWN MORTUARY PO BOX 1151 GLENDALE CA 91209 5677 026 010 COLUMBIA DR HOLLIS,STEPHEN S 4013 ALADDIN DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
5677 026 011 COLUMBIA DR HOLLIS,STEPHEN S 4013 ALADDIN DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
5677 026 012 COLUMBIA DR HOLLIS,STEPHEN S 4013 ALADDIN DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
5677 026 013 COLUMBIA DR HOLLIS,STEPHEN S 4013 ALADDIN DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
5677 026 014 COLUMBIA DR HOLLIS,STEPHEN S 4013 ALADDIN DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
5677 026 015 COLUMBIA DR HOLLIS,STEPHEN S 4013 ALADDIN DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649
5677 027 009 1505 WELLESLEY DR KARANFILIAN,ARTHUR 1505 WELLESLEY DR GLENDALE CA 91205 5678 005 011 BERKELEY DR VM PARTNERSHIP RESEARCH INC 1110 PRINCETON DR GLENDALE CA 91205 5678 012 010 OBERLIN DR LORRIN MCCORMIK TR AND 10153 1/2 RIVERSIDE DR 311 TOLUCA LAKE CA 91602 5678 012 018 OBERLIN DR GUERRA,BLANCA A 452 VIA MIRAMONTE MONTEBELLO CA 90640 5678 012 022 OBERLIN DR AZARBIN,HOOSHANG 2800 S SYRACUSE WAY #9-302 DENVER CO 80231 5678 012 023 OBERLIN DR RUFF, STEPHEN AND VICTORIA 874 MILLS ESTATE PL CHULUOTA FL 32766 5678 015 010 CORONA DR PINON, SAUL G PO BOX 86223 LOS ANGELES CA 90086 5678 016 025 SCENIC DR DECKER,ANTOINETTE T ET AL TRS 1252 SCENIC DR GLENDALE CA 91205 5678 018 011 MARION DR NASH,GREG M AND NARDONI, CARLA C 1620 LOMA CREST ST GLENDALE CA 91205 26 324 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5678 018 012 MARION DR ALLAN,ROGER 1626 LOMA CREST ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5678 018 021 MARION DR AINTABLIAN,VREJ 10728 OWENS PL TUJUNGA CA 91042 5678 018 022 MARION DR AINTABLIAN,VREJ 10728 OWENS PL TUJUNGA CA 91042 5678 018 023 MARION DR FOUR SAR INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 125 S VIRGINIA AVE STE 103 BURBANK CA 91506 5678 018 024 MARION DR FOUR SAR INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 125 S VIRGINIA AVE STE 103 BURBANK CA 91506 5678 018 025 MARION DR FOUR SAR INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 125 S VIRGINIA AVE STE 103 BURBANK CA 91506 5679 011 022 OBERLIN DR BACINO,FRANK M TR 1117 OBERLIN DR GLENDALE CA 91205 5679 011 024 OBERLIN DR KONG,REUBEN C AND BERTHA G 1112 MARION DR GLENDALE CA 91205 5679 012 016 OBERLIN DR RAYNER,DOMINIC G AND 1019 OBERLIN DR GLENDALE CA 91205 5679 013 013 OBERLIN DR MCMURDIE,BRUCE J 9404 LOW TIDE CT LAS VEGAS NV 89117 5679 014 010 OBERLIN DR CHACON,CHRISTOPHER AND 1304 OBERLIN DR GLENDALE CA 91205 5679 015 008 PALMER AVE CASTELLANOS, DELIA F 724 NEW DEPOT ST APT 2 LOS ANGELES CA 90012 5679 015 010 PALMER AVE LAWRENCE,JENNIFER E 1400 E PALMER AVE GLENDALE CA 91205 5679 015 011 PALMER AVE VASQUEZ,MARIA A 1449 MONTECITO DR LOS ANGELES CA 90031 5679 015 012 PALMER AVE VASQUEZ,MARIA A 1449 MONTECITO DR LOS ANGELES CA 90031 5679 015 013 PALMER AVE VASQUEZ,MARIA A 1449 MONTECITO DR LOS ANGELES CA 90031 5679 015 014 PALMER AVE VASQUEZ,MARIA A 1449 MONTECITO DR LOS ANGELES CA 90031 5679 015 017 CORONA DR MILLER,KENNETH G AND DIANE L TRS 1203 VISTA SUPERBA ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5679 015 018 CORONA DR SAAVEDRA, COURTNEY D 1219 CORONA DR GLENDALE CA 91205 5679 016 001 CORONA DR ALIGNED PROPERTIES LLC 8207 BROOKGREEN RD DOWNEY CA 90240 5679 016 002 CORONA DR ALIGNED PROPERTIES LLC 8207 BROOKGREEN RD DOWNEY CA 90240 5679 016 003 CORONA DR JAMES,WINSTON 1235 VISTA SUPERBA ST GLENDALE CA 91205 27 325 of 331
LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2022

DECLARATION LIST

CITY OF GLENDALE
KEY OF 6, CITY CODE 255 (UNIMPROVED)
DATE: 01/03/22

LOCATION OWNER MAILING ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPPARCEL
5679 016 004 CORONA DR JAMES,WINSTON 1235 VISTA SUPERBA ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5679 016 005 CORONA DR MISSAGHI,PEDRAM 1225 VISTA SUPERBA ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5679 016 007 CORONA DR BLAIR, PAUL E 700 S SANTA FE AVE FL LOS ANGELES CA 90021 5679 016 008 CORONA DR BLAIR, PAUL E 1215 VISTA SUPERBA ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5679 016 009 CORONA DR BLAIR, PAUL E 1215 VISTA SUPERBA ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5679 016 015 VISTA SUPERBA JAMES,WINSTON 1235 VISTA SUPERBA ST GLENDALE CA 91205 5679 016 022 CORONA DR GIOVANNINI,JOSEPH 151 E 37TH ST APT 2 NEW YORK NY 10016 5679 016 023 CORONA DR DAHLIN,PAUL AND MASAMI 3017 FUTURE ST LOS ANGELES CA 90065 5679 016 024 CORONA DR ALIGNED PROPERTIES LLC 8207 BROOKGREEN RD DOWNEY CA 90240 5679 017 006 OBERLIN DR MOTLAGH,KATAYOUN 41420 30TH ST W PALMDALE CA 93551 5679 017 015 PALMER AVE SADJADI,NAVID AND 820 SHEVLIN DR EL CERRITO CA 94530 5683 032 006 EL REPOSO DR MERA, EDISON W 1007 S CATALINA AVE REDONDO BEACH CA 90277 5683 033 038 ROUND TOP DR MERA, EDISON W 1007 S CATALINA AVE REDONDO BEACH CA 90277 5867 005 018 CLOUDCREST RD ANANDA ASHRAMA 5301 PENNSYLVANIA AVE LA CRESCENTA CA 91214 0 609
TOTAL RECORDS 609

TOTAL VACANT/IMPROVED RECORDS

TOTAL UNIMPROVED RECORDS
28 326 of 331

Kurt E. Floren
Agricultural Commissioner
Director of Weights and Measures

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Department of
Agricultural Commissioner/
Weights and Measures

12300 Lower Azusa Road
Arcadia, California 91006-5872
http://acwm.lacounty.gov

Protecting Consumers
and the Environment
Since 1881

Protecting Consumers and the Environment Since 1881
To Enrich Lives Through Effective and Caring Service

«APN»
«Owner»
«Address»
«City» «State» «Zip_Code»

Annual Weed Abatement Notice

Dear Property Owner:

You are the recorded owner of a parcel of land, identified as Assessor’s Identification Number (AIN):

ASSESSOR’S IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

ZONE

MAPBOOK
«MapB»

PAGE
«Page_Text»

PARCEL
«Parcel_Text»

«Zone__Text»

The following is a legal notice regarding hazardous conditions that are or could be on the parcel. The other side of this letter contains a much more detailed explanation of your responsibility as a property owner and how to get more information.

NOTICE TO DESTROY WEEDS, REMOVE BRUSH, RUBBISH AND REFUSE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON MARCH 08, 2022, THE

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE

passed or will pass a resolution declaring noxious or dangerous vegetation * or rubbish and refuse were growing or occurring upon or in front of property on certain streets in said city or unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles, more particularly described in the resolution, and that they constitute a public nuisance which must be a bated by the removal of said noxious or dangerous vegetation, rubbish and refuse. The resolution further declares that , if not abated, the vegetation and/or rubbish and refuse may be removed and the nuisance abated by County authorities in which case the cost of removal shall be assessed upon the lots or land from or in front of which the noxious or dangerous vegetation, rubbish and refuse are removed. Such cost will constitute a special assessment against such lots or lands. Reference is hereby made to said resolution for further particulars. In addition, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles authorized and directed the Agricultural Commissioner to recover its costs of details. All property owners having any objections to th e proposed removal of noxious or dangerous vegetation, rubbish and refuse and the recovery of inspection costs, are hereby notified that they may attend a hearing at the following location(s):

CITY COUNCIL OF SAID CITY TO BE HELD AT
613 E. BROADWAY, GLENDALE, CA 91206,
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON MARCH 22, 2022,
AT 6:00 P.M.

Where their objections will be heard and given due consideration.

You are not required to go to the public hearing(s) See reverse of this notice for more information regarding the public hearings.

*Including weeds, brush, tumbleweeds, sagebrush or vegetation that is not pruned or is otherwise neglected so as to attain such large growth as to become, when dry, a fire menace to adjacent improved property.

This Notice Dated: February 1, 2022 A. ADJEMIAN, CITY CLERK

327 of 331

THE DEPARTMENT
We are the Los Angeles County, Department of Agricultural Commissioner/ Weights and Measures. One of our missions is to help protect the lives and property of Los Angeles County r esidents through a Hazard Abatement Program (Program) conducted pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code sections 13879 and 14875-14922*

ABOUT THIS NOTICE
You received this notice because you were identified as the owner of the parcel referenced by the AIN number on the front of this document. Your name and address were obtained as they appeared on the last equalized tax assessment roll.

Your parcel (property) was included in the Program for one of the following reasons:
✓ Weeds, brush or neglected vegetation are, or could grow to be, close enough to a house or other structure to pose a fire hazard to the house.
✓ Weeds or brush are close enough to a road to jeopardize use of the road in the event of a fire. ✓ Accumulated piles of rubbish, refuse, trash, litter or other flammable material, etc., is or may be on the property creating a health or fire hazard, or some other public nuisance condition. ✓ (Antelope Valley only) Large amounts of tumbleweeds are, or may be, on the property which can blow off and spread, cause traffic accidents on the highway, damage agricultural crops or build up along fences, homes, etc.**

WHAT ARE YOUR RESPONSIBILITES
For your property
You are expected to maintain your property hazard free. Depending on the area, dry weeds, brush or neglected vegetation within 100 feet up to 200 feet from a home or other structure, or 10 feet of a road, are considered a hazard. Please contact us if you are not sure how much you are expected to clear or if you have any questions.

If your vacant parcel is not within 100 feet of a home or other structure, it has been included in the Program because of the potential for tumbleweeds** (Antelope Valley only) or accumulations of trash.

The Hearings
The front of this notice has dates, locations and times for public hearings. They are provided to give property owners the chance to discuss the Program and bring up any concerns directly with Program staff.

YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING(S), however the Weed Abatement Referee Hearings may be good opportunities for you to:
▪ Find out exactly where your vacant property is located ▪ Learn why your property was included in the Program
▪ Provide us with information to help us determine if your property should be removed from the Program.

Change of Ownership
If you are no longer the owner of the property identified in this notice, please notify the L.A. County Assessor’s Office, Ownership Services, at 1(888) 807 -2111 (Toll Free), (213) 974 -3211, or their website http://assessor.lacounty.gov immediately. If you sell or have sold the property, failure to disclose this legal notice to the new owner may make you liable for all hazard abatement charges assessed to the property.

Native Trees
In many areas of the County, certain native trees like oaks, walnuts and sycamores may be protected by County or City ordinances. Please contact our office prior to cutting or pruning any of these.

Discing
The use of discing for weed abatement is prohibited within most areas of the Santa Monica Mountains. More information is available here: http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/coastal_adopted-LIP.pdf or by calling the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning at (213) 974-6453.

HAZARD ABATEMENT (CLEARANCE) TIMELINE
IMPORTANT! Don’t clear your property too early. Your property may not need to be cleared at the time of receiving this notice. April 1, 2022, is the earliest the County will begin clearance operations. It could be much later in your area. The process of County inspections and aba tement can take up to several months, so if you are planning to maintain your own property, let us know by using the enclosed Response Card or online at http://acwm.lacounty.gov no later than March 12, 2022. You will then be sent a clearance deadline specific to your area. For more information visit our website or call our office.

Regrowth of vegetation due to late rainfall may result in the need for more than one clearance during the year.

After April 1, 2022, the County will begin systematically inspecting parcels and, if hazardous weeds, brush or trash are present, the County will abate the hazard(s).** The cost of the abatement will be assessed to the parcel appearing as a separate item (LA CO HAZ ABATE) on the annual tax bill.

INSPECTION FEE
The Board of Supervisors has authorized an Inspection Fee of $45.05 which will be assessed on all affected properties whether or not they are cleared by the property owners.

HOW TO CONTACT US
You may communicate with us using the enclosed Response Card, online at http://acwm.lacounty.gov or by telephone at (626) 575-5484.

Telecommunication for the hearing impaired is available at: (626) 575-5520.

Para información en español, llame al (626) 575-5487.
如果您需要中文服務，請致電 (626) 459-8854.

* In the following cities, the Hazard Abatement Program is conducted pursuant to the California Government Code, sections 39560-39588:

Arcadia, Commerce, Glendale, La Verne, Monterey Park, Santa Fe Springs, and South Pasadena. **SPECIAL INFORMATION REGARDING TUMBLEWEEDS: Because of environmental factors, systematic inspections and abatement of current season’s growth of tumbleweeds on parcels in the Antelope Valley will not begin until October 1, 2022.

328 of 331
329 of 331

330 of 331

331 of 331

Glendale City CouncilMarch 22, 2022

Glendale City Council
March 22, 2022