Agenda packet — Glendale City Council, August 16, 2022

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings

are

broadcast

live

Glendale

TV,

viewable

Spectrum

Cable,

channel

and

AT&T

U-
verse,

channel

99. Meetings

are

also

streamed

live

high

definition

(HD)

the

city's

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

Apple

TV,

Roku,

and

Amazon

Fire
devices

using

free

app

called

Screenweave

and

choosing

“Glendale

TV”

from

the

menu.

Meetings
are

also

archived

the

City

Website

for

viewing

anytime

glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

Call

(818)
548-4013

for

program

schedules.

DVDs

the

proceedings

are

available

for

purchase

the

City
Clerk's

Office.

For

public

comments

and

questions

during

the

meeting,

call

(818)

937-8100.

Public
comments

specific

agenda

item

will

taken

when

that

agenda

item

discussed.

you

have
any

question

about

matters

the

agenda,

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)

1990,

auxiliary

hearing

aids,

sign
language

translation,

and

Braille

transcripts

are

available

upon

request.

Assisted

listening

devices
are

available

same-day

upon

request.

least

48 hours

(or

two

business

days)

notice

required

for
requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and

Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents
related

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are

received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this
meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

available

for

review

the

Office

the

City

Clerk,

613

Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation

services

are

provided

for

meetings

through

the

use

bilingual

staff

for

speakers

who
wish

utilize

the

service

available.

Speakers

should

state

their

request

contacting

the

City
Clerk’s

office

(818)

548-2090,

least

24 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting.

Please

specify
the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City

provided

interpreters

not
required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language.

AUGUST 16, 2022

REVISED
- Item 8b was added

ROLL CALL

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

Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Vardanyan, et al. v. City of

1 TYPED 8/24/2022 3:27:09 PM
08 16 22
CC

Glendale, et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. 22STCV10992
b.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Direct Shopping Network, LLC v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 20STCV49351
c.

Public Employee Appointment – Fire Chief

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA
– 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a.

Flag Salute: Mayor Kassakhian
b.

Invocation: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c.

Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the August 16, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on August 11, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.

Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, August 23, 2022 b.

Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Asatryan, 8/9/2022)

1. Sona A. Tatiyants, Commission on the Status of Women c.

Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Asatryan, 8/9/2022)

1. Joseph Kaskanian, Design Review Board
d.

Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Asatryan, 8/9/2022)

1. Marina Manoukian, Community Development Block Grant
e.

Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Asatryan, 8/9/2022)

1. Hakop Jack Mavyan, Audit

City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of July 19, 2022 and the Organizational City Council meeting of July 12, 2022
b.

Public Works, re: Clean California Local Grant Program

1. Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to execute a Clean California Local Grant Program (CCLGP) Restricted Grant Agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the City of Glendale San Fernando Road Beautification Project

2. Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to execute a Clean California Local Grant Program (CCLGP) Restricted Grant Agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the City of Glendale Permeable Alley Project
c.

Community Development, re:

Amendment to Professional Service Agreement with !
melk for the Verdugo Wash Visioning Study

1. Motion authorizing amendment to Professional Services Agreement with !melk to increase the maximum cost by $75,000 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $515,000

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

2 TYPED 8/24/2022 3:27:09 PM
08 16 22
CC

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a.

Public Works, re:

Glendale Beeline Participation in Metro’s Student Fareless System Initiative Pilot Program known as GoPass

1. Motion authorizing Glendale Beeline to accept Metro’s K-14 GoPass during Metro’s Fareless System Initiative Pilot ending June 30, 2023
b.

City Manager, re:

Consideration of a Resolution Establishing Goals for Solar and Energy Storage Installations and Clean Energy Targets

1. Resolution Establishing Goals for Solar Energy Installations by Glendale Water & Power Customers and Clean Energy Targets, Establishing a City Council Subcommittee and Directing Staff to Take Actions in furtherance thereof c.

Glendale Water and Power, re:

Grayson Repowering Project, GWP Power Supply
Planning and Clean Energy Initiatives

1. Resolution rejecting the sole bid received in response to Glendale Water & Power Bid Specification No. 3904, Unit 9 Separation, dispensing with further competitive bidding, and authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute a contract with ARB, Inc. for the Grayson Power Plant Unit 9 Separation for an amount not to exceed $4,247,507 plus a 10% reserve for contingencies in the amount of $424,750

2. Resolution authorizing the General Manager of GWP to utilize an Alternative Project Delivery Method for the Engineering, Procurement, and Construction of the Balance of Site work for the Grayson Repowering Project

3. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Wartsila North America, Inc. for Phase 2 Limited Notice to Proceed Engineering Services for the Grayson Repowering Project for an amount not to exceed $9,882,000 plus a 10% ($988,200) reserve for contingencies

4. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to Professional Services Agreement No. 800053 with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. to increase the contract by an amount not to exceed $164,000 for environmental support services for the Grayson Repowering Project

5. Motion authorizing an amendment to Professional Services Agreement No. 8000847 with Black & Veatch to increase the contract by an amount not to exceed $1,570,668 plus a 10% ($157,067) reserve for contingencies for additional owner’s engineering services for the Grayson Repowering Project

6. Motion authorizing an amendment to Professional Services Agreement No. 8000941 with Clean Power Consulting Partners to increase the contract by an amount not to exceed $150,000 for project management and professional support services for the Grayson Repowering Project

7. Resolution of Appropriation

8. Motion to Note and File the Report

9. Motion directing staff to prepare the necessary actions and approvals for Council approval of the purchase and installation of five Wartsila engines for the Grayson Repowering Project

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

3 TYPED 8/24/2022 3:27:09 PM
08 16 22
CC

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes.

Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision. The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. ADJOURNMENT

4 TYPED 8/24/2022 3:27:09 PM
08 16 22
CC

5 of 191

6 of 191

7 of 191

8 of 191

9 of 191

10 of 191

11 of 191

12 of 191

13 of 191

14 of 191

15 of 191

16 of 191

17 of 191

18 of 191

19 of 191

20 of 191

07 12 22
CC1

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL ORGANIZATION MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
JULY 12, 2022
The Special Meeting of the Glendale City Council convened in the Council Chambers, in said City, at 8:19 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:

July 7, 2022
Date
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 8:00 PM on Tuesday, July 12, 2022, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Roll Call – 8:00 PM
a. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the July 12, 2022 Organization Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on July 7, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

2. MAYOR’S WELCOME

3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

4. NEW BUSINESS
a. City Clerk, re: Declaring the Result of the General Municipal Election of June 7, 2022

1. Resolution Reciting the Fact of the General Municipal Election Held on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, Declaring the Results and Such Other Matters as Provided by Law

5. COMMENTS BY OUTGOING COUNCILMEMBERS

6. OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY ELECTED CITY OFFICERS:

COUNCIL MEMBERS

CITY CLERK

CITY TREASURER

7. NEW COUNCIL IS SEATED

8. COMMENTS BY NEWLY-ELECTED OFFICIALS

9. ADJOURNMENT
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 Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. July 7, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Paula Devine at 5:00 p.m. July 7, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. July 7, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. July 7, 2022 Glendale, CA Upon Vrej Agajanian at 5:00 p.m. July 7, 2022 Glendale, CA Mayor Kassakhian called the meeting to order at 8:19 p.m. 21 of 191

07 12 22
CC2

1. Roll Call – Absent: Agajanian
a. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the July 12, 2022 Organization Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on July 7, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

2. MAYOR’S WELCOME
Mayor Ardy Kassakhian welcomed certain public officials into the City Council Chambers.

3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Aram Stepanyan

4. NEW BUSINESS
a. City Clerk, re: Declaring the Result of the General Municipal Election of June 7, 2022

1. Resolution 22-112 Reciting the Fact of the General Municipal Election Held on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, Declaring the Results and Such Other Matters as Provided by Law
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows

5. COMMENTS BY OUTGOING COUNCILMEMBERS
Councilmember Vrej Agajanian was not present. Mayor Kassakhian thanked outgoing Councilmember Agajanian for his service as a council member and Mayor during unprecedented times through the COVID pandemic.

6. OATH OF OFFICE TO NEWLY ELECTED CITY OFFICERS:

Senator Anthony Portantino administered the Oath of Office.

COUNCIL MEMBERS – Elen Asatryan, Dan Brotman, Ara Najarian CITY CLERK – Suzie Abajian
CITY TREASURER – Rafi Manoukian

7. NEW COUNCIL IS SEATED

8. COMMENTS BY NEWLY-ELECTED OFFICIALS
City Treasurer Rafi Manoukian congratulated the newly-elected officials, thanked his family and friends for their support, commended the candidates who participated in the election process, and thanked the voters for voting in this election and entrusting him to serve as City Treasurer for the next four years.

City Clerk Suzie Abajian was honored to receive the support of the voters in Glendale and thanked them for entrusting her with this very important position. She stated that the clerk is the purveyor of the democratic process within city government. She looks forward to serving our city for the next four years. She thanked everyone who supported her campaign, including her committed team and her family. She was elated to see more women elected to city government and was overjoyed to be part of this welcomed change to the city. She revisited Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
Agajanian
None
22 of 191

07 12 22
CC3
her campaign promises including transparency, access and voter empowerment, the importance of good information governance, open data initiatives, modernizing city platforms for sharing information, and voter outreach in culturally and linguistically responsive ways. She will work collaboratively with residents to make the city more transparent, accessible, and inclusive.

Councilmember Ara Najarian thanked his family, voters, several organizations, and agencies that supported him. He thanked the other candidates who ran and gave their all. He mentioned that he is the longest-serving councilmember in Glendale and will bring his decades of experience, institutional memory, and knowledge to the city. He stated that this election was different from previous ones. He critiqued political partisanship, voting systems, touch screens, and the long wait from the County to tabulate the votes. He stated that his election had great significance for the city because of his chairmanship of the Metro Board. He promised to be free from outside influences such as partisan dogma. He will support public safety, traffic and pedestrian safety, bicycle safety, and law enforcement. He will oppose bringing marijuana dispensaries and related marijuana production sites. He discussed the importance of having green space and affordable housing in South Glendale. He will make sure that the City will have the electrical power that it needs to keep the lights on. He would like to create a new and bigger aquatic facility. He spoke about improvements and funding for public transportation and bike lanes in the city.

Councilmember Elen Asatryan congratulated the newly-elected officials. She was grateful to her team and supporters who helped her get elected. She thanked her family as well. She hopes to build a collegial atmosphere with colleagues, staff, and residents. Her top priorities: a positive culture in City Hall, focusing on the needs of South Glendale, better communication and outreach, safer streets, green spaces, affordable housing, sustainability, arts, public transit, walkable streets, and bike lanes. She would like to see diversity celebrated through dynamic arts, entertainment and cultural programs. She would like to create innovative programs for recovery and support for small businesses and bring Glendale into the digital age for efficiency by modernizing the permitting process. Ms. Asatryan is also focused on preserving the beauty of the city’s unique neighborhoods and historic structures. She looks forward to building a more sustainable Glendale by cleaning-up and finding alternatives for the Scholl Canyon Landfill and Grayson Power Plant. She would like to add youth seats to all boards and commissions and to bring back the powers that are stripped from the Women’s Commission. She stated that her election meant a lot to young women and girls and she looks forward to help pave the way to create greater opportunities for them to get civically engaged.

She will proactively address homelessness and mental health and ensure that the police and fire departments have the resources they need to keep the city safe. Lastly, she indicated that her end goal is to serve the public and leave this city better than it was found. She asked staff, in return, to come to work with an open heart. She looks forward to our collective work ahead in making Glendale truly a model city in which we can live, work, and play.

Councilmember Dan Brotman thanked Mayor Kassakhian for encouraging him to get involved and participate in city government. He thanked several elected officials and individuals for their mentorship. He also thanked his family for their love and support and everyone who contributed, volunteered, and shared his vision for a more sustainable, innovative, forward- looking, and equitable Glendale. He spoke about his 10-point plan which included environmental sustainability, housing, transportation and walkability, arts and culture equity, quality of life, business recovery, urban design and development, and the city’s financial health.

He also advocated for an immediate decision on the Grayson Power Plant and meeting the city’s needs in the upcoming decade through developing reliable/clean energy alternatives, 23 of 191

07 12 22
CC4
retiring our fossil fuel assets and getting 100% clean and renewable energy by 2035. He spoke about reducing greenhouse gas emissions by building electrification, increasing charging infrastructure, electrification of the city’s vehicle fleet, electrification of landscape equipment and confronting waste management challenges by reducing single-use plastics, encouraging reusables for dine-in restaurant services, and dealing with the closure of the Scholl Canyon Landfill. He wanted to explore solutions for keeping the community safe in the more extreme heat, recurring water shortages, heightened fire risks, etc. Mr. Brotman would like to see the renovation of Rockhaven, the Verdugo Wash Project, the construction of the Armenian- American Museum, and redoing of the Artsakh Paseo. He indicated he wanted to develop new town centers in the areas around Adams Square Mini-Park and Glendale Community College, and park space when Scholl Canyon Landfill closes. He stated that there is a looming challenge with the unfunded pension liabilities and incremental adjustments are needed on both the revenue and cost sides to avoid major lay-offs and service impacts. He would also like to see a jazz club in Glendale.

9. ADJOURNMENT – 9:20 p.m.

Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
24 of 191

07 19 22
CC1 4A

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
JULY 19, 2022
ROLL CALL – All Present

1. CLOSED SESSION – 3:06 p.m.
a.Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Sadeghi v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 20STCV34372
b.Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Suarez v City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 21STCV10222
c.Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Claim of Safeco Insurance (Galaian), Claim No. 22-0083
d.Public Employee Appointment – Chief Human Resources Officer Chief Asst. City Attorney Gillian van Muyden indicated that action is anticipated on item 1d.

Council recessed to Closed Session at 3:09 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:00 PM
Roll Call – All Present
a.Flag Salute: Mayor Kassakhian
b.Invocation: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c.Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the July 19, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on July 13, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, July 26, 2022 Regular Meetings are cancelled on July 26 and will resume on August 9, 2022. b.Comfort Women Day Proclamation
Korean Glendale Sister City Association, Chang Lee and Aileen Lee c.Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Devine, 7/12/2022)

1. Andre Ordubegian, Transportation and Parking

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 June 28, 2022 and July 12, 2022 and the Joint City Council and Housing Authority meetings of June 14, 2022 and June 28, 2022
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
25 of 191

07 19 22
CC2
Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman
b.Fire Department, re: Weed abatement charges 2021-2022

1. Resolution 22-113 confirming weed abatement charges
Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman
c.Police Department, re: Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Cit Com LLC

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Cit Com, LLC to increase the maximum cost by $150,000 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $516,283 and extend the time for performance of services to May 31,2023 Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman
Agenda out of order. Item 13 New Business read next.

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Mayor Kassakhian asked staff to place a moratorium on drive-thru services. Asatryan seconded.

He announced that he now holds his office hours at the Adams Hill Mini-Park on Tuesdays from 9-10am and at Montrose Coffee Bean on Fridays from 9am-10am. He asked staff to provide a report on how the city can control the number of gun shops. Devine seconded. He gave Kudos to the Parks Department for receiving funding from the LA County Open Spaces District.

Funding will be used to create open spaces in the south Glendale area and all over the city. He attended the following Events: Fire Chief Silvio Lanzas’ official retirement sendoff, retirement party for Michael Gale (a 30-year youth basketball coach in the Crescenta Valley area) and installation events for new officers for the Korean Chamber of Commerce and Filipino-American Business Association of Glendale. Councilmember Devine announced that there will be a Miss Young Philippines USA Pageant that will be held at the Alex Theatre in August 2022, where Mr.

Kassakhian will be one of the judges. Mayor Kassakhian announced that summer concerts in the park are underway.

Councilmember Asatryan made an announcement about a new Suicide and Crisis Hotline, call/text 988.

Councilmembers attended Cruise Night and commended staff for a well-organized and well- attended event.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
26 of 191

07 19 22
CC3
Councilmember Brotman asked staff to place a moratorium on enforcement and fines for unpermitted outdoor dining until item is brought back for discussion. Asatryan seconded.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Karen Kwak

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a.Glendale Water and Power, re: Resolution Dispensing with Competitive Bidding and Authorizing a Services Agreement with InfoSend, Inc.

Staff Comments:

John Takhtalian, Deputy City Manager
Craig Kuennen, Assistant General Manager/Business Services Gillian van Muyden, Chief Asst. City Attorney

1. Resolution 22-114 dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a contract for bill print and mailing services for Glendale Water and Power (GWP) with InfoSend, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $3,619,900 for the four- year term, plus an annual ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $361,990 for a term of four years, plus an option to extend for two additional years in the amount of $1,835,900 plus a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $183,590
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Devine
b.Community Development, re: Vision Zero - Introduction and Update Report Presenting:

Bradley Calvert, Asst. Director of CD
Staff Comment:

Carl Povilaitis, Police Chief
Public Comment:

Alek Bartrosouf

1. Motion to note and file the report regarding Vision Zero and provide direction to staff regarding next steps
Moved: Devine Seconded: Brotman
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
Asatryan
None
None
27 of 191

07 19 22
CC4
c.Management Services, re: Legislative Update
Staff Comments:

Christine Powers, Sr. Executive Analyst
Gillian van Muyden, Chief Asst. City
Presenting:

Emanuels Jones and Associates
Public Comments:

Kate Unger
Asatryan asked to support, SB-974: healthcare coverage: diagnostic imaging. Kassakhian seconded.

Brotman asked to support these bills: SB -833: Community Energy Resilience Centers.

Asatryan seconded. AB2026: Recycling: plastic packaging. Devine Seconded.

Kassakhian asked to support SB-1302: School-based health centers. Brotman seconded.

1. Motion to note and file report

2. Motion providing direction on bills as recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Najarian
Agenda out of order. Item 6 Community Event Announcements is next.

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

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

Robert
Edwin

13. NEW BUSINESS
a.Motion to appoint Paula Adams to the position of Chief Human Resources Officer for the City of Glendale
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian
None
None
None
28 of 191

07 19 22
CC5
Staff Comment:

John Takhtalian, Deputy City Manager
Agenda out of order. Item 8c read next.

14. ADJOURNMENT – 9:02 p.m.

Moved: Najarian Seconded: Brotman
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
29 of 191

14b
3 4
8 1

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Clean California Local Grant Program

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Item
Approved for August 16, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Public Works received grant funding to clean and beautify the San Fernando Road corridor that runs parallel to the railroad tracks as well as various alleys throughout the City. A resolution authorizing the execution of the grant agreements with Caltrans is needed for the City to execute the Restricted Grant Agreements and to receive the grants funds for both projects.
30 of 191

24b
3 4
8 1

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Environmental Stewardship: These grants will provide greening to provide shade, reduce the urban heat island effect, capture and treat storm water runoff, and use native drought-tolerant plants for a positive impact on health, reduce pollution, aquifer recharge, and save water.

Mobility/Connectivity/Safety: Improving access to public spaces by improving walking paths, installing shade trees, and the addition of traffic calming measures will improve safety for all modes of travel.

Infrastructure: Infrastructure for all modes of travel will be improved, storm water capture infrastructure will be implemented, and public transit infrastructure will be upgraded.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Director of Public Works or his designee to execute CCLGP Restricted Grant Agreements with Caltrans for the City of Glendale San Fernando Road Beautification Project and Permeable Alley Project.

BACKGROUND
Caltrans developed the CCLGP for local communities to beautify and improve local streets and roads, tribal lands, parks, pathways, and transit centers to clean and enhance public spaces. Through the combination of adding beautification measures and art in public spaces along with the removal of litter and debris, this effort will enhance communities and improve spaces for walking and recreation.

The goals of the CCLGP are to:
•Reduce the amount of waste and debris within public rights-of-way, pathways, parks, transit centers, and other public spaces;
•Enhance, rehabilitate, restore, or install measures to beautify and improve public spaces and mitigate the urban heat island effect;
•Enhance public health, cultural connection, and community placemaking by improving public spaces for walking and recreation; and
•Advance equity for underserved communities.

On December 1, 2021, Caltrans released the Call for Projects for the CCLGP inviting applicants to apply for grant funding. With an aggressive application deadline of February 1, 2022, Caltrans received a total of 329 grant applications. After ranking the proposals, Caltrans identified 105 top ranked projects for funding recommendations, with $5 million being the maximum amount awarded for any one project.

The City of Glendale was awarded $10,289,500 to fund three projects. These include the San Fernando Road Beautification Project, which was awarded $4,999,0000 (total project cost of is $6,928,000); the Permeable Alley Project, which was awarded $4,998,000 (total project cost of $6,042,000); and the Southeast Glendale Greening Project, which was awarded $292,500 (total project cost of $320,000). The remainder of the funds will come from various City funds as required local match sources.
31 of 191

34b
3 4
8 1
The design of the Permeable Alley Project will be administered in-house and the design for the San Fernando Road Beautification Project will be completed by a consultant. Once design has been completed and public outreach with the community has been done, the construction of the project will be bid out and managed by the City of Glendale. The implementation of the Southeast Glendale Greening Project will be managed by the City’s on-call tree maintenance contractor.

ANALYSIS
Caltrans developed project selection criteria that incorporated the following:
•Community need
•Potential to enhance and beautify public space
•Potential for greening to provide shade, reduce the urban heat island effect, and use native drought-tolerant plants
•Potential to improve access to public space
•Public engagement in the project proposal that reflects community priorities •Benefit to underserved communities
San Fernando Road Beautification Project
The project will be constructed on San Fernando Road from Grandview Avenue to Elk Avenue.

New drought-tolerant, native landscaping will provide ground cover and new plantings will be added on the west side of the roadway. Meandering sidewalks will be provided on the east side of the roadway, providing a consistent 5-foot wide sidewalk and providing larger spaces for plantings, increasing pervious surfaces, and reducing storm water runoff to improve water quality. Additional improvements will include high visibility and creative crosswalks at intersections, a new bus shelter with trash receptacles, as well as median islands with bioswales, drywells, curb bulb-outs, and ADA ramps at roadway intersections. All project improvements will be located along city-owned public right-of-way on the western and eastern sides of San Fernando Road.

Permeable Alley Project
This is a project that will repave alleys in western and southern Glendale neighborhoods, replacing the current asphalt pavement with permeable pavement. There are thirty-eight (38) alley segments identified to be part of the project for a total length of 2.67 miles. Various types of pervious pavement include porous asphalt and concrete, open joint pavers, interlocking concrete or permeable pavers, and plastic or concrete grid systems with gravel-filled voids. The project also includes construction of bioswales and drywells to collect, treat and infiltrate surface runoff to support groundwater recharge.

Southeast Glendale Greening Project
The project calls for the planting of 750 new street and park City trees and the area is located across a section of southern Glendale. Locations would be limited to the City right-of-way between the sidewalk and curb, as well as three City parks in south Glendale. Further details about this project will be brought forward in a separate report to Council.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
A project-specific community engagement effort was conducted to collect feedback on the Project prior to the application for grant funds. As part of the public information campaign, a factsheet was prepared that summarized key components of the project with a link to a brief 32 of 191

44b
3 4
8 1
online survey. This information was provided to the public through an email blast to stakeholder groups and posted on the City’s website and social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, etc.). The Public Works department also created a project webpage, which included a brief description of the project and images representing potential improvements for the corridor.

Furthermore, the San Fernando Road Beautification Project is an outcome of the public’s involvement in developing the South Glendale Community Plan and supports the goals of other city planning efforts. Finally, the Permeable Alley Project locations are identified in the 2021 Pavement Management Program as necessary alleys for improvement to improve the City’s pavement condition index.

Public engagement materials included a fact sheet which provided an overview of the Project’s improvements and benefits. It also illustrated examples of several infrastructure elements like curb bulb outs, planted medians and sidewalk plantings. The fact sheet also included links to the project website and project survey. The project survey also included background information on the Project, with questions given to stakeholders for public input that focused on the following topics:

1. The type of improvements that would be supported

2. Input on landscape improvements

3. Information on how respondents first heard of project

4. Requested contact information to keep respondents informed of the Project’s progress and other related information.

The public was overwhelming in support of both projects due to the multiples benefits to the community stakeholders as a result of these projects, which will include the following:
•More livable communities;
•Improved safety for all users;
•More walking and bicycling to improve public health;
•Increased transportation choices; and
•Greenhouse gas reduction and improved air quality.

Additional community outreach and touchpoints will be planned during the later engineering design process to further bring awareness about the project to the businesses, residents, and visitors of the corridor by the end of Summer 2023. The construction of these projects are anticipated to begin by the end of Fall 2023, and be completed by June 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for these projects in the amount of approximately $10.3 million will be funded by CCLGP grant funds administered by Caltrans, and the City will be contributing $3 million of local match funds from the State Gas Tax Fund and Measure W Municipal Return Fund to fully fund the projects. During Council award of a construction contract, staff will return with a request to appropriate funding, if applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Project is categorically exempt from environmental review because of CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301.
33 of 191

54b
3 4
8 1

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve the resolutions authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to execute CCLGP Restricted Grant Agreements with Caltrans for the City of Glendale San Fernando Road Beautification Project and Permeable Alley Project.

Alternative 2: Do not approve the resolutions authorizing the Director of Public Works or his designee to execute CCLGP Restricted Grant Agreements with Caltrans. Doing so, however, will not fully fund the projects and return approximately $10.3 million to Caltrans.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Sarkis Oganesyan, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Armen Avazian, P.E, Senior Civil Engineer
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: San Fernando Road Beautification Project Location Map Exhibit 2: Permeable Alley Project Location Map
34 of 191

14b
6 4
4 7
RESOLUTION NO. __________

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

AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS

WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE CITY OF

GLENDALE SAN FERNANDO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Glendale is eligible to receive State funding for certain transportation related work through the California Department of Transportation; WHEREAS, a Restricted Grant Agreement is needed to be executed with the California Department of Transportation before such funds can be claimed through the Clean California Local Grant Program;
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale wishes to delegate authorization to execute these agreements and any amendments thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Glendale, California that the Director of Public Works, or designee, is authorized to execute all Restricted Grant Agreements and any amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation for the City of Glendale San Fernando Road Beautification Project.

APPROVED AND PASSED this _____ day of ____________, 2022. ____________________________
Mayor, City of Glendale
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk
35 of 191

24b
6 4
4 7

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, _________________________, 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, the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________
City Clerk
36 of 191

6 4
4 8
RESOLUTION NO. __________

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

AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS

WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE CITY OF

GLENDALE PERMEABLE ALLEY PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Glendale is eligible to receive State funding for certain transportation related work through the California Department of Transportation; WHEREAS, a Restricted Grant Agreement is needed to be executed with the California Department of Transportation before such funds can be claimed through the Clean California Local Grant Program;
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale wishes to delegate authorization to execute these agreements and any amendments thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Glendale, California that the Director of Public Works, or designee, is authorized to execute all Restricted Grant Agreements and any amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation for the City of Glendale Permeable Alley Project.

APPROVED AND PASSED this _____ day of ____________, 2022. ____________________________
Mayor, City of Glendale
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk
37 of 191

6 4
4 8

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________
City Clerk
38 of 191

Gr
and
view
Av
e
W G
len
oaks Blvd
San
Fernand
o Rd
Sa
n F
ernand
o R
d
Zoo Dr
Zoo Dr
Zoo D
r
Ventura F
wy
Cry
stal S
pring
s
D
r
Griffi
th
Park Dr
N Pac
ific Ave
Highl
and A
ve
W Gle noak s Blv d
N
Pa
cifi
c
Ave
W Do ran S t
High
la
nd A
ve
W Broa dwa y
Vent ura Fwy
West
Glendale
North
Glendale
S Pacifi c Ave
San
Fer
nando
Rd
W C ol ora do St
Golden State F
wy
N B
ra
nd
Bl
vd
N B
rand Blvd
S
Bran
d
Blv
d
City of Los Angeles
¼-milebuffer
San FernandoRd
Alma St
NSanFern
andoRd
San
Fernando R
dW
Flower St
Highl
and Ave
Grandview Ave
Sonora Ave
W
SanFernand
oRd
Zoo Dr
N
Pa
cificAve
N
Ke
nilworthAve
W Broadway
NZooDr
Spencer St
W Wilson Ave
W California Ave
Fairmont Ave
Patterson Ave
Norton Ave
Glenwood Rd
Salem St
W Stocker St
W Loraine St
W Milford St
Pioneer Dr
W Glenoaks Blvd
N
Colum
bu
sAve
Estelle Ave
Riverdale Dr
SColum
bus
Ave
S
Pac
ificAve
N
CentralAve
W Colorado St
SCentral A
ve
W Lexington Dr
Chester St
Olmsted Dr
Omar St
Concord St
Va
lleyView
Rd
N
Orange S
t
W Vine St
Palm Dr
Alexander St
W Doran St
W Dryden St
W Garfield Ave
W Windsor Rd
Grayno
ld A
ve
Arden Ave
Burchett St
South St
W Maple St
W Elk Ave
Oak St
Myrtle St
Ivy St
Hawthorne St
Colorado Blvd
Grand Central Ave
Air Wy
Western Heritage
W
y
Crystal Spring
s Dr
Griffith ParkDr
5 134
C i t y o f
G l e n d a l e
Legend
Project Location
Disadvangtaged Community
Glendale City Boundary
Adjacent Land Uses
Commercial
Residential
Industrial
±
0 0.50.25miles
Project Location
City of Glendale
San Fernando Road Beautification
Clean California Local Grant Program
39 of 191

40 of 191

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Amendment to Professional Service Agreement with !melk for the Verdugo Wash Visioning Study

1. Motion authorizing amendment to Professional Services Agreement with !melk to increase the maximum cost by $75,000 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $515,000.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for August 16, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Glendale currently holds a contract with !melk to provide initial visioning concepts for the Verdugo Wash. This concludes preliminary design, preliminary engineering, and preliminary hydrology analysis to develop initial concepts and designs for an active transportation and recreational spine within the Verdugo Wash. As the project has progressed, it has gained momentum and interest in regards to external funding and grant opportunities. Additionally, given the unique design of the existing wash at different locations, it will require additional hydrology and engineering analysis. As such, staff is requesting to amend the contract to include an additional $75,000 in order to complete engineering and hydrology analysis, additional urban design elements, and assistance in applying for grants. The additional funding has already been budgeted within the Measure M funds, and not from the City’s General Fund balance. 41 of 191

24c
3 5
1 6

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
The Verdugo Wash Visioning Project meets three of the Council priorities including Environmental Stewardship, Mobility/Connectivity/Safety, and if completed, Infrastructure.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize a contract amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with !melk to increase the maximum cost by $75,000, for a new not-to-exceed amount of $515,000.

BACKGROUND
Following a competitive RFP process with 21 submissions from teams composed of design, environmental, engineering, and economics professionals of national and international stature, on October 27, 2020, Council awarded a contract for $440,000 with !melk to conduct the Verdugo Wash Visioning Study. The project was funded with $250,000 in Measure S funds and $200,000 from Measure M Local Return Fund (Project 52179). Staff along with the !melk team have conducted surveys through the project website, conducted community meetings, engaged with essential stakeholders, and begun the process of developing early concepts and ideas of what could be possible within the Verdugo Wash flood control channel. An update on the visioning and community feedback was presented to the Council on December 14, 2021. The final study is expected to be presented to Council in September 2022.

ANALYSIS
The !melk team is nearing the completion of the initial visioning study. Staff has been very satisfied with the work the !melk team has concluded thus far including: collecting and documenting physical and visual data of the study area including existing conditions and future citywide initiatives; reviewing and discussing precedent projects; establishing goals and objectives for the Verdugo Wash visioning; establishing a public engagement strategy and schedule; and establishing a branding strategy for project identification.

Using date collected to develop design alternatives and interventions for the Verdugo Wash including potential route alternatives for pedestrians and cyclists, identifying locations for public space improvements, types of open space, areas for habitat restoration, design approaches to respond to different neighborhood contexts, and sustainability measures.

While hydrology analysis was included within !melk’s initial scope of work, additional studies and engineering are necessary to provide a more thorough hydrology framework report. This additional analysis will provide necessary information when approaching different design alternatives, and establishing a clear scope of work for subsequent phases.

Staff would also like to expand !melk’s scope of work at this time to include seeking grant opportunities and assistance with grant writing. This will provide greater opportunity for staff to secure funding outside the City of Glendale to fund the continuation of project. As such, an additional $75,000 is requested to complete the visioning project. The additional $75,000 will not come from the City’s General Funds
42 of 191

34c
3 5
1 6

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subjected to Stakeholders/ Outreach.

FISCAL IMPACT
The $75,000 increase to the contact maximum was included as a part of the FY 2022-23 Measure M adopted budget in the Verdugo Wash Visioning project, and no additional funding is needed. The City Council approved Funding is outlined below.

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$75,000 GL: 43110-2220-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: PWD00842AN
Measure M

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subjected to CEQA/NEPA 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 attached in Exhibit #1, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize the contract amendment to the PSA with !melk to increase the maximum cost in the amount of $75,000. This will allow staff to complete the visioning process, grant applications and additional hydrology analysis and engineering.

Alternative 2: Decline to authorize the contract amendment to the PSA with !melk to increase the maximum cost in the amount of $75,000. This will result in incomplete hydrology analysis and engineering and lack of assistance with grant applications.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, Assistant Director of Community Development 43 of 191

44c
3 5
1 6
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Campaign Finance Disclosure Statement.
44 of 191

C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\CC_08162022_Motion_4c1.pdf MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to amend the professional services agreement with !melk for the Verdugo Wash Visioning Study, in order to complete additional engineering and hydrology analysis, additional urban design elements, and assistance in applying for grants. Said amendment will increase the maximum contract cost by $75,000 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $515,000 and shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
45 of 191

City of Glendale

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

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

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

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

Contractor(s)*:

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
* “Contractor” is the person, entity, or organization that is the party, or prospective party, to the contract with the City, EDD, or HA or any member of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Direct ors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entit y, or organization, and any campaign committee that is o wned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address.

MELK URBAN DESIGN LLC

JERRY VAN EYCK

IAN HAMPSON

ABBIE MANDELL

FOUNDER/PRINCIPAL

DIRECTOR

FINANCIAL MANAGER
111 JOHN STREET, SUITE 2650, NEW YORK NY 10038 USA
111 JOHN STREET, SUITE 2650
111 JOHN STREET, SUITE 2650
111 JOHN STREET, SUITE 2650

NEW YORK

NEW YORK
NY
NY
NY
10038
10038
10038
46 of 191

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

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

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

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

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

Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.

Signature: Print Full Name:

Address:

Phone Number: E-mail Address:

X X
2 16 OCTOBER

JERRY VAN EYCK
111 JOHN STREET, SUITE 2650, NEW YORK, NY 10038, USA
212-513-1025 [email protected]
20 NEW YORK NEW YORK

NOT APPLICABLE

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

DAVID HERD

JULIAN PARSLEY

DAVID HERD, MIKE SEYLE, JULIAN PARSLEY
HAPPOLD HOLDINGS (NA), INC.

CHIEF EXEC. OFFICER / PRESIDENT

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
MORE THAN 10% INTEREST OWNER

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
800 WILSHIRE BLVD. 16TH FLOOR
800 WILSHIRE BLVD. 16TH FLOOR
800 WILSHIRE BLVD. 16TH FLOOR
800 WILSHIRE BLVD. 16TH FLOOR

LOS ANGELES

LOS ANGELES
CA
CA
CA
CA
90017
90017
90017
90017

BURO HAPPOLD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC
BURO HAPPOLD CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC 800 WILSHIRE BLVD. 16TH FLOOR, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 47 of 191

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Glendale Beeline Participation in Metro’s Student Fareless System Initiative Pilot Program known as GoPass

1. Motion authorizing Glendale Beeline to accept Metro’s K-14 GoPass during Metro’s Fareless System Initiative Pilot ending June 30, 2023.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for August 16, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Board approved a two-year pilot Fareless System Initiative (FSI) program. The FSI program allows K-14 students to ride free on participating transit agencies. Community colleges and school districts pay a per-student charge per year to participate, and transit agencies share in the revenue based on usage. Initially, the Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) and the Glendale Community College (GCC) declined to participate in the FSI program but GCC will now participate in the FSI pilot program. With GCC’s participation, Public Works staff requests authority to accept the FSI GoPass on Beeline services. The FY 2022-23 Glendale Tier 2 American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) allocation for transportation will cover the lost fare revenue associated with this program. 48 of 191

28a
3 4
8 7

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Mobility/Connectivity/Safety: Accepting the GoPass provides continued safe, efficient, and reliable transportation services to a greater number of riders.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the acceptance of Metro’s K-14 GoPass through FY 2022-23.

BACKGROUND
On May 27, 2021, the Metro Board approved the countywide FSI pilot program. Metro believes a fareless transit system in Los Angeles County is both an investment in social mobility and an important tool to assist in the fight against income inequality. For students, access to free transit improves school attendance and academic performance, increases participation in extracurricular activities and employment, and increases the probability of students becoming long-term transit riders. Fareless transit also advances equity and improves life outcomes by removing the financial barrier allowing access to opportunities.

After much discussion, the FSI program shifted from expanding Metro’s existing student pass program to partnering with school districts and community colleges which pay a per student cost share fee per year. The $3 (K-12 school districts) or $7 (community colleges) would be paid for all students enrolled in the school. The revenue from the school districts and community colleges minus the $2 cost for the TAP card would be distributed back to participating transit agencies at the end of each pilot year. For example, GUSD has approximately 25,000 K-12 students and would pay $75,000 to Metro each year for students to participate. Due to the high cost and remote learning both GUSD and GCC initially declined to participate.

Metro encouraged transit agencies to use their allocations of ARPA funding to offset the remaining lost fare revenue. Glendale expects to receive $769,726 in ARPA funds for its Beeline service.

ANALYSIS
GCC reached out to Beeline staff in late June to discuss the possibility of participating in the GoPass program since GCC will be back to 75% in class instruction. GCC approved the funding plan for the GoPass for the coming school year. Staff is requesting approval from City Council to participate in the GoPass program. The estimated cost of the GoPass program is difficult to determine since the GCC students can use the GoPass on any participating transit agency’s service and Beeline ridership is still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. Assuming pre-pandemic levels as the high end, the estimated cost is as follows:

GCC Registered
Students
GoPass Fee
Paid by GCC ($7
per student)
Estimated Yearly
Glendale Beeline
Cost Share
Revenue
Estimated Yearly GCC
Student Fares
(assumes student
pass rate)
Estimated
Funding Gap
(lost revenue)
21,900 $153,300 $75,000 $162,000 ($87,000)
49 of 191

38a
3 4
8 7
The estimated $87,000 lost revenue will be offset with the City of Glendale’s ARPA allocation.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
GCC student’s transportation options will increase with use of the GoPass. Students will have access to Metro’s extensive bus and rail system as well as Beeline services for their transportation needs including school, internships, and employment. For the past 18 months, Beeline staff participates in the weekly Metro led FSI Ad Hoc meetings and will continue to work with GUSD, as they continue to consider participating in the GoPass program.

Public Works staff will continue to work with GUSD and encourage their participation in this program.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is a reduction in projected Beeline farebox revenue of $87,000 that staff plans to offset with ARPA funds that will be received to cover transportation services, which has been accounted for as a part of the FY 2022-23 adopted budget outlined below:

Existing Revenue Budget
Amount Account String Funding Source
$769,726 34062-2580-PWD-0000- Prop A Discretionary
Tier 2 - Transit Utility
Fund

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize Glendale Beeline to accept the Metro Student GoPass on Glendale Beeline services for Fiscal Year 2023.

Alternative 2: Elect not to authorize Glendale Beeline to accept the Metro Student GoPass on Glendale Beeline services for Fiscal Year 2023.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 50 of 191

48a
3 4
8 7

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Martha D'Andrea, Transit Manager
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Letter from GCC Superintendent/President Supporting Go Pass Program 51 of 191

MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded
by Council Member , that the Council of the City of
Glendale hereby authorizes the City of Glendale, Glendale Beeline Transit System to accept the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority issued Fareless System Initiative Program GoPass for rider fares through June 30, 2023.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
52 of 191

1500 North Verdugo Road • Glendale, CA 91208 -2894 • 818 -240 -1000 • www.glendale.edu Superintendent/President Dr. Ryan Cornner
Board of Trustees Dr. Sevan Benlian • Yvette Vartanian Davis • Dr. Armine Hacopian • Desir ée Portillo Rabinov • Ann H. Ransford

July 6, 2022

Dear City of Glendale,

Glendale Community College (GCC) is focused on the success of our students and this has increasingly required a focus on student basic needs and core wrap around supports. We are excited to announce that we will launch the GCC Go Pass program on August 29th, for the start of the Fall 2022 semester. This program will bring valuable access to public transportation to students in need as well as promote sustainable options in line with our core values. GCC is in the process of completing the contracting documents with LA Metro to participate in this pilot program, but is eager to have the Glendale Beeline included in the Go Pass Program to more fully support our students’ needs.

The GCC Go Pass program is part of the District’s comprehensive basic needs strategy to ensure that all members of our community are able to afford the costs associated with attending college. The cost of transportation is a barrier for many community members seeking to pursue a community college education.

More than two-thirds of all students attending GCC are low income and transportation costs represent a major barrier to accessing higher education. This is especially true given record rates of inflation, which have impacted the cost of gasoline and other basic needs. In fact, 23% of students receiving emergency grants indicted that they primarily use public transportation. Now is the time to support those most impacted by economic conditions with access to high quality public transportation.

The GCC Go Pass program also helps fulfill our local and state commitment to a more sustainable future. In 2010 the City of Glendale adopted a resolution to address sustainability and climate change and continued this commitment in its resolution to support the Mayors National Climate Action. The Beeline is an essential component of the City’s sustainability efforts and the GCC Go Pass will help build a generation of riders for years to come.

Given the locations of the District’s three campuses, we ask that Glendale Beeline to join the pilot program.

Glendale Beeline’s involvement in the program will ensure that all students from participating campuses have access to buses operated by LA Metro, Glendale Beeline, and the 12 other participating municipal transit systems. The GCC Go Pass program will allow all students to access public transportation at no cost to them during any semester for which they are enrolled. With the addition of the Beeline, we believe this program can serve as a national exemplar for multi-municipality and public sector cooperation that we can celebrate together.

Thank you for your consideration, and please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ryan Cornner
Superintendent/President
Glendale Community College District
Exhibit 1
53 of 191

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Consideration of a Resolution Establishing Goals for Solar and Energy Storage Installations and Clean Energy Targets

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for August 16, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Mayor Kassakhian has requested Council consideration and approval of a resolution establishing goals for solar energy storage installations by GWP customers and clean energy targets, establishing a Council subcommittee and providing direction to staff. 54 of 191

28b
3 5
7 7

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Environmental Stewardship - The proposed resolution is proffered to address climate change by seeking the development of additional clean energy resources.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff has no specific recommendation. Staff will provide input at the Council meeting.

BACKGROUND
On July 12, 2022, Mayor Kassakhian requested Council consideration of a resolution establishing goals for solar and energy storage Installations and clean energy targets (Exhibit A). Among other things, the proposed resolution does the following:
•States that the City of Glendale will establish policies and practices to reach a goal of having at least 10% of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027 and develop additional demand measurement measures with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100MW; •Directs staff to engage a consultant to develop a plan to achieve the above-stated goals;
•Directs staff to calculate the estimated dispatchable capacity and demand reduction that can be achieved through the plan specified above; •Directs staff to complete an analysis of the costs and benefits of the plan, including direct and indirect costs, as well as environmental, societal and other noneconomic benefits and costs; and
•Establishes a subcommittee of the Council to work with staff on the above- described goals and plan.

ANALYSIS
Staff will provide input at the August 16, 2022 Council meeting, including on the target dates identified for the study/analysis proposed by the resolution. A revised resolution is submitted for Council consideration.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact is unknown of this time. The study directed by the proposed resolution will identify the costs and benefits associated with the proposed clean energy goals and targets, and cost impacts would also be addressed in future cost of service analyses (COSAs). The cost of retaining a consultant for the study/analyis is unknown at this time. If the consultant contract cannot be absorbed in GWP’s budget or exceeds the City Manager’s approval authority, it will be presented to Council for approval.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The proposed resolution is exempt from CEQA as there is no reasonable possibility it will have a significant effect on the environment as it establishes goals regarding clean energy targets and directs staff in preparation of a plan/study to achieve those goals. The project 55 of 191

38b
3 5
7 7
components that might be associated with achieving those goals are unknown at this time.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES

1. The Council can approve the Resolution, after providing input.

2. The Council can choose not to adopt the Resolution.

3. The Council can select another alternative not identified by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Resolution Submitted by Mayor Kassakhian
56 of 191

RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ESTABLISHING

GOALS FOR SOLAR AND ENERGY STORAGE INSTALLATIONS BY GLENDALE WATER

AND POWER CUSTOMERS AND CLEAN ENERGY TARGETS, ESTABLISHING A CITY

COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TAKE ACTIONS IN

FURTHERANCE THEREOF
WHEREAS, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Sixth Assessment Report in 2022, concluding that human-induced climate change has already caused widespread and irreversible adverse impacts and will cause unavoidable increase in multiple climate hazards, and that near-term actions to limit global warming to close to 1.5°C would substantially reduce projected damage to human systems and ecosystems; and WHEREAS, the IPCC has stated that projected adverse impacts, risks, and damage escalate with every increment of global warming; and
WHEREAS, California Senate Bill 100 (“SB 100”) requires utilities in California, including the City of Glendale Water & Power Department (“GWP”) to achieve 50% renewable energy by 2025 and 60% renewable energy by 2030, and sets a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045; and
WHEREAS, GWP’s most recent, 2021 power content label reflects that GWP’s power content for 2020 is 64.4% clean energy which includes 39.9% renewable energy compared to the State of California’s power content of 54.8% clean which includes 33.1% renewable; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2019, the City Council adopted an Integrated Resource Plan for the City, with ambitious clean energy goals, establishing Glendale as a clean energy leader; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-196, certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report and Related Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program for the Biogas Renewable Generation Project, and further moved to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Special Recreation Review for the proposed Biogas Renewable Generation Project, which will generate 12 MW gross, and 11 MW net, of non-intermittent, locally generated electricity on a 7/24/365 hour basis that is enough to power over 11,000 homes using renewable energy; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-28, certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Grayson Repowering Project and Making Certain Findings and Determinations, including a finding that Project Alternative 7 is the environmentally superior alternative; and
57 of 191

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-29 approving Grayson Repowering Project Alternative 7 (Tesla/ Wartsila Project Alternative), adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Making Findings in support thereof, adopting a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, and directing staff to take actions in furtherance thereof; and
WHEREAS, Project Alternative 7 would repower Grayson Power Plant Units 1-8 with a combination of five Wartsila reciprocating internal combustion engine units producing approximately 93 MW and a 75 MW/300 MWh energy storage system (“Grayson Repowering Project”) and make other related improvements; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, Glendale City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-24, to work on identifying cleaner alternatives and modified the implementation of Alternative 7 for the repowering of the Grayson Power Plant and directed staff to undertake actions to proceed with identification of these alternatives while simultaneously preparing for the potential addition of up to five engines; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 22-24 directed staff to return to City Council no later than the end of Calendar Year 2022 for a decision regarding the purchase of Wartsila engines; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, City Councilmembers asked staff to pursue 50 MW of additional distributed energy resources within the City in order to minimize or avoid the need for Wartsila engines, and on May 27, 2022, GWP issued a Request for Proposals for local clean distributed energy resources, with proposals due on September 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, two thousand, two hundred and seventy (2,270) of GWP’s 88,000 customers, or approximately 2.5% of GWP customers, currently have solar energy, with such solar installations generating 23.7 MW, or 6.8% of Glendale’s peak load of 346 MW; and WHEREAS, Glendale can improve in giving its residents access to rooftop solar, and encouraging additional customers to install solar; and
WHEREAS, if Glendale increases the number of GWP customers with solar systems, and if battery energy storage is installed at customer sites or elsewhere in the City to store the solar energy that is generated from those systems, the combined solar energy production could provide a substantial amount of local clean energy; and WHEREAS, taking other steps, including additional programs to reduce electricity demand and shift energy use to off-peak time periods, can lower our City’s energy and capacity needs even more; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain its position as a leader in local clean, renewable energy; and
58 of 191

WHEREAS, expected increases in the electrification of transportation and building sectors will impact, and substantially increase, the future demand for electricity in Glendale; and WHEREAS, the City Council would like to evaluate whether greater adoption of distributed solar and storage will provide co-benefits with higher electrification, including whether increased demand from electrification can offset concerns about decreased utility sales from a greater number of customers generating solar energy; and WHEREAS, the City Council would like to evaluate whether higher local solar energy production paired with storage will lessen the amount of demand during hours of peak energy demand so that Glendale’s energy system is used more efficiently; and WHEREAS, generating solar energy can greatly reduce utility bills for consumers who utilize rooftop solar; and
WHEREAS, renewable energy sources have health, environmental, and many other non-economic values, and the use of local solar generation as an energy resource will benefit the citizens of Glendale in numerous ways for many years.

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

SECTION 1.The City Glendale intends to maximize the use of clean and renewable energy to serve Glendale’s energy needs.

SECTION 2.It is the policy of the City of Glendale that future investments in equipment and infrastructure to produce electricity to serve the needs of the City and utility customers will to the maximum extent possible be in eligible renewable energy resources and zero carbon resources.

SECTION 3. The City of Glendale intends to achieve 100% clean energy by no later than 2035.

SECTION 4.The City of Glendale intends to adopt policies and practices designed to reach a goal of having at least 10% of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027, and develop additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW.

SECTION 5.Staff is directed to develop a plan designed to achieve the goals stated in Section 4, consistent with the following direction.
●Staff is to engage a consultant to develop this plan.
●The plan is to be submitted to City Council for consideration on or before ___________________________.
●The plan will comply with the guidelines in Attachment A hereto. 59 of 191

SECTION 6.Staff is directed to calculate the estimated dispatchable capacity and demand reduction that can be achieved through the plan specified in Section 5, consistent with the following direction.
●Staff is to engage a consultant to complete this study. ●Results of this study are to be reported to City Council on or before _____________________________.

SECTION 7.Staff is directed to complete an analysis of benefits and costs of the plan specified in Section 5, consistent with the following direction. ●Staff is to engage a consultant to complete this analysis. ●The analysis should include direct and indirect economic benefits and costs, as well as environmental, societal, and other noneconomic benefits and costs. ●Results of this analysis are to be reported to City Council on or before _________________________.

SECTION 8.A subcommittee of City Council is hereby formed to take actions as appropriate to ensure continuing progress toward and achievement of the goals stated in Section 4, including assisting in identifying one or more consultants to complete the work in Sections 5, 6, and 7, and reviewing and providing input into the consultant scope of work. The subcommittee will also receive and review all drafts of consultant work product concurrently with staff. The subcommittee is composed of Councilmembers _____________________ and _____________________.

Adopted this __________ day of ______________________, 2022. _________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
60 of 191

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

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

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

________________________________
City Clerk
61 of 191

Attachment A
The following guidelines will govern development of the plan specified in Section 5 of this Resolution.
●The plan is to include policies and incentives designed to be sufficient to ensure customers will adopt solar and energy storage at a rate that achieves the adoption and capacity goals stated in Section 4 of this Resolution.
●The plan is to include an alternative approach with a mix of storage at customer sites and at GWP-controlled sites, rather than all storage being located at customer sites. ●The plan is to evaluate and provide recommendations regarding including, at a minimum, the following specific policies and incentives:
○Net metering policy.
○Upfront incentives or rebates on solar installations, designed to achieve a payback period that will prompt consumers to adopt solar and storage in numbers sufficient to reach the goals.
○Revised feed-in tariff program.
○Upfront rebates combined with ongoing performance-based incentives for battery storage systems.
○Policies specifically aimed to lower-income customers, customers in heavily pollution-burdened areas of the City, multifamily properties, and rental properties. ●The plan should also include additional incentives and outreach programs for energy efficiency, demand reduction, and shifting energy use to off-peak time periods. ●The plan shall consider electric system reliability.
62 of 191

EXHIBIT A
Draft resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ESTABLISHING

GOALS FOR SOLAR AND ENERGY STORAGE INSTALLATIONS BY GLENDALE WATER

AND POWER CUSTOMERS AND CLEAN ENERGY TARGETS, AND ESTABLISHING A

CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TAKE ACTIONS IN

FURTHERANCE THEREOF
WHEREAS, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Sixth Assessment Report in 2022, concluding that human-induced climate change has already caused widespread and irreversible adverse impacts and will cause unavoidable increase in multiple climate hazards, and that near-term actions to limit global warming to close to 1.5°C would substantially reduce projected damage to human systems and ecosystems; and WHEREAS, the IPCC has stated that projected adverse impacts, risks, and damage escalate with every increment of global warming; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Department of Water and Power has proposed a project to replace Grayson Power Plant Units 1-8 with a combination of five Wartsila reciprocating internal combustion engine units producing approximately 93 MW and a 75 MW/300 MWh energy storage system (“Grayson Repowering Project”); and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, Glendale City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-__, to work on identifying cleaner alternatives and directed staff to undertake actions to proceed with identification of these alternatives; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 22-__ directed staff to return to City Council no later than the end of Calendar Year 2022 for a decision regarding the purchase of Wartsila engines; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021, City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit and Special Recreation Review for the proposed development and operation of a biogas power plant at the Scholl Canyon Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the Grayson and Scholl Canyon gas-power projects are costly investments in carbon-emitting energy, which would exacerbate climate change while polluting the air and negatively impacting the health of Glendale residents and neighbors; and WHEREAS, Glendale has significant untapped local clean energy potential, with only about 2.5% of Glendale Water and Power (“GWP”) customers having installed solar systems; and
63 of 191

WHEREAS, Glendale lags far behind California overall in giving its residents access to rooftop solar, showing that Glendale's rooftop solar policies have not done enough to encourage customers to install solar; and
WHEREAS, if Glendale increases the number of GWP customers with solar systems to reach equity with the overall California solar penetration numbers, and if battery energy storage is installed at customer sites or elsewhere in the City to store the solar energy that is generated from those systems, the combined solar energy production could provide a substantial amount of local clean energy to meet Glendale’s peak demand and to serve as reserve capacity; and WHEREAS, if Glendale exceeds the state solar and storage penetration rate, it may be able to entirely avoid new gas power equipment at Grayson and Scholl Canyon; and WHEREAS, taking other steps, including additional programs to reduce electricity demand and shift energy use to off-peak time periods, can lower our City’s energy capacity needs even more; and
WHEREAS, the City currently has an opportunity to show that it can be a regional leader in local clean, renewable energy; and
WHEREAS, expected increases in the electrification of transportation and building sectors will impact the future demand for electricity in Glendale; and WHEREAS, greater adoption of distributed solar and storage will provide co-benefits with higher electrification, including that increased demand from electrification can offset concerns about decreased utility sales from a greater number of customers generating solar energy; and
WHEREAS, higher local solar energy production combined with storage will lessen the amount of demand during hours of peak energy demand so that Glendale’s energy system is used more efficiently and does not need to be sized to meet dramatic and rare spikes in load during peak demand events; and
WHEREAS, generating solar energy greatly reduces utility bills for consumers; and WHEREAS, renewable energy sources have health, environmental, and many other non-economic values, and the use of local solar generation as an energy resource will benefit the citizens of Glendale in numerous ways for many years.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE AS FOLLOWS:
64 of 191

SECTION 1.The City Glendale intends to maximize the use of clean, renewable energy to serve Glendale’s energy needs.

SECTION 3. The City of Glendale intends to achieve 100% clean, renewable, non- carbon-emitting energy by no later than 2035.

SECTION 4.The City of Glendale will establish policies and practices to reach a goal of having at least 10% of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027, and develop additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW.

SECTION 5.Staff is directed to develop a plan to achieve the goals stated in Section 4, consistent with the following direction.
●Staff is to engage a consultant to develop this plan.
●The plan is to be submitted to City Council for approval and adoption on or before October 18, 2022.
●The plan will comply with the guidelines in Attachment A hereto.

staff. The subcommittee is composed of Councilmembers _____________________ and _____________________.
66 of 191

Attachment A
The following guidelines will govern development of the plan specified in Section 5 of this Resolution.
●The plan is to include policies and incentives sufficient to ensure customers will adopt solar and energy storage at a rate that achieves the adoption and capacity goals stated in Section 4 of this Resolution.
●The plan is to include an alternative approach with a mix of storage at customer sites and at GWP-controlled sites, rather than all storage being located at customer sites. ●The plan is to include, at a minimum, the following specific policies and incentives:
○Net metering policy as currently in place.
○Upfront incentives or rebates on solar installations, designed to achieve a payback period that will prompt consumers to adopt solar and storage in numbers sufficient to reach the goals.
○Revised feed-in tariff program.
○Upfront rebates combined with ongoing performance-based incentives for battery storage systems.
○Policies specifically aimed to lower-income customers, customers in heavily pollution-burdened areas of the City, multifamily properties, and rental properties. ●The plan should also include additional incentives and outreach programs for energy efficiency, demand reduction, and shifting energy use to off-peak time periods. 67 of 191

EXHIBIT A
Draft resolution
RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ESTABLISHING

GOALS FOR SOLAR AND ENERGY STORAGE INSTALLATIONS BY GLENDALE WATER

AND POWER CUSTOMERS AND CLEAN ENERGY TARGETS, AND ESTABLISHING A

CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TAKE ACTIONS IN

FURTHERANCE THEREOF
WHEREAS, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Sixth Assessment Report in 2022, concluding that human-induced climate change has already caused widespread and irreversible adverse impacts and will cause unavoidable increase in multiple climate hazards, and that near-term actions to limit global warming to close to 1.5°C would substantially reduce projected damage to human systems and ecosystems; and WHEREAS, the IPCC has stated that projected adverse impacts, risks, and damage escalate with every increment of global warming; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Department of Water and Power has proposed a project to replace WHEREAS, California Senate Bill 100 (“SB 100”) requires utilities in California, including the City of Glendale Water & Power Department (“GWP”) to achieve 50% renewable energy by 2025 and 60% renewable energy by 2030, and sets a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045; and
WHEREAS, GWP’s most recent, 2021 power content label reflects that GWP’s power content for 2020 is 64.4% clean energy which includes 39.9% renewable energy compared to the State of California’s power content of 54.8% clean which includes 33.1% renewable; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2019, the City Council adopted an Integrated Resource Plan for the City, with ambitious clean energy goals, establishing Glendale as a clean energy leader; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-196, certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report and Related Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program for the Biogas Renewable Generation Project, and further moved to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Special Recreation Review for the proposed Biogas Renewable Generation Project, which will generate 12 MW gross, and 11 MW net, of non-intermittent, locally generated electricity on a 7/24/365 hour basis that is enough to power over 11,000 homes using renewable energy; and
68 of 191

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-28, certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Grayson Repowering Project and Making Certain Findings and Determinations, including a finding that Project Alternative 7 is the environmentally superior alternative; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-29 approving Grayson Repowering Project Alternative 7 (Tesla/ Wartsila Project Alternative), adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Making Findings in support thereof, adopting a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, and directing staff to take actions in furtherance thereof; and
WHEREAS, Project Alternative 7 would repower Grayson Power Plant Units 1-8 with a combination of five Wartsila reciprocating internal combustion engine units producing approximately 93 MW and a 75 MW/300 MWh energy storage system (“Grayson Repowering Project”);”) and make other related improvements; and
WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, Glendale City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-__,-24, to work on identifying cleaner alternatives and modified the implementation of Alternative 7 for the repowering of the Grayson Power Plant and directed staff to undertake actions to proceed with identification of these alternatives while simultaneously preparing for the potential addition of up to five engines; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 22-__-24 directed staff to return to City Council no later than the end of Calendar Year 2022 for a decision regarding the purchase of Wartsila engines; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021March 1, 2022, City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit and Special Recreation Review for the proposed development and operationCouncilmembers asked staff to pursue 50 MW of a biogas power plant at the Scholl Canyon Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the Grayson and Scholl Canyon gas-power projects are costly investments in carbon-emittingadditional distributed energy, which would exacerbate climate change while polluting the air and negatively impacting the health of Glendale residents and neighbors; and WHEREAS, Glendale has significant untapped resources within the City in order to minimize or avoid the need for Wartsila engines, and on May 27, 2022, GWP issued a Request for Proposals for local clean distributed energy potentialresources, with only about 2.5% of Glendale Water and Power (“GWP”) customers having installed solar systemsproposals due on September 30, 2022; and
WHEREAS, two thousand, two hundred and seventy (2,270) of GWP’s 88,000 customers, or approximately 2.5% of GWP customers, currently have solar energy, with such solar installations generating 23.7 MW, or 6.8% of Glendale’s peak load of 346 MW; and 69 of 191

WHEREAS, Glendale lags far behind California overallcan improve in giving its residents access to rooftop solar, showing that Glendale's rooftop solar policies have not done enough to encourageand encouraging additional customers to install solar; and WHEREAS, if Glendale increases the number of GWP customers with solar systems to reach equity with the overall California solar penetration numbers, and if battery energy storage is installed at customer sites or elsewhere in the City to store the solar energy that is generated from those systems, the combined solar energy production could provide a substantial amount of local clean energy to meet Glendale’s peak demand and to serve as reserve capacity; and WHEREAS, if Glendale exceeds the state solar and storage penetration rate, it may be able to entirely avoid new gas power equipment at Grayson and Scholl Canyon; and WHEREAS, taking other steps, including additional programs to reduce electricity demand and shift energy use to off-peak time periods, can lower our City’s energy and capacity needs even more; and
WHEREAS, the City currently has an opportunitydesires to show that it can bemaintain its position as a regional leader in local clean, renewable energy; and WHEREAS, expected increases in the electrification of transportation and building sectors will impact, and substantially increase, the future demand for electricity in Glendale; and WHEREAS, the City Council would like to evaluate whether greater adoption of distributed solar and storage will provide co-benefits with higher electrification, including thatwhether increased demand from electrification can offset concerns about decreased utility sales from a greater number of customers generating solar energy; and WHEREAS, the City Council would like to evaluate whether higher local solar energy production combinedpaired with storage will lessen the amount of demand during hours of peak energy demand so that Glendale’s energy system is used more efficiently and does not need to be sized to meet dramatic and rare spikes in load during peak demand events; and WHEREAS, generating solar energy can greatly reducesreduce utility bills for consumers who utilize rooftop solar; and
WHEREAS, renewable energy sources have health, environmental, and many other non-economic values, and the use of local solar generation as an energy resource will benefit the citizens of Glendale in numerous ways for many years.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE AS FOLLOWS:
70 of 191

SECTION 1.The City Glendale intends to maximize the use of clean, and renewable energy to serve Glendale’s energy needs.

SECTION 2.It is the policy of the City of Glendale that future investments in equipment and infrastructure to produce electricity to serve the needs of the City and utility customers will to the maximum extent possible be in clean,eligible renewable, non- energy resources and zero carbon-emitting resources.

SECTION 3. The City of Glendale intends to achieve 100% clean, renewable, non- carbon-emitting energy by no later than 2035.

SECTION 4.The City of Glendale will establishintends to adopt policies and practices designed to reach a goal of having at least 10% of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027, and develop additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW.

SECTION 5.Staff is directed to develop a plan designed to achieve the goals stated in Section 4, consistent with the following direction.
●Staff is to engage a consultant to develop this plan.
●The plan is to be submitted to City Council for approval and adoptionconsideration on or before October 18,
2022.___________________________.
●The plan will comply with the guidelines in Attachment A hereto.

Sections 5, 6, and 7, and reviewing and providing input into the consultant scope of work. The subcommittee will also receive and review all drafts of consultant work product concurrently with staff. The subcommittee is composed of Councilmembers _____________________ and _____________________.

Adopted this __________ day of ______________________, 2022. _________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
72 of 191

________________________________
City Clerk
73 of 191

Attachment A
The following guidelines will govern development of the plan specified in Section 5 of this Resolution.
●The plan is to include policies and incentives designed to be sufficient to ensure customers will adopt solar and energy storage at a rate that achieves the adoption and capacity goals stated in Section 4 of this Resolution.
●The plan is to include an alternative approach with a mix of storage at customer sites and at GWP-controlled sites, rather than all storage being located at customer sites. ●The plan is to includeevaluate and provide recommendations regarding including, at a minimum, the following specific policies and incentives:
○Net metering policy as currently in place.
○Upfront incentives or rebates on solar installations, designed to achieve a payback period that will prompt consumers to adopt solar and storage in numbers sufficient to reach the goals.
○Revised feed-in tariff program.
○Upfront rebates combined with ongoing performance-based incentives for battery storage systems.
○Policies specifically aimed to lower-income customers, customers in heavily pollution-burdened areas of the City, multifamily properties, and rental properties. ●The plan should also include additional incentives and outreach programs for energy efficiency, demand reduction, and shifting energy use to off-peak time periods. ●The plan shall consider electric system reliability.
74 of 191

RESOLUTION NO. ____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ESTABLISHING

GOALS FOR SOLAR AND ENERGY STORAGE INSTALLATIONS BY GLENDALE WATER

AND POWER CUSTOMERS AND CLEAN ENERGY TARGETS, ESTABLISHING A CITY

COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TAKE ACTIONS IN

FURTHERANCE THEREOF
WHEREAS, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its Sixth Assessment Report in 2022, concluding that human-induced climate change has already caused widespread and irreversible adverse impacts and will cause unavoidable increase in multiple climate hazards, and that near-term actions to limit global warming to close to 1.5°C would substantially reduce projected damage to human systems and ecosystems; and WHEREAS, the IPCC has stated that projected adverse impacts, risks, and damage escalate with every increment of global warming; and
WHEREAS, California Senate Bill 100 (“SB 100”) requires utilities in California, including the City of Glendale Water & Power Department (“GWP”) to achieve 50% renewable energy by 2025 and 60% renewable energy by 2030, and sets a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045; and
WHEREAS, GWP’s most recent, 2021 power content label reflects that GWP’s power content for 2020 is 64.4% clean energy which includes 39.9% renewable energy compared to the State of California’s power content of 54.8% clean which includes 33.1% renewable; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2019, the City Council adopted an Integrated Resource Plan for the City, with ambitious clean energy goals, which if realized would establishing Glendale as a clean energy leader; and
WHEREAS, on November 2130, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-196, certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report and Related Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program for the Biogas Renewable Generation Project at the Scholl Canyon Landfill (Scholl), and further moved to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Special Recreation Review for the proposed Biogas Renewable Generation Project, which will generate 12 MW gross, and 11 MW net, of non-intermittent, locally generated electricity on a 7/24/365 hour basis that is enough to power over 11,000 homes using renewable energy; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-28, certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Grayson Repowering Project (Grayson) and Making Certain Findings and Determinations, including a finding that Project Alternative 7 is the environmentally superior alternative; and
75 of 191

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-29 approving Grayson Repowering Project Alternative 7 (Tesla/ Wartsila Project Alternative), adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Making Findings in support thereof, adopting a Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, and directing staff to take actions in furtherance thereof; and
WHEREAS, Project Alternative 7 would repower Grayson Power Plant Units 1-8 with a combination of five Wartsila reciprocating internal combustion engine units producing approximately 93 MW and a 75 MW/300 MWh energy storage system (“Grayson Repowering Project”) and make other related improvements; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Grayson and Scholl projects are carbon emitting and would thereby contribute to global climate change and local air pollution; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, Glendale City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-24, to work on identifying cleaner alternatives and modified the implementation of Alternative 7 for the repowering of the Grayson Power Plant and directed staff to undertake actions to proceed with identification of these alternatives while simultaneously preparing for the potential addition of up to five engines; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 22-24 directed staff to return to City Council no later than the end of Calendar Year 2022 for a decision regarding the purchase of Wartsila engines; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, City Councilmembers asked staff to pursue 50 MW of additional distributed energy resources within the City in order to minimize or avoid the need for Wartsila engines, and on May 27, 2022, GWP issued a Request for Proposals for local clean distributed energy resources, with proposals due on September 30, 2022; and WHEREAS, two thousand, two hundred and seventy (2,270) of GWP’s 88,000 customers, or approximately 2.5% of GWP customers, currently have solar energy, with such solar installations generating 23.7 MW, or 6.8% of Glendale’s peak load of 346 MWas compared to approximately 10% for Southern California Edison, 12% for Pacific Gas & Electric and 16% for San Diego Gas & Electric, demonstrating the significant potential to increase solar penetration rates in Glendale; and
WHEREAS, Glendale can improve in giving its residents access to rooftop solar, and encouraging additional customers to install solar; and
WHEREAS, if Glendale increases the number of GWP customers with solar systems to reach equity with overall California solar penetration rates, and if battery energy storage is installed at customer sites or elsewhere in the City to store the solar energy that is generated from those systems, the combined solar energy production could provide a substantial amount of local clean energy to meet Glendale’s peak loads and serve as reserve capacity; and 76 of 191

WHEREAS, taking other steps, including additional programs to reduce electricity demand and shift energy use to off-peak time periods, can lower our City’s energy and capacity needs even more; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain its position as a leader in local clean, renewable energy; and
WHEREAS, expected increases in the electrification of transportation and building sectors will impact, and substantially increase, the future demand for electricity in Glendale; and WHEREAS, the City Council would like to evaluate whether greater adoption of distributed solar and storage will provide co-benefits with higher electrification, including whether that increased demand from electrification can offset concerns about decreased utility sales from a greater number of customers generating solar energy; and WHEREAS, the City Council would like to evaluate whether higher local solar energy production paired with storage will lessen the amount of demand during hours of peak energy demand so that Glendale’s energy system is used more efficiently; and WHEREAS, generating solar energy can greatly reduce utility bills for consumers who utilize rooftop solar; and
WHEREAS, renewable energy sources have health, environmental, and many other non-economic values, and the use of local solar generation as an energy resource will benefit the citizens of Glendale in numerous ways for many years.

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

SECTION 1.The City Glendale intends to maximize the use of clean and renewable energy to serve Glendale’s energy needs.

SECTION 3. The City of Glendale intends to achieve 100% clean, renewable, non- carbon-emitting energy by no later than 2035.

SECTION 4.The City of Glendale intends to adopt policies and practices designed to reach a goal of having at least 10% of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems 77 of 191

by 2027, and develop additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW.

Adopted this __________ day of ______________________, 2022. _________________________________
Mayor
78 of 191

ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS COUNTY OF

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

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

________________________________
City Clerk
Attachment A
The following guidelines will govern development of the plan specified in Section 5 of this Resolution.
●The plan is to include policies and incentives designed to be sufficient to ensure customers will adopt solar and energy storage at a rate that achieves the adoption and capacity goals stated in Section 4 of this Resolution.
●The plan is to include an alternative approach with a mix of storage at customer sites and at GWP-controlled sites, rather than all storage being located at customer sites. ●The plan is to evaluate and provide recommendations regarding includinginclude, at a minimum, the following specific policies and incentives:
○ Maintenance of a robust Net Mmetering policy.
○ Upfront incentives or rebates on solar installations, designed to achieve a payback period that will prompt consumers to adopt solar and storage in numbers sufficient to reach the goals.
79 of 191

○ Revised Development of a competitive Ffeed-in Ttariff program. ○ Upfront rebates combined with ongoing performance-based incentives for battery storage systems.
○ Policies specifically aimed to lower-income customers, customers in heavily pollution-burdened areas of the City, multifamily properties, and rental properties. ●The plan should also include additional incentives and outreach programs for energy efficiency, demand reduction, and shifting energy use to off-peak time periods. ● The plan shall consider electric system reliability.
80 of 191

August 15, 2022
Mayor and City Council MembersCity of Glendale
Re: August 16 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8b,
Resolution Establishing Goalsfor Solar and Energy Storage Installations and Clean Energy Targets Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, and Najarian, We write to share our thoughts about the resolution on the agenda for this week’s CityCouncil meeting, as Agenda Item 8b.

We would like to thank Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmember Brotman for introducingand seconding this resolution for City Council consideration. This is an opportunity forGlendale to extend its leadership in clean energy and to move decisively in the directionneeded to build a more sustainable, resilient, and reliable energy system that can serve thecommunity’s needs as we transition out of the fossil fuel era.

We offer these recommendations and notes of concern about the resolution. ● The resolution should not include language that mirrors California Senate Bill 100(2018). The original language of Sections 2 and 3referred to “clean, renewable,non-carbon-emitting resources.” In the version presented for City Councilconsideration, Section 2 refers to “eligible renewable energy resources andzero-carbon resources.” SB 100 establishes a goal that “100 percent of total retailsales of electricity in California…come from eligible renewable energy resources andzero-carbon resources” by 2045. “Total retail sales” excludes customer-sitedbehind-the-meter solar and energy storage resources, and “eligible renewableenergy resources” include carbon-emitting biogas and biowaste energy. Glendaleshould embrace customer-sited solar and storage and reject polluting biogasprojects. The current language of Section 2 may constrain the City’s ability to do so.The original language, “clean, renewable, non-carbon-emitting resources” betterﬁts with the policy direction that Glendale should pursue. [email protected]
81 of 191

● Council should set aggressive deadlinesfor completing the work set out in Sections5 through 7 of the resolution. We are at a crossroads in Glendale’s energy planning,and need to move quickly to develop more local clean energy resources to thegreatest extent possible. An aggressive timeline will provide the necessary spur toaction.● Moving forward quickly with a consultant offers an additional advantage. Evenpreliminary consultant recommendations and analysis could be useful to CityCouncil in making a decision about the Grayson Repowering, as they could showthat Glendale can meet or reduce peak demand and energy needs to an extent thatmaterially changes the need for fossil-fuel resources at Grayson.● Glendale should engage a consultant that is a recognized expert in clean energypolicy and program development, to ensure the greatestlevel of success inachieving the goals in the resolution. Consultants that specialize in clean energy aremuch more likely to have the expertise and experience to move quickly and surely inthe direction we need.● The resolution sets goals for accelerating the number of GWP customers that adoptsolar and energy storage systems, and for developing additional measures tomanage energy demand, by 2027. The 5-year time frameof this goal will helpGlendale increase local energy resources in the period between now and 2027,when additional transmission on the Southwest line becomes available. Becausedistributed solar and storage can be installed quickly, this is a smart choice forGlendale that can ﬁll in quickly at a time when the old generating units at Graysonwill be retired.● The resolution calls fora subcommittee of City Councilmembersto participatealongside staff in selecting consultants, determining the scope of consultant work,and reviewing consultant work product. This approach ensures that representativemembers of City Council are fully engaged and informed throughout the process.This is an important streamlining measurebecauseit can avoid situations in whichstaff and consultants complete substantial work only to have City Council tell staff itwants to proceed in a different direction. The experience this past February with theSunrun virtual power plant is instructive in this regard.

We strongly urge City Council to pass the resolution, with modiﬁcations asrecommended above.

Once the resolution has been passed, we believe thatbroad-based communityengagement will be key to developing a successful plan. We will offer additional thoughtsat that time, but for now we recommend that City Council and staff begin planning toestablish a robust engagement plan, including but not limited to forming a citizen’sadvisory committee that centers voices of our multifamily and rental community, and 2 82 of 191

others who will speak to equity concerns. Like all Glendale efforts, bringing the communityinto the planning process in a meaningful way and making equity a centerpiece of theprocess will create a better outcome for our entire community.

Clean-energy investments are a smart choice for Glendale, as these will be durableinvestments that will offer great beneﬁts to our community, improve the well-being of ourresidents, and make Glendale a more attractive place to live, do business, and visit.

Sincerely,
Glendale Environmental Coalition Members
Alek Bartrosouf Cole Bazemore Paul Berolzheimer Monica CampagnaDavid Dowell David Eisenberg Jackie Gish Elise KalfayanJane Potelle Joanna Pringle Paul Rabinov Xochitl RuizKourtney Smith Kate Unger Jack Walworth Nat Yonce 3 83 of 191

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Grayson Repowering Project, GWP Power Supply Planning and Clean Energy Initiatives

7. Resolution of Appropriation

8. Motion to Note and File the Report

9. Motion directing staff to prepare the necessary actions and approvals for Council approval of the purchase and installation of five Wartsila engines for the Grayson Repowering Project

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action
Approved for August 16, 2022 Calendar
84 of 191

28c
3 3
3 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides an update on the Grayson Repowering Project and GWP power supply planning and clean energy initiatives and seeks City Council authorization to execute contracts, contract amendments, and procurement strategies and a resolution appropriating funds to implement the City Council’s March 1, 2022 direction regarding the Grayson Repowering Project. The report also includes an update on the City’s discussions with Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) regarding obtaining 100 megawatts of reserve power for Glendale, and the status of various other key GWP clean energy programs.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Infrastructure: The Grayson Repowering Project will replace the aging infrastructure at the Grayson Power Plant with state of the art generation and storage technology providing GWP with the ability to quickly starting and generating smaller increments of power when needed, the ability to balance and integrate renewable resources, and the ability to store energy. A reliable source of power is essential for the City’s residents and businesses.

Environmental Stewardship. The Grayson Repowering Project and other clean energy initiatives underway at GWP implement the City Council’s direction to pursue sustainable and clean energy solutions for the City.

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
(1) Note and file the report;
(2) Authorize the following agreements and actions associated with the Grayson Repowering Project:
a. Reject the sole bid received, dispense with further competitive bidding and authorize negotiation and execution of a contract with ARB, Inc. for the Grayson Unit 9 Separation Work for an amount not to exceed $4,247,507 plus a 10% ($424,750) reserve for contingencies;
b. Alternative Project Delivery Method for the “Balance of Site” Engineer, Procure, Construct contract for the Grayson Repowering Project; c. New Professional Services Agreement with Wartsila North America, Inc. for Phase 2 Limited Notice to Proceed Engineering Services in an amount not to exceed $9,882,000 plus a 10% ($988,200) reserve for contingencies;
d. Amendment to Agreement with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for environmental support services in an amount not to exceed $164,000; e.Amendment to Agreement with Black & Veatch for owner’s engineering services in an amount not to exceed $1,570,668, plus a 10% ($157,067) reserve for contingencies;
f. Amendment to Agreement with Clean Power Consulting Partners for 85 of 191

38c
3 3
3 6
project management and professional support services in an amount not to exceed $150,000; and
g. Adopt a resolution appropriating funds to cover the development of the Grayson Repowering Project.

An optional motion is included for Council to provide direction to staff to prepare the necessary actions for Council approval for the purchase and installation of five Wartsila engines for the Grayson Repower Project.

BACKGROUND
The Grayson Power Plant, first commissioned in the 1940s, is well beyond its design life and needs to be modernized to continue to meet the energy needs of the City of Glendale and its residents and businesses.

Over the past seven years, the City Council, along with City staff, has explored, analyzed, and developed options for, and alternatives to, the originally-proposed, 262 megawatt (MW) repowering of the Grayson Power Plant in order to minimize the City’s carbon footprint and provide clean power to the community. A chronology of key dates for the Grayson project is attached to this report as Exhibit 4.

The City’s clean power goals must be balanced against the City’s obligation to ensure that a reliable source of power is always available to meet the City of Glendale’s needs.

Glendale’s Power and Energy Needs and Supplies:

Glendale needs both power capacity (the maximum amount of power that a generator can produce, measured in Megawatts “MW”) and energy (the amount of electricity that is produced and used over time, measured in Megawatt-hours, “MWh”). Power is the capacity/ size of the generator; energy is the amount of electrons actually produced and flowing over the grid over time to turn on lights. Glendale’s need for capacity and energy are expected to increase over time with increased electrification of vehicles and buildings.

Capacity
To comply with California Energy Commission requirements, GWP must maintain sufficient power generation resources to meet the peak demand (peak load). Glendale’s historic peak load is 346 MW, and on that day, GWP delivered 5,654 MWh of energy.

In the future, GWP’s load is expected to grow with electrification of buildings and vehicles. For example, by 2027, the forecasted peak load, based upon the modeling in the 2019 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), is 398 MW. In addition to meeting peak load, GWP must maintain backup power (reserves) at the ready in case it loses its two largest individual resources -- the N-1 and N-1-1 contingencies.

Forecasted peak load (2027) 398 MW
N-1 Contingency (Pacific DC Intertie) 100 MW
N-1-1 Contingency (Southern Transmission System) 64 MW
86 of 191

48c
3 3
3 6
Total 562 MW
The below table provides the sources of generation available to cover the City’s capacity requirements, assuming all such resources are developed and operating at full capacity.

Resource Capacity
(MW)
Existing Transmission (100 MW Pacific DC, 112 MW
Southwest Transmission System)
212 MW
Post-2027 Transmission Addition on Southwest
Transmission System
72 MW
Reduction due to transmission losses on Southwest
Transmission System (losses are 5.6%) -16 MW
Eland I Solar and Storage Project 1 25 MW
Local new Distributed Energy Resources (2019 IRP
contemplated 50 MW of DER; of this, 3 MW have
materialized; the 25.25 MW Sunrun VPP proposal has been withdrawn. The 2022 DER RFP seeks additional DER
resources.)2
50 MW
Magnolia Power Plant 35 MW
Grayson Unit 9 48 MW
Scholl Canyon Biogas 11 MW
Tesla Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) contribution for peak load3 75 MW
Grayson Wartsila engines 93 MW
Total 605 MW
On the surface, assuming all resources are implemented, operating at maximum capacity, and available, there appears to be a margin of 43 MW. However, that is not an accurate conclusion. The above is a best case evaluation in that it assumes all resources are maximally available at the same time as the peak load. Not all resources are available around the clock; for example, solar is time-limited (only available during 1 The full 25 MW capacity was assumed for this analysis; actual performance may be less. 2 There are limits as to time of day and/or number of times these resources can be called upon. 3 This is a 4-hour energy limited resource.
87 of 191

58c
3 3
3 6
day), batteries, energy response, and some resources such as Eland are energy-limited [finite capacity] or can only be called under during events for a limited time).

Energy
In addition to having sufficient capacity (MW), GWP requires sufficient energy (MWh) to serve Glendale. GWP performed an hourly evaluation of the City’s energy needs, considering: (1) the varying energy demand for each hour, (2) how much power and energy each resource can provide; and (3) when each resource can provide energy.

This analysis looked the peak load day, when 346 MW of capacity was needed, and a total energy demand of 5,654 MWh4. The analysis also factors in the loss of GWP’s two largest resources, i.e., the N-1 and N-1-1 contingencies – i.e., transmission lines going down. The result is that under these conditions, up to 83 MW of dispatchable, reliable generation (such as Wartsila engines5) would be required. This does not mean those engines are normally in operation; rather they are available as reserve capacity in the event the N-1 or N-1 and N-1-1 contingencies were to occur impacting transmission resources. In this event, Grayson Unit 9 and the Wartsila engines would need to operate to provide adequate power for Glendale. The Table below shows the hourly average load and generation to illustrate this analysis. In this scenario, local thermal resources – Unit 9 and Wartsila engines - were dispatched only as needed to serve load and charge the battery.

Resource Capacity
MW
Energy
MWH
Existing Transmission (100 MW Pacific DC, 112 MW
Southwest Transmission System) 212 5,088
Post-2027 Transmission Addition on Southwest
Transmission System 72 1,728
Reduction due to transmission losses on Southwest
Transmission System (losses are 5.6%) -17 -400
Loss of N-1 (Pacific DC Intertie) -100 -2,400
Loss of N-1-1 (Southern Transmission System) -64 -1,536 Reduction in Transmission Losses 10 231
Eland I Solar and Storage Project 25 358
4 The MW and MWh values are actual values from August 31, 2017. 5 In the dispatch model, the Wartsila engines were dispatched last and the electric load varied from 10 to 83 MW over a ten-hour period.
88 of 191

68c
3 3
3 6
Resource Capacity
MW
Energy
MWH
Local new DER (2019 IRP contemplated 50 MW of DER;
as of 2022, 3 MW have materialized; the 25.25 MW Sunrun VPP proposal has been withdrawn. The 2022 DER RFP
seeks additional DER resources.)6
50 183
Magnolia Power Plant 35 840
Grayson Unit 9 48 871
Scholl Canyon Biogas 11 264
Tesla Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Charging
Energy 75 -353
Tesla BESS contribution for peak load7 75 300
Grayson Wartsila engines 93 479
Total 605 5,653
As noted above, on GWP’s historical peak load day, it delivered 5,654 MWh of power.

As shown in the table above, with the 2027 resources in place, GWP would have 5,653 MWh of energy, barely meeting the energy required on the peak load day.

Clean Energy Programs
In 2018, at the City Council’s direction, GWP issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking clean energy alternatives to the then-proposed 262 MW Grayson Repowering Project. Clean energy proposals received in response to the RFP were modeled as part of GWP’s energy integrated resource planning process. In July 2019, the City Council adopted an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that included a plan to add 50 MW of local clean energy resources to the GWP portfolio. Of these planned resources, the City currently has been able to acquire 3 MW of capacity.

In May 2022, GWP issued a new RFP seeking additional clean distributed energy resource, with proposals due on September 30, 2022. GWP has also retained a consultant to evaluate GWP’s clean energy programs and provide suggestions for new programs. However, even with additional Clean Energy Programs, as noted above, the Grayson Repowering Project is a critical component of GWP’s power supply plan.

Grayson Repowering Project
Grayson provides a vital source of local generation to provide power when demand exceeds GWP’s limited transmission imports. Grayson also provides the power needed to cope with contingencies and maintain reserves. It has become critical to take action 6 There are limits as to time of day and/or number of times these resources can be called upon. 7 This is a 4-hour energy limited resource.
89 of 191

78c
3 3
3 6
to modernize Grayson in order for GWP to continue to supply reliable electricity to the City of Glendale.

New air quality regulations establish deadlines for the repowering of the Grayson Power Plant. By December 31, 2023, GWP will need to shut down all units that do not meet South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) air quality standards that will then come into force.8 By December 31, 2022 – within the next five months – the City must deliver to the SCAQMD the City’s written plan to bring the power plant into compliance with the new air quality requirements.

The City Council, GWP Commission, and City staff have been engaged in a lengthy process of analysis, development work, and exploration of alternatives to replace Grayson, including:
•2015 Integrated Resource Plan adopted, recommending 262 MW Repower Project
•2016-2022 Environmental Impact Report preparation and project development •2018 Initial Hearing on Environmental Impact Report
Clean Energy RFP issued; proposals modeled, interim IRP adopted •2019 Integrated Resource Plan adopted, recommending new portfolio including more clean energy resources, 93 MW Wartsila Engines and Tesla Batteries
Negotiation of new Clean Energy contracts
Council authorizes Limited Notice to Proceed with Wartsila &Tesla •2020 City Council authorizes study of additional Grayson EIR alternatives •2021 100% Clean by 2030 Study completed and presented
•2022 Final Environmental Impact Report certified
2022 Clean Distributed Energy Resource RFP issued
EcoMotion retained to consult on RFP and Clean Energy options On February 15, 2022, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Grayson Repowering Project. On the same day, the City Council approved Project Alternative 7 which would demolish and replace existing Grayson Power Plant Units 1 through 8 with a 75 Megawatt (MW)/ 300 Megawatt-hour (MWh) Tesla Battery Energy Storage System (“BESS”) and five Wartsila Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines, for a combined capacity of 93 Megawatts (MW). Alternative 7 also adds a new Glendale Switching Station and related improvements to the Grayson Power Plant Site.

On March 1, 2022, the City Council modified Grayson Project Alternative 7, directing staff to hold off on procuring the five Wartsila Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines but to proceed with all other aspects of the project, including making the site ready for up to five Wartsila engines. Council also directed staff to return to City Council no later than the end of December 2022 for a decision regarding the procurement of the Wartsila engines.
8 Modifying Units 1-5 to comply with the new air emissions requirements is infeasible. Modifying Units 8A and 8BC would require a major project- replacement of the Heat Recovery System Generator (HRSG).

Unit 9 can be modified to meet the new air emissions requirements. 90 of 191

88c
3 3
3 6
At the March 1, 2022 City Council meeting, Councilmembers Brotman and Najarian also recommended that Glendale meet with the City of Los Angeles/ Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) to determine whether LADWP might be able to supply Glendale with 100 MW of reserve power, in order for Glendale to completely avoid or reduce the number of Wartsila engines needed.

On March 21, 2022, Councilmembers Brotman and Najarian, along with the City Manager and General Manager of GWP, met with senior representatives of LADWP and a Member of the LADWP Board of Commissioners to discuss the amount of reserves that GWP must carry (N-1, N-1-1) and the possibility of LADWP providing power and/or reserves to Glendale to help GWP avoid the need to repower the Grayson Power Plant. LADWP confirmed during the meeting and in a follow up written communication that 1) LADWP does not have 100 MW of capacity available to provide to Glendale, and that 2) GWP must maintain adequate reserves at all times (except during the first 60 minutes of a contingency event) to cover GWP’s N-1 and N-1-1 reserve obligations -- even if that means turning off power to Glendale customers.

GWP and LADWP have continued to meet on a bi-weekly basis. GWP and LADWP have discussed identifying and collaborating on longer-term initiatives such as LADWP Strategic Transmission Plan and opportunities for future joint transmission and/or generation projects which would be implemented over a much longer time horizon, i.e. 20+ years. However, LADWP’s position – that it is unable to sell reserves or energy to Glendale to meet Glendale’s reserve obligations -- has not changed.

GWP provides this update on its efforts to implement the City’s Council’s direction and seeks City Council approval of various contracts, amendments, and procurement methodologies described in this report, in order to implement the City Council’s direction regarding the Grayson Repowering Project.

ANALYSIS
I. Clean Energy Initiatives
GWP has been working on adding reliable, economic, and dispatchable local distributed energy resources, demand response, and energy efficiency programs to supplement its clean energy portfolio. In 2018, the City issued an RFP seeking clean energy solutions to meet the City’s power supply needs. The proposals were modeled in the GWP 2019 Integrated Resource Planning process. The Integrated Resource Plan recommended a portfolio that included 50 MW of local clean energy resources, along with the Alternative 7 Grayson Repowering Project. The status of key clean energy initiatives follows. (A) Franklin Energy Smart Thermostat and Demand Response Program In 2021, GWP launched the Franklin Energy Smart Thermostat and Demand Response Program. This four-year program will reduce energy demand during up to 15 peak load events per year, by incentivizing residential and commercial customers who agree to allow their thermostat setting to be adjusted during periods of high energy demand. The Franklin Energy program is contracted to provide up to 10 MW of demand response capacity by fourth and final year of the program. Current program metrics are as follows:
91 of 191

98c
3 3
3 6
Enrollment MW under control Percent of annual
guarantee met
Program Year 1
(2021)
926 residential
thermostats and
10 commercial/
industrial (C&I)
customers

1.2 MW 39% of year 1
guarantee
Program Year 2
(2022)9
766 residential
thermostats and 5
C&I customers

0.8 MW 19% of year 2
guarantee
Cumulative

2.08 MW 21% of total
guarantee
(B) Willdan Commercial Direct Install Energy Efficiency Program In November of 2021, GWP launched a Commercial Direct Install Energy Efficiency Program. This program provided under contract with Willdan, is intended to reduce the City’s energy demand by 8.3 MW through efficiency measures installed at commercial properties over a seven-year installation period. Current program performance is as follows:

Enrollment MW under
control
Megawatt-
hour (MWh)
savings
Percent of annual
guarantee met
Program
Year 1
(2022)4
204
projects
completed

0.2 MW 1,358 MWh 104% of year 1
guarantee
Overall 4% of total guarantee
(C) Sunrun, Inc. Virtual Power Plant
The 2019 Integrated Resource Plan also included a proposed 25.25 MW residential Virtual Power Plant program offered by Sunrun, Inc. which would have provided the City with 25.25 MW of battery capacity powered by residential photovoltaic systems. The staff presented the Sunrun Virtual Power Plant project to the City Council on February 8, 2022. Upon deliberation, the City Council directed staff to further negotiate with Sunrun to address Councilmembers’ questions and concerns regarding the program.

City staff and Sunrun finalized negotiations of further changes to the Sunrun program, including a proposed reduction in the program size to address City Council concerns regarding the program’s cost. However, on April 21, 2022, Sunrun notified GWP verbally that, due to supply chain issues and an anticipated tariff on Chinese imports, 9 As of end of June, 2022.
92 of 191

108c
3 3
3 6
Sunrun would need to increase contract prices across the board by 30%. GWP requested that Sunrun confirm the price increase in writing. On July 8, 2022, Sunrun informed Glendale Water & Power that it is no longer interested in pursuing the Virtual Power Plant project with Glendale. Sunrun cited the recent development of unforeseen circumstances, including historic industry-wide supply chain disruptions, the recent rapid onset of inflation, an abrupt increase in interest rates, the extended process despite both parties’ significant efforts, uncertainty regarding general timeline, and continued macro volatility as the reasons for withdrawing its offer. (D) Solar and Storage on City of Glendale Properties
GWP and its owner’s engineering consultant, Black & Veatch, have completed a solar feasibility study for City-owned properties including engineering reviews and technical specifications. A feeder hosting capacity analysis will be included in the final deliverables along with a solar feasibility report.

The final report is expected to be completed in late September 2022 and staff will report on the findings to the City Council in October 2022 and seek City Council direction regarding implementation of the development. The amount of $3.5 million is included in the FY 2022-2023 budget to fund solar and storage developments on City property. This amount is estimated to fund approximately 1 – 1.25 MW of solar installations (3-5 projects). As noted above, the solar/ storage market is very volatile at this time, and this estimate will need to be confirmed through a bidding process. (E) 2022 Request for Proposals for Clean Distributed Energy Resources On May 27, 2022, GWP issued a new RFP for Local Clean Distributed Energy Resources (the Clean DER RFP). The Clean DER RFP seeks up to 50 MW within the following categories:
•Commercial and Industrial Solar Paired with Dispatchable Energy Storage •Residential Solar Paired with Dispatchable Energy Storage •Dispatchable Energy Storage to Pair with Existing Residential, Commercial and Industrial PV Solar Customers
•Renewable Distributed Generation (DG)
•Demand Response
•Energy Efficiency
•Any other clean DER solution not encompassed in the above categories Proposers will need to demonstrate how their proposal is incremental to, and not duplicative of, existing GWP programs. Proposals are due September 30, 2022. The September 30, 2022 due date was chosen to give affected proposers time to adjust their proposals based upon the outcome of a pending federal Commerce Department investigation of Chinese tariff circumvention which may affect pricing of solar panels and infrastructure. At the time the RFP was issued, the Commerce Department determination was expected in late August 2022. On June 6, 2022, GWP learned that the Biden Administration has changed its position on Chinese tariffs, and has suspended tariffs on solar panels for any solar panel imported from the South Asian countries in the next two years while the Commerce Department’s investigation 93 of 191

118c
3 3
3 6
continues. The solar and storage market remains volatile.

The Clean DER RFP was widely advertised. GWP posted it on the City’s website, issued a press release, reported on the Clean DER RFP at a GWP Commission meeting, and posted it on social media and on the GWP and the Grayson Repowering websites. The City also directly emailed a link to the Clean Energy RFP to 200 firms directly as well as to the City’s list of recipients who have signed up to receive announcements of City RFPs. GWP also sent the RFP link to the California Municipal Utilities Association, Southern California Public Power Authority and American Public Power Association (APPA). APPA posted the link on their social media. GWP also contacted the California Energy Storage Alliance who distributed the RFP link to their membership. As of this report, 20 firms have registered as interested proposers. GWP has issued an addendum extending the deadline to register as an Interested Proposer to September 30, 2022 (same as the deadline for submitting a proposal) and withdrawing the condition that Proposers must have participated in the July 20, 2022 pre-Proposal meeting.
(F) Retention of Clean Energy Consultant
The City of Glendale has retained EcoMotion, Inc. to assist the City with the Clean DER RFP process and to provide recommendations on Clean Energy programs. EcoMotion is evaluating GWP’s existing portfolio of clean energy programs and providing information regarding Clean Energy solutions in other jurisdictions that the City might pursue, and other recommendations. EcoMotion’s complete analysis is expected to be completed by the end of the calendar year.

II.Grayson Repowering Project Update
On March 1, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution directing City staff to proceed with the following aspects of the Grayson Repowering Project (Modified Alternative 7):
(A) separation of Unit 9 from the Grayson Power Plant;
(B) demolition of Grayson Power Plant Units 1-8 and environmental remediation at the Grayson site;
(C) procurement of the Tesla Battery Energy Storage System; (D) necessary engineering, procurement and construction to integrate the Tesla Battery Energy Storage System into the Grayson Site; (E) necessary engineering, procurement and construction to prepare for the potential addition of up to five Wartsila engines at Grayson, should Council decide to proceed with any number of these engines;
(F) air permits and procurement of emissions reduction credits for the five Wartsila engines; and
(G) all required bonding to finance the above.

The City Council directed staff to return to the City Council no later than the end of Calendar Year 2022 for a decision regarding the purchase of Wartsila engines.

Staff requests City Council approval to execute the following contracts and procurement methods in furtherance of the City Council’s March 1, 2022 direction. 94 of 191

128c
3 3
3 6
(A) Unit 9 Separation Contract
The first step in the Grayson Repowering Project will be to make Units 1-8 safe for demolition and separate Grayson Unit 9, which will remain in place after the repowering project, from the remaining Grayson Units 1-8, which will be demolished. This will allow Unit 9 to operate “as needed” as a local power generation resource unaffected by the demolition and construction activities. The Request for Bids for the Unit 9 Separation work was issued on September 22, 2021 and advertised in accordance with City process. GWP also reached out to proposers who had been qualified to bid on the 262 MW repowering project. The bidding deadline was June 29, 2022, which had been extended because of uncertainty in 2021 about the project and whether the project or an alternative would be selected. Although three contractors attended the job walk, only one contractor, ARB, Inc., submitted a bid.

The sole bid submitted by ARB, Inc. is for $4,247,507. This amount is less than the Engineer’s estimate that was developed by the project team for the work. ARB’s bid is deemed technically non-responsive because of proposed modifications to the Specifications. Specifically, ARB proposed converted CONX boxes (intermodal containers) and separate sanitation facilities in lieu of supplying construction trailers, because it could not supply trailers and meet the schedule specified in the Specification.

ARB proposed schedule modifications due to the inability of vendors to supply all of the specified materials on the schedule specified in the Specification. While ARB’s included workarounds for several issues, for two key pieces of electrical equipment, ARB was unable to find suppliers with timely delivery, resulting in a lengthened schedule. GWP, along with its Owner’s Engineer and ARB, is looking at modifications to the design that might support shortening the schedule.

Article VI, Section 9 of the Glendale City Charter specifies that the City Council, “after rejecting bids, or if no bids are received, may re-advertise for bids, or may have the work done by city forces if it determines that city forces can economically do the work, or it may have the contract negotiated without further bidding.” Article VI Section 9 of the Charter further provides that: “[u]pon recommendation of the city manager, the council may dispense with competitive bidding for any contract when it determines that it is in the best interests of the city so to do and acts by resolution setting forth the reason for such action.”
In accordance with the Glendale Charter, staff recommends rejecting the sole bid received from ARB, Inc. dispensing with further competitive bidding, and authorizing the negotiation of a contract with ARB, Inc. for the Unit 9 separation work for an amount not to exceed $4,247,507 plus a reserve for contingencies in the amount of 10% ($424,750). This amount is less than the Engineer’s estimate for the work.

Re-bidding the work is unlikely to result in other bidders submitting a bid for the Unit 9 separation work, given supply chain challenges, the cost of preparing a bid, the lack of certainty in the City’s plan for Grayson. Additionally, re-bidding the project will result in increased delays. The sole bidder, ARB, was unable to meet the project schedule specified in the bid due to supply chain delays. The same supply chain delays would affect any other bidder. Additionally, ARB Is an experienced contractor and has a 95 of 191

138c
3 3
3 6
lengthy and successful record of working on the Grayson Power Plant equipment.

Executing a contract with ARB, rather than engaging in a lengthy re-bid process, which is not likely to yield additional bids, will allow the contractor to begin ordering materials and prevent further delays to the project schedule.
(B) Demolition and Site Improvement Contract
Following separation of Grayson Unit 9 from the remainder of the generating units and making Units 1-8 safe for demolition, the next step in the Grayson Repowering Project will be to demolish Grayson Units 1-8 and prepare the Grayson site for the new facilities. A Request for Proposals for the Demolition and Site Improvement Contract was issued on October 12, 2021 and the procurement process is underway. Proposals are due on October 28, 2022. As with the Unit 9 Specification, the proposal deadline for the demolition and site improvement project was extended to allow for a decision to be made regarding the Project. Without a project decision, proposers would have had to develop multiple proposals for different project alternatives. No action is requested of Council at this time with regard to the Demolition and Site Improvement Contract. In the future, staff will return to City Council for award of the contract. The start of the demolition work is planned for the fall of 2023, after completion of the Unit 9 separation work.
(C) Procurement of the Tesla, Inc. Battery Energy Storage System The City and Tesla are finalizing negotiations of the Engineer, Procure, Construct (EPC) contract for the supply, delivery, installation, and commissioning a 50 MW/ 200 MWh Battery Energy Storage System (BESS). Thereafter, the parties will negotiate and finalize the terms of the Long Term Maintenance Agreement (LTSA) for the BESS. The LTSA provides preventative and corrective maintenance services and allows GWP to purchase spare parts as needed.

The cost of the Tesla BESS has been increasing and is expected to continue to increase. On June 25, 2022, Tesla provided updated indicative pricing for the EPC contract (50 MW/ 200 MWh BESS) of approximately $115 million. This is a 45% increase over the indicative pricing of approximately $79 million that was provided in December 2021. To maintain the BESS, the City will also have to enter into a Long Term Maintenance Agreement for the BESS in a price to be determined.

The price increase arises out of significant supply chain and cost escalation issues occurring for battery and electrical projects at this time, including significant escalation in Lithium pricing over the past several years. The Tesla EPC Contract will include cost escalation provisions for the price of the BESS. This means that the battery price is indexed to market and the price will be established at a future date stipulated in the contract; thus, the BESS price will not be fixed at the time the contract is signed.

In addition, in late June, Tesla notified Glendale that Tesla is no longer offering energy capacity maintenance contracts. That is, the 200 MWh system capacity will not be maintained at 200 MWH for the 20-year contract term and that capacity will degrade over time. In the future, as the batteries degrade, the City will need to purchase, and find the space for, additional modules to maintain the original project capacity. (D) Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Work to Integrate the 96 of 191

148c
3 3
3 6
Facilities into the Site (“Balance of Site” Contract)
In addition to contracting with Tesla and Wartsila to engineer, procure and construct their respective power islands, the City must retain a contractor to engineer, procure, and construct the remainder of the improvements on the site. The “Balance of Site” contractor’s scope of work includes interconnecting the Tesla and Wartsila power islands to the GWP sub-transmission system; engineering and constructing new control room, new power plant operations and maintenance buildings, a new recycled water treatment facility, a new potable/ fire water system, a new storm water drain system and holding tank, a new plant control system; a new fuel piping system, new station service power distribution center, and improvements and paving on the site.

GWP recommends using the “Engineer, Procure Construct” (EPC) project delivery method rather than the traditional “Design-Bid-Build” method for the “Balance of Site” contract, due to the high level of technical complexity of the project and the time savings that can be achieved using the EPC method, and because the project requires expertise that the City does not have.

EPC procurement is an “alternative project delivery method” under the City’s Alternative Project Delivery Method Ordinance (Chapter 4.13 of the Glendale Municipal Code).

The Ordinance requires an alternative project delivery method to be authorized by the City Council before an RFP may be issued utilizing the alternative project delivery method. GWP recommends that that City Council authorize the use of the EPC procurement method for the Grayson repowering project and authorize GWP to issue an RFP to solicit proposals from qualified EPC Contractor for the project.

Under the traditional method of Design-Bid-Build, the project would require multiple procurement, contract negotiation, and approval processes which, along with additional administrative processes and project coordination, would extend the project’s delivery date. In contrast, the EPC project delivery method is streamlined. The EPC procurement method means the City would enter into one contract for the design, development of architectural plans, construction, supply of the “balance of site” (BOS) equipment (i.e not supplied by Tesla or Wartsila) and commissioning of the BOS systems. The EPC Contract would be awarded following a competitive RFP process.

With the EPC method, the City can achieve time and cost savings compared to the City’s traditional construction method. This is a critical consideration as the City will only have Grayson Unit 9 available when the site is being demolished and the power islands constructed. Minimizing this window of time, and allowing long-lead procurement to begin relatively soon after the start of engineering, will help reduce the procurement window. Additionally, using the EPC method will enable constant communication and coordination between the engineering and construction teams, thereby reducing design errors, construction mistakes and change orders, leading to lower project cost and risk.

Using the EPC method for this complex project will result in early coordination of the construction means, methods and materials. On June 22, 2022 the General Manager of GWP obtained the City Manager’s approval for the proposed alternative procurement method for the Balance of Site Contractor, as required by Glendale Municipal Code Section 4.13.070. (See Exhibit 2).
97 of 191

158c
3 3
3 6
(E) Phase 2 LNTP Contract for Wartsila Engines
Per the City Council’s direction not to move forward at this time with the purchase of the Wartsila engines, the Wartsila contract work will be segregated into two agreements: (1) A “Phase 2 Limited Notice to Proceed” (LNTP) contract for further engineering work to prepare for the five Wartsila engines; and (2) An “Engineer, Procure, Construct” contract for final engineering work, procurement, construction, and commissioning of the Wartsila Power Island.10 Negotiation of the latter contract, and all procurement activities for the Wartsila power island and the Full Notice to Proceed, are on hold pending the City Council’s decision regarding the installation and number of Wartsila engines.

It is important to note that the design package that Wartsila will prepare under the Phase 2 LNTP Agreement is premised on a five-engine power island. A change in the project from a 5-engine project to a project with fewer engines would require new design services not included in the contract11. The cost and schedule impact of any such additional design work, if fewer than five engines are selected, is unknown at this time.

The proposed Phase 2 LNTP Agreement with Wartsila specifies that if a Notice to Proceed for the engineering work is not issued and a down payment not made within 90 days of contract execution, the prices are subject to change. The City has the right to terminate the contract with Wartsila for convenience at any time subject to payment of cancellation charges to Wartsila. The cancellation payments escalate depending upon when the contract is terminated.

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize a contract with Wartsila for the Phase 2 LNTP professional services agreement so that the work of preparing the design package for the Wartsila power island can begin per the Council’s direction. A reserve for contingencies in the amount of $988,200 (10% of the contract price) is recommended to address any design changes that may arise. (F) Air Permits and Emissions Reduction Credits for Five Wartsila Engines The City has submitted an air permit application to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for the five Wartsila engines and the application has been reviewed by SCAQMD air permitting engineers. GWP awaits the SCAQMD’s decision regarding the emissions reduction credits needed for the project. 10 The City Council authorized the use of an Alternative Project Delivery Method was authorized for both the Tesla and the Wartsila Engineer, Procure, and Construct Contracts and the Long Term Service Agreements on July 23, 2019.
11 A reduction in the number of engines would require modifying the drawings to indicate what should still be built, and some features would need to be re-sized or re-located. 98 of 191

168c
3 3
3 6
(G) Financing
As discussed with the City Council in its March 1, 2022 meeting, a decision regarding the procurement of the Wartsila engines is needed in order to obtain bond financing pertaining to the Wartsila engines. Since the City Council is still evaluating whether to purchase the Wartsila engines, staff proposes to issue two separate bond financings for the Grayson Repowering Project, a first bond to fund the Tesla batteries, demolition, and site improvement work, and a second bond issuance to fund the Wartsila engines and remaining work after a decision is made regarding Wartsila engines. Rising interest rates are expected to impact the cost of the financing for the project. (H) Other Services
In order to continue planning and development of the Grayson Repowering Project, it is recommended that the City Council authorize Amendments to the following contracts:

(1) Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

Staff seeks authorization to amend an existing Professional Services Agreement with Stantec to provide funding for continued environmental support, including air quality permitting work, architectural historian support pertaining to the Grayson Boiler Building, post-CEQA certification support (including support for implementation of the mitigation monitoring and reporting requirement for the project), and litigation support as needed in connection with two lawsuits challenging the Grayson Final EIR. Stantec has served as the City’s environmental consultant for the Grayson Repowering Project, including preparation of the Draft and Final EIR. The work would be performed on a time and materials basis for an amount not to exceed $164,000 which includes a $30,000 contingency.
(2) Black & Veatch
Black & Veatch is the City’s Owner’s Engineer for the Limited Notice to Proceed (LNTP) Phase of the Grayson Repowering Project. An Amendment to the Black & Veatch contract is needed to provide funding for owner’s engineering services in support of ongoing LNTP tasks including the Demolition/ Site Improvement RFP, the RFP for the Balance of Site EPC contract, an interconnection study, and a closure plan. GWP also recommends that Black & Veatch be retained through the Unit 9 separation work as Black & Veatch performed the detailed design for that project.

Black & Veatch is best suited to perform this work because of the extensive work that has gone into the Grayson project during the permitting process and Black & Veatch’s involvement and historical knowledge of that effort. Black & Veatch has extensive experience working with Wartsila and Tesla on the project and historical knowledge regarding the development of the design. Additionally, Black & Veatch performed the geotechnical study upon which the Wartsila and Tesla design will be based. The site geotechnical issues proved to be more complex than were anticipated at the start of the project, and were further complicated by changes in applicable design codes. Further confirmatory geotechnical studies will be required at the end of the site improvement process. Retaining Black & Veatch for this role is the most prudent approach.

GWP has obtained a proposal from Black & Veatch for the owner’s engineering tasks needed to keep the project moving forward. The estimated cost of the above services is $1,570,668, broken down as follows:
99 of 191

178c
3 3
3 6
Change Order Amount
Interconnection Studies for the Wartsila generators and Tesla batteries $92,146
Additional Support for the Balance of Site Engineer Procure Construct Contractor Request for Proposals $165,664
Review Wartsila LNTP Phase 2 Submittals $81,626
Review Tesla Engineer Procure Construct Submittals $42,218 Update the demolition/site improvement and Balance of Site Engineer Procure Construct cost estimates in light of changed market conditions.
$18,840
Incorporate the Addendum developed for the Tesla batteries into the Fire Protection Design Basis as requested by Glendale Fire Department.
$9,826
Engineering oversight and geotechnical support for
Demolition/Site Improvement $1,075,148
Unit 9 Separation Support – design modifications to mitigate longer than desired schedule. $85,200
Total $1,570,668
A reserve of $157,067 (10% of the Amendment amount) is also recommended to cover unforeseen contingencies.
(3) Clean Power Consulting Partners
Mr. David Tateosian, P.E. of Clean Power Consulting Partners, serves as the project manager for the Grayson Repowering Project. Staff seeks authorization to increase the not to exceed amount of an existing Professional Services Agreement by $150,000 to cover project management and engineering activities for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. (4) Miscellaneous Project Costs
In addition to funding the foregoing contracts, the proposed resolution of appropriation includes funding for additional anticipated costs associated with the Project including legal services for ongoing contract negotiations ($100,000) and Southern California Gas Co. engineering research, analysis, and design services of a new single-meter station assembly for the entire plant to replace existing and obsolete multi-meter stations estimated at $400,000.

III. Conclusion
As directed by the City Council, staff is proceeding to implement all aspects of the Grayson Repowering Project except for procurement of Wartsila Engines. Staff requests that the City Council approve the contracts, amendments, and procurement actions recommended herein to further the development of the project and note and file this report regarding the status of the Grayson Repowering Project and energy procurement 100 of 191

188c
3 3
3 6
efforts. Also included for Council consideration is a motion directing staff to prepare the necessary actions and approvals for Council consideration to authorize the purchase and installation of the five Wartsila engines.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The City obtained comments and input from the public regarding the Grayson Repowering Project through the Environmental Impact Report process and through public and community meetings, including City Council and Commission meetings.

GWP continues to present updates regarding the Grayson Repowering Project and its Clean Energy initiatives to the Glendale Water & Power Commission. The Glendale Water & Power Commission has prepared and transmitted a letter to the City Councilmembers with recommendations regarding the Grayson Repowering Project, and a copy of that letter is attached to this Report as Exhibit 5.

FISCAL IMPACT
GWP anticipates that the Grayson Repowering Project will be funded through two bond issuances. On July 19, 2016 and July 23, 2019, the City Council adopted Bond Reimbursement Resolutions which allow the City to recoup expenditures made for the Grayson Repowering Project development from bond proceeds, if and when bonds are issued for the project.

Staff is requesting a Resolution of Appropriation to transfer funds from Net Position, Electric Fund Balance to the various accounts listed below for a total amount of $18,084,192.00.

The contracts and contract amendments, and miscellaneous project expenses described in this report would be funded as follows:

Contract with ARB, Inc. for the Grayson Unit 9 Separation:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding
Source
$4,672,257.00 GL: 27900-5810-GWP-
0000
GL: 52100-5830-GWP-
0020
PL: GWP00171AN
GWP Electric
Depreciation
Fund
Professional Services Agreement with Wartsila North America, Inc. for Phase 2 LNTP:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding
Source
$10,870,200.00 GL: 27900-5810-
GWP-0000
GL: 43110-5830-GWP-
0020
GWP Electric
Depreciation
Fund
101 of 191

198c
3 3
3 6
PL: GWP00170BN
Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for environmental consulting services:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account String) To (Account String) Funding Source $164,000.00 GL: 27900-5810-GWP-
0000
GL: 43110-5830-GWP-
0020
PL: P13748
GWP Electric
Depreciation
Fund
Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Black & Veatch for Owner’s Engineering Services:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding
Source
$1,727,735.00 GL: 27900-5810-GWP-
0000
GL: 43110-5830-GWP-
0020
PL: GWP00170CN
GWP Electric
Depreciation
Fund
Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Clean Power Consulting Partners for Project Management and Technical Support Services:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account String) To (Account String) Funding Source $150,000.00 GL: 27900-5810-GWP-
0000
GL: 43110-5830-GWP-
0020
PL: GWP00170CN
GWP Electric
Depreciation
Fund
Miscellaneous Project Costs for legal and Southern California Gas Co. services:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account String) To (Account String) Funding Source $500,000.00 GL: 27900-5810-GWP-
0000
GL: 43110-5830-GWP-
0020
PL: P13748
GWP Electric
Depreciation
Fund
There is no fiscal impact to the Resolution Approving an Alternative Procurement Method for the “Balance of Site” Engineer, Procure, Construct Contract.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Grayson Repowering Project was 102 of 191

208c
3 3
3 6
certified on February 15, 2022.

This report providing updates on the Grayson Repower, power supply planning, and on various clean energy programs is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it will not have a direct physical change or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Cal. Public Resources Code Section 21065.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the boards of directors, the chairpersons, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the companies proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 1, in accordance with City Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt a Motion to Note and File the Report and the Motions and Resolutions as recommended herein.

Alternative 2: Adopt a Motion to Note and File the Report but do not Adopt the Motions and Resolutions described herein.

Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative or adopt a Motion providing direction to staff with regard to the subject matter of this report. 103 of 191

218c
3 3
3 6

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Mark Young, General Manager, Glendale Water & Power
Prepared by:

Christine Godinez, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Campaign Finance Disclosure for ARB, Inc., Wartsila North America, Inc., Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Black & Veatch, and Clean Power Partners
Exhibit 2: June 22, 2022 Memorandum from Glendale Water & Power to City Manager re Alternative Project Delivery Method for Balance of Site Contractor
Exhibit 3: Contract Synopsis for Contracts and Amendments proposed in this Report Exhibit 4: Project Chronology and Schedule
Exhibit 5: GWP Commission letter to Glendale City Council dated June 6, 2022. 104 of 191

1 RESOLUTION NO.______________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA, REJECTING THE SOLE BID RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO GLENDALE WATER & POWER BID SPECIFICATION NO. 3904,
UNIT 9 SEPARATION, DISPENSING WITH FURTHER COMPETITIVE

BIDDING, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE
AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH ARB, INC.

WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Council’s direction, on September 22, 2021, Glendale Water & Power (“GWP”) issued a Request for Bids for Specification No. 3904 seeking bids to separate Grayson Power Plant Unit No. 9 (“Unit 9”) from the remaining power plant units as part of the Grayson Repowering Project (the “Unit 9 Separation project”); and
WHEREAS, in response to the Request for Bids, on June 22, 2022, the City received one bid for the Unit 9 Separation project, in the amount of $4,247,507, from ARB, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the bid of ARB, Inc. was technically non-responsive in that ARB, Inc. proposed substitutions to the construction trailers due to the inability to obtain the specified trailers and proposed schedule modifications due to the inability to obtain certain items of equipment within the schedule specified in the Specification; and WHEREAS, the bid of ARB, Inc. is less than the Engineer’s Estimate for the work developed by the City’s project team; and
WHEREAS, ARB, Inc. has satisfactorily performed work on the Grayson Power Plant Units for many years; and
WHEREAS, the Unit 9 separation work is a critical path item for the Grayson Repowering Project, and given long lead times to procure the equipment for the project, 105 of 191

2 it is important to move forward on the work without delay; and WHEREAS, re-bidding of the work would delay the start of the work and is unlikely to generate additional or responsive bids, and other bidders would face the same supply chain constraints and long lead times for procurement as ARB, Inc.; and WHEREAS, Glendale Charter Art. VI, Sec. 9 states: that “The council, after rejecting bids, or if no bids are received, may readvertise for bids, or may have the work done by city forces if it determines that city forces can economically do the work, or it may have the contract negotiated without further bidding; and WHEREAS, Glendale Charter Art. VI, Sec. 9 further provides an exemption to competitive bidding where the Council determines it is the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, it is in the City’s best interest, upon recommendation of the City Manager and General Manager of GWP, to reject the sole bid received from ARB, Inc., dispense with further competitive bidding, and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to negotiate and execute a contract with ARB, Inc., the sole bidder responding to the City’s Bid Specification No. 3904 for the Unit 9 Separation Project.

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

1. That the foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct and a basis for rejecting the sole bid received from ARB, Inc., in response to Request for Bids for the Unit 9 Separation project (Specification No. 3904), dispensing with further competitive bidding, and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to negotiate and execute a contract with ARB, Inc. for the Unit 9 Separation project for an amount not to exceed $4,247,507 plus a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $424,750. 106 of 191

3 2. The Council hereby rejects the sole bid of ARB, Inc. in response to Request for Bids for the Unit 9 Separation project (Specification No. 3904), dispenses with further competitive bidding and authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to negotiate, enter into and execute a contract with ARB, Inc., for the Unit 9 Separation Project in the amount of $4,247,507 plus a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $424,750. The form of said contract shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

Adopted this __________ day of ______________________, 2022. _________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
107 of 191

4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

________________________________
City Clerk
108 of 191

1 RESOLUTION NO.

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

AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER OF GLENDALE WATER & POWER

DEPARTMENT TO UTILIZE AN ALTERNATIVE PROJECT DELIVERY METHOD PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 4.13 OF THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE ENGINEERING,

PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE BALANCE OF SITE WORK FOR THE

GRAYSON REPOWERING PROJECT
WHEREAS, in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 22-34 dated March 1, 2022, Glendale Water & Power (GWP) is proceeding to implement the “necessary engineering, procurement, and construction to integrated the Tesla Battery Energy Storage System into the Grayson site” and “necessary engineering, procurement, and construction to prepare for the potential addition of up to five Wartsila engines at Grayson, should Council decide to proceed with any number of these engines;” and
WHEREAS, in order to implement Resolution No. 22-34, the City must retain a contractor to engineer, procure, and construct the “balance of site” improvements on the Grayson Power Plant Site, including but not limited to interconnecting the Tesla and proposed Wartsila power islands to the GWP sub-transmission system; engineering and constructing a new control room, a new power plant operations and maintenance buildings, a new recycled water treatment facility, a new plant control system, a new fuel piping system, and new station service power distribution center, and making improvements and paving on the site (such work, the “Balance of Site” work); and
WHEREAS, due to the high level of technical complexity of the project and the time and cost savings that can be achieved using the engineer, procure, construct (“EPC”) method, and because the Balance of Site work requires expertise that the City does not have, the General Manager of GWP has proposed utilizing an “alternative project delivery method” for the Balance of Site work – to wit, an EPC contract awarded following a competitive Request for Proposals process, as authorized under Chapter 4.13 of the Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”); and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2022, the General Manager of GWP submitted a memorandum to the City Manager, as required by GMC Section 4.13.070(A)(1), describing the Balance of Site work’s attributes and stating the reasons and justifications for proposing the EPC method of project delivery reasons and justifications per GMC Section 4.13.060(A) and (B), including that the project has a high level of technical complexity; requires expertise that the city staff does not have; and that the alternative project delivery method will achieve or improve the project’s schedule by minimizing the project delivery time, and reducing the project’s cost and risk; and WHEREAS, on June 22, 2022, the City Manager, as required by GMC Section

4.13.070(A)(2), approved the use of the proposed alternative project delivery method for the Balance of Site work for the Grayson Power Plant; and
WHEREAS, given the complexity of the Balance of Site work and the professional services required for the EPC contract, is in the best interest of the City to issue a competitive Request for Proposals for the Balance of Site project so that the proposals can be evaluated can be based on qualitative criteria in addition to price; and
WHEREAS, having received the City Manager’s approval and having satisfied one or more reasons under GMC Section 4.13.060(A), and one or more justifications under GMC Section 4.13.060(B), the use of an EPC contracting method for the Balance of Site work, with the EPC contract to be procured based upon a competitive Request for Proposals process, 109 of 191

2 meets the procedural and substantive requirements for using an alternative project delivery method.

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 authorizing the use of the alternative project delivery method through an Engineer, Procure, Construct (EPC) contract awarded following a competitive Request for Proposals process for the design and construction of the Balance of Site work at the Grayson Power Plant as described herein and in the August 16, 2022 Report.

2. The General Manager of GWP is authorized to utilize the EPC contract method for the Balance of Site work at the Grayson Power Plant and issue a Request for Proposals for an EPC contractor for said Balance of Site work.

3. The General Manager of GWP is further authorized and directed to return to the Council for the Council’s consideration of the award of a contract for the Balance of Site work, following completion of the Request for Proposals process.

Adopted this _____________ day of __________________________, 2022. ___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, do 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
110 of 191

3 111 of 191

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Wartsila North America, Inc. to provide Phase 2 Limited Notice to Proceed Engineering Services for the Grayson Repowering Project for an amount not to exceed $9,882,000 plus a 10% ($988,200) reserve for contingencies. The form of such Agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
112 of 191

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute an amendment to Professional Services Agreement No. 800053 with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. to increase the not-to-exceed contract amount by $164,000 to provide environmental support services as needed for the Grayson Repowering Project.

The form of such amendment shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
113 of 191

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute an amendment to Professional Services Agreement No. 8000847 with Black & Veatch to increase the contract by an amount not to exceed $1,570,668 plus a 10% ($157,067) reserve for contingencies for additional owner’s engineering services for the Grayson Repowering Project. The form of such amendment shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
114 of 191

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute an amendment to Professional Services Agreement No.8000941 with Clean Power Consulting Partners to increase the contract by an amount not to exceed $150,000 for project management and professional support services for the Grayson Repowering Project. The form of such amendment shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
115 of 191

116 of 191

117 of 191

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the August 16, 2022 staff report to City Council regarding the Grayson Repowering Project, GWP Power Supply Planning and Clean Energy Initiatives is hereby noted and filed.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
118 of 191

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the City Council directs staff to prepare the necessary actions and approvals for Council approval of the purchase and installation of five (5) Wartsila engines for the Grayson Repowering Project.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
119 of 191

120 of 191

121 of 191

122 of 191

123 of 191

124 of 191

125 of 191

126 of 191

127 of 191

128 of 191

129 of 191

130 of 191

131 of 191

132 of 191

133 of 191

134 of 191

135 of 191

136 of 191

137 of 191

138 of 191

8b
Exhibit 3
Contract Synopsis

ARB, Inc.

Project Description: Contract with ARB, Inc. for Grayson Unit 9 Separation
Plans/Specs Adopted:

Specification No. 3904
Advertisement Method: City’s website, Glendale Independent Newspaper, and eBidBoard.com

Specs Issued: September 22, 2021

Bids Opened:

June 29, 2022
Company Name
and Bid Amount:

ARB, Inc. - $4,247,507
Selection Criteria:

Lowest responsive responsible bid
Recommended
Contractor(s):

ARB, Inc. (sole bidder)
New / Existing Contractor: New

Procurement Method (Bid /
SS):

Bid
Contract Term:

120 calendar days
Construction Phase Begins:

Q1 2023
Construction Phase Ends:

Q3 2023
Change Orders (When Applicable)

Company Name:

Original Approved Contract
Amount:

Approved Contingency:

Change Order History:

This Change Order
(Increase):

New Contract Total (If
Approved):

139 of 191

2 8b
Wartsila North America, Inc.

Project Description: Limited Notice to Proceed, Phase 2 – engineering and design services for Grayson Repowering Project- Wartsila Power Island

RFP Approved:

N/A
Advertisement
Method:

N/A - Wartsila submitted a proposal in response to the 2018 Clean Energy RFP and was selected through that process.

RFP Issued: N/A
RFP Due Date: N/A

Company Name(s)
and Proposal
Amount(s):

Wartsila North America, Inc. - $9,882,000
Selection Criteria
(If SS, list applicable
Provision):

Wartsila is the sole vendor who can provide the requisite engineering services for the development of the Wartsila Power Island.

Consultant(s): Same as above.

New / Existing
Consultant(s):

The City has completed a prior, Limited Notice to Proceed engineering contract with Wartsila. This would be a new contract with Wartsila.

Procurement Method
(RFP / SS):

Sole source

Contract Term:

15 months

Project Begins:

Q4 2022

Project Ends:

Q4 2023

Change Orders (When Applicable)
Company name:

Original Approved
Contract Amount:

Approved
Contingency:

Change Order
History:

This Change Order
(Increase):

New Contract Total (If
Approved):

140 of 191

3 8b
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

Project Description: Environmental consulting services for Grayson Repowering Project

RFP Approved:

N/A – originally selected through an RFP in 2015.

Advertisement
Method:

N/A
RFP Issued: N/A
RFP Due Date: N/A

Company Name(s)
and Proposal
Amount(s):

N/A
Selection Criteria
(If SS, list applicable
Provision):

N/A
Consultant(s): Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

New / Existing
Consultant(s):

Existing
Procurement Method
(RFP / SS):

RFP for original engagement.

Contract Term:

Project Begins:

Project Ends:

Change Orders (When Applicable)

Company name: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

Original Approved
Contract Amount:1
$240,000
Approved
Contingency:
$24,000 (10%)
Change Order
History:
2020: $570,000 amendment was approved
(2020 Total: $834,000)
This Change Order
(Increase):
$164,000 (20%)
New Contract Total (If
Approved):
$1,132,000

1 Services for Grayson Project only.
141 of 191

4 8b
Black & Veatch

Project Description: Owner’s Engineering Services for Grayson Repowering Project – Limited Notice to Proceed Phase

RFP Approved:

N/A – RFP for original award was approved by Council in 2019.

Advertisement
Method:

City website
RFP Issued: September 23, 2019

RFP Due Date: October 21, 2019

Company Name(s)
and Proposal
Amount(s):

Black & Veatch
Selection Criteria
(If SS, list applicable
Provision):

N/A
Consultant(s): Black & Veatch

New / Existing
Consultant(s):

Existing
Procurement Method
(RFP / SS):

Originally selected through RFP

Contract Term:

Project Begins:

Project Ends:

Change Orders (When Applicable)

Company name: Black & Veatch
Original Approved
Contract Amount:
$702,400
Approved
Contingency:
$150,000
Change Order
History:
2020: $350,000 amendment was approved
(2020 Total: $1,052,400)
2021: $150,000 amendment was approved
(2021 Total: $1,202,400)
This Change Order
(Increase):
$1,570,668 (131%)
New Contract Total (If
Approved):
$2,773,068
142 of 191

5 8b

Clean Power Consulting Partners

Project Description: Project management and consulting services for Grayson Repowering Project
RFP Approved:

N/A
Advertisement
Method:

N/A
RFP Issued: N/A
RFP Due Date: N/A
Company Name(s)
and Proposal
Amount(s):

Clean Power Consulting Partners

Selection Criteria
(If SS, list applicable
Provision):

N/A – originally retained as a subconsultant for the Grayson Repowering Project
Consultant(s): Clean Power Consulting Partners
New / Existing
Consultant(s):

Existing
Procurement Method
(RFP / SS):

Contract Term:

Two years

Project Begins:

July 1, 2021

Project Ends:

June 30, 2023

Change Orders (When Applicable)

Company name: Clean Power Consulting Partners
Original Approved
Contract Amount:
$131,000
Approved
Contingency:
$19,000
Change Order
History:
2021: $19,000 amendment was approved
(2021 Total: $150,000)
2021: $150,000 amendment was approved
(2021 Total: $300,000)
This Change Order
(Increase):
$150,000 (50%) to fund services in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 New Contract Total (If
Approved):
$450,000

143 of 191

Exhibit 4
Timeline/Milestones
x
RFP for an Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)
consultant and an Owner's Engineer (OE) February 2014
Award Contact for an IRP consultant August 2014
2015 IRP approved by City Council June 2015
City Council selects preferred portfolio
including Grayson Power Plant option; City
Council directs GWP to proceed with design,
engineering, environmental review, and
evaluation of financing options for
250 MW Repowering Option
June 2015
Design, engineering, permitting and
environmental assessments
July 2015 - February 2022
RFP process and selection of Bond Counsel
and Financial Services Advisor
February 2016
RFP for Power Island Equipment Contractor
(PIE)
January 2016
Award a Limited Notice-to-Proceed (LNTP)
Contract for PIE November 2016
RFQ issued for Engineering, Procurement,
and Construction (EPC) contractors February 2017
Approval of Project Labor Agreements (PLA) February 2017 RFP issued for an EPC contractor August 2017
144 of 191

Draft Environmental Impact Report
public comment period
September 18, 2017 -
November 20, 2017
Final EIR Hearing; Alternatives presented for
City Council consideration: Council
recommended to look at additional
Alternatives (no action taken on EIR)
April 10, 2018
Clean Energy RFP Issued May 4, 2018
SCAQMD Amends Rule 1135 November 2, 2018
Evaluation, interviews, modeling; short-listing
and negotiation of Clean Energy Proposals Aug. 2018 - June 2019 Integrated Resource Plan
Community Meetings April 10 - 18, 2019
Integrated Resource Plan Survey
Available Online March 3 - April 22 2019
Alternative Grayson Repowering Proposal &
IRP Presented to GWP Commission July 1, 2019
2019 IRP Approved by City Council July 23, 2019
Glendale City Council Approves Limited
Notice to Proceed for Alternative Grayson
Repowering Plan. Clean Energy Projects
Shortlisted
July 23, 2019

25.25 MW Virtual Power Plant green-lighted
for contract negotiation October 13, 2020
City Council authorizes additional funding for
Study of EIR Alternative 7 and new December 15, 2020
145 of 191

EIR Alternative 8
100% Clean Energy by 2030 Study presented
to City Council March 2021
Partially-Recirculated DEIR (PR-DEIR) issued
for public comment period August 9, 2021
Begin procurement process for Demolition
Contractor and Unit 9 separation contracts September 14, 2021 Close of PR-DEIR public comment period November 15, 2021 Final EIR update presented to
Historic Preservation Commission January 20, 2022
Final EIR presented to GWP Commission January 31, 2022
Final EIR presented to
Sustainability Commission February 3, 2022
Virtual Power Plant Project presented to City
Council; Council directs further negotiations February 8, 2022 Final Grayson EIR Certified - City Council
approves Alternative 7, adopts Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and approves
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
February 15, 2022
City Council adopts Modified Project
Alternative 7 and directs staff to proceed with
the Project
March 1, 2022
RFP issued for Local Clean Distributed
Energy Resources May 27, 2022
Contractor withdraws from July 8, 2022
146 of 191

Proposed Virtual Power Plant Project
Historic Preservation Commission approves
Grayson Demolition Clearance Application July 28, 2022
City Council consideration of:
-Award of Unit 9 Separation contract,
-Amendments to PM/OE contracts,
- Authorization to Utilize Alternative Project
Delivery Method for the Balance of Site EPC
- Award of Phase 2 Limited Notice to Proceed
Agreement with Wartsila
August 16, 2022
Deadline for proposals in response to RFP for
Local Clean Distributed Energy Resources September 30, 2022 Commence Debt Issuance - Tesla Bonds Third Quarter 2022 City Council decision on Wartsila procurement No Later than December 2022

Deadline to submit written plan to SCAQMD:

City’s plan to bring Grayson Power Plant into
compliance with air quality Rule 1135
December 31, 2022
Start of Unit 9 Separation First Quarter 2023
Award of Tesla Full Notice to Proceed
Contract and Demolition and Site
Improvement Contract
First Quarter of 2023
Commence Debt Issuance – Wartsila Bonds
(if needed) Second Quarter 2023
Award of Balance of Site EPC Contract Second Quarter 2023 147 of 191

Award of Full Notice to Proceed Contract -
Wartsila (if applicable) Third Quarter 2023
Completion of Unit 9 Separation and Start of
Demolition & Site Improvement Third Quarter 2023
Deadline for Grayson Power Plant to meet
requirements of Rule 1135
(non-compliant Units must be shut down)
December 31, 2023
Completion of Demolition & Site Improvement
and Start of Construction Third Quarter 2024
Commercial Operation - Tesla Third Quarter 2025
Commercial Operation - Wartsila
(if applicable) Third Quarter 2026

148 of 191

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
Glendale Water & Power
Commission
141 N. Glendale Ave. Level 4
Glendale, CA 91206-4975
Tel. (818) 548-2107

June 06, 2022

Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206

Re: Grayson Repowering Project and Glendale Energy Needs

Dear Honorable Mayor Kassakhian and Members of Council:

The Glendale Water & Power Commission has been closely following the proposed Grayson Repowering Project and has received frequent reporting from Glendale Water & Power (GWP) staff regarding GWP’s energy resource planning and other initiatives to maintain a supply of clean, affordable, and reliable energy for the City of Glendale.

We respectfully submit this letter for your consideration to express our concerns regarding the City’s energy resource planning and the delay in the decision to proceed in full with Grayson Repowering Project Alternative 7, including the procurement of the five Wartsila reciprocating internal combustion engines.

On January 31, 2022, the GWP Commission considered the Grayson Environmental Impact Report and recommended unanimously that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report and proceed with Grayson Repowering Project Alternative 7. The GWP Commission further moved to recommend to the City Council as follows: “(1) That the goal be to use the Grayson Power Plant for peaking and emergencies once Grayson is converted to 100% Clean Energy; (2) That incentives be provided for the installation of solar battery storage for residents and businesses that already have solar or are placing solar on homes and/or businesses; (3) That the City require new buildings and renovations of buildings of a certain size (size to be decided by staff) to install solar and batteries, where feasible, and other energy efficient devices; (4) That there be a deadline for execution of the virtual power plant project contract, and if agreement on a contract cannot be reached, that the City re-release the Request for Proposals so that other vendors can bid on the project, or that GWP hire additional staff so that solar and storage can be placed on rooftops in Glendale; and (5) That GWP begin the apprenticeship program and hire disadvantaged community so that they can 149 of 191

Grayson Repowering Project and Glendale Energy Needs
June 06, 2022

Page 2 of 3 ends

learn a trade, reduce disadvantaged community size in the City, and increase tax revenue; and (6) That GWP expedite solar and battery storage on city-owned sites, and then work with other governmental entities within the City to install solar and battery storage on those lands where feasible.”

On February 15, 2022, the City Council certified the Grayson EIR and selected Alternative

7. On March 1, 2022, the City Council modified Alternative 7 and directed City staff to proceed with all aspects of the project other than the procurement of the Wartsila engines, but to delay a decision regarding whether to purchase the Wartsila engines, and the number of Wartsila engines, if any, until the end of calendar year 2022.

The GWP Commission is concerned that a delay in proceeding with the Grayson Repowering Project will put the City in a precarious position in terms of the City’s ability to maintain a reliable supply of power and meet reserve requirements.

Purchase of Transmission from LADWP

The City Council has expressed to GWP the need to work with LADWP to purchase power for the summer peak periods, including the need for discussions at a political level. The GWP Commission is aware that LADWP will not shed its own energy load to help Glendale.

The GWP Commission recommends caution in relying on LADWP and GWP cannot guarantee purchase of renewable energy from LADWP.

Sunrun Virtual Power Plant Project

On February 8, 2022, the City Council considered the proposed Sunrun Virtual Power Plant project. The Council expressed concerns about the project as negotiated, including its cost and size, and directed GWP to go back and negotiate further with Sunrun to address the City Council’s concerns. On April 4, 2022, staff reported to the GWP Commission that the City is completing negotiations with Sunrun for a much smaller proposed project, 13-15 MW in size. The GWP Commission is concerned that a reduction in the size of the Sunrun project will further exacerbate the City’s need for additional capacity. The GWP Commission recommends reconsidering the delay of implementing the repower to December given the loss of 50% of the negotiated agreement with Sunrun.

Conclusions

GWP Commission would like to convey our desire to move forward to 100% renewable as soon as possible; however, some of the technologies may not come through. In light 150 of 191

Grayson Repowering Project and Glendale Energy Needs
June 06, 2022

Page 3 of 3 ends

of the risks to vulnerable populations, vital services, and health and habitability of even peak outages and short durations, accordingly, we urge Council to move forward to 100% renewable after having secured reliable energy to Glendale through the implementation of the Grayson Repower as soon as possible, without delay.

We thank you for the opportunity to serve Glendale as members of the GWP Commission.

Very truly yours,

GWP Commission President Joel Peterson
On behalf of the Glendale Water & Power Commission

Cc: Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Mark Young, General Manager, GWP

151 of 191

Grayson Repowering Project
GWP Power Supply Planning
and Clean Energy Initiatives
August 16, 2022
Mark Young, General Manager
Glendale Water & Power
152 of 191

Today’s Decision Points
• Authorize Negotiation and Award of Unit 9 Separation Contract • Approve Alternative Project Delivery Method - Balance of Site work • Approve Wartsila Phase 2 Limited Notice to Proceed Contract • Award Contract Amendments for
• Stantec – Additional Environmental Services
• Black & Veatch – Owner’s Engineering Services
• Clean Power Consulting Partners –Project Management
• Direction on Wartsila units vs staying the course (Modified Alt. 7) 2 153 of 191

Power Supply Challenges Facing GWP
• Ongoing uncertainty with Grayson Repower
• Extended/ongoing outages at Power Plant
• Sunrun has terminated their virtual power plant offer • Demand Response program is underperforming
• Delayed completion of purchased renewable power
• Eland Solar + Storage
• Star Peak Geothermal
• LADWP has confirmed they are not the solution
3 154 of 191

GWP Must Plan to Keep the Lights On 24/7
• Need sufficient power (MW) and energy (MWH) to cover load • 346 MW historic peak load
• Electrification will increase load and energy need
• Must maintain N-1 and N-1-1 reserves
• GWP is heavily dependent on imports
• Local generation needed to deal with contingencies
• Looking at MW alone assumes all resources available when needed • Must also look at when resources are available to meet daily energy needs 4 155 of 191

Peak Day with N-1 and N-1-1 Contingency
5 0
50 100
150
200
250
300
350
400
HE1 HE2 HE3 HE4 HE5 HE6 HE7 HE8 HE9 HE10HE11HE12HE13HE14HE15HE16HE17HE18HE19HE20HE21HE22HE23HE24 Net Transmission
Eland
Magnolia
Unit 9
Tesla BESS
5 Wartsilas Scholl Biogas
Local VPP
Local DER
Fully discharging the BESS
plus 5 Wartsilas and Unit
9 are needed
156 of 191

LADWP Not the Solution
• March 21, 2022 Meeting with LADWP
• City of Glendale Councilmembers Brotman and Najarian, City Manager, GWP General Manager, and LADWP Board member and executives attended • LADWP confirmed:
• GWP must cover N-1 and N-1-1 reserves
• LADWP will only provide 80 MW of contingency reserves for the first 60 minutes as stated in the Balancing Authority Area Services Agreement (BAASA) • If needed, GWP must reduce load to maintain N-1 and N-1-1 reserves • LADWP does not have any additional resources to sell to GWP to provide capacity or cover reserve obligations
• LADWP & GWP continue to meet re possible long term future transmission projects
6 157 of 191

Clean Energy Status
(#)
158 of 191

Current Local DER Initiatives
• 2019 IRP relies upon 50 MW of Local Clean Energy Resources • Energy Efficiency (0.2 MW of 8.3 MW procured)
• Demand Response (2.08 MW of 10 MW procured)
• Local PV Solar
• Sunrun Virtual Power Plant offer withdrawn (loss of

25.25 MW)
• GWP solar on City properties
• 20 MW of estimated capacity
• 1.2 MW planned for current FY Budget
8 159 of 191

Pursuing More Local DER in 2022
• GWP needs new DER in addition to Grayson
• Clean Energy DER RFP issued May 27
• Proposals due September 30
• Final Selection January 2023
• Collaboration with EcoMotion
• To lead Clean Energy DER RFP evaluation process
• “Beating the Bushes” for other viable DER options
9 160 of 191

Grayson Repower Updates
(#)
161 of 191

Grayson Repower Permitting Status
• Demolition Clearance Application – approved by Historic Preservation Commission
• Alternative 7 air permit - being reviewed by SCAQMD
• SCAQMD Rule 1135
• December 31, 2022 – Application deadline
• Unit 9: Application being prepared
• December 31, 2023 – Units 1-8 will not be in compliance and be shut down 11 162 of 191

Grayson Repower Procurement Status
• Unit 9 Separation – received one bid on June 29, 2022 • Demolition/Site Improvement - proposals due October 28, 2022 • Tesla EPC contract negotiation – nearly completed
• Wartsila LNTP Phase 2 contract negotiation – completed • Wartsila EPC contract - on hold pending Council decision on engines • “Balance of Site” EPC RFP - being prepared
• Working on procuring energy and capacity for repower period 12 163 of 191

Project Costs Are Escalating
• Current forecast is $493 million in direct costs
• Tesla pricing has increased 45%
• Wartsila pricing has increased 27%
• Further increases likely given inflation, lithium pricing, currency risk • Interest rate increases will result in higher bond costs • Supply chain issues are causing both cost and schedule issues • These issues are not unique to Grayson
13 164 of 191

Today’s Decision Points
(#)
165 of 191

Unit 9 Separation
• First step in the repower process
• 3 potential bidders at site walk, received 1 bid
• Bid not technically compliant -- supply chain issues
• Recommend rejecting bid, authorizing negotiation of contract • $4,247,507 plus 10% contingency, total $4,672,257
15 166 of 191

Alternative Project Delivery Method:

Balance of Site Work
• Interface with GWP , Tesla, and Wartsila – “glues” it together • First to mobilize, last to demobilize
• Engineer, Procure, Construct (EPC) method
• Competitive RFP procurement
16 167 of 191

Wartsila Limited Notice to Proceed
Phase 2
• Achieves overall 60% design
• Does not include any procurement
• If less than 5 engines are selected, re-work will be required • Recommend awarding contract
• $9,882,000 plus 10% contingency, total $10,870,200
17 168 of 191

Professional Services Agreements
• Stantec
• $164,000 including contingency
• Environmental support including air permitting
• Black & Veatch
• $1,570.668 value plus 10% contingency, total $1,727,735 • Owner’s Engineering services
• Clean Power Consulting Partners
• $150,000
• Additional Project Management and technical consulting 18 169 of 191

Summary
• LADWP has confirmed GWP must be self-sufficient
• A local, reliable, dispatchable source of energy is required to keep the lights on in Glendale
• GWP is pursuing additional Distributed Energy Resources, but cannot rely upon local DER as a complete solution
• GWP Commission supports Grayson Repower
• Delayed Wartsila decision adds time, cost, complexity, and risk • Project costs going up; 2 bond processes adds additional cost • Provide direction re Wartsila units vs stay the course (Modified Alt. 7) 19 170 of 191

#MyGlendale
20 Questions?
20 171 of 191

August 15, 2022
Mayor and City Council MembersCity of Glendale
Re: August 16 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 8c, Grayson Repowering Project, GWPPower Supply Planning and Clean Energy Initiatives Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, and Najarian, We write to share our thoughts about the Grayson Repowering agenda item for this week’sCity Council meeting.

The ﬁnal approval of the Grayson agenda item (numbered 9) is “Motion directing staff toprepare the necessary actions and approvals for Council approval of the purchase andinstallation of ﬁve Wartsila engines for the Grayson Repowering Project.” The staff reportstates that this is an optional motion. The motion isn’t needed in order for staff to continuethe work at Grayson as directed by City Council on March 1. City Council should not passthis motion.

As we read the staff report and motion, the motion would signal City Council’s deﬁnitiveapproval of the full ﬁve-engine gas power plant project, cutting short the period of timethat City Council set to investigate ways to avoid moving forward with that project.

Passing this motion would be inappropriate because Glendale still has multipleopportunities to identify additional clean energy capacity that could fulﬁll part of ourenergy and capacity needs. This information is important in making a decision regardingthe Grayson project. ● Glendale has retained EcoMotion to provide recommendations on clean energyprograms, including ideas from other municipalities that might offer signiﬁcant newopportunities for Glendale.● The Request for Proposals for new distributed energy resources, released on May 27,has received 20 notices of interest by potential proposers, which is substantiallylower than the number of actual proposers for the 2018 clean energy RFP. This RFP [email protected]
172 of 191

includes terms and requirements that may discourage robust participation,including ones identiﬁed by prospective bidders in Addendum No. 4. Issuing amodiﬁed RFP, or new RFPs, without these potential obstacles could lead toadditional new capacity for Glendale.● According to the staff report, communications with LADWP have not led to anagreement regarding reserves. It appears, however, that Glendale City Councilmembers have not continued to be engaged in these efforts. It may be that someavenues for breaking the logjam remain to be pursued.● The resolution being considered in Agenda Item 8b also offers an opportunity forGlendale to obtain substantial energy and capacity resources through distributedsolar and storage. A consultant may be able to provide an estimate (either ﬁnal or atleast preliminary) of the potential energy and capacity from a plan to increasedistributed generation to at least 10% of customers, and that information could alsoinform City Council’s decision making.● Substantial funding will be available for clean energy resources through both stateand federal legislation that have recently passed, which will provide additionalresources for Glendale to adopt clean energy and expand its use of alternativeenergy sources to meet local needs. In California, Assembly Bill 205 includesprograms and funding, including the Long-Duration Energy Storage program, theDistributed Electricity Backup Assets Program, and the Demand Side Grid Supportprogram. Federally, President Biden has already signed the Bipartisan InfrastructureLaw, and the Inﬂation Reduction Act has passed both houses of Congress. Glendaleshould take the time to understand what opportunities exist through theselegislative packages before committing to fossil-fuel-based energy.

City Council made a unanimous decision on March 1 to take more time to explorealternatives to the proposed ﬁve gas-burning-engine project at Grayson. Council shouldnot cut that process short and take a step backwards into legacy utility planning. Glendaleshould not only keep the path open to clean energy alternatives but make it clear that local,non-carbon-emitting energy resources are a top priority for our community.

Sincerely,
Glendale Environmental Coalition Members
Cole Bazemore Paul Berolzheimer Monica Campagna David DowellDavid Eisenberg Jackie Gish Elise Kalfayan Jane PotelleJoanna Pringle Paul Rabinov Xochitl Ruiz Kourtney SmithKate Unger Jack Walworth Nat Yonce 2 173 of 191

1 of 7

FRANCESCA SMITH

August 16, 2022

Mayor Ardashes Kassakhian and City Council Members
City of Glendale
633 East Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
Sent via e-mail

RE: Report to City Council: Grayson Repowering Project, GWP Power Supply Planning and Clean Energy Initiatives

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilmembers Brotman, Devine, Astaryan and Najarian:

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue before you tonight. The Report to City Council (Report) for the above-referenced project with its many exhibits fails to clearly mention the fact that the proposed Grayson Repowering Project is currently in litigation in two separate cases over different environmental issues. Moreover, the Report does not provide the decision makers or the public with relevant information regarding the risks associated with proceeding with the project if it includes demolition of the Boiler Building and the Glendale Switch Rack.

In the Background section, the Report states “The Grayson Power Plant, first commissioned in the 1940s, is well beyond its design life and needs to be modernized to continue to meet the energy needs of the City of Glendale and its residents and businesses” (page 3, emphasis added).

Many older power plants are in continuous service. Examples include but are not limited to Mill Creek No. 1 Hydroelectric Power Plant (Redlands, CA, built in 1893), Mechanicville Hydroelectric Station (Mechanicville, NY, built in 1897) and Hoover Dam Power Plant (built in 1936). Each of those remains in service, despite the fact that they are old and may be considered well beyond their design lives.

The Grayson Repowering Project section in the Report asserts “On March 1, 2022, the City Council modified Grayson Project Alternative 7, directing staff to hold off on procuring the five Wartsila Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines but to proceed with all other aspects of the project, including making the site ready for up to five Wartsila engines. Council also directed staff to return to City Council no later than the end of December 2022 for a decision regarding the procurement of the Wartsila engines” (page 7). Thus while it is not known what the sizes or details of the Wartsila engines will be, the Boiler Building and Glendale Switch Rack are proposed to be demolished to make way for them. I add that the Wartsila engines may not be fairly characterized as “clean” because they run on natural gas, light or heavy fuel oil, biodiesel, biofuel or crude oil (See https://www.wartsila.com/energy/learn-more/technical- comparisons/combustion-engine-for-power-generation-introduction). So much for the “Clean Energy Initiatives.”
174 of 191

2 of 7
As to the still outstanding concept of Clean Energy Initiative (D) ”Solar and Storage on City of Glendale Properties”
GWP and its owner’s engineering consultant, Black & Veatch, have completed a solar feasibility study for City-owned properties including engineering reviews and technical specifications. A feeder hosting capacity analysis will be included in the final deliverables along with a solar feasibility report. The final report is expected to be completed in late September 2022 and staff will report on the findings to the City Council in October 2022 and seek City Council direction regarding implementation of the development. The amount of $3.5 million is included in the FY 2022-2023 budget to fund solar and storage developments on City property. This amount is estimated to fund approximately 1 – 1.25 MW of solar installations (3-5 projects).

The mitigation measure recommended by members of the Glendale Historical Society to the City in 2021(CR MM B) recommended preparation of a City-Wide ”Historic Resources Survey of City-Owned Properties.” That has not yet occurred. The City cannot consider Solar and Storage on City properties as an option without determining which of its properties are historically significant, as there could be historical resources impacts.

Staff’s assertion that such a survey would have “no nexus” to the proposed project is wrong (see Grayson Repowering Project FEIR, Responses to Comments, page 7.59). That mitigation measure would ensure “that the problems of this magnitude related to City-owned historic properties were not repeated in the future” (5.71). The City asserted in their Responses to Comments that “As with project conditions imposed in connection with issuance of a permit, mitigation measures must mitigate the environmental impact of the Project and cannot be used to as mitigation for other issues not reasonably related to the Project’s impacts.” Those imprudently cast-off “other issues” include the very relevant Clean Energy Initiative (D) ”Solar and Storage on City of Glendale Properties.”
The National Park Service provides clear guidance on placing Solar Panels on Historic Properties (see https://www.nps.gov/tps/sustainability/new-technology/solar-on- historic.htm).

The Report further states under II. “Grayson Repowering Project Update” On March 1, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution directing City staff to proceed with the following aspects of the Grayson Repowering Project (Modified Alternative 7):
(A) separation of Unit 9 from the Grayson Power Plant;
(B) demolition of Grayson Power Plant Units 1-8 and environmental remediation at the Grayson site;
(C) procurement of the Tesla Battery Energy Storage System; (D) necessary engineering, procurement and construction to integrate the Tesla Battery Energy Storage System into the Grayson Site;
(E) necessary engineering, procurement and construction to prepare for the potential addition of up to five Wartsila engines at Grayson, should Council decide to proceed with any number of these engines;
(F) air permits and procurement of emissions reduction credits for the five Wartsila engines; and
(G) all required bonding to finance the above.

The City Council directed staff to return to the City Council no later than the end of Calendar Year 2022 for a decision regarding the purchase of Wartsila engines. Staff 175 of 191

3 of 7
requests City Council approval to execute the following contracts and procurement methods in furtherance of the City Council’s March 1, 2022 direction [page 11].

Nearly all of the lettered contract items in the Report, (A) Unit 9 Separation Contract, (B) Demolition and Site Improvement Contract, (C) Procurement of the Tesla, Inc. Battery Energy Storage System, (D) Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Work to Integrate the Facilities into the Site, (E) Phase 2 LNTP Contract for Wartsila Engines (F) Air Permits and Emissions Reduction Credits for Five Wartsila Engines and (G) Financing, are interdependent (pages 12-14). Most are incomplete and would leave the proposed project contingent on unknown factors. For example:

Contract or
Item
Description in
Report to City Council
Fatal
Flaws
(A) Unit 9
Separation
Contract
“The sole bidder, ARB, was unable to meet the
project schedule specified in the bid due to supply
chain delays” nonetheless the Lead Agency
recommends rejecting the sole bid received from
ARB, Inc. “dispensing with further competitive
bidding, and authorizing the negotiation of a
contract with ARB, Inc. for the Unit 9 separation
work for an amount not to exceed $4,247,507 plus
a reserve for contingencies in the amount of 10%
($424,750). This amount is less than the Engineer’s
estimate for the work.”
There is no agreement or
approved contract for Council
to approve.

This Item is open-ended.

(B) Demo-
lition and Site
Improvement
Contract
“A Request for Proposals for the Demolition and
Site Improvement Contract was issued on October
12, 2021 and the procurement process is
underway. Proposals are due on October 28, 2022.

As with the Unit 9 Specification, the proposal
deadline for the demolition and site improvement
project was extended to allow for a decision to be
made regarding the Project. Without a project
decision, proposers would have had to develop multiple
proposals for different project alternatives. No action is requested of Council at this time with regard to the
Demolition and Site Improvement Contract.”
“In the future, staff will return
to City Council for award of the
contract” (page 10). The total
cost of this important proposed
project component is not
known.

This Item is open-ended.

(C) Procure-
ment of The
Tesla Battery
Energy
Storage
System
“The City and Tesla are finalizing negotiations of
the Engineer, Procure, Construct…contract for the
supply, delivery, installation, and commissioning
a 50 MW/ 200 MWh Battery Energy Storage
System (BESS). Thereafter, the parties will
negotiate and finalize the terms of the Long Term
Maintenance Agreement (LTSA) for the BESS…
The cost of the Tesla BESS has been increasing and
is expected to continue to increase. On June 25,
2022, Tesla provided updated indicative pricing…
contract… of approximately $115 million. This is a
45% increase over the indicative pricing of
approximately $79 million that was provided in
December 2021… In addition, …Tesla notified
Glendale that… [they are] no longer offering
energy capacity maintenance contracts… The 200
MWh system capacity will not be maintained… for
The cost of this crucial project
component is not known and
Energy Capacity Maintenance
Contracts are no longer being
offered.

This item as well as its
exorbitant costs are
dangerously open-ended.

Why would the Lead Agency
move forward with a project
that has unknown costs and
future requirements?
176 of 191

4 of 7
Contract or
Item
Description in
Report to City Council
Fatal
Flaws
the 20-year contract term and that capacity will
degrade over time. In the future, as the batteries
degrade, the City will need to purchase, and find
the space for, additional modules to maintain the
original project capacity.”
(D) Necessary
Engineering,
Procurement
& Construc-
tion to
Integrate the
Tesla Battery
Energy
Storage
System Into
the Grayson
Site
“GWP recommends using the ‘Engineer, Procure
Construct’ (EPC) project delivery
method rather than the traditional ‘Design-Bid-
Build’ method for the ‘Balance of Site’
contract, due to the high level of technical
complexity of the project and the time savings
that can be achieved using the EPC method, and
because the project requires expertise
that the City does not have.”
“The EPC Contract would be awarded following a
competitive RFP process.”
See item C above.

The City’s contractor would
Integrate the Tesla Battery
Energy Storage System, with
those associated unknown
costs, which would not be
maintained by the
manufacturer.

Costs of EPCs are unknown and
at this point would be open-
ended. This contract
arrangement benefits
contractors who have more
control over designs and
selection of subcontractor.

EPCs are normally higher in
contract cost than other types
because risk is allocated to the
contractor (construction risk
premium), which results in
overall higher project capital
costs. 1
Few numbers of competent
companies have the capabilities
and are willing to enter in EPC
contracts therefore contract
prices are not competitive; the
contractor sets the price.2
This Item is open-ended.
(E) Phase 2
LNTP
Contract for
Wartsila
Engines
“Per the City Council’s direction not to move
forward at this time with the purchase of the
Wartsila engines, the Warsila contract work will be
segregated into two agreements:
(1) A “Phase 2 Limited Notice to Proceed” (LNTP)
contract for further engineering work to prepare
for the five Wartsila engines; and
Because the Boiler Building
litigation is pending there is no
certain location at this time for
the five Wärtsilä engines.

The report states “A change in
the project from a 5-engine
project to a project with fewer

1 DLA PIPER. “EPC Contracts In The Power Sector” Asia Pacific Projects Update, 2011.

Langhe. & P. Minde. “Comparative Analysis of Three Major Type[s] of Contracts With Case Study.

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 2018.

2 Ibid.
177 of 191

5 of 7
Contract or
Item
Description in
Report to City Council
Fatal
Flaws
(2) An “Engineer, Procure, Construct” contract for
final engineering work, procurement, construction,
and commissioning of the Wartsila Power Island.

Negotiation of the latter contract, and all
procurement activities for the Wartsila power
island and the Full Notice to Proceed, are on hold
pending the City Council’s decision regarding the
installation and number of Wartsila engines.

GWP and Wartsila have negotiated a contract for a
“Phase 2 LNTP” professional services agreement
that would provide GWP with design drawings
for the Wartsila foundations and associated piles
for a five-engine power island that are ready for
“Issued for Construction” [sic] for an amount not
to exceed $9,882,000. The proposal includes the
necessary engineering work to achieve 60% design
completion which is the point in the Wartsila
design process where the foundation design can be
issued for construction. The “Limited Notice to
Proceed” design process will take fifteen months
to complete.
engines would require new
design services not included in
the contract. [reduction in the
number of engines would
require modifying the drawings
to indicate what should still be
built, and some features would
need to be re-sized or re-
located.] The cost and schedule
impact of any such additional
design work, if fewer than five
engines are selected, is
unknown at this time.”
Ironically the necessary
foundation and piles for those
future Wärtsilä engines may be
extant in the Boiler building
which was originally designed
to have exceptional seismic
strength and has a 20-foot deep
foundation.

This Item is open-ended.
(F) Air
Permits and
Emissions
Reduction
Credits for
Five Wartsila
Engines
The City has submitted an air permit application
to the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) for the five Wartsila engines
and the application has been reviewed by
SCAQMD air permitting engineers. GWP awaits
the SCAQMD’s decision regarding the emissions
reduction credits needed for the project.

This item is open-ended.
(G) Financing As discussed with the City Council in its March 1, 2022 meeting, a decision regarding the
procurement of the Wartsila engines is needed in
order to obtain bond financing pertaining to the
Wartsila engines. Since… City Council is still
evaluating whether to purchase the Wartsila
engines, staff proposes to issue two separate bond
financing [items]… for the Grayson Repowering
Project, a first bond to fund the Tesla batteries,
demolition, and site improvement work, and a
second bond issuance to fund the Wartsila engines
and remaining work after a decision is made
regarding Wartsila engines.”
The total cost of the proposed
project is unknown.

The cost of the “first” and
“second” bond issues are
unknown, including both the
amounts and the interest rates.

Credit and default risk varies
greatly from bond to bond.

Insured bonds help offset this
risk. If interest rates rise, the
value of such municipal bonds
on the secondary market would
likely fall.

This Item is open-ended.

178 of 191

6 of 7
Decision-makers are being urged to take premature action:

Item (A) “Re-bidding the work is unlikely to result in other bidders… given supply chain challenges, the cost of preparing a bid, the lack of certainty in the City’s plan for Grayson.

Additionally, re-bidding the project will result in increased delays. The sole bidder… was unable to meet the project schedule specified in the bid due to supply chain delays” (emphasis added, page 12).

The “lack of certainty in the City’s plan for Grayson” remains.

Item (C) The Report states:

To maintain the BESS… [Battery Energy Storage System], the City will also have to enter into a Long Term Maintenance Agreement …in a price to be determined.

The price increase arises out of significant supply chain and cost escalation issues occurring for battery and electrical projects at this time, including significant escalation in Lithium pricing over the past several years. The Tesla EPC [Engineer, Procure, Construct] Contract will include cost escalation provisions for the price of the BESS. This means that the battery price is indexed to market and the price will be established at a future date stipulated in the contract; thus, the BESS price will not be fixed at the time the contract is signed.

Council is thus being urged to approve an item for which the total costs cannot be tallied.

Otherwise, those costs are threatened to be even higher. Approval is premature when the full costs cannot be known and it is unknown whether or not they can be borne.

Item (D) The Report states:

With the EPC method, the City can achieve time and cost savings compared to the City’s traditional construction method [whatever those may be]. This is a critical consideration as the City will only have Grayson Unit 9 available when the site is being demolished and the power islands constructed. Minimizing this window of time, and allowing long-lead procurement to begin relatively soon after the start of engineering, will help reduce the procurement window. Additionally, using the EPC method will enable constant communication and coordination between the engineering and construction teams, thereby reducing design errors, construction mistakes and change orders, leading to lower project cost and risk (page 14).

That the cost of the EPC is unknown and currently open-ended benefits the contractor rather than the City. EPCs are known in the construction industry to be much higher in cost than other types of contracts (e.g. cost-plus, design/build, guaranteed maximum price, incentive construction contracts, integrated project delivery, lump-sum, time-and-materials or unit price contracts) because the contractor assumes a large amount of risk. Like the other described items, entering into an EPC contract when project components are unknown and demolition is subject to ongoing judicial review is rash.
179 of 191

7 of 7

Item (E) The Report states
GWP and Wartsila have negotiated a contract for a ‘Phase 2 [Limited Notice to Proceed] LNTP’ professional services agreement that would provide GWP with design drawings for the Wartsila foundations and associated piles for a five-engine power island that are ready [to be]… “Issued for Construction” for an amount not to exceed $9,882,000. The proposal includes the necessary engineering work to achieve 60% design completion which is the point in the Wartsila design process where the foundation design can be issued for construction. The… [LNTP] design process will take fifteen months to complete.

It is important to note that the design package that Wartsila will prepare under the Phase 2 LNTP Agreement is premised on a five-engine power island. A change in the project from a 5-engine project to a project with fewer engines would require new design services not included in the contract. The cost and schedule impact of any such additional design work, if fewer than five engines are selected, is unknown at this time.

The proposed Phase 2 LNTP Agreement with Wartsila specifies that if a Notice to Proceed for the engineering work is not issued and a down payment not made within 90 days of contract execution, the prices are subject to change. The City has the right to terminate the contract with Wartsila for convenience at any time subject to payment of cancellation charges [whatever those are] to Wartsila. The cancellation payments escalate depending upon when the contract is terminated (emphasis added, page 15).

Project timelines are unknown. For this item, the contingency alone is about $1,000,000; an enormous and uncalculated risk. The public should be informed.

The action items before you today are premature and should be denied.

Building this important utility as proposed from the “top-down” is metaphorically akin to building an Empire State Building LEGO© model from the top, trusting that the rest of it will appear eventually, instead of building a strong, well-grounded foundation. Numerous crucial components that should shape the proposed project remain unknown. Like the LEGO© model without a base, it could come crashing down, irreparably affecting Glendale’s citizens, businesses, employees and institutions, as well as its budget.

Thank you for your time and service to Glendale.

Very truly yours,
Francesca Smith
Francesca Smith

cc: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
Susan Brandt-Hawley
180 of 191

1 Shahnazarian, Renia
From: Abajian, Suzie
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 12:00 PM
To: Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject: FW: Please support Resolution for Solar/Clean Energy Goals and Please Do not add gas generators at Grayson
This too.

From: Catherine Jurca <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2022 12:49 PM
To: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Please support Resolution for Solar/Clean Energy Goals and Please Do not add gas generators at Grayson

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

Oops, forgot to cc you for the Record. Thanks, Cathy

Begin forwarded message:

From: Catherine Jurca <[email protected]>
Subject: Please support Resolution for Solar/Clean Energy Goals and Please Do not add gas generators at Grayson
Date: August 15, 2022 at 12:48:33 PM PDT
To: "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Members of the City Council:

I want to add my voice to the chorus opposing new gas generators at Grayson (agenda item 8c) and express support for the Clean Energy Resolution (item 8b).

Until remarkably recently, I thought that my brilliant friends and colleagues at Caltech would, like in a
Hollywood movie, figure out a way to pull the earth out of catastrophic climate danger at the last heroic minute. I now know that is not possible; there is no time.

Glendale owes it to residents (especially those closest to the pollution‐spewing generators in South Glendale) and our planet not to select the easy but harmful gas solution.

I also enthusiastically support the Resolution on the agenda, although I think it’s important to specify that the city’s commitment to 100% clean energy by 2035 must be non‐carbon‐emitting. 181 of 191

2 Thank you for your consideration and your important efforts to improve Glendale’s energy future.

Best wishes,
Cathy Jurca

182 of 191

1 Shahnazarian, Renia
From: Abajian, Suzie
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 11:59 AM
To: Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject: FW: Report to City Council: Grayson Repowering Project, GWP Power Supply Planning and Clean Energy Initiatives
Attachments: F SMITH letter re Aug 16 22 Glendale CC.pdf Hi Renia,
Please put this in AMS.

Thanks,
Suzie

From: Francesca Smith <smith‐[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 9:09 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]> Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Susan Brandt‐Hawley <[email protected]>; Catherine Jurca <[email protected]>
Subject: Report to City Council: Grayson Repowering Project, GWP Power Supply Planning and Clean Energy Initiatives

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

Dear Mayor Kassakhian and Councilpersons,
Please excuse the late hour of this letter, but it is imperative that you all fully understand all facets of the complex issue before you.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to comment. The addition of clean and solar energy in our community are crucial to the future of Glendale, but the appropriate process and sequence of events must occur. If you have the time to review my letter, it should bring some clarity and perhaps a different perspective to tonight's decisions.

Feel free to contact me if you have questions.

Best wishes,
Francesca Smith
818.421.2749

183 of 191

1 Shahnazarian, Renia
From: Shahnazarian, Renia
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 11:59 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: FW: Glendale needs clean energy, no new gas
FYI

Regards,

From: ROBERTA A MEDFORD <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 7:48 AM
To: Adjemian, Aram <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Glendale needs clean energy, no new gas

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

Begin forwarded message:

From: ROBERTA A MEDFORD <[email protected]>
Date: August 16, 2022 at 10:47:03 AM EDT
To: Ardy Kassakhian <[email protected]>, Paula Devine <[email protected]>, Dan Brotman <[email protected]>, Ara Najarian <[email protected]>, Elen Asatryan <[email protected]> Subject: Glendale needs clean energy, no new gas
Dear Mayor and City Council,

I eagerly await your YES votes tonight supporting the proposal for more solar and energy storage in Glendale, including a plan for installation by at least 10% of GWP customers by 2027; committing to 100% clean, no-carbon energy by 2035; and doing everything possible to avoid the expense and pollution of new gas engines by GWP.

There is significant constituent support behind this, please do not disappoint us.

Roberta Medford
2715 Sycamore Avenue
Montrose, CA 91020-1723
184 of 191

1 Shahnazarian, Renia
From: Abajian, Suzie
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2022 12:03 PM
To: Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject: FW: GWP request anticipated at August 16 Council meeting This too!

From: Adjemian, Aram <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 12:59 PM
To: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: GWP request anticipated at August 16 Council meeting

Hi Suzie,

Please keep this in you r records. This has to do with GWP.

Thanks,
Aram

Aram Adjemian, CMC.

Assistant City Clerk ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Elections Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2090 ● [email protected]

E‐mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: sschus <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 8:06 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>
Cc: Jones, David <[email protected]>; Adjemian, Aram <[email protected]> Subject: GWP request anticipated at August 16 Council meeting

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

Councilmembers:

185 of 191

2 I certainly hope you each will vote to hold GWP to Council’s March directive that GWP continues to search until the end of 2022 for alternatives to the 93 MW of new natural gas engines in its proposed energy plan for Glendale.

Do you even know if GWP has actually conducted a serious search these past 5 months to eliminate or at least reduce those 93MW? And why is Glendale’s reserve level used in the calculation of its energy requirements so much higher than that of other cities?

Particularly in light of the federal government’s about-to-be-passed Inflation Reduction Act that extends the incentives for solar installations for another 10 years and also includes incentives for energy storage, now is NOT the time to stop the research. It’s exactly the time to try harder to find an alternative-to-gas approach.

I certainly hope every Councilmember will tell GWP to keep its commitment per the March directive and do a comprehensive, timely search. Too much is happening every day in this field to stop now. I hope Glendale’s Sustainability Commission has been involved in this effort and that GWP has drawn on those residents of our city who are very knowledgeable and have had practical experience in this field and who have offered potential solutions to reduce those 93MW.

I also recommend that Council requires GWP to report monthly as to its search activities and findings, if it is not already doing so.

Respectfully submitted,
Stephanie Schus Russin
21-year Glendale resident
and GWP customer
186 of 191

List of Organizations and Individuals Supporting
Clean Energy for Glendale

The following Glendale organizations and individuals support policies to increase solar adoption, battery storage, and other demand management measures. This list is current as of August 15, 2022.

GLENDALE RANCHO

NEIGHBORHOOD

ASSOCIATION

1. Glendale Environmental Coalition

2. Verdugo Woodlands West Homeowners Association

3. Walk Bike Glendale

4. Glendale-Crescenta Volunteers Organized in Conserving the Environment (V.O.I.C.E.)

5. Sierra Club Angeles Chapter

6. Adams Hill Neighborhood Association

7. Southern California Armenian Democrats

8. East Area Progressive Democrats

9. Montrose Peace Vigil
187 of 191

10. Civic Sundays

11. Glendale Rancho Neighborhood Association

12. Drive Safe Glendale

13. Glendale Democratic Club

14. California Armenian American Democrats

15. Alek Bartrosouf, Glendale Sustainability Commissioner

16. Todd Leonard, Senior Pastor, Glendale City Church

17. Manuel Magpapian, Southern California Armenian Democrats

18. Desirée Portillo Rabinov, GCC Board of Trustee, Glendale

19. Joan Hardie, Glendale

20. Marla Nelson, Co-founder Coalition for Scholl Landfill Alternatives

21. Roberta Medford, Montrose Peace Vigil (Vigil co-founder), Glendale (Montrose)

22. Arlene Vidor, Glendale (Adams Hill)

23. Catherine Jurca, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands)

24. Joanne Hedge, Founder, Glendale Rancho Neighborhood Association

25. Jennifer Pinkerton, Glendale Sustainability Commissioner

26. Arno Aghamalian, President & CEO, Solar Optimum (Glendale)

27. Ingrid Gunnell, Glendale Unified School District Board Member, Area B

28. Stephen Meek, Adams Hill Neighborhood Association

29. Regina Joy Alcazar, Glendale Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commissioner

30. Juliet Minassian, 1st Vice President GDC and Vice Chair CAAD

31. Rick Stern, Verdugo Woodlands West HOA Board Member

32. Mike Borisov, Ex Officio Student Commissioner, Glendale Sustainability Commission

33. Kate Unger, Glendale (Pelanconi)

34. Paul Berolzheimer, Glendale (Adams Hill)

35. Joanna Pringle, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands)

36. Xochitl Ruiz, Glendale

37. Cole Bazemore, Glendale (Citrus Grove)

38. Jackie Gish, Glendale (Glenoaks Canyon)

39. Elise Kalfayan, Glendale (Northwest)

40. David Eisenberg, Glendale

41. David Dowell, Glendale

42. Evan Simoni, Glendale

43. Amy Yazzetta, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands)

44. Molly Gorbel, Glendale (Adams Hill)

45. Felipe Escobar, Glendale (Rancho Riverside)

46. Jamie Gambell, Glendale (Woodbury)

47. Victoria Kaplan, Glendale (Rossmoyne)

48. John Ballon, Co-Owner, Two Enlighten, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands) 188 of 191

49. Anthony DeJoria, Glendale (Moorepark)

50. David Dennick, Glendale (Glenwood South)

51. Dragutin Ilich, Glendale

52. Carol Holst, Glendale

53. Richard Bennett, Glendale (Rossmoyne)

54. Diana Fishman, Glendale (Glenwood)

55. Dr. Sonal Patel, Glendale (Emerald Isle)

56. Marie Freeman, Glendale

57. Terry Cisco, CAED, Glendale (Scholl Canyon)

58. Melanie McKinnell, Glendale (Sparr Heights)

59. Charlie Campagna, Glendale (Riverside Rancho)

60. Meredith Pominville, Co-leader/ Civic Sundays

61. Cherie Shore, Civic Sundays

62. Diane Hong, Glendale

63. Mark Corden, Glendale (La Crescenta)

64. Sarah Etemadi, Glendale (Rossmoyne)

65. Donielle Lemone-Bulmer, Glendale (Woodbury)

66. Kathleen Hartley, Glendale (Chevy Chase)

67. Justin King, Glendale (Glenoaks Canyon)

68. Joann Lo, Glendale (La Crescenta)

69. Michael Reed, Associate Professor, Glendale Community College

70. Karen Lowe, Glendale (Rossmoyne)

71. Stephanie Schus, Glendale

72. Tammy O’Connor, Glendale (Northwest)

73. Loretta DeLange, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands West)

74. Jeremy Aluma, Glendale (Adams Hill)

75. Debra Thompson, Glendale (Northwest)

76. Jessica Tardieu Haines, Glendale

77. Pamela Elyea, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands)

78. Rachel Yoo, Glendale

79. Lisa Yeghiayan, Glendale

80. Nat Yonce, Glendale (Rossmoyne)

81. Erik Hovland, Glendale (Rossmoyne)

82. Diana Matsushima, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands)

83. Erin Caswell, 3D Modeler at DreamWorks Animation, Glendale (Citrus Grove)

84. Vanessa Bulkacz, Glendale

85. Rana Strauss, Glendale

86. Annie Dove, Glendale

87. Effie Block, Glendale (Rossmoyne)

88. Calder Block, Glendale (Rossmoyne)

89. Emily Kumai, Glendale
189 of 191

90. Joemy Wilson, Glendale (Glenwood)

91. Carolina Loren, Glendale

92. Michele Morales, Glendale

93. Ray Riley, Glendale (Sparr Heights)

94. Ramona Barrio, Glendale (Rossmoyne)

95. Margaret Mortimore, Glendale

96. Liz Barkhordarian, Glendale (Glenoaks Canyon)

97. Jack Walworth, Glendale (Glenoaks Canyon)

98. Monica Campagna, Glendale (Riverside Rancho)

99. Paul Rabinov, La Crescenta-Montrose
100. Erin Dinan, Glendale (Adams Hill)
101. Patrick Dinan, President, Impact Fiduciary LLC, Glendale (Adams Hill) 102. Rachel Ridgway, Instructor of Oceanography & Geology, Glendale Community College
103. Ben Ipekjian, Glendale (Northwest)
104. John Charles Meyer, Glendale (Montecito Park)
105. Melissa King, Glendale (Verdugo Viejo)
106. Garo Gobikyan, Glendale
107. Elizabeth Vitanza, Co-Owner, Two Enlighten, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands) 108. Diana Matsushima, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands)
109. Janet Jung, Glendale
110. Brian Newlin, Glendale (Glenoaks Canyon)
111. Paul Farmanian, Glendale (Verdugo Highlands)
112. Cybelle Jacobs, Glendale (Kenneth Village)
113. Brian McEvoy, IT Project Manager, San Gabriel Valley Water Company, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands)
114. Tim Schumacher, Glendale
115. Joan Zierhut, Glendale
116. Litty Mathew, Glendale
117. Karen Berger, Glendale (Montrose)
118. Jessica Palacios, Glendale
119. Dr. José Luis Benavides, Glendale
120. Raziq Rauf, Glendale (Adams Hill)
121. Seth Anicich, glendaleOUT, Glendale (Downtown)
122. Jon Hamkins, Glendale
123. Burt Culver, Glendale
124. Nathan Cole, Glendale
125. Karen Kwak, Glendale (Tropico)
126. Sharon Landin, Glendale
127. Glenn Webb, Glendale (Royal Canyon)
128. Paul Manchester, Glendale
190 of 191

129. Dan Kruse, Glendale (Glenoaks Canyon)
130. Valerie Staveley, Glendale (Sycamore Woods)
131. Adrineh Audry Zarokian, Coalition for Scholl Landfill Alternatives 132. Maria del Sol Crocker, Glendale
133. Jeanette Stirdivant, Glendale (Oakmont)
134. Grey James, Glendale (Downtown)
135. Thomas Metzler, Glendale (South Glendale)
136. Patricia Pei, Glendale
137. Karen Berger, Glendale (Montrose)
138. Chris Lowery, President- Accurate Energy, Glendale (Cumberland Heights) 139. Charly Charney Cohen, Glendale
140. Marcia Hanford, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands)
141. Christin Holden, La Crescenta-Montrose
142. Mike Allen, Glendale
143. Kourtney Smith, Glendale
144. Natalia Staunton, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands)
145. Nathan Bulmer, Glendale
146. Marianna Rasamoela, Glendale (Glenoaks Canyon)
147. Jackie Eco, Glendale (Central)
148. Rachel Pringle, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands)
149. Karen Hare Neilsson, Glendale (Riverside Rancho)
150. Christina Kousakis, Glendale (Rossmoyne)
151. David Block, Glendale (Rossmoyne)
152. Joanna Saporito, Glendale (Rossmoyne)
153. Joanna Hess, Glendale (Verdugo Woodlands)
154. Dennis Nguyen, Glendale (Adams Hill)
155. Erika Robbins, Glendale (Adams Hill)
156. Nancy MacLeod, Glendale (Adams Hill)
157. Laura Kirakosian, Glendale (Glenoaks Canyon)
158. Rebecca Addelman, Glendale (Glenoaks Canyon)
159. Roberto Maltez, Glendale (Tropico)
160. Christopher Chorebanian, Glendale
161. Laura Nelson, Glendale (Glenoaks Canyon)
162. Clara Gharibian, Glendale
163. Michael Gordon, Glendale
164. Jamie Fraser, Glendale (Adams Hill)
165. Mike Yeghiayan, Glendale
166. Kathy Jones, Glendale (Adams Hill)
167. Susan Dasso, Glendale (North Cumberland Heights Historic District) 191 of 191

Glendale City CouncilAugust 16, 2022

Glendale City Council
August 16, 2022