Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, September 12, 2023

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

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

Apple

TV,

Roku,

Amazon

Fire,

iOS

and
Android

devices

using

free

app

called

Cablecast

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.

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.

The

City

Clerk’

office

should

notified

72 hours

(three
business

days)

soon

practicable

for

requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and
Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are
received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this

meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

available

for

review
in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation

services

are

provided

for

meetings

through

the

use

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

72 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting

soon

as
practicable.

Please

specify

the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City
provided

interpreters

not

required

and

persons

are

welcome

use

their

own

interpreter

speak
in their native language.

SEPTEMBER 12, 2023

ROLL CALL

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

Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Claim of Aquino, Claim No. 23- 0056B
b.

Conference with real property negotiators. City negotiators attending the closed

1 TYPED 9/7/2023 3:56:13 PM
09 12 23
CC

session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Bradley Calvert, Jason Bradford, Michael J. Garcia, and Gillian van Muyden. Property location: 250 N. Orange Street. Negotiating Parties: Knowledge Truck, Inc. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the lease of City-owned property

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

Flag Salute: Mayor Dan Brotman
b.

Invocation: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c.

Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the September 12, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on September 7, 2023, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall and at the Mercatovecchio Luxury Suites.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.

Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, September 19, 2023 b.

Doran and Broadway/Brazil Grade Separation Project Presentation c.

Proclamation designating September 2023 as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month

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 August 29, 2023 b.

Public Works, re: Roofing Replacement and Restoration at Various City Facilities Project

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with Rite- Way Roof Corporation, for the Roofing Replacement and Restoration at Various City Facilities in the amount of $289,398, plus a 10% contingency of $28,939 c.

Public Works, re: Contract for the Flooring Installation at Various City Facilities Project per Specification No. 3943

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with Pasadena Construction & Interiors, Inc., for the Flooring Installation at Various City Facilities in the amount of $256,946, plus a 10% contingency d.

City Attorney, re: Cancellation of October 17, 2023 Regular Meeting and Adding October 31, 2023 Regular Meeting to the Council Calendar for the 2023-24 Fiscal Year

1. Motion Modifying City Council Regular Meeting Schedule for the 2023-24 Fiscal Year

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS

2 TYPED 9/7/2023 3:56:13 PM
09 12 23
CC

City Clerk, re: Consideration of support of state bills recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women

1. Motion supporting six state bills as recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women
b.

Glendale Water and Power, re: Professional Services Agreement with Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (E3) to assist Glendale Water and Power (GWP) with the Development of a Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources (DER) (Continued from 08/22 and 08/29 Council Meeting)

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (E3) to assist GWP with the Development of a Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources (DER) in the not-to-exceed amount of $335,875

9. HEARINGS
a.

Community Development, re: Extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance 5996 Prohibiting Issuance of Entitlement and/or Permits for New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes

1. Introduction of Ordinance Extending, for an Additional One Year Period Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5996 Prohibiting Developments with New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes Citywide
b.

Community Development, re: Amendments for Streamlining the Historic District Designation Process

1. Ordinance for introduction of amendments to Glendale Municipal Code Section

30.25.030 related to streamlining of the City’s historic district designation process c.

Community Development, re: Review of Owner Request to Remove 1527 Cedarhill Road from the Glendale Register of Historic Resources

1. Resolution to delete the property at 1527 Cedarhill Road from the Glendale Register of Historic Resources

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS

13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
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.

14. NEW BUSINESS

15. ADJOURNMENT

3 TYPED 9/7/2023 3:56:13 PM
09 12 23
CC

4 of 259

1 Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
AUGUST 29, 2023
ROLL CALL – absent: Kassakhian, Najarian

1. CLOSED SESSION – 4:04 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Sadeghi v. City of Glendale, LASC Case No. 20STCV34372
b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Edgarian v. City of Glendale, et al., LASC Case No. 21STCV07056
c. Conference with real property negotiators. City negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Bradley Calvert, Jason Bradford, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, and Onnig Bulanikian.

Property location: 115 & 121 West Wilson Avenue. Negotiating Parties: Lillie S Makhanian Trust. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the acquisition of property
Item 1c continued to another date. City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is anticipated on item 1a. Council recessed to closed session at 4:06 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:04 p.m.

Roll Call – Absent: Asatryan (arrived at 6:08 p.m.), Najarian a. Flag Salute: Mayor Dan Brotman
b. Invocation: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c. Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the August 29, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on August 24, 2023, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Meetings have been cancelled for September 5 and will resume on September 12, 2023 b. Commendation for Talia Hovsepian, California Bears Youth Hockey Club c. Identification of Nominating Panel for Building and Fire Board of Appeals Commission (Kassakhian/Devine)
d. Appointment of Ara Hatamian to the Civil Service Commission (Brotman/Devine, 08/22/23)

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.
5 of 259

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Special City Council and Regular City Council Meetings of August 22, 2023
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
b. Glendale Water and Power, re: Amendment No. 1 to the Existing Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Carollo Engineers, Inc. for the Development of the 2023 Water Master Plan

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 to the existing Professional Services Agreement (PSA), Contract No. 8002074, with Carollo Engineers, Inc., to increase the contract amount by $44,217 and to include hydraulic model calibration and age-based asset replacement plan within their Scope of Work, for a new not-to-exceed amount of $188,404
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
c. Public Works, re: Urban Forestry Tree Planting Grant Continuation

1. Resolution 23-120 of Appropriation in the amount of $292,500 to begin Caltrans tree planting grant activity in FY 2023-24
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
d. Public Works, re: Professional Services Agreement for Franchise and Permitted Hauler Performance, Fees, and Legislative Compliance Audit

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or a designee to enter into and execute a professional services agreement with R3 Consulting Group, Inc. for Franchise and Permitted Hauler Performance, Fees, and Legislative Compliance Audit in the amount of $593,446 for five years
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
6 of 259

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
e. Police Department, re: Allocation from the Board of State and Community Corrections, Request to Accept the Disbursement of $162,884 as Approved by the Budget Act of 2022 for the Officer Wellness and Mental Health Grant Program

1. Motion to accept the disbursement of $162,884 as approved by the Budget Act of 2022 that is to be allocated by the Board of State and Community Corrections Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan

2. Resolution 23-121 of Appropriation
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
f. Public Works, re: Pacific Park Playground and Pool Shade Structure Project

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a construction contract with ARC Construction, Inc., for the Pacific Park Playground and Pool Shade Structure Project, Specification No.3853R, in the amount of $2,377,902, plus a 10% contingency $237,790
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan

2. Resolution 23-122 of Appropriation for the funding of the Pacific Park Playground and Pool Shade Structure Project
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
g. Public Works, re: Public Works Department Building Maintenance and Repair Services

1. Motion Awarding a Contract to AZTech Elevator Company (AZTech) for Citywide Elevator Systems Maintenance and Repairs services per Specification No. 3945 for the not-to-exceed amount of $702,930 for five-years and directing the City Manager or a designee to execute the contract
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
7 of 259

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

2. Motion Awarding a Contract to R&S Overhead Doors of Commerce, Inc. (R&S) for Citywide Industrial Doors and Gates Maintenance and Repairs services per Specification No. 3946 for the not-to-exceed amount of $1,392,735 for five-years and directing the City Manager or a designee to execute the contract Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
h. City Attorney, re: Consumer Price Index (CPI) Adjustment to Campaign Finance Contribution Limits

1. Resolution 23-123 Adjusting the Campaign Contribution Limits of $1,190 in the amount of Consumer Price Index (CPI) to $1,340
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
i. Management Services, re: Humanitarian Aid For Glendale Sister City, Martuni in Armenia

1. Motion directing the City Manager to take the necessary actions to provide Humanitarian Aid for Glendale Sister City, Martuni in Armenia Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Councilmember Devine announced that the Hollywood Burbank Airport will have a subcontractor community information session on September 12, at the Courtyard by Marriott in Burbank, to discuss replacing the passenger terminal. Devine advised council to wait on redistricting until the Santa Monica case was resolved and pause community outreach efforts.

To increase attendance for the upcoming “Council in your Neighborhood” meeting, Councilmember Asatryan asked staff to send out flyers within the neighborhood in which the meeting will take place. Asatryan and Mayor Brotman attended the grand reopening of the Montrose Bowl. Asatryan met with city staff and the LA County Economic Development and Procurement Office to discuss moving forward on the local-owned, minority-owned and woman-owned businesses as part of the workplan. In celebration of Women’s Equality Day, Asatryan invited the public to attend a webinar about woman-owned or minority-owned business certification and how this might help businesses acquire government and private sector contracts. More information regarding the webinar can be found at www.chooseglendaleca.gov.

Councilmember Kassakhian wanted to get more information to understand the Santa Monica districting case. He watched the film “Mildred Pierce,” which was shown by the Glendale Historical Society, in Brand Park.
8 of 259

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Mayor Brotman and Councilmember Kassakhian spoke at a rally about the humanitarian crisis in Artsakh in front of the Azeri Consulate in Los Angeles. Brotman attended the Edible Food Recovery Working Group meeting, where SB-1383 – Organics Recycling was discussed. Brotman asked staff to provide a report on how the city is reaching out to the public about openings on boards and commissions and soliciting applications. Devine announced there is an opening on the Historic Preservation Commission.

City Attorney Mike Garcia provided a brief explanation on the Santa Monica districting case.

City Clerk Dr. Suzie Abajian explained that that the City Clerk’s office has been posting about the openings on Boards and Commissions and the application process on social media, in multiple languages. She also stated that the City webpage on boards and commissions has up-to-date information on all the open seats and the application process.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Ida Anbarian

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Public Works, re: San Fernando Road Beautification Project Alternatives Staff Comments:

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

Patrick Somerville, Mark Thomas & Co.

Public Comments:

Lyndon Alexander de la Torre
Mike Borisov
Allan Durham
Kirsten Bladh
Cole Bazemore
Kate Unger
Araik Sinanian
Mike Mohill
Dennis Nguyen

1. Motion accepting staff’s recommendation to proceed with the design and implementation of Alternative 2A for the San Fernando Road Beautification Project Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
9 of 259

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
b. Glendale Water and Power, re: Professional Services Agreement with Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (E3) to assist Glendale Water and Power (GWP) with the Development of a Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources (DER) (Continued from 08/22/23 CC Meeting)
Item continued to next regular meeting.

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

Sipan Zadoryan, Sr. Housing Analyst
Public Comments:

Karen Kwak
Herbert Molano
Mike Mohill

1. Motion to approve Landlord/Tenant Ad-Hoc Committee’s suggestions on the Rental Rights Program, with the intention of revisiting these suggestions in a redlined version of the ordinance at a subsequent council session

2. Motion to approve Rental Rights Marketing Strategy
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan

3. Motion to provide direction on the desire to establish a Dispute Resolution/Mediation program

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS
10 of 259

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
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.

Araik Sinanian
Vahe Muradyan
Herbert Molano
Mike Borisov
Linda Neumaier
Nerses Tatinsayan
Mike Mohill
Allan Durham

14. NEW BUSINESS
a. Motion to resolve the lawsuit entitled Helen Sadeghi v. City of Glendale, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 20STCV34372 in exchange for a full release of all claims in the amount of $75,000
Moved: Devine Seconded: Kassakhian

15. ADJOURNMENT – 9:32 p.m.

Moved: Devine Seconded: Kassakhian
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
11 of 259

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Roofing Replacement and Restoration at Various City Facilities Project.

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with Rite-Way Roof Corporation, for the Roofing Replacement and Restoration at Various City Facilities in the amount of $289,398, plus a 10% contingency of $28,939.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for September 12, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Roofing Replacement and Restoration at Various City Facilities project includes the needed full replacement of roof systems at Fire Station 29 and the Public Works Corporation Yard and roof repairs at Montrose Library and Fire Station 28. On August 16, 2023, three bids were received for the project, and after a thorough review, staff found Rite-Way Roof Corporation’s bid to be the lowest responsive bid from a responsible bidder.

The intent of this item is to award a construction contract with Rite-Way Roof Corporation for $289,398 with a 10 percent contract contingency of $28,939, totaling $318,337 for the Roofing Replacement and Restoration at Various City Facilities project.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Operational Efficiency: This project will preserve and protect building envelopes ensuring the integrity of each facility for years to come.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a construction contract with Rite-Way Roof Corporation, for the Roofing Replacement and Restoration at Various City Facilities Project in the amount of $289,398 plus a 10% contingency of $28,939.

BACKGROUND
As part of the Public Works Department’s ongoing efforts to properly maintain city buildings, specifications were prepared for the Roofing Replacement and Restoration at 12 of 259

24b
4 4
3 1
Various City Facilities Project. In California, generally roof systems need to be replaced every 20-30 years.

Fire Station 29
Apparatus Bay roof is a 3,000 sq. ft. built-up roofing system that will be completely removed and replaced with a polyvinyl chloride (PVC), single-ply roof that includes a 20- year manufacturer’s warranty. An adjacent roof section will utilize a silicone-based coating material for restoration and provide a 15-year warranty.

The Public Works Corporation Yard
Mechanical Maintenance Lube Bay Roof is a 2,200 sq. ft. built-up roofing system that will be completely removed and replaced with a PVC single-ply roof that includes a 20- year manufacturer’s warranty.

Montrose Library
Library roof is a 10,500 sq. ft. PVC single-ply roof that will be repaired and coated, and includes a 15-year manufacturer’s warranty. This roof also includes a large skylight structure that will be coated with a silicone-based material.

Fire Station 28
Station roof is a 7,000 sq. ft. asphalt, built-up system that will be repaired and coated with a silicone-based roof coating material and includes a 15-year manufacturer’s warranty.

Adam’s Square Gas Station
A roof replacement for the Adam’s Square Gas Station structure was initially included in the scope of this project, but was removed by addendum during the bid phase. At the job walk conducted on August 1st, all bidders expressed concerns regarding the structure of the building that would prevent then from providing a bid on this project component. Staff will be pursuing a structural engineer to further evaluate the building and provide recommendations for moving forward. Staff intends to move forward with the replacement of the roof for this facility once the structural issues are evaluated.

On April 11, 2023, City Council adopted plans and specification and directed the City Clerk to advertise for bids. In addition to the City Clerk’s advertisement, Public Works advertised the specification on the city’s website, and directly contacted five roofing contractors with past experience working for Glendale.

On August 1, 2023, the city hosted a mandatory job walk and seven roofing contractors attended.

On August 16, 2023, the city received three bids.

ANALYSIS
Upon review of the three bids submitted, Rite-Way Roof Corporation has submitted the lowest responsive bid at $289,398, and they are a responsible bidder. Rite-Way Roof 13 of 259

34b
4 4
3 1
Corporation has satisfactorily performed work on similar projects for the city and throughout Southern California, as confirmed by the references contacted.

Staff has verified Rite-Way Roof Corporation, has the correct and valid State of California Contractors License to perform the work and it is in good standing.

All installations are anticipated to be completed within 60 days after receiving the materials on-site.

In addition, staff recommends a reserve for contingencies in the amount of $28,939 or 10 percent of the bid amount. The contingency is based on previous experience and is commensurate with the nature of the project. This will allow us to account for any incidental work and unforeseen field conditions that could be revealed during the removal of existing roofing materials.

Project Description: Roofing Replacement and Restoration at Various City Facilities Project
Plans/Specs Adopted: April 11, 2023
Advertisement
Method:

Press release, Glendale Independent Newspaper, City’s
website, direct invitation
Specs Issued: July 17, 2023
Bids Opened: August 16, 2023
Company Name
and Bid Amount:

1. Rite-Way Roof Corporation, $289,398

2. Best Contracting Services, Inc., $563,300

3. Pacific Builders & Roofing Inc., $ 596,800
Recommended
Contractor(s)
Rite-Way Roof Corporation
New / Existing
Contractor(s):

Existing
Procurement Method
(Bid / SS):

Bid
Contract Term: 60 days
Construction
Phase Begins:

November 2023
Construction
Phase Ends:

December 2023

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Public Works Department will coordinate with each location to minimize disruption to municipal operations and the public.
14 of 259

44b
4 4
3 1

FISCAL IMPACT
The Roofing Replacement and Restoration at Various City Facilities Project will cost $318,337, which was approved as a part of the FY 2023-24 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$ 65,000 GL: 43110-6070-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: PWD00987AN
Building
Maintenance Fund
$ 94,502 GL: 43110-6070-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: PWD00589AN
Building
Maintenance Fund
$ 62,279 GL: 43110-6070-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: PWD00587AN
Building
Maintenance Fund
$ 96,556 GL: 43110-6070-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: PWD00585AN
Building
Maintenance Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1, consisting of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures with no expansion of use. In particular, comprising the restoration or rehabilitation of deteriorated or damaged structures. This exemption pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract with Rite-Way Roof Corporation, as recommended herein. This will maintain these buildings in acceptable condition.

Alternative 2: Do not authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for the Roofing Replacement and Restoration at Various City Facilities Project. Doing so will require the Public Works Department to continue to commit resources to perform spot repairs to the existing roofing systems, as needed.

Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative nor proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Sean Toro, Project Manager
15 of 259

54b
4 4
3 1
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.

16 of 259

4b
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ,
seconded by Council Member , that the Council of
the City of Glendale finds that, Rite-Way Roof Corporation, has provided the lowest responsive bid, and they are a responsible bidder, for the Roofing Replacement and Restoration at Various City Facilities Project, as described in Specification No. 3908, and that the bid of Rite-Way Roof Corporation for the amount of $289,398 is hereby accepted and approved, as recommended by the Director of Public Works, and that all other bids be, and are, hereby rejected. The Council authorizes the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, with Rite-Way Roof Corporation, in the amount of $289,398. The Council further approves a 10% reserve for contingencies in the amount of $28,939.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
17 of 259

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Contract for the Flooring Installation at Various City Facilities Project per Specification No. 3943.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for September 12, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 26, 2023, three bids were received for the Flooring Installation at Various City Facilities Project, and after a thorough review, staff found Pasadena Construction & Interiors, Inc.’s bid to be the lowest responsive bid from a responsible bidder. This project will address flooring needs at three City facilities: Fire Station 21, Police, and Emergency Operations Center at City Hall.

The intent of this item is for the City Council to award a contract and allow staff to proceed with the construction of this project.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Operational Efficiency: This project will improve the overall facilities conditions, reduce maintenance costs, and is consistent with responsible stewardship of city building assets.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Pasadena Construction & Interiors, Inc., for the Flooring Installation at Various City Facilities Project in the amount of $256,946 plus a 10 percent contingency of $25,694.

BACKGROUND
As part of the Public Works Department’s ongoing efforts to properly maintain the condition of city buildings, specification was prepared for the Flooring Installation at Various City Facilities Project.
18 of 259

24c
4 4
3 2
This project involves replacing old deteriorated carpet at three city facilities with new carpet and vinyl flooring. New carpet and flooring reduces ongoing maintenance costs.

It also improves safety in the building’s interior by abating trip hazards and improving indoor air quality. Lastly, it improves the appearance and value of the building.

Glendale Police Department 131 N. Isabel St.

Opened in 2005, the Police Department facility has several areas with original carpet still in service that has performed well beyond its life expectancy. This project will replace approximately 50,000 square feet of existing carpet with new 24-inch square carpet tiles. Modern carpet tiles provide exceptional durability, longevity, and repairability.

Fire Station 21, 421 Oak St.

Opened in 1994, the Fire Station 21 facility has several areas with original carpet still in service that has performed well beyond its life expectancy. This project will replace approximately 35,000 square feet of existing carpet with 10,000 square feet of new 24- inch square carpet tiles and 25,000 square feet of vinyl tile. Modern carpet and vinyl tiles provide exceptional durability, longevity, and repairability.

Emergency Operations Center 613 E. Broadway
Located at City Hall, the Emergency Operations Center underwent a substantial clean- up and rearrangement in 2022 including furniture and technology upgrades. This project will address the final upgrade to this space, the installation of 2,500 square feet of new carpet tiles.

On April 11, 2023, City Council adopted Specification 3943 and directed the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

On July 12, 2023, the Public Works Department hosted a mandatory job walk and five contractors attended. On July 26, 2023, the city received three bids.

ANALYSIS
Upon review of the three bids submitted, Pasadena Construction & Interiors, Inc., has submitted the lowest responsive bid at $256,946, and they are a responsible bidder.

Pasadena Construction & Interiors, Inc., has satisfactorily performed work on similar projects for the city and throughout Southern California, as confirmed by the references contacted.

Staff has verified that Pasadena Construction & Interiors, Inc., has the correct and valid State of California Contractors License to perform the work.

All installations are anticipated to be completed within 60 days after receiving the materials on-site. All work will be coordinated with the individual operations to minimize impacts to the daily activities.
19 of 259

34c
4 4
3 2
Each installation includes a one-year installer warranty, and the flooring materials include a 10-year manufactures warranty.

In addition, staff recommends a reserve for contingencies in the amount of $25,694 or 10 percent of the bid amount. The contingency is based on previous experience and is commensurate with the nature of the project. This will allow us to account for any incidental work, unforeseen field conditions that could be revealed during the removal of very old flooring systems.

Project Description: Flooring Installation at Various City Facilities Project Advertisement Method: city website, press release, direct invitation Specs Issued: June 26, 2023
Bids Opened Date: July 26, 2023
Company Name(s) and
Bid Amount(s):

1. Pasadena Construction & Interiors, Inc.,
$256,946

2. Continental Flooring Company, $349,500

3. JJJ Floor Covering Inc., $ 687,742
Contractor: Pasadena Construction & Interiors, Inc..

New / Existing Contractor: Existing
Procurement Method
(Bid / SS):

Bid

Contract Term: 60 Days
Construction Phase
Begins:

November 2023
Construction Phase
Ends:

January 2024

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Public Works Department will coordinate with each location to minimize any disruption to operations and the public.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Flooring Installation at Various City Facilities Project will cost $282,640 which was approved as a part of the FY 2023-24 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.

The City Council approved appropriation is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$185,000 GL: 43110-6070-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: 52195
Building Maintenance Fund
$97,640 GL: 43110-6070-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: 52194
Building Maintenance Fund
20 of 259

44c
4 4
3 2

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract with Pasadena Construction & Interiors, Inc. for the Flooring Installation at Various City Facilities Project.

This will maintain these buildings in acceptable condition.

Alternative 2: Do not authorize the City Manager to execute a contract for the Flooring Installation at Various City Facilities Project. Doing so, would require the Public Works Department to continue to commit resources to clean and repair the existing flooring systems.

Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative nor proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Sean Toro, Project Manager
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.

21 of 259

4c
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ,
seconded by Council Member , that the Council of
the City of Glendale hereby:

1. Authorizes the City Manager, or a designee, to execute a contract – subject to approval by the city Attorney – with Pasadena Construction & Interiors, Inc., for the Flooring Installation at Various City Facilities Project, Specification No. 3943, for the amount of $256,946.

2. Authorizes a 10 percent reserve for contingency in the amount of $25,694.

3. Rejects all other bids for the project.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
22 of 259

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Cancellation of October 17, 2023 Regular Meeting and Adding October 31, 2023 Regular Meeting to the Council Calendar for the 2023-24 Fiscal Year

1. Motion Modifying City Council Regular Meeting Schedule for the 2023-24 Fiscal Year

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for September 12, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 23, 2023, the Council adopted a motion establishing the City Council regular meeting dates for the 2023-24 fiscal year, which included a cancelled meeting on October 31, 2023. The Mayor and City Manager recommend cancelling the October 17, 2023 regular meeting and reinstating the October 31, 2023 regular meeting. 23 of 259

24d
3 3
1 4

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A.

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council cancel the October 17, 2023 regular meeting and add October 31, 2023 to the Council regular meeting calendar for FY 2023-24.

BACKGROUND
The City Council’s regular meetings are on Tuesday evenings at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Council also holds special meetings from time-to-time as well as joint meetings with other City agencies, as necessary. For the past several years, Council has adopted a regular meeting schedule per fiscal year by cancelling specified regular meetings. The regular meeting schedule typically takes holidays and school calendars into consideration. It should be noted that the City Manager and staff strive to calendar Council items in a manner so that agendas are not overly light, nor overburdened in a manner that makes for excessively heavy agendas.

ANALYSIS
On May 23, 2023, the Council adopted a motion establishing the City Council regular meeting dates for the 2023-24 fiscal year, which included a cancelled meeting on October 31, 2023. The Mayor and City Manager recommend cancelling the October 17, 2023 regular meeting and reinstating the October 31, 2023 regular meeting.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is exempt from CEQA because there is no reasonable possibility that the proposed action will result in any significant environmental impact.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: The Council can modify the regular meeting schedule for fiscal year 2023-

24. Alternative 2: The Council can choose not to modify the proposed regular meeting 24 of 259

34d
3 3
1 4
schedule for fiscal year 2023-24.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
N/A.
25 of 259

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________ that the City Council hereby modifies its regular meeting schedule for the 2023-24 fiscal year to include every Tuesday at 6 p.m., except on those dates set forth below (“Excepted Dates”):
2023
July 5
August 1
September 5
October 3
October 17
November 21
December 26
2024
January 2
January 16
February 20
March 19
April 9
April 23
May 28
June 18
The regular meetings on the Excepted Dates are hereby cancelled.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
26 of 259

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Consideration of support of state bills recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women

1. Motion supporting six state bills as recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for September 12, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report asks City Council to consider six state legislative agenda of bills for support as recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women. 27 of 259

28a
4 4
6 5

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
The City’s Legislative Platform supports legislation in line with Council’s Priorities in the FY2023-24 Workplan, as follows:
• Financial Sustainability
• Economic Development
• Operational Efficiency
• Mobility, Traffic & Pedestrian Safety

RECOMMENDATION
Staff seeks Council’s direction on support for legislation recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women.

BACKGROUND
As an advisory board to the City Council, one of the primary functions of the Commission on the Status of Women is policy recommendation. The Commission is committed to being informed about current and impending issues, policies, and legislation relevant to the well-being of women and girls in order to make recommendations of support or opposition on such issues, policies, and legislation to City Council. As part of this function, the Commission monitors legislation on the state and federal levels that impact and affect women and girls, and advises and advocates on these issues.

ANALYSIS
At this time, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) is recommending support of six bills to Council for their approval on behalf of the City of Glendale. These bills were recommended based on the CSW’s adopted legislative platform, which reflects the following priorities:

1. Women in the Workplace

2. Women’s Health

3. Women’s Safety

4. Women in the Budget

5. Women in the Military and Military Families

6. Women in Postsecondary Education
For the 2023 calendar year, the California State Legislature reconvened on January 4, 2023, for the first year of its two-year session. The State Legislature is currently on summer recess, and will reconvene on August 14, 2023. The last day for each house to pass bills is September 14, after which point they will go into fall recess. The Governor will have until October 14 to sign or veto all bills passed by the Legislature.

The six bills supported by CSW Include:
[AB 246 (Papan, D Product safety: menstrual products: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.]
CSW Recommendation: Support
28 of 259

38a
4 4
6 5
Summary: The bill would require a manufacturer of a menstrual product to provide persons that offer the product for sale or distribution in the state with a certificate of compliance stating that the menstrual product is in compliance with these provisions and does not contain any regulated PFAS.
[AB 1015 (Calderon) Diaper and wipe distribution program.] CSW Recommendation: Support
Summary: This bill requires the Department of Social Services to administer a program to provide diapers and wipes to low-income families with infants or toddlers. The department will use existing infrastructure and contracts from their Diaper Bank Program to start distributing the diapers and wipes. The department will also require participating entities to report, on a quarterly basis, the number of diapers and wipes distributed, and the total amount of money spent. Finally, the bill requires the department to make the information available online and make sure the funds are spent within 36 months.
[AB 1203 (Bains) Sales and use taxes: exemptions: breast pumps and related supplies.]
CSW Recommendation: Support
Summary: This bill on or after April 1, 2024 and before April 1, 2029 would make it so that breast pumps, breast pump kits, breast pump collection and storage supplies, and breast pads will be exempt from a sales and use tax which is the gross receipts from the sale in the state. This bill would also have specific goals and data collection requirement for how this tax expenditure would be used. It will also make it so that the state does not have to reimburse counties and cities for lost revenue from this tax exemption. [AB 1432 (Carrillo) Health Care Coverage]
CSW Recommendation: Support
Summary: The existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, requires health care service plans and health insurers to provide equal coverage to partners of employees or policyholders as they provide to spouses. This bill would extend this law and require that health care service plans, policies, or certificates of health insurance have to provide coverage for abortion, abortion-related services, and gender-affirming care to anyone in California, no matter where they live. This could be punishable by law.
[SB 257 (Portantino) Health care coverage: diagnostic imaging.] CSW Recommendation: Support
29 of 259

48a
4 4
6 5
Summary: This bill would require health care service plans, policies of disability insurance and self-insured employee welfare benefit plans issued, amended or renewed on or after January 1, 2025 to provide coverage for screening mammography, diagnostic breast imaging, and any medically necessary breast imaging following an abnormal mammography result. This coverage would be required to be provided without any cost sharing (e.g. deductibles, co-payments, co-insurance, etc.). The bill would also require coverage of any breast imaging needed for an enrollee with a risk factor associated with breast cancer, unless otherwise specified. However, this bill does not require the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for any costs due to implementing these mandates.
[SB 260 (Menjivar) CalWORKs: supportive services.]
CSW Recommendation: Support
Summary: This bill would provide financial assistance in the form of a $20 payment per month to menstruating people in California between the ages of 10 and 55 who are qualified for the CalWORKs program. The State Department of Social Services, the County Welfare Directors Association of California, and the California Statewide Automated Welfare System will work together to develop and implement the necessary system changes by April 1, 2025. The bill would also create a continuous appropriation from the General Fund to defray a portion of county costs for implementing the bill and provide that the state will reimburse local agencies and school districts for any mandated costs.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
There are no stakeholders associated with this report.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Support of state legislation is not a project under CEQA.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve support for the list of bills recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women.

Alternative 2: Provide alternative direction on the list of bills as recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women.

Alternative 3: Consider any other alternatives not proposed by staff. 30 of 259

58a
4 4
6 5

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Renia Shahnazarian, Administrative Associate
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Commission on the Status of Women Legislative Tracking List 31 of 259

MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby authorizes City support for the six bills in the State Legislature recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), as described in the Report to Council dated September 12, 2023 (“Report”):

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
32 of 259

Exhibit 1
Commission on the Status of Women Legislative Tracking Sheet AB 246 (Papan, D) P roduct safety: menstrual products: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

Current Text: 07/10/2023 - Amended HTML PDF
Introduced: 01/17/2023
Last Amended: 07/10/2023
Status: 07/10/2023 - Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

Calendar:
08/14/23 S-APPROPRIATIONS 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 PORTANTINO, ANTHONY, Chair Location: 07/06/2023 - Senate Appropriations
Layperson's Summary: Beginning January 1st, 2025, it will be illegal in California for any person or entity to make, sell, deliver, or offer for sale any cosmetic product, textile articles, or menstrual products containing any perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances. Also, manufacturers of affected products must use the least toxic alternatives when trying to comply with this law. Violations will be punishable by civil fines up to $10,000 a day. (Based on 07/10/2023 text) Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Position: HypWatch
AB 1015 (Calderon, D) Diaper a nd wipe distribution program.

Current Text: 06/27/2023 - Amended HTML PDF
Introduced: 02/15/2023
Last Amended: 06/27/2023
Status: 07/03/2023 - In committee: Referred to APPR suspense file.

Location: 07/03/2023 - Senate APPR. SUSPENSE FILE
Layperson's Summary: This bill requires the Department of Social Services to administer a program to provide diapers and wipes to low-income families with infants or toddlers. The department will use existing infrastructure and contracts from their Diaper Bank Program to start distributing the diapers and wipes. The department will also require participating entities to report, on a quarterly basis, the number of diapers and wipes distributed and the total amount of money spent. Finally, the bill requires the department to make the information available online and make sure the funds are spent within 36 months. (Based on 06/27/2023 text)
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Position: HypWatch
AB
1203 (Bains, D) S ales and use taxes: exemptions: breast pumps and related supplies.

Current Text: 06/14/2023 - Amended HTML PDF
Introduced: 02/16/2023
Last Amended: 06/14/2023
Status: 07/03/2023 - In committee: Referred to APPR suspense file.

Location: 07/03/2023 - Senate APPR. SUSPENSE FILE
Layperson's Summary: This bill on or after April 1 2024 and before April 1 2029 would make it so that breast pumps, breast pump kits, breast pump collection and storage supplies, and breast pads will be exempt from a sales and use tax which is the gross receipts from the sale in the state. This bill would also have specific goals and data collection requirement for how this tax expenditure would be used. It will also make it so that the state does not have to reimburse counties and cities for lost revenue from this tax exemption. (Based on 06/14/2023 text) Is Urgency: Y
Is Fiscal: Y
Position: HypWatch
33 of 259

AB 1432 (Carrillo, Wendy, D) Health care coverage.

Current Text: 04/03/2023 - Amended HTML PDF
Introduced: 02/17/2023

Last Amended: 04/03/2023
Status: 06/22/2023 - From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 2.) (June 21). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

Location: 06/21/2023 - Senate Appropriations
Layperson's Summary: The existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, requires health care service plans and health insurers to provide equal coverage to partners of employees or policyholders as they provide to spouses. This bill would extend this law and make it so that health care service plans, policies, or certificates of health insurance have to provide coverage for abortion, abortion-related services, and gender-affirming care to anyone in California, no matter where they live. This could be punishable by law. The bill also states that no extra fees will be charged by the state for doing this. (Based on 04/03/2023 text)
Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Position: HypWatch

SB 257 (Portantino, D) Health care coverage: diagnostic imaging.

Current Text: 01/30/2023 - Introduced HTML PDF
Introduced: 01/30/2023

Status: 06/28/2023 - From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (June 27). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

Location: 06/27/2023 - Assembly Appropriations
Layperson's Summary: . This bill would require health care service plans, policies of disability insurance and self-insured employee welfare benefit plans issued, amended or renewed on or after January 1, 2025 to provide coverage for screening mammography, diagnostic breast imaging, and any medically necessary breast imaging following an abnormal mammography result. This coverage would be required to be provided without any cost sharing (e.g. deductibles, co-payments, co-insurance, etc.). The bill would also require coverage of any breast imaging needed for an enrollee with a risk factor associated with breast cancer, unless otherwise specified. However, this bill does not require the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for any costs due to implementing these mandates. (Based on 01/30/2023 text) Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Position: HypWatch

34 of 259

SB 260 (Menjivar, D) CalWORKs: aid payments.

Current Text: 05/18/2023 - Amended HTML PDF
Introduced: 01/30/2023

Last Amended: 05/18/2023
Status: 07/12/2023 - July 12 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

Location: 07/12/2023 - Assembly APPR. SUSPENSE FILE
Layperson's Summary: This bill would provide financial assistance in the form of a $20 payment per month to menstruating people in California between the ages of 10 and 55 who are qualified for the CalWORKs program. The State Department of Social Services, the County Welfare Directors Association of California, and the California Statewide Automated Welfare System will work together to develop and implement the necessary system changes by April 1, 2025. The bill would also create a continuous appropriation from the General Fund to defray a portion of county costs for implementing the bill and provide that the state will reimburse local agencies and school districts for any mandated costs. (Based on 05/18/2023 text) Is Urgency: N
Is Fiscal: Y
Position: HypWatch
35 of 259

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Professional Services Agreement with Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. to assist Glendale Water and Power (GWP) with the Development of a Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent
Approved for August 22, 2023 Calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 15, 2022, City Council adopted a Motion authorizing the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power (GWP) to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) soliciting proposals from consulting firms to assist with the development of a Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional DER.

The RFP was issued on December 8, 2022, and the submittal period was closed on March 10, 2023. Based on the results of a competitive selection process, staff recommends E3 to perform the required analysis to achieve the goal of having at least 10% of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage, calculate the estimated dispatchable capacity, perform a cost-benefit analyses and develop a plan to achieve the set goals. E3 estimates that the entire process will require approximately 8 months to complete.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Not applicable.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with E3 to assist GWP with the Development of a Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional DER in the not-to-exceed amount of $335,875.
36 of 259

28b
2 7
2 6

BACKGROUND
On August 16, 2022, City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-125, which among other things, declared the City of Glendale’s intent 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. In support of said goals, City Council directed Staff to issue a RFP to solicit proposals for the engagement of the services of a consultant, or consultants, to develop the plan and to complete the studies and analysis specified in Resolution No. 22-125.

ANALYSIS
On December 8, 2022, GWP issued a RFP for the following services:

Category 1: Develop a plan to achieve the goal of having at least 10% of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027, and to develop additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW.

Category 2: Calculate the estimated dispatchable capacity and demand reduction that can be achieved through the plan developed in Category 1.

Category 3: Complete a cost benefit analysis of the plan developed in Category 1. The analysis must include: direct and indirect economic benefits and costs, as well as environmental, societal, and other noneconomic benefits and costs; and direct and indirect impacts to low- and moderate-income households.

If the analysis concludes any negative impacts on low-and-moderate- income households, include program options to mitigate the impact.

Proposers could submit a proposal for one, two or all three categories.

The initial proposal submittal deadline was extended from February 10, 2023, to March 10, 2023, to allow additional time for proposal submittal.

Proposal Selection and Evaluation
GWP received proposals from the following six (6) firms:
oCenter for Sustainable Energy (Partner: Strategen)
oEcoMotion Inc (Subcontractor: Verdant Associates, LLC) oEnergeia USA (Partner: Consensus)
oEnergy and Environmental Economics, Inc (E3)
oMCR Corporate Services, Inc (Partner: Enerlogics Networks, Inc) oOptony, Inc (Subcontractors: NewGen Strategies & Solutions LLC) GWP staff conducted a competitive selection process with the six respondents rating proposals based on criteria that include Qualification and Experience, Reasonableness 37 of 259

38b
2 7
2 6
and Quality of the Proposal, Proposed Methodology/Approach to be used in development of the Cost-Benefit Analysis, Ability to meet proposed schedule and budget estimates, and lastly, Proposed Cost.

Interviews were conducted with each proposer seeking additional details about planned outreach efforts, initial assessment of feasibility to reach set goals, experience doing assessments of lower-income and underserved communities, and preferred tools and methodologies to be used for Categories 2 and 3.

These interviews also provided each proposer an opportunity to further clarify any of their strengths or prior experience. The additional clarification from the interviews was considered in the final scoring.

The table below illustrates the rating for proposers based on the selection criteria.

Table I
E3 ranked the highest based on overall score, as summarized in Table I.

Project Approach and Methodology
Upon execution of the contract, E3 will start with evaluating the adoption potential for GWP in the following three categories:

Category 1
(1) review existing GWP data, (2) determine solar and battery technical capacity potential, (3) gather market segmentation data, and proceed with (4) developing a plan for mix of customer and GWP controlled sites, (5) identify robust Net Metering Policy, Feed-In Tariffs, Incentives and Rebates and (6) develop equitable program options.

When designing programs and incentives, E3 will concentrate on: (1) bundled DER offering, (2) contractor vetting, (3) designer guidelines, (4) demand response, (5) permitting, and (6) resilience planning.

There will be outreach and engagement with customers throughout the planning process.

E3’s sister company, Willdan will identify and include Community Solar Projects and will work on integrating with additional DER technologies.
38 of 259

48b
2 7
2 6
The result of this work will be a formal plan with prioritized approaches and strategies with input from GWP and its customers.

Category 2
(1) review and summarize GWP’s Integrated Resource Plan, with a focus on load and DER forecasts to ensure accurate representation, (2) use NREP ResStock to quantify the dispatchable capacity and demand reduction potential of DERs (through its RESTORE model) for valuation & rate design considerations and (3) leverage its experience performing resource adequacy analyses for other CA utilities and use these utilities’ results to quantify Effective Load Carrying Capacity (ELCC) for demand reduction.

Category 3
E3 is currently implementing several improvements for 2024 update of CPUC Avoided Cost Calculator to better reflect value of DER in low carbon planning paradigm that they will be using as part of the cost-benefit analysis. They will use GWP IRP results to update avoided costs, with an emphasis on Green House Gas emissions, clean/renewable energy, system and local capacity value.

In determining the non-energy benefits to be included in an analysis of GWP’s solar plus storage, E3 will provide well-reasoned methods and explanations for which benefits to include and appropriate methods for quantification, with an emphasis on which benefits are and are not appropriate for host customer and societal perspectives or quantification in a cost-benefit analysis.

To the extent that there are any differences in costs and benefits available to low-income households, a separate cost-benefit analysis will be conducted from the customer perspective to incorporate these differences.

Willdan has been implementing a commercial direct installation program for GWP since 2021 and has been meeting contractual targets.

Stakeholder Engagement
Seeking stakeholder information will be an open, fair, and accessible process by which individuals, groups, and organizations representing a reasonable cross section of the Glendale community can provide contributions towards the development of DER programs.

Included in E3’s proposal and cost are community engagement efforts, including three (3) community meetings as part of this planning process. During those meetings E3 will provide multi-lingual materials and communication to residents in different parts of the city to understand barriers to DER adoption and areas of particular concern and will work with GWP to share information about other available programs and benefits for their customers in attendance. E3’s Environmental Justice lead will support these efforts to ensure that diverse perspectives are included and that proposals are equitable. 39 of 259

58b
2 7
2 6
Project Description: City of Glendale, Water & Power
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop
Additional DER
Procurement Method (RFP / SS): Request for Proposal
Advertisement Method: City of Glendale Website
RFP Issued: 12/8/2022
RFP Due Date: 3/10/2023
Company Name(s): oCenter for Sustainable Energy
oEcoMotion Inc
oEnergeia USA
oE3, Inc
oMCR Corporate Services, Inc
oOptony Inc
Selection Criteria: Qualification and Experience, Reasonableness and Quality of the Proposal, Proposed
Methodology/Approach to be used in
development of the Cost-Benefit Analysis, Ability
to meet proposed schedule and budget
estimates, Proposed Cost.

Recommended Company or
Consultant:

E3, Inc
Contract Term: Upon completion of work
Project Begins: Upon execution of Agreement
Project Ends: Upon receipt of deliverables

CONTRACT DASHBOARDS
Not Applicable.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not Applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total not-to-exceed amount for the agreement is $335,875. Funding associated with this agreement for the current fiscal year is available in the FY 2023-2024 budget.

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$335,875 GL: 43110-5820-GWP-4520-
P0000-T1562-F0000-0000-0000
Electric Works Revenue Fund
40 of 259

68b
2 7
2 6

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable. The action herein is to award a PSA for the development of a plan and thus is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744, the Campaign Disclosures including the names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CEO, subcontractors, and any person or entity with more than ten percent interest in the company are attached as follows:

Exhibit 1: Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (E3) Exhibit 2: Center for Sustainable Energy (Partner: Strategen) Exhibit 3: EcoMotion Inc (Subcontractor: Verdant Associates, LLC) Exhibit 4: Energeia USA (Partner: Consensus)
Exhibit 5: MCR Corporate Services, Inc (Partner: Enerlogics Networks, Inc) Exhibit 6: Optony, Inc (Subcontractors: NewGen Strategies & Solutions LLC)

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a Professional Services Agreement with E3, Inc to develop a Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional DER, for the not-to-exceed amount of $335,875.

Alternative 2: Not Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a Professional Services Agreement with E3, Inc to develop a Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional DER.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Scott Mellon, Assistant General Manager, Power Management - GWP Herbert Garcia, PBC Marketing Manager – GWP
Aneta Badalian, Business Transformation Manager – GWP
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
41 of 259

78b
2 7
2 6

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
Campaign Disclosures for proposers as follows:

Exhibit 1: Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (E3) Exhibit 2: Center for Sustainable Energy
Exhibit 3: EcoMotion Inc
Exhibit 4: Energeia USA
Exhibit 5: MCR Corporate Services, Inc
Exhibit 6: Optony, Inc
42 of 259

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (E3) to assist Glendale Water & Power (GWP) with the Development of a Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources (DER) in the not to exceed amount of $335,875, as described in the Report Dated August 22, 2023 by the General Manager of GWP. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to execute said PSA subject to approval by the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
43 of 259

44 of 259

45 of 259

46 of 259

47 of 259

48 of 259

City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP DISCLOSURE - CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE – CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS 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** Glendale (“City”), Glendale Successor Agency or Glendale Redevelopment Agency (“GSA”), or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale (“HA”) and that contract is subject Clerk, or City Treasurer; and (2) Council
members, GSA members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract affecting a contractor or subcontractor who has provided a campaign contribution.

The provisions of the Ordinance restricting Council members from voting on matters affecting campaign contributors applies to a contractor whose contract requires the City Council’s, GSA’s, or HA’s approval, and specified subcontractors. A contract with the City, GSA, or HA is known as a “City Contract.” The Ordinance excludes a competitively bid contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

To assist members of the City Council, GSA, 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 specified subcontractor(s) working under the City Contract.

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
EcoMotion 216 West Kenneth Road, Glendale, CA 91202
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Ted Flanigan Chief Executive Officer / President 216 West Kenneth Road Chief Operating Officer
Glendale CA 91202
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, GSA, or HA. In addition to the name of the person, or entity, the Contractor must also disclose the name(s) of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, 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, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Please disclose these persons’ name and business address.

PF:25
49 of 259

City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP Subcontractor(s)**:

Name
Verdant Associates
Address
1972 Los Angeles Avenue, Berkeley, California, 94707
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson 1972 Los Angeles Avenue Berkeley CA 94707
Dr. Jean Shelton Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
** “Subcontractor” is a 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 general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. You must also disclose the names of each Subcontractor’s Board of Directors, 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, 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. Attach additional forms as needed for additional Subcontractors.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

CERTIFICATION
On behalf of the above-named x 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:

In total, this disclosure form (including attachments) is 1 pages.

Executed on:

Signature:

February 10 , 20 23 , at: Glendale , California.

Print Full Name: Ted Flanigan
Address: 216 West Kenneth Road
Phone Number: 949 - 292 - 7314 E-mail Address: [email protected] PF:26
50 of 259

Confidential Page 43 of 89 February 2023

51 of 259

Confidential Page 42 of 89 February 2023
Disclosure – Campaign Finance Ordinance Form
52 of 259

53 of 259

54 of 259

Contractor(s)*:

Name Address
Optony, Inc 5201 Great America Pkwy, Suite 320, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Byron Pakter Chairperson same as below
Byron Pakter
Jonathan Whelan
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
5201 Great America Pkwy, Suite 320
5201 Great America Pkwy, Suite 320
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
CA
CA
95054
95054
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, GSA, or HA. In addition to the name of the person, or entity, the Contractor must also disclose the name(s) of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, 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, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Please disclose these persons’ name and business address.

PF:25
55 of 259

City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP Subcontractor(s)**:

Name Address
NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC
Full Name
Mike Lane
225 Union Blvd., Ste. 450, Lakewood, CO 80228
Title
Chairperson
Business Address City State
TN
Zip
49 Music Square West, Ste. 505 Nashville 37203
David Yanke Chief Executive Officer / President 8140 N. Mopac Expy., Bldg. 1, Ste. 240 Austin TX 78759 Chief Operating Officer
Christopher Ekrut Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
Richardson TX275 W. Campbell Rd., Ste. 440 75080
Anthony Georgis More than 10% interest owner 225 Union Blvd., Ste. 450 Lakewood CO 80228 ** “Subcontractor” is a 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 general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. You must also disclose the names of each Subcontractor’s Board of Directors, 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, 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. Attach additional forms as needed for additional Subcontractors.

NACampaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

CERTIFICATION
On behalf of the above-named X Contractor Subcontractor:

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. 2In total, this disclosure form (including attachments) is pages. , at:February 8 23 Berkeley
Print Full Name:

Executed on:

Signature:
, 20 , California.

Byron Pakter
5201 Great America Pkwy, Suite 320, Santa Clara, CA 95054 (510) 705-2811
Address:
[email protected] Number: XXXXXXXXXXX 408-567-9216 E-mail Address:

PF:26
56 of 259

CITY OF GLENDALE

GLENDALE WATER & POWER
Proposal
Plan to Increase Solar and DER
February 7, 2023
57 of 259

Volume I - Proposal Forms
58 of 259

PF:1
APPENDIX D –

PROPOSAL FORMS AND DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS

PROPOSAL CHECKLIST
The City has developed this optional checklist to assist Proposers in complying with the proposal submittal requirements.

Volume I – PROPOSAL FORMS
___ Proposal Form and Signature Page
___ Notarial Acknowledgement Form
___ Experience Form and Attached Brief description of each Project ___ Proposer’s Qualifications Statement
___ Insurance Requirements Affidavit
___ Disclosure – Campaign Finance Ordinance Form
___ Public Records Exempt Information
Volume II – MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL
___ Organization/ Management Approach to the Work
___ Qualifications of Key Personnel
___ Key Personnel References
Volume III – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
___ Project Summary
___ Budget
___ Project Development Process
___ Project Implementation Timeline
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
59 of 259

60 of 259

61 of 259

62 of 259

63 of 259

64 of 259

65 of 259

66 of 259

67 of 259

68 of 259

69 of 259

70 of 259

71 of 259

72 of 259

73 of 259

74 of 259

75 of 259

76 of 259

77 of 259

78 of 259

79 of 259

80 of 259

81 of 259

82 of 259

83 of 259

84 of 259

Volume II - Management Proposal
85 of 259

Table of Contents
Organizational/Management Approach to the Work _____________________________ 1

1.1 Team Structure ______________________________________________________________ 2

1.2 Approach to Risk Management __________________________________________________ 3 Qualifications of Key Personnel ______________________________________________ 4 Key Personnel References __________________________________________________ 16

3.1 Snuller Price, Senior Advisor ___________________________________________________ 16

3.2 Eric Cutter, Project Lead ______________________________________________________ 16

3.3 Margo Bonner, Project Manager ________________________________________________ 17

3.4 Patrick Burgess, DER Lead _____________________________________________________ 18

3.5 Sierra Spencer, Cost Benefit Lead _______________________________________________ 18

86 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 1
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Organizational/Management Approach to the Work Organizational/Management Approach to the Work
E3 has decades of experience completing complex, multi -stakeholder projects on tight deadlines, and understands what it will take to provide GWP with a high-quality plan. This section defines our approach to working closely with GWP to ensure that we hit t he ground running and manage the Study appropriately.

E3 will provide GWP with a project management team consisting of a Project Lead, Project Manager, and two Senior Advisors. The Project Lead will be responsible for the direction of the project and the quality of all project deliverables. The Project Manager will be the day -to-day point of contact for GWP and will coordinate the E3 team’s timely completion of all tasks. The Senior Advisors will focus their support at strategic junctures in the project, including participation in important stakeholder engagement activities and during meetings between the E3 team and GWP. E3 has successfully deployed this project management model for many large, multi-stakeholder projects.

Upon contract execution, the E3 project team will develop a draft work plan showing a detailed scope of work, assignment of E3 project members to tasks, project timeline, and potential stakeholders.

E3’s project manager will schedule an online project kick-off meeting with GWP to discuss the work plan, project deliverables and logistics. During the project, our project manager will establish regular check -in meetings with the project manager from GWP to ensure clear communication and real -time feedback regarding the project’s progress.

Following the project kick-off meeting, E3 will organize biweekly meetings with GWP to provide updates on progress towards key deliverables and to identify any challenges or key questions for GWP’s review.

E3 will circulate agendas in advance of each meeting and will follow up with meeting minutes and a written summary of action items following each meeting. The E3 project team will prepare monthly progress reports describing the work completed to date, budget status, and next steps on each task. The progress report will include an updated project milestone schedule , a list of activities completed and not accomplished since the previous report, identification of any items that might impact the project schedule and an updated list of action items. Should any delay arise which impacts deliverable dates, the GWP team will be notified immediately of the cause of the delay and a plan will be put in place to ensure the project remains on track.

Project Communication deliverables and schedule
Deliverables Schedule
Meeting minutes of each E3 and GWP meeting Within two days of call/meeting Coordination call summaries Within one day of call
Monthly Progress Reports By the 7th day of following month 87 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 2
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Organizational/Management Approach to the Work

1.1 Team Structure
Given the interdisciplinary nature of this work, covering program and implementation potential, impacts on customer demand, and avoided costs and cost benefit analysis, E3 has developed a project leadership team that draws expertise from across our firm. T he E3 team structure is pictured below, with brief role descriptions below. Team member resumes are included in Section 2 of this Management Proposal.

Eric Cutter, Partner at E3, will be the partner engaged in this work and will be responsible for the overall work quality as the Lead Partner. He will provide strategic direction and oversight for this work as the Project Lead. Margo Bonner, Managing Consultant at E3 , will serve as the day -to-day Project Manager and the primary contact between E3 and GWP. Patrick Burgess, Vice President at Willdan, will be the DER Lead on this project. He will leverage his implementation expertise to lead Category 1. Sierra Spencer, Senior Consultant at E3, will lead Category 2 a nd Category 3 , supported by E3 analysts Charlie Duff, Fangxing Liu, Tara Katamay-Smith, and Hannah Platter, who will provide modeling, analytical support, and technical writing. The project team will be rounded out by subject-matter experts (SMEs) from across E3 to provide insight on key aspects of the project.
88 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 3
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Organizational/Management Approach to the Work

1.2 Approach to Risk Management
All E3 work products, including models and reports, go through rigorous quality control and internal scrutiny and debate before they are released. All client deliverables are thoroughly reviewed by the E3 Project Manager before delivery to the client. Additionally, E3’s breadth of project resources provides cross-checking of results against similar analysis. E3 monitors and tracks quality of performance of staff and subcontractors to ensure contract compliance and excellence.

The importance of producing high -quality, error-free technical work is evident in a number of facets of our organization:

First, we structure our project teams to ensure each project has the direct att ention of multiple senior staff. Each project is assigned a Project Lead, a Project Manager, and technical or task leads, and all three positions play crucial roles in the successful outcome of the project. The Project Lead, either a Partner or Director with 10+ years of industry experience, guides the overall direction of the project and applies his/her extensive knowledge to ensure the analysis aligns with expectations and is consistent with E3’s larger body of work. The Project Lead is supported by a Project Manager who oversees day -to-day operations managing project resources, deliverables, and close coordination with th e client. The Project Manager develops and maintains a project plan, schedule and action log, organizes and maintains project records including meeting materials and notes, and reports progress on a regular cadence. A Technical Lead is also assigned whose responsibility is to attend to the quality of the technical analysis. Our Technical Leads have generally developed deep working knowledge of the models they oversee and have strong intuition for the results.

Second, E3 has instituted a rigorous internal t raining program for all new consultants. E3’s new hire training program is a lecture- and homework-style training course that ensures all of E3’s consultants are well-versed and experienced in the fundamentals of energy systems modelling and understand the standards to which their work will be held. E3’s training program also includes a “continuing-education”- style component whereby staff can seek further training on specific models and topics outside of normal project work as their careers at E3 progress.

Third, E3 has developed internal protocols and best practices for data management. A common source of errors in technical work originates when data is transferred between parties and is either misinterpreted or mismanaged after receipt. Our data management practices require our employees to store and share data in a consistent format and structure to reduce the likelihood of these types of errors. Further, our data management policies are designed to mitigate version control issues.

Finally, E3 has developed diagnostic reports and checks for our most common modelling tools that allow us to identify errors and correct them quickly. Many of these diagnostic reports, written as Python-based add-ons that print out diagnostics and key results with each model run, provide us with a regular and consistent approach to error-checking and flagging erroneous results.

Through these measures, E3 has developed a reputation for extremely high -quality analysis and reports that our clients can be confident are accurate and ca n withstand intense regulatory and stakeholder scrutiny.
89 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 4
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Qualifications of Key Personnel Qualifications of Key Personnel
Resumes for the key personnel on the E3 team begin on the following page.

90 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 5
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Qualifications of Key Personnel Snuller Price
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94104 [email protected]

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS, INC. San Francisco, CA Senior Partner

Mr. Price joined E3 in 1993 and Distributed Energy Resource (DER) practice area. For over 25 years, he has helped state and federal government agencies, utilities, and technology companies recognize and support a clean energy transition. His work in regulatory analysis focuses on evaluation of DER cost-effectiveness and he has contributed to assessments of the largest and most sophisticated DER programs in the U.S., including those in California, New York, and other states. He has also built several tools to support utility planning and assessment of distributed resources as well as rooftop solar, energy storage, advanced demand response, building standards, and other resources. In 2012, Mr. Price co-authored a landmark E3 article in the journal Science exploring the pivotal role of electrification in achieving deep greenhouse gas reductions. His clients include state agencies such as California Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Commission, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority; utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric, Consolidated Edison, Southern California Edison, National Grid; and technology companies and others. Some select projects at E3 by practice area include:

Distributed Energy Resources:

o Technical lead for New York City Local Law 97 Implementation Action Plan for the NYC Department of Energy Management. This project, currently underway, charts an implementation plan to achieve 40% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in city operations by 2025, and 50% reduction by 2030.
o Lead investigator for the development of California’s Avoided Costs (2004 to Present). Mr. Price oversees the E3 work on the cost-effectiveness framework for California’s DER cost- effectiveness assessment used to evaluate the nearly $2 billion per year portfolio. o Lead investigator for the development of the Time-Dependent Valuation (TDV) methodology adopted by the California Energy Commission for the 2005, 2008, 2013, 2016, and 2019 Title 24 Building Standards.
o Led numerous analyses on the cost-effectiveness of Net Energy Metering for state commissions, energy offices, and legislatures. Work was completed in California, Nevada, New York, and other states and jurisdictions.

Energy Transition:

o Led analysis of the impact of California’s Assembly Bill 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act) on the electricity sector for the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) and California Air Resources Board (CARB). Continues to lead the E3 team in supporting the ARB in periodic Scoping Plan Updates.
o Principal Investigator for New York State Energy Research and Development Authority in the development of deep decarbonization scenarios for New York in support of the CLCPA. o Updated the energy efficiency framework to allow California’s public purpose funds to be spent on fuel switching subject to emissions, source energy, and cost-effectiveness criteria.

91 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 6
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Qualifications of Key Personnel Energy Efficiency and Demand Response:

o Supported the work to develop the U.S. EPA / DOE National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency.

Led the development of materials for the Leadership Group on the following topics: the business case for energy efficiency; decoupling and incentives for utility shareholders; and integrating energy efficiency in resource planning. Provided material contributions to the 2015 DOE Quadrennial Energy Review on energy efficiency, solar rooftops, and energy storage. o Led the team that developed the CPUC Demand Response cost-effectiveness tool, the “DR Screening Template.” Supported the California ISO in its response to FERC regarding Order 719 and the status of demand response in California. Supported the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Demand Response Potential Study released in 2016.

Integrated Distribution Planning:

o Since 1993, Mr. Price has led dozens of studies and pilots on the economics of distributed resources across a range of technologies including renewables, energy storage, combined heat and power, demand response, and energy efficiency. He has evaluated numerous local integrated resource planning (LIRP) analyses for distribution utilities and developed several economic and reliability screening tools to evaluate distributed resource.

Education

Stanford University Palo Alto, CA M.S., Engineering Economic Systems and Operations Research 1998

Swarthmore College Swarthmore, PA
B.A., Economics and B.S., Engineering 1993

Selected Professional Reports and Publications

1. A. Mahone, Dr. Z. Subin, J. Kahn-Lang, D. Allen, V. Li, G. De Moor, Dr. N. Ryan, S. Price “Deep Decarbonization in a High Renewables Future: Updated Results from the California PATHWAYS Model” (2018).

2. Aas, D., S. Bharadwaj, A. Mahone, Z. Subin, T. Clark, S. Price “Pacific Northwest Pathways to 2050” (2018).

3. Price, S., Z. Ming, A. Ong “Nevada Net Energy Metering Impacts Evaluation 2016 Update” (2016)

4. J.Williams, A. DeBenedictis, R.Ghanadan, A. Mahone, J. Moore, W. Morrow III, S. Price, M.

Torn, “The Technology Path to Deep Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts by 2050: The Pivotal Role of Electricity” Science 06 Jan 2012: Vol. 335, Issue 6064, pp. 53-59.

5. Sreedharan, P., D. Miller, S. Price and C.K. Woo (2012) "Avoided cost estimation and cost- effectiveness of permanent load shifting in California," Applied Energy, 96, 115-121.

6. Moore, J., C.K. Woo, B. Horii, S. Price and A. Olson (2010) "Estimating the Option Value of a Non- firm Electricity Tariff," Energy, 35, 1609-1614.
92 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 7
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Qualifications of Key Personnel Eric Cutter
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94104 [email protected]

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS, INC. San Francisco, CA Partner

Mr. Cutter leads E3’s practice area enabling distributed resources and electric vehicles to serve as valuable resources for the electric grid. He manages E3’s team working on vehicle grid integration with utilities, regulators, automakers and electric vehicle service providers to develop strategic roadmaps, perf orm cost-benefit analysis and develop business strategies. Building on decades of experience in distributed resources, Mr. Cutter is also leading work on valuation of energy storage and flexible loads, with an emphasis on distribution planning. Prior to joining E3, he worked as an independent consultant in water resources for seven years, and at PG&E for ten years. Some Mr. Cutter’s recent projects include:

o Developing transportation electrification strategies for utilities in California, Arizona, the Pacific Northwest, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Quebec, and winning management and regulatory approval supported by robust modeling of EV charging behavior and cost-benefit analysis. o Supporting Nova Scotia Power in the development of its utility electrification strategy. E3’s support included a jurisdictional review of electrification activities across North America, and E3 is now working closely with NS Power to perform several modeling tasks including developing scenario-based building and transportation load shapes consistent with Net-Zero and performing an analysis of the costs and benefits associated with electrification investment. o Quantifying the value of distribution-aware vehicle-to-grid (V2G) EV services for local distribution and wholesale energy market benefits for Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Nuvve. Leading the team developing E3’s EV Grid Impacts Model optimizing charging behavior for 30+ vehicle types and customer segments.
o Leading development of E3’s Integrated Distributed Energy Resources (IDER) model to develop the business case for targeted deployment of solar, storage, EVs and other DER. Engaged with numerous utilities and project developers to evaluate proposed storage projects in competitive solicitations.
o Leading E3’s advanced cost-benefit analysis for DERs and improved valuation of DERs to support key strategic decision-making regarding impacts on rates, competitiveness, and electrification policy.
o Leading California Solar Initiative (CSI) RD&D $1.8 million PV integrated storage project, deploying Sunverge systems for SMUD to provide local distribution and customer benefits.

Analysis with E3’s Integrated Distributed Energy Resources (IDER) model showed benefits increased by 2.5x when storage is dispatched for utility and customer benefits. o Developing and updating robust models since 2009 calculating avoided costs and reporting on cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency, demand response, and distributed generation programs for four investor-owned and 34 municipal utilities in California.

100TH MERIDIAN San Anselmo, CA Lead Consultant 2000-2005

o Developed robust economic and reservoir operations models for FERC re-licensing proceedings 93 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 8
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Qualifications of Key Personnel o Developed cost of generation model for California Energy Commission comparing costs for different technology, ownership, financing and operating scenarios

PG&E ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION SERVICES San Francisco, CA Senior Resource Analyst 1998-1999

o Developed and promoted policy changes before the California Independent System Operator, saving PG&E over $60 million in annual Reliability Must Run payments; successfully advocated progressive solutions in uncertain regulatory environment

PG&E POWER MARKET PLANNING San Francisco, CA Senior Resource Planner 1997-1998

o Structured and implemented extensive Energy Trading Risk Management System o Created and analyzed hedging strategies for energy trading at real-time desk

PG&E – VARIOUS San Francisco, CA 1989-1997

o Developed and advocated transportation and storage pricing strategies, increasing margins and earning revenues of $7 million per month from sales of storage and transportation products o Implemented risk management procedures for valuing embedded options in transportation and storage contracts
o Lead regulatory policy analyst for implementation of capacity brokering for PG&E’s intra- and interstate natural gas pipelines

Education

University of California Berkeley, CA M.B.A., Haas School of Business
University of California Berkeley, CA M.S., Energy and Water Resources, Energy and Resources Group

Tufts University Medford, MA
B.A., Economics and German, Magna Cum Laude

Refereed Publications

1. E. Cutter, B. Haley, J. Hargreaves, J. Williams, “Utility Scale Energy Storage and the Need for Flexible Capacity Metrics”, Applied Energy, 124 (2014) 274-282.

2. DeBenedictis, A., B. Haley, C.K. Woo, E. Cutter “Operational energy-efficiency improvement of municipal water pumping in California,” Energy, 53 (2013) 237-243.

3. Cutter, Eric A., C.K. Woo, F. Kahrl, A. Taylor “Maximizing the Value of Responsive Load,” The Electricity Journal, (2012) 25:7, 6-16.
94 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 9
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Qualifications of Key Personnel Margo Bonner
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94104 [email protected]

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS, INC. Remote
Managing Consultant

Margo Bonner joined E3 in 2022 and will support E3’s work in distributed energy resources. Margo brings over nine years of experience in program design and evaluation, policy analysis, and consulting. Prior to joining E3, Margo worked at Opinion Dynamics, where she conducted market assessments and evaluations of customer -facing energy efficiency programs, primarily within the non -residential sector.

Margo holds a master’s degree in international public policy from the University of California, San Diego and a Bachelor of Science from Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service.

OPINION DYNAMICS San Diego, CA
Principal Consultant February 2021 – October 2022

o Lead multiple complex research projects with a focus on distributed energy resources within the non-residential sector.
o Responsible for all aspects of projects, including working with subcontractors, serving as the day-to-day contact for a range of clients (state governments, utilities, and corporations), and managing budget, schedule and deliverables.
o Routinely collaborate with engineering, data analytics, and field research teams to translate technical concepts into meaningful and actionable evaluation results. o Manage and develop two junior staff, including hiring, onboarding, and ongoing performance management.
o Write proposals for new work, including drafting proposed research scopes and developing budgets, schedules and staffing plans.

Managing Consultant February 2020 – February 2021
o Conducted evaluations of pilot programs, emerging technology, and non-resource programs (e.g., energy-efficiency financing mechanisms) for the California Public Utilities Commission. o Managed the analytics and reporting components of a novel research project to understand enduse load profiles in ZNE homes for the California Energy Commission.

Senior Consultant November 2018 – February 2020
o Quantified energy savings and economic impacts achieved by Home Performance with ENERGYSTAR programs.
o Executed GIS analyses using climate and census data to develop customer targeting tools.

Consultant November 2017 – November 2018
o Lead analyst for impact and process evaluations of energy efficiency and demand response programs. Primary responsibilities included developing detailed analysis plans, designing data collection instruments, fielding surveys, aggregating and cleaning large datasets, and translating research into detailed reports and presentations.

UC SAN DIEGO SCHOOL OF GLOBAL POLICY AND STRATEGY La Jolla, CA Graduate Student Researcher January 2016 – August 2017
95 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 10
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Qualifications of Key Personnel

o Performed water consumption and demand forecasting using ecosystem service mapping software for California’s agricultural sector through a National Science Foundation grant focused on monitoring and managing food, energy, and water systems under stress.

BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON, INC. Washington, DC
Senior Consultant January 2014 – June 2015

o Supported the U.S. Navy’s contract and legal teams in all aspects of the defense acquisition process to procure and deploy a $4.3 billion electronic health record system.

Consultant March 2013 – January 2014
o Led policy research and analysis portion of the DoD Base and Installation Defense (DBID) scoping study to define the existing organizational and regulatory landscape related to the military’s base defense operations.
o Initiated and developed in collaboration with engineering team a unique data methodology and mapping system using weighted metrics in support of the DBID team’s cost valuation.

Education

University of California, San Diego La Jolla, CA
M.A., International Politics & Public Policy June 2017

Georgetown University Washington, DC
B.S., Edmund A Walsh School of Foreign Service, International Security Studies May 2013

96 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 11
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Qualifications of Key Personnel

PROFILE
Patrick Burgess has 10 years of experience managing complex energy projects, including the development and deployment of behind the meter distributed energy resources, such as energy storage systems, solar, building electrification, grid management devices, and a fully developed smart grid network and SCADA system at the IIT Microgrid in Chicago. He leads operations for the CA utility programs to deploy demand response enabled heat pump water heaters to commercial customers and has overseen the installation of over 200 projects on time and on budget. He also completed financial and technical stud ies and created feasibility plans for 15 advanced community microgrids for cities in NY (NYSERDA’s NY Prize Program), MA (MassCEC’s Community Microgrid Program), and CA (direct-to-customer work).

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Strategic Energy Management Plan.

Leads the development of an energy master plan that will guide campus decisions regarding facility updates and ensure they align with University commitments to achieve Zero Net Energy by 2035 and carbon neutrality by 2050. This includes a detailed campus technical review, modeling of solar, storage, hydrogen fue l cell, and cogeneration pathways to meet 2035 and 2050 goals, development of a framework for campus decision making, and publishing a public facing report with findings and recommendations.

PG&E Public EE Program and SCE Commercial Program, California. Leads operations for PG&E Public program and SCE Commercial Program including managing and onboarding subcontractors, training the field audit team, managing engineering, construction managemen t, and permit and project closeout teams for electrical and mechanical upgrades in facilities ranging from police and fire stations and city halls to gyms, hotels, and hospitals. Since 2021, Patrick has led a team of 15 to deliver over 200 projects on time and on budget.

Resilient Solar Storage System and Red Cross Emergency Shelter Site. Managed the implementation for a microgrid at San Jacinto High School, whose gymnasium is a designated Red Cross emergency shelter, to provide prolonged disaster relief through battery backup and microgrid capability during emergencies such as wildfires. Project is funded through the local utility, Southern California Edison, and pilots an innovative solution that can be expanded to other California utilities to provide lon g-term disaster relief capabilities. Performed value engineering to determine quantified needs, benefits, and risks for different combinations of solutions. Designed a resilient energy supply (1 MW solar, 500 kW battery -enabled microgrid) with islanding capabilities.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. Performed engineering design and analysis for a Solar + Storage resilient microgrid combining two designated Red Cross emergency shelter sites that serve over 400 residents in areas at high-risk for wildfire. Performed energy efficiency load reduction study for 20% baseline energy savings, solar analysis for 750 kW of Solar PV, optimal dispatch for 1,600 kWh of energy storage, islanding infrastructure, and controls analysis and developed preliminary technical design costs and configuration for an implementation funding proposal.

EDUCATION
MS, Electrical Engineering
Illinois Institute of
Technology, Chicago, IL

BS, Electrical Engineering,
Illinois Institute of
Technology, Chicago, IL

Patrick
Burgess
DER Lead
10 Years’ Experience
97 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 12
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Qualifications of Key Personnel Sierra Spencer
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94104 [email protected]

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS, INC. San Francisco, CA Senior Consultant
Sierra Spencer joined E3 in 2019. Her work focuses on analyzing opportunities to leverage distributed energy resources to reduce the environmental impacts of energy use and supporting clients’ transportation electrification and renewables integration efforts. Sie rra has also worked on long -term resource planning with an emphasis on meeting emission reductions goals, maintaining system reliability, and achieving equitable outcomes. Prior to joining E3, Sierra conducted research on managed charging for electric vehi cles and utilizing biofuels for central heating. In addition to her master’s degree, Sierra received a M.S. in civil and environmental engineering from University of California, Berkeley and a B.S. in engineering and B.A. in environmental studies from Swarthmore College. Recent E3 projects include:
o Xcel Energy (2022). Led a cost-benefit analysis of vehicle electrification in Xcel’s Minnesota and Wisconsin service territories to understand the economic implications of proposed EV charging and school bus purchase programs on Xcel’s Minnesota and Wisconsin drivers, ratepayers, and society as a whole. The cost-benefit analysis and written report supported the regulatory filing of Xcel’s proposed EV programs.
o Pacific Northwest RESOLVE for BPA study on the replacement of Lower Snake River dams (2022). Led RESOLVE modeling to determine the value of the Lower Snake River dams under different clean energy policy, load growth, and emerging technology availability scenarios.

RESOLVE modeling assessed the resources needed to replace the energy and reliability services provided by the dams and the costs associated with those resources. o Electrification Strategy for confidential electric utility (2021-present). Conducted a cost-benefit analysis of transportation electrification, including the electrification of light-duty vehicles, parcel trucks, and transit buses, in the utility’s service territory. Findings from the transportation electrification cost-benefit analysis were evaluated alongside a building electrification analysis to create a comprehensive electrification strategy for the utility. o Black Hills Colorado (2021-2022). Led analysis in E3’s RESOLVE capacity expansion model to assess the cost and reliability implications of options for long-term resource portfolios. o California Public Utilities Commission Net Energy Metering (NEM) proceeding (2021).

Conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of party proposals for reforms to California’s NEM policy. The cost-effectiveness analysis informed the California Energy Commission’s proposed decision on the state’s NEM reform.
o New York Power Authority Transit Bus Electrification Master Plan (2021). Evaluated the cost implications of electrifying New York state’s five largest transit agencies outside of New York City by 2035. Findings were used to inform electrification roadmaps for each transit agency. o EV load shape modeling for utilities and automakers (2019-present). Developed electric vehicle (EV) charging profiles under different charge management strategies using E3’s EV Load Shape Tool for a variety of utility and automaker clients. Charging profiles are used to understand implications of charge management strategies, electric rate designs, and technological innovations on additional load from EV charging.
98 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 13
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Qualifications of Key Personnel o Hawaiian Electric Company EV charging rates and DCFC program expansion regulatory filings (2021). Conducted cost-benefit analyses to support HECO’s filings for Hawaii Public Utilities Commission approval of EV-specific electric rates and public charging infrastructure programs. o California Public Utilities Commission Residential Energy Cost Calculator (2020-2021). Worked to develop the Residential Energy Cost Calculator (RECC) as part of California’s integrated resource planning (IRP) process. The RECC provides 10-year forecasts of customer energy bills and affordability metrics for two dozen types of households in California. The RECC will be used in the IRP process to assess implications of long-term planning decisions, such as emissions reduction targets, on residential customer energy costs and affordability. The RECC can also be used to compare the impacts of electrification and rate design on household energy costs. o Sacramento Municipal Utility District 2030 Zero Carbon Plan (2020-2021). Utilized E3’s RESOLVE capacity expansion tool to assess the resource build and cost implications of different scenarios that comply with SMUD’s 2030 zero emissions goals. Sierra helped to identify optimal resource portfolios under different carbon accounting methodologies and technology availability scenarios.
o Confidential transit agency in US (2019). Ms. Spencer helped determine the most economic renewable energy procurement option to meet a large U.S. transit agency’s long-term sustainability targets. Ms. Spencer led development of load shapes for the transit agency’s end uses and helped calculate the emissions and cost implications of different procurement strategies.

TRANSPORTATION SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH CENTER Berkeley, CA Graduate Student Researcher August 2018 – August 2019

PRESIDENTIAL SUSTAINABILITY RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP Swarthmore, PA Research Fellow August 2017 – May 2018

SWARTHMORE COLLEGE Swarthmore, PA
Student Researcher November 2017 – May 2018

CLIMATE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS GROUP Cape Town, South Africa Student Researcher January 2017 – June 2017

SWARTHMORE COLLEGE Swarthmore, PA
Student Researcher June 2016 – August 2016

THE PHILADELPHIA ZOO Philadelphia, PA
Environmental Education and Animal Behavior Intern May 2015 – August 2015

Education

University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA M.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering (Energy, Civil Infrastructure, & Climate) 2019

Swarthmore College Swarthmore, PA
B.S., Engineering and B.A., Environmental Studies 2018 99 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 14
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Qualifications of Key Personnel

PROFILE
Ben Laboy leads the implementation and analysis of distributed energy resources, including renewable generation and energy efficiency projects. Providing engineering support, Mr. Laboy performs energy analyses for commercial, industrial and government projects as well as optimization of utility incentives for these projects. Mr. Laboy draws from a strong background in interdisciplinary problem -solving to tackle complicated technical projects and provide reliable results.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
City of Dublin. Lead Engineer for development of $7M of DER turnkey project scope at 8 different facilities, including solar PV, Battery Energy Storage, EV charging and traditional diesel generators to help the City reduce costs, improve resiliency during grid outages and emergencies and reduce carbon. Developed initial p roject feasibility, subcontractor bidding and pricing and obtained customer buy-in of final project scope.

Currently supporting construction of the selected DER projects to ensure a successful completion.

Escondido Union School District. Supported Escondido Union SD in their efforts to evaluate feasibility and procure solar PV totaling ~2.77 MW in carport and shade structures across 13 sites. Finalized PPA agreements and provided contract negotiation and c onstruction support to the District. Currently supporting $19M in comprehensive energy project scopes, including 1.8MW solar PV and 46 Level 2 EV chargers (including chargers serving the District’s maintenance fleet).

City of Elk Grove. Supported City of Elk Grove in their efforts to evaluate feasibility and procurement of solar PV across three meters at their newly constructed District56 site, which includes an Aquatic Center, a Community/Senior Center, and park spaces. Led engineering analysis efforts to project site load profiles and annual usage totals for the new facilities. Identified optimal solar PV system sizing and preliminary layouts, while also evaluating potential economic benefit of battery energy storage systems. Assessed multiple financin g options for the potential project, including loan and power purchase agreement (PPA) options. Following the feasibility process, assisted the City in writing and publishing an RFP to procure a design -build or PPA project to construct the solar PV system . Currently assisting in contract negotiation efforts with selected vendor and finalizing contract for ground mount system totaling 740 kW.

Eureka City Schools. Supported the design and turnkey installation of a vehicle-to-grid microgrid incorporating 140 kW rooftop solar PV, a 50kW battery energy storage (BES) system, and a school bus and charging station, as well as microgrid controls to coordinate all equipment.

Developed conceptual designs and assisted with procurement and financing strategies resulting in a low/no up front cost to the school for purchase and construction of microgrid.

EDUCATION
MS Earth Systems,
Concentration in Energy
Efficiency, Stanford
University, CA

BS Science, Technology
and Society, Stanford
University, CA

LICENCES &

AFFILIATIONS
Registered Professional
Engineer (Mechanical),
California
Benjamin R.

Laboy
PE
Senior Engineer
8 Years’ Experience
100 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 15
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Qualifications of Key Personnel Golden Empire Transit (GETBus). Lead engineer for the development and procurement of a 438kW PV system and associated 50kW battery energy storage (BES) system designed to power five transit agency buildings as well as a future on-site hydrogen fueling station. Led team that provided 100% engineering design drawings, a Request for Proposal and supporting documents, and assisted with vendor selection and oversight, including technical reviews of construction documents.

University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Lead Engineer for the analysis and development of renewable generation resources as part of the University’s Strategic Energy Master Plan. Developing engineering analyses for new solar PV, battery storage, and other Distributed Energy Resource (DER) options, as well as the evaluation of historical data for existing DER systems. Also supporting the evaluation of how planned increases in renewable generation capacity impact options for achieving zero-net energy (ZNE) and zero -net carbon at the building and campus level.

Culver City. Provided engineering analysis for solar PV and battery storage technology as part of a microgrid feasibility study for the Culver City Senior Center and Parks and Recreation facilities. Identified ~750 kW potential solar PV capacity along with battery storage solution to couple with energy efficiency projects to form a truly resilient microgrid solution for the site.

City of Palm Springs. Supported City of Palm Springs in their efforts to procure solar across three sites totaling ~2.4 MW. Currently overseeing inspection services subcontractor and reporting to City on progress. Each site has unique requirements with various system types including roof mount solar, and ground mount solar.

Merced Community College District. Supported Merced CCD in their efforts to evaluate feasibility and procure solar PV totaling ~450 kW in carport structures at their Los Banos campus. Currently evaluating vendor proposals and providing contract negotiation support to the District.

Mira Costa Community College District. Supported Mira Costa CCD in their efforts to evaluate feasibility of solar PV across three sites totaling ~4.2 MW in carport structures. Currently assisting in procurement efforts and phasing strategy with District’s Facilities Master Plan. Each site has unique requirements and phasing timelines due to Master Plan schedule.

101 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 16
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Key Personnel References Key Personnel References

3.1 Snuller Price, Senior Advisor
Client: California Energy Commission
Project: California Title 24 Building Energy Standard Updates Reference: Andrew McAllister, Commissioner
Contact Information: 916-879-1383
[email protected]

Client: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) Project: Residential Building Electrification in California Reference: David Jacot, P.E., Director of Efficiency Solutions Contact Information: 213-367-0936
[email protected]

Client: Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Project: SMUD Carbon Calculator Tool
Reference: Obadiah Bartholomy, Manager of Distributed Energy Resources Contact Information: 916-732-6835
[email protected]

3.2 Eric Cutter, Project Lead
Client: California Public Utilities Commission
Project: CPUC Integrated DER Cost-effectiveness Framework and Update Reference: Joy Morgenstern, Ph.D., Senior Regulatory Analyst, Energy Division Contact Information: (415) 703-1900
[email protected]

102 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 17
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Key Personnel References Client: Portland General Electric
Project: PGE DER Cost-effectiveness Framework
Reference: Bachir Salpagarov, Principal Strategy and Planning Analyst Contact Information: 971-998-5001
[email protected]

3.3 Margo Bonner, Project Manager
Client: California Public Utilities Commission
Project: CPUC Advanced Rate Redesign Project:

Reference: Ankit Jain, Senior Analyst
Contact Information: 415-703-5322
[email protected]

Project: Dominion Energy South Carolina Non-Residential Market Study Reference: Melanie Munroe, Project Lead
Contact Information: 339-222-9016
[email protected]

Client: San Diego Gas & Electric
Project: SDG&E Residential EE Market Study
Reference: Dan Chen, IT VMO Project Advisor
Contact Information: 917-330-1373
[email protected]

103 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 18
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Key Personnel References

3.4 Patrick Burgess, DER Lead
Client: University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
Project: University of Hawai’i at Mānoa Strategic Energy Management Plan (SEMP) Reference: Miles Topping, Director of Energy Management Contact Information: [email protected]

Client: Illinois Institute of Technology
Project: Illinois Institute of Technology Perfect Power Microgrid Reference: Dr. Mohammad Shahidehpour, Director, Galvin Center for Electricity Innovation Contact Information: [email protected]

Client: Southern California Edison
Project: Red Cross Emergency Shelter Microgrid Pilot, San Jacinto Reference: Priscilla Ortiz, New Product Opportunities, Customer Programs and Services Contact Information: [email protected]

3.5 Sierra Spencer, Cost Benefit Lead
Client: Xcel Energy
Project: Xcel Energy Upper Midwest EV Cost-Benefit Analysis Reference: Jason Peuquet, Strategy and Policy Manager, Clean Transportation Contact Information: [email protected]

Client: Hawaiian Electric Company
Project: Hawaiian Electric Company EV DCFC Public Charging Program, HECO EV Rate Design and Make Ready Pilots
Reference: Lisa Giang, Director, Corporate Energy Planning Division Contact Information: [email protected]

104 of 259

City of GlendaleCity of Glendale
City of Glendale 19
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Key Personnel References Client: Nova Scotia Power
Project: Nova Scotia Power Electrification Cost-Benefit Analysis Reference: Shawn Connell, Senior Director, Key Accounts & Customer Solutions Contact Information: [email protected]

105 of 259

Volume III - Technical Proposal
106 of 259

Project Summary __________________________________________________________ 2

1.1 Executive Summary ___________________________________________________________ 2

1.2 Project Qualifications _________________________________________________________ 3 Budget __________________________________________________________________ 6 Project Development Process ________________________________________________ 8

3.1 Category 1: Develop Plan to Increase Solar and Energy Storage Penetration and Develop Additional DER ____________________________________________________________________ 8

3.1.1 Targeting DER Technologies and Market Segments for Plan ________________________ 8

3.1.2 Program Design and Incentive ______________________________________________ 12

3.1.3 Outreach and Engagement _________________________________________________ 13

3.1.4 Summarize Program Adoption and Impacts ____________________________________ 15

3.2 Category 2: Dispatchable Capacity and Demand Reduction Calculation _________________ 15

3.2.1 Review GWP Integrated Resource Plan, Load and DER Forecasts ___________________ 15

3.2.2 Summarize Dispatchable Capacity and Demand Reduction Potential ________________ 15

3.2.3 Optional – ELCC Value with RECAP ___________________________________________ 18

3.3 Category 3: Cost-benefit Analysis _______________________________________________ 19

3.3.1 Proposed Approach for Avoided Costs and Cost-benefit Analysis ___________________ 19

3.3.2 Develop DER Avoided Costs for GWP _________________________________________ 20 Project Implementation Timeline ____________________________________________ 28

107 of 259

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Plan Development Flow .............................................................................................. 8 Figure 2: Project Sunroof data for Glendale ................................................................................................. 9 Figure 3: Visualization of Market Segmentation Data ................................................................................ 10 Figure 4: Example Culver City Community Solar and Microgrid Option ..................................................... 14 Figure 5. Customer Load with Dispatchable DER Responding to TOU Rate ............................................... 16 Figure 6. Customer Load with Dispatchable DER Responding to Dynamic Multi-Part Rate ....................... 17 Figure 7. Diminishing ELCC Value of Solar and of 4 Hour Storage with Increasing Penetration ................ 18 Figure 8. Summary of Community Benefit Indicators ................................................................................. 22 Figure 9: Example of Quantified Avoided Costs .......................................................................................... 24 Figure 10. Value of Customer Solar, SMUD Ratepayer Perspective, 2020 ................................................. 26 Figure 11. Value of Solar + Storage, Customer Dispatch and Utility Partnership Configurations, 2030 .... 27 Figure 12: Project Implementation Timeline .............................................................................................. 28

Table of Tables
Table 1: Proposed Budget ............................................................................................................................. 6 Table 2: Example Prioritization of Market Segments for Energy Efficiency Program ................................. 10 Table 3: Equitable Community Experience ................................................................................................. 13 Table 4. SMUD Value of Solar and Solar + Storage Value Categories ......................................................... 21

108 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 2
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Summary
Project Summary

1.1 Executive Summary
Energy and Environmental Economics (E3) and Willdan are pleased to present this proposal to City of Glendale Water & Power (GWP) to develop a plan to increase solar penetration and develop additional distributed energy resources (DER).

E3 is a leading economic consultancy focused on the transition to clean energy resources with a distinguished 30-year track record . E3 combines a robust analytics and planning practice with intimate knowledge of policy and po tential future regulatory outcomes to support informed approaches for achieving clean energy goals. E3 delivers analysis that is increasingly utilized by the utilities, regulators, and developers that are writing the script for the emerging clean energy transition in leading-edge North American jurisdictions. E3 completes roughly 250 projects per year to shape policy, market design, and strategy around low-carbon goals, distributed energy resources, and renewable technologies. E3’s suite of analysis tools is utilized by utilities, regulators, and developers in leading -edge North American jurisdictions to write the script for the emerging clean energy transition.

E3 is a wholly -owned subsidiary of The Willdan Group, Inc. and is one of the companies within Wil ldan Energy Solutions. Willdan, founded in California in 1964, is a nationwide provider of professional technical and consulting services to utilities, government agencies, and private industry. Its service offerings span a broad set of complementary disc iplines that include electric grid solutions, energy efficiency and sustainability, engineering and planning, and municipal financial consulting. Willdan has designed and implemented energy efficiency programs for over 10 years with LADWP, and ongoing p rogram work for GWP and all CA IOUs . Willdan is headquartered in Anaheim and maintains 14 California offices. Willdan has served 506 California cities and counties with municipal engineering services and 34 municipal utilities with program support. These programs have saved California utility customers over 1,100 GWH and 6.6 MM therms annually.

Together, E3 and Willdan can support GWP to develop a robust, equitable and cost -effective plan to increase adoption of solar, storage and other DER technologies. For over two decades, E3 has led the development of DER cost-effectiveness analysis for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) DER programs and the California Energy Commission (CEC) Title 24 Building Standards. E3 recently supported both the CPUC and Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD) to evaluate the value of solar and storage and implement long overdue Net Energy Metering (NEM) reforms to reduce the cost -shift to lower-income customers while continuing to support a viable distributed solar industry. E3 also supports the CPUC, SMUD, and other clients on integrated resource planning, including in depth analysis of system and local area reliability needs and the reliable capacity contributions of DER.

Willdan has extensive experience designing, marketing and implementing utility DER programs in Southern California, highlighted by the ongoing Building Energy Upgrade Program (BEUP) with GWP which is one of Willdan’s fasting growing direct install programs in innovation and delivery. For the Solar and DER Development Plan ( Category 1 ), Willdan draws upon the momentum of outreach techniques 109 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 3
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Summary
currently in place with GWP to deliver a plan t hat achieves the goals of customer outreach, peak -load- reducing capacity, and timeframe.

Drawing on recent work for the CPUC, SMUD and other clients, E3 will summarize and recommend NEM, Feed-in Tariff (FIT) and other tariff and program options for compen sation solar, storage and other DER fairly, and in ways to maximize grid value.

For the Estimate of Dispatchable Capacity Analysis (Category 2 ), E3 will use vetted tools that have withstood extensive client and public stakeholder scrutiny to model the load shapes, dispatchable capacity and demand reductions for several representative customer types. These tools were used to model 10,000’s of combinations of technology configurations, building, customer and business types to support the CEC’s consideration requiring solar and storage for new construction in the most recent Title 24 Building Code update cycle. As an optional task, E3 is also prepared to also model the Effective Load Carrying Capacity (ELCC) contribution of the DER program for local resource adequacy with the RECAP model used by the CPUC for the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) proceeding.

Finally, for the Cost & Benefit Analysis (Category 3), E3 will leverage our experience updating the CPUC Avoided Cost Calculator to develop DER avoided costs that reflect GWP’s most recent IRP and DER planning processes. E3 will ensure that the avoided costs fully reflect the value of DER in supporting GWP’s decarbonization, reliability and resource planning goals. E3 will also recommend quantitative and qualitative metrics to consider community, societal and other non-energy benefit categories.

1.2 Project Qualifications
The following project descriptions outline some of E3’s most relevant experience in utility DER analysis, DER cost-benefit modeling, and distributed solar analysis.

SMUD Value of Solar and Solar+Storage Study (2020). Sacramento Municipal Utility District ( SMUD) selected E3 in 2020 to prepare a study of the value of customer solar and solar plus storage facilities in scenarios that are consistent with SMUD's long -term carbon goals. E3 subsequently worked with SMUD to quantify the impacts of a variety of rate design options on the economics of customer solar adoption as well as their ability to ameliorate the cost shifting associated with SMUD's current Net Energy Metering program.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Virtual Power Plant Cost Effective ness & Resource Planning (2020-2021). E3 worked with SMUD to understand the adoption potential of DERs and use cases, including electric vehicles (V1G and V2G), behind -the-meter solar and storage, and building demand response from water heaters and AC. We then used these adoption rates, SMUD’s specific avoided costs, and SMUD’s bulk grid resource plan to: 1) determine the cost effectiveness of different DER configurations from multiple perspectives (utility and customer) specific to SMUD’s territory (using E3 developed avoided cost streams) 2) model the 8760 -hr economic operation of different VPP configurations and 3) determine the grid benefits of those different VPP configurations within the context of SMUD’s 2030 Zero Carbon Plan.

Portland General Electric (PGE), DER Cost -Effectiveness Framework (2022). E3 is supporting PGE to advance cost-benefit analysis for DERs, improve valuation of DERs, and support key strategic decision 110 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 4
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Summary
making at the company regarding impacts on rates, competitiveness , and electrification policy. E3 will help PGE align DER cost -benefit evaluation with Integrated Resource Planning, expand and improve the range of grid, host and societal benefits considered, balance environmental justice objectives with goals for energy affordability and competitive rates and to advance electrification policy.

CPUC Avoided Cost Methodology and “E3 Calculator” (2003-Present). E3 developed the CPUC’s officially adopted methodology for determining the cost effectiveness of investor‐owned uti lity energy efficiency programs. The methodology is based on an avoided cost methodology in combination with long‐term forecasts of electric and gas avoided costs. E3’s methodology produces avoided cost estimates that are transparent and are easily and regularly updated. In use since 2004, E3’s Avoided Cost Model (ACM) has evolved along with energy markets and policy in the West, as well as the needs of the CPUC. Since 2019, E3 has provided ongoing support to refine the CPUC’s cost-effectiveness framework for distributed energy resources, expanding the applications of the Avoided Cost Calculator to include the cost-effectiveness of California’s entire DER portfolio. The Avoided Cost Calculator currently projects avoided costs for energy, losses, generation c apacity, ancillary services, subtransmission and distribution capacity, renewable portfolio standard purchases, carbon allowances, and other air permit costs.

E3’s initial methodology was developed as part of a public rulemaking process involving fourteen external parties that included stakeholders from the California investor‐owned utilities, The Utility Reform Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, and California Large Energy Consumers Association. The “E3 Calculator,” developed in this project, remains in use almost 20 years later for all California IOUs to report on their energy efficiency programs.

California Public Utilities Commission, Net Energy Metering Revisit Rulemaking Technical Support (2020-present). E3 is supporting the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in the development of a successor to existing NEM tariffs. Pursuant to CA Assembly Bill 327 (2013, Perea), the successor tariff must balance the objectives of maintaining the growth of distributed generation and ensuring that the benefits to NEM participants are not outweighed by the costs to nonparticipants. In this proceeding, E3 worked with Verdant Associates to develop the NEM 2.0 Lookback Study, which evaluated the impacts of the existing “NEM 2.0” tariff on participants and nonparticipants. Next, E3 developed a White Paper on Successor Tariff Options for the proceeding. After parties submitted their own proposals for tariff designs, E3 developed an Excel model to estimate the impact of these tariffs of participant and nonparticipants and summarized the results in a report on Party Proposal Cost-effectiveness. E3 has also provided technical modeling for the Commission’s December 2021 proposed decision.

Wilcox CEC Zero Net Energy. E3 calculated the cost-effectiveness of several technologies related to ZNE residential homes in 2020 including solar PV, smart thermostats, flexible heat pump water heaters, and battery storage. E3 found that solar PV under a variety of potential future NEM policy scenarios was cost- effective, even without federal subsidy support. Using this information, E3 created a new measure proposal that was the basis for the CEC inclusion of a prescriptive solar requirement in the 2019 building standards for new residential homes.

City of Culver City, Microgrid Feasibility Analysis. Willdan developed a feasibility analysis combining two Red Cross emergency sites into a single, sustainable microgrid arrangement. The microgrid solution included enough energy efficiency, solar PV, battery storage and microgrid controllers to supply continuous power to emergency sites for temporary community disaster recovery shelter needs. Willdan 111 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 5
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Summary
also conducted a feasibility study of converting Culver City’s transit fleet from renewable natural gas buses to a zero emissions fleet by 2028, in line with th e City’s sustainability plan. Analysis included assessment of zero emission bus options, infrastructure and EV charging needs, as well as necessary facility improvements to support fleet electrification needs.

Confidential California School District, Microgrid Design and Implementation. Willdan helped configure existing systems at a High School gymnasium into a fully islanding microgrid that uses clean energy and can safely disconnect and operate independently during situations such as wildfires or public safety power shutoff event. Willdan managed the system design and project management, coordinating subcontractors through construction, controls integration, commissioning, testing, and district training. The designed microgrid generates enough power to run critical life safety systems for Red Cross (lighting, HVAC, sprinkler systems) for days to weeks at a time. Willdan also provided District preparation for the system including clear signage, islanding/grid reconnection procedures, and annual drills for emergency events.

112 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 6
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Budget
Budget
Our budget for the propose d scope of work is presented in the table below. Per answers given in Addendum No. 1, we are proposing a fixed price budget for each task and subtask to be invoiced and paid upon milestone completions for each task. The total budget of $235,955 does not include the optional task of calculating effective load carrying capacity of the program in RECAP, priced separately at $99,920.

We believe the budget and scope of work proposed fully meets GWP requirements and will provide a robust program proposal and analysis. In order to provide the most competitive and cost -effective proposal, we have developed a budget for the scope of work that assumes:
 Two rounds of GWP review and approval for Category 1 tasks and one round of review and approval for Category 2 and 3 tasks.

Table 1: Proposed Budget
113 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 7
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Budget
 The project team will provide recommendations on types and levels of incentives, including rebates and NEM and FIT rates. GWP would be responsible for developing specific rates and tariff sheets that would be adopted by GWP.
 Willdan will hold three community meetings to solicit input for the plan and will provide a final plan to GWP. The proposal does not include community meetings or outreach after the plan is submitted to GWP.
 GWP is able to provide the inputs, assumptions and results from the most recent IRP and DER planning processes and reports in electronic format that can be readily incorporated to develop avoided costs for the cost-benefit analysis.

114 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 8
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process Project Development Process

3.1 Category 1: Develop Plan to Increase Solar and Energy Storage Penetration and Develop Additional DER

3.1.1 Targeting DER Technologies and Market Segments for Plan Throughout this section, we bold the plan policies that align with GWP’s Category 1 requirements.

3.1.1.1 Evaluate Adoption Potential for GWP
Our adoption plan includes the following components and development flow.

Figure 1: Conceptual Plan Development Flow

1. Existing data collection: Willdan will begin by first reviewing GWP’s prior plans and studies, including the December 2022 Consultant Report on lower-income EE, renewable energy and RD&D programs as well as any existing studies or data collection previously performed by other contractors.

2. Determine solar potential: Willdan will utilize available screening tools to identify a project approach that meets GWP’s goals. This includes balancing the amount of solar and storage 115 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 9
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process located at customer sites as compared to GWP sites. It will also provide some indication of the difficulty and cost associated with meeting ambitious renewable targets. For example, Project Sunroof (a publicly available Google tool) indicates that approximately 32 million square feet of roof space is available in the City of Glendale. (See Figure 2 below). A more refined analysis will help to shape Willdan’s approach to DER adoption planning.

Figure 2: Project Sunroof data for Glendale

3. Market Segmentation: Willdan will use segmentation data from vetted market research tools and internally developed software to develop plans to customize our approach to each market sector and customer. Willdan produces analysis of a utility territory in days that can take other consultants months to assemble, due to program segmentation features of our platform. We analyze and score targeted customers to maximize conversion and realized demand impacts.

Willdan uses an efficient machine learning process that combines census, parcel, business type, 3D building and other related data sources to estimate adoption propensity for individual customers. Our market research approach is also informed by our experience implementing numerous successful energy efficiency and DER programs across the US. Table 2 below provides an example market segmentation analysis. Figure 3 translates this information graphically to establish planning for utility program management and outreach teams. 116 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 10
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process Table 2: Example Prioritization of Market Segments for Energy Efficiency Program Description Total #
Assessment
Opp.%
Conversion
%

Participants
Total
kWh
Saved
Transportation, Communication, & Utilities 908 15% 33% 23 570,673 Wholesale Trade - Durable & Non-Durable 1,075 15% 33% 31 668,091 Automotive Service Station, Service &
Dealerships 1,577 20% 35% 44 774,996
Grocery & Food Stores 531 20% 30% 20 358,514
Restaurants, Eating, & Drinking Establishments 1,258 20% 30% 42 567,276 Retail Trade Locations 1,983 15% 30% 50 869,574
Banks 438 10% 15% 3 43,248
Non-Financial, Insurance, & Real Estate Offices 1,331 15% 25% 30 546,905 Hotel, Motel, & Lodging 195 10% 15% 1 35,311
Personal Services 932 15% 25% 15 145,623
Business & Misc. Repair Services 946 15% 25% 16 303,217 Amusement & Recreational Locations 386 15% 30% 8 166,995

Figure 3: Visualization of Market Segmentation Data

Case Study of Market Segmentation to Grow Energy Efficiency Impacts: Willdan has worked with utilities across the country to identify opportunities for targeted customer approach. For example, in one East Coast state, Willdan expanded utility program offerings into the Telecom market. We identified 400 customer sites that were previously not within the scope of any existing efficiency program, potentially contributing incremental 4 MWh of energy efficiency impact. Willdan identified these customers sites through in-depth market analysis and a propensity targeting model. 117 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 11
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process

4. Develop Plan for Mix of Customer and GWP Controlled Sites: GWP and Willdan have an ongoing program relationship through the Business Energy Upgrade Program (BEUP) through which Willdan has audited more than 2,000 customer sites within the City of Glendale. Willdan will work with the GWP team to understand the existing DER deployment plan for publicly owned sites. We have developed battery-siting DER options integrated with financial instruments, such as capacity payments for customer controlled sites and land-lease arrangements for utility-controlled projects sited on customer property.

5. Identify robust Net Metering Policy, Feed-In Tariffs, Incentives and Rebates: Willdan and E3 will work closely on this task, which pulls together elements from Categories 1, 2, and 3.

As more customers seek to manage their energy bills through behind -the-meter (BTM) solar generation, energy storage, and load management applications, E3 helps clients devise tariffs that promote investments in DERs and reflect cost causation and equity principles. E3 supports several utilities and regulators in developing and implementing tariffs, including the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), the New York State Energy Research and Develo pment Authority (NYSERDA), and Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO).

Leveraging this experience, E3 will summarize existing tariffs and programs adopted by other utilities across the U.S. for customer -owned and community -sited solar and storage, as well as dispatchable DERs. This summary will provide a range of best practices and approaches for consideration by GWP.

Drawing from recent work for the CPUC, E3 will describe the equity and cost shift challenges associated with net energy metering (NEM) compensat ion for BTM solar. We will provide a summary and recommendations on the competing goals of promoting customer adoption of solar and storage and minimizing the burden of shifting grid costs to customers without DERs. Topics we will cover include the misalig nment of customer compensation and the value of BTM solar, aligning retail rates and customer compensation with grid costs, and potential solutions to promote customer adoption and avoid cost shifts. Examples of potential solutions we will summarize include time-of-use (TOU) energy charges and demand charges, grid access charges, subscription charges, and income-based customer charges.

Using E3’s tariff research and recommendations, Willdan advances implementation elements needed to establish a competitive Feed-in Tariff program for solar projects, along with storage and solar-storage projects. Willdan and E3 anticipate several tariff design options to work through with GWP, such as the following gathered from experience. • What is the temporal value for power returned to the grid for customers with storage? • Is the benefit a bill credit or monetary payment?
• When is the credit reconciled?

6. Develop Equitable Program Options: Our plan development includes strategies to engage lower-income customers, customers in heavily pollution-burdened areas, multifamily properties, rental properties and opportunities for community solar projects. These strategies are described in more detail in Section 3.1.3.
118 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 12
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process

3.1.2 Program Design and Incentive
Willdan will focus on the following Pro gram Design Components with the goal of creat ing an integrated plan that incorporates GWP priorities and provides customers with a streamlined path to DER adoption.

Those components include:
a. Bundled DER Offering – To facilitate the interconnect process, minimize customer interruption and reduce the cost of customer acquisition, Willdan will design performance-based incentives for battery storage systems, encouraging customers to bundle both solar and battery storage. Willdan provides bundled offerings for our comprehensive commercial program in SCE territory, wherein customer satisfaction is increased by reducing the number of separate customer engagements. Willdan and E3 will also evaluate the effect of solar and battery storage on electric system reliability. b. Contractor Vetting – Consistent delivery of solar and storage projects will be a critical components of increasing customer adoption. Willdan will design a Contractor Vetting model as a key program design component to increase customer confidence and adoption potential.
c. Design Guidelines – Willdan will provide gathered standards with demonstrated success to establish future program performance and consistency. These standards include specifications for site access, project management, system design, materials/equipment, QA/QC, testing, O&M, performance guarantee and owner training. d. Demand Response – Willdan will identify integrated elements including heat pump water heaters, heat pump HVAC, and bi-directional charging to recommend how they might facilitate DER adoption as well as complement GWP’s existing offerings. The goal is to future-proof the plan such that it can accommodate technology improvements over time.
e. Permitting – Willdan will recommend methods by which GWP might facilitate customer permitting and reduce barriers to adoption. Willdan estimates that a significant volume of permits will be required to be processed in the first two years that customers begin installing DERs; this volume has the potential to overwhelm the existing City of Glendale processes. Willdan will evaluate and recommend alternatives including app-based services such as SOLARAPP++ (https://solarapp.nrel.gov). f. Resilience Planning – Willdan will recommend projects, placing a focus on community resilience. These include deploying DERs to develop cooling centers at community assembly centers in the event of a sustained power outage. Willdan has previously performed related work in Iowa when, following a natural disaster, the State Energy Office asked us to identify community resilience hubs where citizens could gain shelter and basic services during the next power outage.
119 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 13
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process

3.1.3 Outreach and Engagement

3.1.3.1 Establish an Equitable Program
Willdan will ensure that customers are equitably engaged and considered throughout the planning process. Willdan has extensive experience with outreach to lower-income communities as demonstrated in Table 3. In addition, Willdan has developed program connections to multifamily and rental properties locally and nationwide.

Table 3: Equitable Community Experience
Program Experience Equitable Community Component to Serve Lower-Income Customers and Customers in Heavily Pollution-Burdened Areas
LADWP Commerical
Direct Install (CDI)
Program
The LADWP CDI program uses seven Community Based Organizations (CBOs) to engage customers and educate communities about energy efficiency. This work has led to the creation of more than 40 jobs over the last six years as well as ensured that each LA City Council District is served equally, despite differences in income or language barriers.

SCE Commercial
Program
The SCE Commercial Program uses Disadvantaged Community (DAC) focused outreach and has had remarkable success serving those customers defined as Hard-to-Reach (HTR) due to a combination of language barriers and income. In the first 12 mo nths, Willdan performed more than 1,400 audits for HTR participants.

ConEd Clean Heat
Program
The ConEd Clean Heat Program encourages multifamily and rental property owners throughout 5 NYC boroughs to convert their existing gas heating systems to electric. To date, the program has installed more than 4,800 units with focus on serving residents of all income levels.

Willdan will hold three (3) community meetings as part of this planning process. During those meetings we will provide multi-lingual materials and communication to residents in different parts of the city to understand barriers to DER adoption and areas of particular concern and will work with GWP to share information about other available programs and benefits for their customers in attendance.

Willdan has established connections to several Los Angeles County non-profits focused on Environmental Justice (EJ) and in serving communities historically impacted by poor air quality due to the proximity of freeways and power plants. Willdan intends to subcontract with an EJ consultant to strengthen our plan.

Among the non -capacity benefits that Willdan anticipates identifying in the DER plan are job creation opportunities, community education benefits and the identification of community resilience opportunities.
120 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 14
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process

3.1.3.2 Identify and Include Community Solar Projects
Willdan will design incentives to encourage development of community solar projects by allocating fair values between developers a nd subscribers, and policies including net billing/crediting proces s.

Willdan/E3 is currently advising one of the largest cities in the U.S. on community solar.

Willdan also has experience providing turn -key service to lower -income customers and members of underserved communities toward the dual-purpose of reduced costs and extended resilience and service as a community asset. An example of this work is a study performed for Culver City in 2019. That study proposed a microgrid at Culver City’s Veterans Memorial Park and adjacent facilities. The goal was a fully renewable, cost-effective, and resilient energy supply while achieving the city’s zero net energy goals.

Figure 4 shows the proposed solution.

Figure 4: Example Culver City Community Solar and Microgrid Option

3.1.3.1 Integrate with Additional DER Technologies
GWP and Willdan have worked together to offer energy efficiency (EE) across the GWP service territory, which forms a basis of mutual success. Willdan believes our program implementation with GWP customers extends naturally to solar and storage plan development tuned to specific customer sets.

Willdan anticipates GWP will need to examine policies for revision such as maximum solar installation cap or time-of-use (TOU) rates along. These policy changes may be added to targeted incentives from demand reduction and shifting energy to off -peak time periods to help build an enrollment and installation pipeline.
121 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 15
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process

3.1.4 Summarize Program Adoption and Impacts
The intent of the plan created by Willdan with support from E3 will be to drive customer adoption of DERs in an equitable and cost-effective way. To do this, Willdan will follow the steps above, first examining the potential for DER deployment and then identifying strategies and opportunities to encourage adoption and customer penetration.

Willdan believes prioritized planning for key elements are necessary to achieve the 100 MW capacity reduction goal, including:
▪ Streamline permitting of solar installations
▪ Evaluate ground-mounted solar opportunity in Scholl Canyon ▪ Create and promote a parking lot solar canopy program ▪ Develop a successful Residential program to secure up to 50% of the desired capacity The RFP timeline is ambitious to achieve significant activity by December 31, 2027. Willdan recommends early examination of strategies to help achieve that timeline, including:
▪ An attractive incentive structure with enhanced benefits for first movers or early adopters ▪ A program delivery schedule emphasizing pace - removing project hurdles to throughput.

The result of this work will be a formal plan with prioritized approaches and strategies with input from GWP and its customers. This plan will allow for GWP to embark on an aggressive DER adoption pathway to meet the stated 100MW capacity reduction goal.

3.2 Category 2: Dispatchable Capacity and Demand Reduction Calculation

3.2.1 Review GWP Integrated Resource Plan, Load and DER Forecasts To properly support GWP’s DER strategy, E3 must comprehensively understand the GWP system. The E3 team will conduct a thorough review of GWP's Integrated Resource Plan, Loa d, and Distributed Energy Resources Forecast. The review will include a detailed analysis of GWP's assumptions, methodologies, and data inputs used in the development of the IRP.

The IRP review will focus on evaluating GWP's resource mix, key upcoming decisions, and levers that may accommodate the adoption of DERs. It will also include an evaluation of the approach to determining the reliability of GWP's proposed resource plan. E3 will also have a focused review on GWP’s assumptions and methodologies for assessing the potential for DERs and load growth. The E3 team will leverage its findings to inform other components of the project; including but not limited to the DER reliability analysis, targeted DER adoption strategies, and the cost benefit analysis.

3.2.2 Summarize Dispatchable Capacity and Demand Reduction Potential E3 will work with GWP to combine internal planning conventions with best-available industry data, along with E3’s modeling expertise, to calculate the impact of potential supply side impacts of DERs in this plan. 122 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 16
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process

3.2.2.1 Quantify DER Dispatch and Load Shapes
To quantify these impacts, E3 will first develop a limited number of prototypical customer load shapes (ex. medium consumption residential, high consumption residential, small commercial, large commercial) and model typical DER dispatch patterns. E3 will generate l oad shapes for prototypical customers will be generated based on best available data between internal data from GWP, and external sources such as NREL’s ResStock database of prototypical building energy models. The project team will then select building energy models based on appropriate geography and scale them to match the annual consumption of representative GWP customers.

With load shapes in place, E3 will perform a limited number of model runs, using our DER optimal dispatch tool – RESTORE. RESTORE receives inputs of baseline load shapes, characteristics for battery storage, BTM PV, and other DERs, as well as a rate signal. RESTORE takes these inputs and calculates a perfect foresight/optimal dispatch for the given DER technologies, based on a selected rate signal. E3 will work with GWP to determine appropriate rate signals to guide dispatch – E3 typically uses appropriate retail rates or hourly avoide d costs as dispatch signals. More simplistic dispatch characteristics can also be performed to demonstrate the impacts of sub-optimal dispatch algorithms.

RESTORE’s main focus is on PV and battery storage dispatch, but it can also model other dispatchable behind-the-meter devices, such as smart thermostats. There is limited publicly available data on the flexibility characteristics of such devices, but E3 can leverage its work with the CPUC and LBNL on modeling flexible loads to inform estimated load shape impacts alongside more detailed PV and storage impacts.

These model outputs will be scaled up based on projected market uptake across different customer types to determine an aggregate system impact. Examples of DER dispatch and load profiles modeled with RESTORE are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 below.

Figure 5. Customer Load with Dispatchable DER Responding to TOU Rate

This figure shows an example dispatch and load shape of a customer with energy storage and an EV. T he energy storage charged from solar to avoid exports and maximize bill savings under a NEM tariff. Storage is discharged immediately at the beginning of the on-peak TOU period, and the EV begins charging immediately at the start of the nighttime off-peak period. The customer load with DERs is significantly reduced throughout the on-peak TOU period.
123 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 17
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process Figure 6. Customer Load with Dispatchable DER Responding to Dynamic Multi-Part Rate

In this example, the customer is responding to a multi-part dynamic rate based on utility marginal costs. The storage discharge is shifted an hour later to coincide with the highest value hours for the grid. Because the dynamic rate reflects increased distribution capacity value in the afternoon, the customer’s s olar generation is not used for charging but is instead allowed to export to the grid. Both storage and the EV charge from the grid during the off - peak hours with the lowest energy prices (midnight and late morning).

3.2.2.2 Quantify Effective Load Carrying Capacity (ELCC) for Demand Reduction With per-customer and utility-wide aggregate load impacts, E3 will then estimate the reliability value of DERs at the system planning level. This step will ensure GWP can invest in the appropriate amount of capacity to meet its needs and understand how DERs can fit into its resource adequacy plans. E3 has expertise using models and other more -simplified approaches to ensure portfolios resulting from integrated resource plans are reliable and the ELCCs and NQCs o f conventional resources, variable resources, energy storage technologies, and DERs are appropriately quantified. After working closely with GWP to determine the best approach, E3 will develop custom ELCCs for DERs which will help inform GWP’s DER strategy. As a baseline option, E3 proposes the following as a more simplistic approach:

E3 has worked on reliability analyses in California and elsewhere for many years and has a deep understanding of key dynamics and expectations of ELCCs of DERs and other variable renewable resources.

E3 will leverage its knowledge and prior work to develop tailored ELCCs that would be representative of a small electric system in California. E3 will draw from its work with the California energy agencies (i.e.

CPUC, CAISO, and CEC), as well as its work with smaller utilities across the country (i.e. SMUD and OPPD) to inform the reliability value of GWP’s DERs.

An illustration of how the ELCC of solar and 4 hour storage decline with increasing penetration on the system are shown in Figure 7 below.
124 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 18
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process Figure 7. Diminishing ELCC Value of Solar and of 4 Hour Storage with Increasing Penetration

3.2.3 Optional – ELCC Value with RECAP
Alternatively, if GWP would like to choose a more detailed approach, E3 can perform optional analysis with additional detail. E3 will utilize its in-house reliability model, RECAP, to represent GWP’s system and resources. RECAP is a loss -of-load probability model that is well -established and has been used in many jurisdictions to evaluate system reliability, establish planning reserve requirements, and develop NQC and ELCC values for many resource types. By building a custom RECAP model tailored specifically to GWP, we will be able to understand the reliability value of specific resources and constraints. GWP will also be able to leverage this model for future reliability analyses as it refines and updates its system plans in future years.
125 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 19
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process

3.3 Category 3: Cost-benefit Analysis

3.3.1 Proposed Approach for Avoided Costs and Cost-benefit Analysis With zero GHG emission goals, the paradigm for DER cost -effectiveness has fundamentally changed.

Utilities are transitioning from procuring fossil fuel-based resources dominated by fuel and operating costs to signing long-term contracts for non-emitting resources that are 90%+ up front capital investment with virtually zero marginal costs. Intermittent renewable resources pose new operational challenges for the grid that DERs can support, with the right visibility and control. This shifts the priority for DERs to reduce GHG emissions, and necessary capacity investments in the system, and de-emphasizes reducing electricity consumption as both renewable energy costs and grid emissions are declining. With energy so low cost, it can be harder for DER to pass traditional Standard Practice Manual (SPM) cost -effectiveness tests, particularly energy focused resources. At the same time, zero GHG emission goals require significant investment in our bulk supply infrastructure, and the value proposition of DERs avoiding costs all the way up through the electricity supply system as this transformation unfolds remains important. Therefore, the valuation framework for DER cost-effectiveness must guide program design and procurement towards those DER that most effectively meet the future policy and reliability goals for the electric grid.

E3 has worked with the utilities and regulators that are leading innovators for DER cost -effectiveness in the US, including the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO) . We are familiar with the National Standard Practice Manual (NSPM) and proposals for new or revised cost -benefit tests (e.g. the National Standard Practice Manuel Jurisdiction Specific Test and EPRI/Brattle Total Value Test) for DER.

E3 has worked on innovative new approaches to both better align DER procurement with the current and future needs of the grid and align DER cost-effectiveness with utility integrated resource planning (IRP).

This activity would leverage this experience and provide a review and summary and emerging topics that can help GWP realize greater resource benefits from DER, balance costs and benefits, encourage market transformation in electrification and other objectives. To achieve this outcome, the following areas would be explored.

1. Aligning DER avoided costs and IRP to better reflect supply side procurement costs in the new planning paradigm

2. Defining separate program buckets for evaluating DER, e.g. for resource procurement, market transformation and public policy support

3. As feasible and appropriate, include additional quantitative and qualitative benefits in DER cost - benefit analysis and cost tests including for Community, Equity, Resiliency, Environmental and Non-energy Benefits.

E3 will work with GWP to develop and recommend an over arching framework for evaluating the costs, benefits and cost -shifts for customer sited DER. E3 will describe the challenges and barriers that key jurisdictions have faced with revising and enhancing DER cost-effectiveness in the new zero GHG emission planning paradigm. Key challenges include increasing complexity of modeling, declining cost-effectiveness, in particular for EE and distributed solar, commensurate stakeholder pressure add and increase benefits, 126 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 20
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process incorporating electrification measures in utilit y cost-tests, and how to balance public policy goals and upward pressure on utility rates. E3 has translated complex planning and marginal cost calculations into simplified, transparent spreadsheets for stakeholder use and can readily support and advise GWP.

3.3.2 Develop DER Avoided Costs for GWP

3.3.2.1 Gather Inputs and Assumptions for DER Avoided Costs E3 will work with GWP to identify and gather the necessary inputs and assumptions needed to develop avoided costs for DER from GWP’s IRP and other planning documents. E3 will help GWP identify a list of key assumptions that will be needed to develop avoided costs specific to SVP’s context. E3 will work closely with the GWP staff to collect any existing information, data, and forecasts available from GWP and identify strategies to address any gaps if necessary. E3 will review the data and forecasts provided by GWP and compare them against alternative public benchmarks including the CPUC Avoided Costs (Developed by E3). E3’s experience working with a wide range of utiliti es on integrated resource planning and DER avoided costs will allow us to provide unique insights and help GWP ensure that the inputs to the avoided costs and DER cost-benefit analysis are sound and well-justified.

3.3.2.2 Consideration of Community, Societal and Non-energy Benefits A variety of Community, Societal, and Non -energy Benefits must be considered in an assessment of the costs and benefits of customer-sited solar+storage systems and other DERs. There are some overlapping and some distinct Community, Societal, and Non-energy Benefits depending on if the analysis is from a Host Customer or Societal perspective.

While there is typically more agreement on the types of benefits that should be included, it is frequently challenging to gain consensus on ap proaches and develop quantitative values with sufficient rigor and confidence for inclusion in a cost -benefit analysis. E3 will provide a thorough review of benefits and approaches to evaluation and will provide recommendations across four criteria:

1. Which values can be quantified with a sufficient degree of rigor and confidence

2. Which values are likely to be large enough to be meaningful in cost -benefit analysis and which values are small enough to reasonably be excluded

3. Which values can be considered in a qualitative, but not quantitative approach

4. Which might be appropriate for consideration in each perspective (Host Customer and Societal) analyzed
An example of this analysis is E3’s review of 24 benefit categories selected by a technical working group for consideration in the SMUD Value of Solar and Solar + Storage Study. Table 4 below summarizes how each value category was included in the analysis.

127 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 21
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process Table 4. SMUD Value of Solar and Solar + Storage Value Categories Category # TWG Value Description
(abbreviated) E3 Value Component(s)
Ratepayer
Societal
Solar
Customer
Energy
1 Avoided energy, including GHG /
RPS requirements
Energy, GHG, Ancillary
Services ✓ ✓
2 Integration costs Integration ✓ ✓
3 Higher marginal cost of
emissions (intermittency) Qualitative ✓ ✓
Generation
Capacity
4 Resource adequacy Generation Capacity ✓ ✓
5 Resource flexibility (increased
need for flexibility) Integration ✓ ✓
Financial Risk
6 Fuel price risk reduction Fuel Price Risk ✓ ✓
7 Increases in energy price
volatility Energy Price Volatility ✓ ✓
8 Sunk cost of Emission Reduction
Credits Qualitative
Variable
Operating
9 Decreased thermal operations Energy ✓ ✓
10 Increased standby costs Integration ✓ ✓
Criteria
Emissions 11 Criteria emissions reductions Criteria Pollutants ✓ Carbon
Emissions 12 Carbon reductions beyond
SMUD compliance requirements
Carbon Emission
Reductions ✓
Land & Water
Use 13 Reduced land and water usage Land use; water use ✓ Equity 14 Reduced energy burden for low
income customers Qualitative ✓ ✓
Resilience 15 Customer ability to meet critical
needs Resilience ✓
Reliability 16 Restoring service or preventing
outages in an emergency Reliability ✓ ✓
Emotional /
Political 17 Engaging customers through
NEM Qualitative ✓ ✓
Local Economy 18 Jobs and local economic growth
resulting from rooftop solar Qualitative ✓
Transmission
19 Transmission capacity Transmission Capacity ✓ ✓
20 Transmission line losses Line Losses ✓ ✓
Distribution
21 Distribution capacity Distribution Capacity ✓ ✓
22 Distribution line losses Line Losses ✓ ✓
23 Grid modernization Qualitative ✓ ✓
24 Voltage / power quality Voltage / power quality ✓ ✓

128 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 22
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process Based on previous work, E3 anticipates that several benefits will require consideration and discussion with GWP of different approaches to measurement; these benefits include reduced energy burden, reduced forced mobility, asset value, productivity, health & safety, and reliability & resiliency benefits. Below is an example of Community Benefit Indicators (CBIs) considered in an evaluation of non-energy benefits for community-based renewable resources . E3 is assisting a utility in the Pacific Northwest in evaluating methods to incorporate CBIs into its integrated resource planning process.

Figure 8. Summary of Community Benefit Indicators

In determining the non-energy benefits to include in an analysis of GWP’s solar+storage, E3 will provide well-reasoned methods and explanations for which benefits to include and appropriate methods for quantification, with an emphasis on which benefits are and are not appropriate for Host Customer and Societal perspectives or quantification in a cost-benefit analysis. E3 recently completed the Societal Cost Test Impact Evaluation report for the California Public Utilities Commission. E3 is familiar with publicly available tools, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency’s CO -Benefits Risk Assessment Health Impacts Screening and Mapping Tool (COBRA) that assesses air quality impacts of specific scenarios and adoption f orecasts and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Jobs and Economic Development Impact (JEDI) model that determines economic benefits such as employment opportunities from customer-sited renewable systems. E3 also led two recent projects that have quantified substantial health impacts of reduced fossil fuel combustion, “Quantifying the Air Quality Impacts of Decarbonization and Distributed Energy Programs in California ” and New York Climate Action Council Scoping Plan (Appendix G).

Additionally, E3 has supported several utilities and private DER aggregators to understand the cost-benefit implications of different DER management and control styles. Often, DER are optimized for customer bill 129 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 23
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process reductions which drives the utilization and dispatch of DERs in modeling and planning efforts. DERs can also be optimi zed or energy supply cost reductions or the ability to provide other grid services such as demand response. E3 has the modeling capability to optimize for different methods of optimization to understand how DERs can best serve the grid, and how this change in operations impacts DER benefits.

This analysis has been used to provide a basis for incentive creation and program generation to ensure customer benefits while simultaneously optimizing DER dispatch to grid needs. E3 will work with GWP to incorporate t hese aspects into the modeling of customer -sited solar+storage systems and into the valuation framework.

3.3.2.3 Develop Avoided Costs for DER Cost-benefit Analysis Based on collected input data, E3 will develop DER avoided costs for GWP. These avoided costs will look out over an agreed-upon lifetime for DER technologies (ex. 20 years, 30 years). GWP and E3 can determine appropriate avoided cost components to include, but as a starting point, E3 proposes using these components:
 Wholesale energy (ex. Hourly CAISO market prices)
 Generation capacity
 Transmission and distribution capacity
 Emissions (ex. Cap and Trade market emissions/costs), cost of reducing supply side emissions to achieve electricity decarbonization targets, societal cost of carbon)  System losses (cost of procuring additional wholesale energy to offset losses in transmission and distribution system
We are aware that a cost-benefit analysis of GWP’s EE program is included in the annual report on Energy Efficiency in the Public Power Sector, using the Energy Platform ESP tool. In the past, report has used the avoided costs of SCE for public utilities in Southern California that do not provide information on their utility specific avoided costs. We anticip ate that some work will be required to update or enhance the avoided costs for GWP to reflect your emissions reductions, environmental and societal goals and to equitably value DER for GWP. At the same time, to provide a competitive cost for this proposal , we do not propose developing a comprehensive new set of avoided costs from scratch. We will work with GWP to develop a recommended approach that provides robust cost -benefit analysis without requiring significant new modeling and analysis. It may be that using the SCE avoided costs developed for the CPUC, with some augmentation and modifications is feasible and most efficient. On the other hand, a simplified approach developing new avoided costs from GWP’s resource plan that reflect your specific goals ma y prove most effective.

E3 has developed methods to forecast these cost streams, consistent with changing future market conditions, and along with methods to allocate them specific hours of the year (ex. Generation capacity costs are allocated to hours wi th a higher probability of loss of load events). These avoided costs are typically quantified in terms of hourly $/MWh values but can be simplified, as GWP sees fit – for example assigning capacity contributions to different DER technologies and valuing th ese benefits at appropriate $/kW-yr forecasts for generation capacity, transmission and distribution. Other quantitative and qualitative benefits can be developed alongside these cost components listed above as E3 and GWP see fit.
130 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 24
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process The value of each avoided cost component changes depending on the system dynamics throughout the year. As system dynamics and underlying factors such as energy demand and the portfolio of resources change over time, the value of avoided cost components wil l also change, creating the importance to calculate avoided costs for each year in the modeling horizon.

An example of avoided costs that E3 quantified for the California Public Utilities Commission is shown below. Figure 9 shows the average avoided costs by hour broken out by component. The figure shows that energy, generation capacity, distribution capacity, and GHG value make up most of the avoided cost value, while the other components make up a smaller share. This chart also shows how the avoided costs can vary significantly depending on the time of day. The avoided costs are very low in the middle of the day when solar is plentiful on the California grid. The avoided costs are higher during non-daytime hours when gas is on the margin. The avoided cost s are especially high during the early evening hours when capacity on the system is more limited.

Figure 9: Example of Quantified Avoided Costs

The avoided costs are calculated for each component over time by determining the mar ginal cost of providing each component to the system. The marginal cost depends on the cost of providing that particular service, which may require new infrastructure (e.g. new generation capacity) or not (e.g. generate additional energy from a gas plant). The resource -related avoided cost components can be calculated using capacity expansion and production cost modeling results for the system. Avoided cost components for transmission and distribution require understanding the relationship between load growth and incremental investments. Avoided costs are calculated for each component such that there is no double-counting of benefits across components.

3.3.2.4 Perform Cost-benefit Analysis
With hourly avoided costs in place, E3 will evaluate the costs and benefits from two perspectives: first, a participant cost test that evaluates energy bill savings versus installation costs of DER technologies will determine customer economics, given different retail rates or upfront incentives. Next, a utility cost test 131 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 25
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process will determine if the costs or benefits of DER technologies as it relates to the costs of supplying energy to all GWP customers. Additional cost tests and perspectives can be added as needed.

E3’s RESTORE model can be used to determine optimal storage dispatch schedules for standalone storage systems, paired solar+storage, and a number of other DERs. E3’s RESTORE model calculates optimal energy storage system charging and discharging schedules, as well as the load reduction or shifting behavior of other DERs, on an 8760 hourly basis, maximizing total net revenue across the multiple value streams that DERs can provide, while monitoring state of charge and honoring any operational constraints that may limit a resource’s ability to provide more than one service simu ltaneously. Dispatch modeled with RESTORE can be optimized according to either:
1) Customer rates (such as time-of-use rates), to align most closely with DER behavior as optimized from a customer’s perspective
2) Hourly avoided costs (as developed in previous workstream), to represent DER behavior if optimized by utility to minimize energy supply costs
E3 proposes modeling two separate configurations of DERs, one in which resources are optimized by customers and a second in which resources are optimized by the utility. Both configurations represent realistic outcomes for the operation and dispatch of DERs. In reality, DERs in GWP’s service territory will likely include a combination of both configurations; therefore, modeling both configurations offers insights into the bookends of potential customer and utility costs and benefits from DERs.

E3 also proposes to break out the modeling of DERs into customer types since many resource parameters, such as size, will likely vary across customer types. For example, customer types that cover a sufficient range of possible DER systems may be residenti al single-family homes, residential multi -family homes, small commercial, and large commercial sites. The prevalence of adoption by each customer type can be used with customer-level costs and benefits to determine total costs and benefits across GWP’s ser vice territory.

Storage charging and discharging and other DER loads are used to inform the customer and utility valu streams based on the costs and benefits included in each perspective. From a customer perspective, primary costs and benefits include cust omer energy costs and savings from energy consumption and operation of a DER and the upfront installation costs of DERs. Other value streams include any incentives or rebates from policies or participation in programs, system maintenance costs, and customer resilience benefits. To the extent that there are any differences in costs and benefits available to low -income households, a separate cost -benefit analysis can be conducted from the customer perspective to incorporate these differences. For example, there may be differences in rates if low -income households are eligible for discounted rates or additional incentives or rebates to reduce upfront installation costs. If results of the cost-benefit analysis show negative impacts on low-income households, the breakdown of costs and benefits will help E3 identify the cost streams contributing to negative impacts that may be reduced through different types of programs.

Costs from the utility perspective will draw largely from avoided costs to determine energy supply costs.

Benefits from the utility perspective are primarily utility bills collected from customers. Other costs and benefits from the utility perspective may include costs of GWP programs, such as any incentives paid to customer for participating in programs.
132 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 26
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process An example of cost-benefit analysis for customer owned solar + storage performed for SMUD is shown in Figure 10 below. The cost to SMUD in the form of NEM compensation is shown on the right and compared against the benefits under two scenarios on the left. For the Helps Meet Clean Energy Goals case, BTM solar reduces the amount of utility scale solar procured by SMUD. For the Incremental Clean Energy case, BTM solar increases the total solar on SMUD’s system and avoids traditional fossil generation. Using SMUD projections of the growth in BTM solar and solar + storage systems, E3 estimated that absent a change in SMUD’s rate designs, by 2030 the net cost of BTM solar and solar + storage will reach $0.12 - 0.13 per kWh of solar, equivalent to a total of $92 - 94 million per year in bill increases, respectively. For the average residential customer, this would mean $90 - 92 in annual bill increases by 2030.

Figure 10. Value of Customer Solar, SMUD Ratepayer Perspective, 2020

Under a Utility Partnership system configuration, where BTM customers with battery storage dispatch their systems in order to provide the maximum value to all SMUD ratepayers, the value of solar + storage increases significantly in the Incremental Clean Energy scenario due largely to the additional generation capacity these systems are able to provide when dispatched against maximum value to SMUD ratepayers rather than retail rates. However, even in this configuration the compensation paid to NEM customers considerably exceeds the value provided by the systems, shown below for 2030. 133 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 27
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Development Process Figure 11. Value of Solar + Storage, Customer Dispatch and Utility Partnership Configurations, 2030

134 of 259

City of Glendale Water & PowerCity of Glendale Water & Power City of Glendale Water & Power 28
Plan to Increase Solar and DER Project Implementation Timeline Figure 12: Project Implementation Timeline
Project Implementation Timeline

135 of 259

Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc.
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94104
136 of 259

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance 5996 Prohibiting Issuance of Entitlement and/or Permits for New and Conversion of Existing Drive-through Waiting Lanes

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for September 12, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following an initial examination of existing drive-through waiting lanes citywide, staff determined the need for a traffic engineering consultant with experience and expertise in the design and operation of fast-food restaurants and other land uses with drive-through waiting lanes to assist in the development of design standards, access and circulation analysis and review process. As such, an extension to the moratorium is necessary to complete the analysis and provide recommended alternatives. The extension of the moratorium would be for a period of 12 months, but can be terminated at the conclusion of any adopted changes to the Zoning Code.
137 of 259

29a
4 4
9 5

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Economic Vibrancy: The moratorium is consistent with the Council’s desire to ensure that the growth and economic vibrancy of Glendale is befitting of the Council and community’s vision of a vibrant city, and to better understand the need and demand for drive-through waiting lanes.

Mobility, Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: The moratorium is consistent Council’s desire to have a well-planned and comprehensive transportation system that is a safe, efficient and well-coordinated multi-modal circulation system that focuses on enhancing roadway safety through effective engineering, enforcement and education to the public.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt the one-year extension of the existing drive-through waiting lane moratorium temporarily prohibiting the issuance of entitlements and/or permit for new and conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes.

BACKGROUND
The City Council enacted a moratorium on September 27, 2022, regarding developments with drive-through waiting lanes in response to a growing number of applications for drive- through establishments (modification to existing and new) and concerns regarding the safety, aesthetics, and environmental impacts of this activity.

Staff determined the need for a traffic engineering consultant with experience and expertise in the design and operation of fast-food restaurants with drive-through waiting lanes to assist in the development of design standards, access and circulation analysis and review process.

Over the past few years there has been an increase in restaurants with drive-through and conversion/addition of drive-through operations based on several factors including:
•Quick and efficient food pickup by customers;
•The advent of new food delivery services such as Uber Eats, Postmates, and Door Dash that allow customers to order food using delivery apps; and •Restaurants that provide their own mobile app for customers to place orders in advance and pick up food in person.

To address the upward trend of additional drive throughs, as well as converted drive through operations, staff with the help of a consultant would study the following key topics:
•Develop a list of existing drive through establishment and identify their associated traffic patterns;
•Conduct field observations of existing restaurants (including coffee), collect trip generation data, determine queuing capacities and identify impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicular turning movement conflicts;
•Review current Zoning Code standards related to uses typically associated with 138 of 259

39a
4 4
9 5
drive through waiting lanes;
•Develop design guidelines for drive through operations with additional consideration for less typical drive through uses such as automated car washes, banks and pharmacies; and
•Consider the requirement of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process and minimum lot size to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses, land use and urban design policies.

The existing moratorium on drive-through waiting lanes will expire on September 27, 2023, unless the Council adopts the subject one-year extension, which will extend the moratorium for 12 months, to September 27, 2024.

ANALYSIS
Under California Government Code section 65858, a city may adopt an interim ordinance to temporarily prohibit certain land uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City Council is considering or intends to study within a reasonable time. The purpose of such an interim ordinance is to give the City time to maintain the status quo and prohibit the issuance of entitlements or permits that would be in conflict with new contemplated standards. The rationale for an urgency ordinance that takes immediate effect is to prevent a “rush to the counter” of applications to establish new uses before standards can be put in place. The delay in permits allows the city to subject all new uses to the new standards.

Urgency interim ordinances under Government Code Section 65858 require adoption by 4/5 vote of the Council and expire within 45 days, unless extended in the manner described below. An urgency ordinance may only be adopted if the Council finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare, and that the approval of additional entitlements, permits, and other approvals would result in a threat to that public health, safety, or welfare. In this case, the findings in the attached ordinance identify the consideration of proposed changes to drive-through waiting lane standards, or modifying how drive-through waiting lanes are permitted within the city.

These findings would be legislative in nature, and would be entitled to a presumption of conclusiveness if adopted by Council.

After notice and public hearing, Council originally enacted an urgency ordinance on September 27, 2022 (only effective for 45 days) and then extended such ordinance on October 11, 2022 for a period of ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days. Unless extended, this ordinance will expire on September 27, 2023. The ordinance may be extended one more time for an additional year, following a noticed public hearing; any extension of an interim ordinance also requires a 4/5 vote of Council. The ordinance contains the same language as Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5996.
139 of 259

49a
4 4
9 5

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Stakeholder and public outreach would be conducted during any policy studies regarding the demand and effect of new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lane standards and/or processes. Council may provide any additional direction regarding outreach methods.

FISCAL IMPACT
The action of placing a moratorium on future drive-through waiting lanes has no direct costs or financial benefits associated with it. Indirectly, the City would not gain the sales tax and associated permit fees that would flow from future drive-through waiting lane developments.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Community Development Department staff have evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of the proposed Ordinance extending for an additional one-year period Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 5996 temporarily barring new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes within the City of Glendale within the meaning of and pursuant to CEQA, and have concluded that this action is consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment, and thereby qualify for a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308; the action is therefore exempt from further environmental review or the preparation of an environmental document.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt an extension to the ordinance imposing a moratorium on all development projects containing a new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes for twelve months and staff will develop alternatives related to potential modifications to the development standards and processes applicable to drive-through waiting lane proposals.

2. Decline to adopt an ordinance extending, for twelve months, a moratorium on all development projects containing a new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lanes. In this case, the moratorium on all drive-through waiting lanes will expire on its own terms on September 27, 2023, but staff would continue to develop alternatives related to potential modification to the development standards and processes applicable to drive-through waiting lane proposals.

3. Any other alternative not proposed by staff.
140 of 259

59a
4 4
9 5

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Kristen Asp, AICP, Principal Planner
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
141 of 259

1 9
5 1
5 ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING, BY AN ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR, INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 5996 PROHIBITING

ISSUANCE OF ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR PERMITS FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITH

NEW OR CONVERTED DRIVE-THROUGH WAITING LANES IN THE

CITY AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, the California Constitution, the Glendale City Charter, and the State Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code Sections 6500, et seq.) broadly empower the City of Glendale ("City") to plan for and regulate the use of land in order to provide for orderly development, the public health, safety and welfare and a balancing of property rights and desires of the community; and WHEREAS, concerns have been raised over the number of developments with uses and/or standards that include new and converted drive-through waiting lanes in all parts of the City; and
WHEREAS, residents, Councilmembers, and other stakeholders and individuals have expressed concerns that current zoning regulations may not fully address the impacts that drive-through waiting lanes may have in the community, and the effects of drive-through waiting lanes on the City's major streets; and WHEREAS, when drive-through waiting lines extend significantly on private property, the lines can create parking and circulation conflicts within the shopping centers where they are located and those lines can extend across sidewalks and into drive-way aprons, and even onto City streets, which can result in significant traffic hazards, including, but not limited to, unexpected stopping of vehicles, blind spots, unsafe lane changes to avoid lines on City streets, and hazards to pedestrians attempting to cross driveway aprons and streets impacted by lines of cars; and WHEREAS, the goal of any new drive-through waiting lane zoning standards, allowable uses and regulations is to develop comprehensive regulations which recognize and balance the various interests related to drive-through waiting lanes in a manner tailored to the City's unique needs and community vision, and which are supportive of more walkable and pedestrian friendly environments, and which reflect the land use and zoning policy choices of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Glendale Municipal Code contains the standards for the approval of drive-through waiting lanes and establishes the desired physical development requirements; and
142 of 259

2 9
5 1
5 WHEREAS, the development standards established for drive-through waiting lines are meant to allow development with drive-through waiting lanes in a logical and safe manner by accommodating patrons of drive-through waiting lanes on-site, thereby minimizing conflicts with multi-modal forms of transportation (walking, cycling, vehicular) in the use of City streets, alleys, bike lanes and sidewalks; and WHEREAS, the drive-through waiting lane development standards contained in Section 30.32.090 and accompanying Chart IX (Section 30.32.180) of the Glendale Municipal Code ("Parking and Loading – Parking Area Design and Layout Standards") allows development projects that propose a drive-through waiting lane with the minimum dimensions and layout standards for an onsite vehicular waiting lane, including start of lane distances from service windows for restaurant uses and other uses, and from ordering devices, as well as a requirement for a separation lane from the onsite circulation to off-street parking spaces. These standards are intended to eliminate encounters of vehicles using the waiting lane versus vehicular access to off-street parking as well as, eliminate the spillover of waiting vehicles onto adjacent public-r-o-w's or neighboring properties; and
WHEREAS, there are several current and future uses that are eligible and may propose new or converted drive-through waiting lanes Citywide, and there is one current development proposing a drive-through waiting lane using the drive-through waiting lane development standards that has received some level of discretionary review, Starbucks- 216-222 S Glendale and 611 Orange Grove (Return for Redesign); if developed, this would allow a 1,414 square-foot counter service restaurant with a drive-through waiting lane; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted an ordinance amending the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) to prohibit developments with drive-through waiting lanes in the DSP because such developments are contrary to the City's goal of creating a pedestrian- friendly environment and encouraging residents to walk and bike in the DSP, and the City wishes to comprehensively study the benefits of such a prohibition Citywide; and WHEREAS, drive-through waiting lane developments utilizing current development standards are a permitted use in most all Commercial, Mixed-Use and Industrial Zones (currently prohibited in the DSP, and in the IMU-R and SFMU Zones for fast food restaurants only) and do not require any special conditional or other use permit; and
WHEREAS, the City is considering revising or eliminating the drive-through waiting lane development standards or amending the Glendale Municipal Code to require uses proposing drive-through waiting lanes to obtain a conditional use permit, or prohibit such use entirely; and
WHEREAS, maintaining the status quo with respect to drive-through waiting lanes in the City by assuring that no applications for developments that contain uses or 143 of 259

3 9
5 1
5 standards with new or converted drive-through waiting lanes are accepted, processed or approved, and no building permits for new or converted drive-through waiting lanes are issued while the City conducts a study on drive-through waiting lanes, is consistent with good planning; and
WHEREAS, on or about March 2023, the Mobility Division of the Community Development Department, in consultation with the Traffic and Transportation Division of the Public Work’s Department, reviewed and analyzed current drive-through waiting lane standards and, following such study, determined the City’s need to retain the services of a traffic engineer/consultant with experience and expertise in the design and operation of fast-food restaurants and other land uses with drive-through waiting lanes, in order to conduct a further detailed study consisting of field observations, trip generation data and queuing capacities. The traffic engineer/consultant will assist in developing City-specific standards depending on the land use seeking to utilize a drive-through waiting lane, that will then be the bases of new drive-through waiting lane development standards and processes. Until this drive-through waiting lane policy study is complete by the chosen consultant, and any new regulations are adopted, there is a significant risk that some individuals or entities may make investments in and/or obtain approval to develop new drive-through lanes that would soon thereafter be illegal, nonconforming, or subject to an amortization program; and
WHEREAS, during this period of study and process, the City has and will continue to thoroughly study and examine the potential physical, social and environmental impacts of new and existing drive-through waiting lane developments in the City, the impact of the current design, development and other land use standards and requirements on such development, including, but not limited to, whether there is a need for additional drive- through waiting lane development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the potential exists that proposed or converted drive-through waiting lane development project applications are inconsistent and in conflict with any new or eliminated drive-through waiting lane development policies, zoning, or revised standards of property development may be filed during the term that the City is studying potential revisions to drive-through waiting lane development standards and/or uses; and WHEREAS, any approval of new or conversion of drive-through waiting lane development in the City has the potential to contravene future revised drive-through waiting lane design, development and entitlement standards and requirements, while such revisions are being studied, which will result in a threat to the health, safety and general welfare of residents in the City; and
WHEREAS, on September 20 and 27, 2022, the City evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of Interim Ordinance No. 5994 temporarily prohibiting approval of new or conversion of drive-through waiting lane development in the City within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and the Council found that the adoption of Interim Ordinance No. 5994 was consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment and thereby approved a 144 of 259

4 9
5 1
5 Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308, and certified that Interim Ordinance No. 5994 was exempt from additional environmental review, including from the preparation of an environmental impact report; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2022, the City Council, by a fourth-fifths vote, adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5994 imposing a 45-day moratorium on the approval of any new or conversion of drive-through waiting lane development in the City; and WHEREAS, on October 25, 2022, the City issued a "10-day report" describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of Interim Ordinance No. 5994, which date was at least 10 days prior to the expiration of said Ordinance, as required by Government Code Section 65858(d); and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2022, following a duly-noticed public hearing, the City Council, by a fourth-fifths vote, adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5996 (“Interim Ordinance 5996”), extending, by ten months and fifteen days, Interim Ordinance 5994 imposing a moratorium on the approval of any new or conversion of drive-through waiting lane development in the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is now necessary for the City to extend Interim Ordinance 5996 by an additional one year in order to continue to undertake action to review and revise applicable provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code in order to provide for the reexamination within a reasonable time, of drive-through waiting lane design, development and entitlement standards and requirements in the City; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858 provides that a city council may adopt by a four-fifths vote as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a general plan or zoning measure that the city is considering or studying, or intends to study within a reasonable time, for 45 days, and may extend such moratorium following notice and public hearing for an additional 10 months and 15 days and then for an additional one year period; and WHEREAS, the moratorium and extension of Interim Ordinance on new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lane development for any project will prevent changes to the existing physical environment within the city, and therefore, will not result in significant environmental impacts under CEQA, which are made in comparison to existing physical conditions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15125(a) and 15126.2(a)); and WHEREAS, notice of the date, time and place of the public hearing for this Ordinance to extend Interim Ordinance 5996 for an additional one year was given pursuant to Government Code Sections 65090 and 65858, by publication in Glendale Independent on August 31, 2023, and by posting and making available all written materials referenced herein, which notified the public the City would be considering a one 145 of 259

5 9
5 1
5 year extension of the adopted Interim Ordinance 5996 imposing a moratorium on all new or conversion of existing drive-through waiting lane development for any project.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings.

The City Council finds, determines, and declares that:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

2. The City's Community Development Department staff have fully evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of this Ordinance temporarily barring development projects with drive-through waiting lanes and conversion of exiting drive- through waiting lanes from changing establishments within the City of Glendale within the meaning of and pursuant to CEQA, and the City Council finds that this action is consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment and thereby approves a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308, and certifies that this Ordinance is exempt from the requirement of further environmental review or the preparation of an environmental document.

3. The City has an overriding interest in planning and regulating development projects within the City. Implicit in any plan or regulation is the City's interest in maintaining the quality of urban life and the character of the City's neighborhoods.

4. Without stable, well-planned neighborhoods, areas of the City can quickly deteriorate, with negative consequences to social, environmental, and economic values.

5. The City has adopted a General Plan and various specific plans, to ensure a well-planned and safe community.

6. The City Council has amended the DSP to prohibit developments that contain drive-through waiting lanes in the DSP because such developments are contrary to the City's goal of encouraging pedestrian activity and alternative modes of transportation such as bicycle riding and public transportation, and wishes to comprehensively study whether such a prohibition should also be enacted Citywide.

7. A written report was issued by the City on October 25, 2022, at least ten days prior to the expiration of Interim Ordinance 5994, describing measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the urgency ordinance. 146 of 259

6 9
5 1
5 8. An additional written report in the form of a staff report to City Council, was issued, published and presented to the City Council on November 1, 2022, ten days prior to the expiration of Interim Ordinance 5994, describing additional measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the urgency ordinance and specifically describing progress made on studying the potential physical, social and environmental impacts of new and existing drive-through waiting lane developments in the City, the impact of the current design, development and other land use standards and requirements on such development, including, but not limited to, whether there is a need for additional drive-through waiting lane development in the City.

9. An additional written report, in the form of a staff report to City Council, was issued, published and presented to the City Council on September 12, 2023, ten days prior to the expiration of Interim Ordinance 5996, describing additional measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the urgency ordinance and specifically describing progress made on studying the potential physical, social and environmental impacts of new and existing drive-through waiting lane developments in the City, the impact of the current design, development and other land use standards and requirements on such development, including, but not limited to, whether there is a need for additional drive-through waiting lane development in the City.

10. The City finds that the potential exists that drive-through waiting lane project applications inconsistent and in conflict with any new or eliminated drive-through waiting lane and development policies, zoning, incentives, impact fees or revised standards of property development may be filed during the term that the City is studying potential revisions to drive-through waiting lane, development standards, and conditional use permit requirements, and that any approval of development uses that include new or converted drive-through waiting lanes have the potential to contravene future revised or eliminated drive-through waiting lanes and development standards while such standards are being studied, which will result in a threat to the public health, safety and general welfare of residents in the City.

SECTION 2. Moratorium.

1. There is hereby imposed a one-year extension of Interim Ordinance No. 5996 on the approval of any land use entitlement(s) and/or permits under the Glendale Municipal Code for development projects which contain new, or conversion of existing, drive-through wailing lanes, defined as any project that proposes the development of a "drive-through waiting lane", as defined in Glendale Municipal Code section 30.32.090 ("Drive-through Waiting Lane Project") within the City of Glendale.

2. It is the intent of the City Council that any proposal for a Drive-through Waiting Lane Project within the City during the period of the moratorium shall be considered inconsistent with this Ordinance and with the City's land use policies and 147 of 259

7 9
5 1
5 zoning regulations for all purposes, and by all agencies charged with reviewing any application for such development.

3. City staff is directed to undertake a comprehensive study, as described above, and recommend new or amended policies, zoning or development standards, with respect to drive-through waiting lane developments in the City for consideration by the City Council.

4. Violations of this interim moratorium may be charged as a misdemeanor as set forth in Glendale Municipal Code Section 1.20.010, may be the subject of administrative code enforcement remedies as set forth in Chapter 1.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code, or may be deemed a public nuisance and may be enforced by an action for injunction or civil penalties as provided in the Glendale Municipal Code, or by any other remedy authorized by law.

5. The Glendale City Manager is hereby authorized· to direct all City Departments, including the Community Development Department, the Police Department, and City Attorney, to facilitate compliance with the purpose and intent of this Interim Ordinance using the enforcement powers described in the preceding paragraph.

SECTION 3. Urgency.

By the City Council's making the findings and determinations of fact which the Council declares to constitute an urgency for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety or welfare, the City Council hereby declares that this Ordinance is an urgency measure pursuant to City of Glendale Charter Article 6, Section 7 and Government Code Section 65858, which becomes effective immediately upon adoption by an affirmative vote of at least four-fifths (4/5ths) of the members of the City Council.

SECTION 4. Severability.

This Ordinance's provisions are severable. If any portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, that decision does not affect the validity of the Ordinance's remaining portions and the Ordinance's application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance without the invalid or unconstitutional provision.

SECTION 5. Adoption and Incorporation.

The findings and information contained in the City Council staff reports dated September 20 and 27, 2022; October 25 and November 1, 2022; and September 12, 148 of 259

8 9
5 1
5 2023, are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION 6. Effectiveness.

This Ordinance shall go into effect upon the expiration of Interim Ordinance No. 5996 and shall be of no further force and effect one year from the expiration date of Interim Ordinance No. 5996, unless otherwise lawfully reenacted or extended by further action of the City Council.

SECTION 7. Certification.

The City Clerk shall certify this Ordinance’s adoption and cause the Ordinance to be published in a manner consistent with the requirements of applicable state and local law.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the ____ day of ________, 2023.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
149 of 259

9 9
5 1
5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. _________ was passed by a 4/5 ths vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _________________, 2023, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________________
City Clerk
150 of 259

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Ordinance for Introduction of Amendments for Streamlining the Historic District Designation Process

1. Ordinance for introduction of amendments to Glendale Municipal Code Section

30.25.030 related to streamlining of the City’s historic district designation process

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for September 12, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pursuant to City Council direction, staff prepared an ordinance amending the Glendale Municipal Code related to streamlining the City’s historic district designation process that has been reviewed and recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission.

This ordinance is the result of earlier recommendations by the Historic Preservation Commission (which were subsequently reviewed by City Council), with the goal of significantly reducing the amount of time between an initial district application and City Council’s ultimate decision on the designation of a proposed historic district overlay zone.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Operational Efficiency
Streamlining the designation process for new historic districts will reduce the number of steps and overall time previously required for evaluating district applications without sacrificing transparency, public participation, or the quality of information provided to the public and decision makers.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council introduce and subsequently adopt the ordinance streamlining the historic district designation process (amendments to GMC 30.25.030 [“Procedure for Historic District Overlay Zone Designation and Expansion”]). Staff also requests that Council introduce the ordinance with Council’s desired percentage requirement for the petition from property owners requesting designation of a district. 151 of 259

29b
4 5
3 5

BACKGROUND
On September 15, 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed a proposal developed by Planning Division staff to streamline the historic district overlay zone designation process. This was based on Council’s earlier direction that staff propose ways to significantly reduce the amount of time between an initial historic district application and Council’s final designation decision. HPC recommended a few minor changes and clarifications and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that City Council approve the procedural revisions.

City Council reviewed the streamlining recommendations, as modified by HPC, on October 25, 2022 and voted unanimously (5-0) to approve them in concept, directing staff to prepare an ordinance to amend GMC Section 30.25.030. During their discussion, several Councilmembers raised questions about aspects of the proposed process, as follow:
•Education/Outreach
Councilmembers supported providing owners and residents in proposed historic districts with clear and consistent information provided directly by the City at all relevant steps of the process. The same materials will also be given to district proponents for their localized outreach to ensure consistent information delivery.

These materials would address both the benefits and obligations that come with district designation and be user-friendly in form and content. Google Translate links will be incorporated into all on-line content to ensure the broadest possible outreach.

Staff will create a specific webpage for each nominated district that includes all relevant documents so they can be found in one location and be easily referenced by the public. The webpage will be updated on an ongoing basis as new materials, such as the draft survey and survey forms, are produced, as well as to announce upcoming public meetings and the progress of the nomination process. Owners and residents will be provided this information, digitally and physically, at several points in the designation process, including before public meetings and during the petition process (see Sections 30.25.030 B1, B4a, B5, D1, D2, and D3 of the proposed ordinance).
•Petition
Currently, the petition asking Council to designate a proposed district requires the signatures of the owners of over 50% of the area’s properties. At the October 2022 meeting, there was considerable discussion about increasing this number, but no final decision was made. The meeting ended with Councilmembers Brotman, Devine, and Kassakhian in support of retaining 50%+ and Councilmembers Asatryan and Najarian supporting signatures from the owners of 2/3 (67%) of the properties. The proposed ordinance leaves GMC Section

30.25.030.C.4 open pending Council’s final decision. Some Councilmembers 152 of 259

39b
4 5
3 5
also discussed requiring that petition signatures be verified, but no final direction was provided.

On June 7, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to GMC 30.25.030 and voted unanimously (4-0) in support of the streamlined process and to recommend that Council approve the proposal. With regard to raising the petition signature requirements, all four commissioners present (Chraghchian, Fuentes, Lee, Minassian) supported retaining the existing 50%+ requirement, though Commissioner Chraghchian raised the possibility of increasing it to 60%.

Historic District Background
In 2003, City Council established a process for identifying, designating, and regulating historic district overlay zones (Ordinance No. 5347). In 2004, significant changes were made to the entire Zoning Code (Glendale Municipal Code Title 30; Ordinance No. 5399), including moving most of the district-related code sections to Section 30.25 (“Historic Preservation Overlay Zone”), where they remain today. While individual properties could be listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources since 1997, there had been no mechanism to identify and protect significant groupings of buildings - in other words, historic districts - prior to 2003-04. The impetus to establish districts came from the community; specifically, homeowners in what was called the Cumberland Heights neighborhood who were concerned about how the area was changing and lobbied for a means to maintain its historic character. Ultimately, an application for a historic district overlay zone was submitted under the new ordinance.

Unfortunately, the initial district ordinances failed to provide clarity regarding the designation process and how the City would regulate changes to properties within a designated district. The resulting uncertainty about how districts would actually work led the City to restart the process in 2006. Many of the earlier code sections, particularly Section 30.25 (“Historic District Overlay Zone”), were amended and Architectural Resources Group was retained to produce a set of historic district guidelines, which later won an award from the Los Angeles Conservancy. With significant community support, City Council approved the code revisions (Ordinance No. 5535) and the current framework for creating and regulating historic districts was established.

There are now nine designated districts in Glendale - Royal Boulevard (2008), Ard Eevin Highlands (2009), Cottage Grove (2009), Rossmoyne (2012), North Cumberland Heights (2012), Brockmont Park (2014), Niodrara Drive (2016), South Cumberland Heights (2022), and Casa Verdugo (2022). A tenth nomination, for the Bellehurst neighborhood, is in progress and the draft historic survey is under review. In addition, applications for two proposed districts (Selvas de Verdugo and Cleveland Knolls) await processing under any new, streamlined process that is approved. 153 of 259

49b
4 5
3 5
Despite the numerous code revisions over the years, the section that focuses on the actual process of designating districts (GMC 30.25.030) remains unchanged since it was approved in 2006. At that time, the City took a belt-and-suspenders approach to provide community members with many layers of outreach and opportunities for comment. Today, much of this feels redundant and we now have over fifteen years of experience with designating districts and, more recently due to the pandemic, with implementing technological changes that allow for greater community outreach and input. Streamlining the designation process can now be accomplished without sacrificing transparency, public participation, or the quality of information provided to the public and decision makers.

ANALYSIS
GMC Chapter 30.25 establishes the City’s goals, policies, and procedures regarding the establishment and regulation of historic district overlay zones. Section 30.25.030 focuses specifically on the designation process and is the subject of the proposed code amendments. This streamlining proposal is not a radical re-envisioning of the current process. The goal is to maintain and enhance transparency and the level of public participation while also achieving time savings through the elimination or consolidation of several steps of the process. In addition, timeline goals for certain staff-level actions are proposed to help ensure efficient application processing. Finally, our experience with public meetings and processing district applications during the pandemic suggests concepts like hybrid public meetings and accepting electronic signatures on petitions will help further the City’s streamlining goals.

The discussion below follows the organization of the proposed ordinance under consideration. For each step, the current process is summarized, followed by the streamlining recommendation and rationale. Exhibit 1 contains a chart comparing the existing and proposed processes.

30.25.030(A)
Applications for Historic District Overlay Zone Designation or Modification •No significant changes are proposed.
•Previously, applicants were expected to provide draft design guidelines for building types or styles not included in the current Historic District Design Guidelines.

Council agreed with staff that it is unrealistic to expect most applicants to provide this information and that, when required, it should be provided later in the process by the consultant conducting the district survey.
154 of 259

59b
4 5
3 5

30.25.030(B)(1-6)
HPC Review of Application and Establishment of Pending Historic District Current Process
•After staff verifies a district application is complete, an HPC hearing is scheduled to assess whether the proposed study area appears likely to be eligible for designation. •This meeting is not publicly noticed but, if the area is found eligible, HPC directs staff to mail a notice of the preliminary determination, along with general information about historic districts and the specific area under consideration, to all owners and occupants within the proposed boundary and a 500’ radius. •This notice also announces a community meeting at which staff provides information about the proposed district and answers questions from residents and owners. •An affirmative HPC vote also authorizes district proponents to circulate a petition requesting that the City conduct a historic district survey.

Streamlined Process
•The separate HPC hearing and community meeting will be combined into a single, publicly noticed Community Forum and Public Hearing. The forum will attempt to maintain the informal, question-and-answer character of the previous community meetings. HPC felt this was critical to prevent the formal hearing room setting from quashing the less structured discussions held with community members. At the forum’s conclusion, HPC will segue into its role as a deliberative body and hold a public hearing to determine if the proposed district appears eligible and, if so, to authorize a historic district survey.
•HPC and Council saw a great benefit in the ability for the forum and hearing to be televised, allowing people to participate both in person and by phone. In addition, the meetings will be recorded by GTV for later viewing and to memorialize the discussions.
•The first petition requesting a historic district survey is eliminated. This step was found to be unnecessary, with district proponents always easily meeting, and usually exceeding, the threshold of obtaining the signatures of the owners of over 25% of a proposed district’s properties.
•HPC is provided a “relief valve” to mandate this petition if it believes there may be a lack of community support for a district or significant opposition among an area’s property owners. The petition requirements and process will be similar to the current process but, at City Council’s direction, will involve more staff involvement regarding the preparation and distribution of informational materials, both physical and digital, to ensure consistent information is provided to area property owners and residents during the signature gathering process, which is conducted by district proponents. •Upon HPC’s preliminary finding of eligibility, and successful submission of any required petition, the proposed area will be deemed a “pending historic district” as defined in GMC 30.25 and notice will be mailed to all affected property owners and residents detailing how, moving forward, this impacts design review, what the next 155 of 259

69b
4 5
3 5
steps will be in the designation process, and how opposition to a district may be registered.

30.25.030(C)(1-2)
Issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) for Historic District Survey Current Process
•After a petition with the required number of signatures is submitted, staff prepares a and distributes an RFP to potential bidders.
•After staff’s review of the bids, a ranked list of bidders will be brought to City Council for selection of the survey consultant and authorization of funding.

Streamlined Process
•No significant changes are proposed.
•As was the case for HPC, City Council is provided potential “relief valve” to gauge support for the district proposal. If HPC did not require a petition requesting a survey, Council may choose to do so at this point (with the same 25+% threshold) if it feels that quantifying the level of support in the proposed district would be beneficial before committing funding to the survey.
•Additionally, staff indicated to City Council that it will work toward two timeline goals, which will not be codified: issuing the RFP within 60 days of the HPC hearing and selecting a preferred bidder within 45 days of the bid submittal deadline.

30.25.030(D)(1-5)
Hearing to Review Draft Historic District Survey and Petition Authorization Current Process
•Staff prepares and finalizes a contract with the selected consultant, which conducts the survey and prepares a draft report for staff review and acceptance. •A second community meeting and second HPC hearing are held in close succession to review the draft survey, allowing staff and the consultant to share the results with owners/occupants in the proposed district, including property-specific information.

The notice for these meetings provides links to this information on the CDD website.

Owners/occupants can correct any errors or omissions regarding their property for incorporation in the final survey.
•If HPC finds the draft survey adequate after the inclusion of any changes, it also authorizes the proponents to circulate a second petition requesting that the City designate the proposed historic district. The owners of over 50% of the properties in the proposed district must sign in order for the application to move forward. 156 of 259

79b
4 5
3 5
Streamlined Process
•Staff will still prepare and finalize a contract with the selected consultant, which conducts the survey and prepares a draft report for staff review and acceptance.

Staff provided City Council with the goal, which will not be codified, of preparing and submitting the contract for review by the City Attorney and Finance Department within 45 days of Council authorization.
•HPC will conduct a second Community Forum and Public Hearing in lieu of the separate meetings currently held for the same reasons the meetings earlier in the process were combined. At this point, the survey has identified whether the proposal meets all code requirements and the boundary has been finalized, providing HPC with the information it needs to determine whether it supports designation.
•This will likely be the second and final HPC hearing. The third hearing, which is currently required and at which HPC reviews the final survey and makes a recommendation to City Council, will be eliminated because HPC has typically enough information at this point to render its decisions. •If HPC finds that the survey requires significant revision, it may choose to continue the hearing to allow the consultant to make required revisions, thereby conducting the equivalent of the current third hearing to ensure the survey meets expectations. •If there are only minor survey corrections and HPC is comfortable with these being made by staff and the consultant, HPC will make its recommendation for Council at this hearing, along with authorizing proponents to circulate the petition requesting designation. If the hearing is continued, the recommendation and petition authorization would occur when HPC reconvenes to review the revised final document.
•A petition requesting designation of the district will still be required and will be circulated among property owners within the boundary by the proponents, who have 180 days to submit a completed petition. This can be extended for another 180 days by HPC if needed (the current process requires that an extension be granted by City Council).
•The petition requirements and process will be similar to the current process but, at City Council’s direction, will involve more staff involvement regarding the preparation and distribution of informational materials, both physical and digital, to ensure consistent information is provided to area property owners and residents during the signature gathering process, which is conducted by district proponents. •Per the discussion at the October 2022 City Council meeting, staff requests that City Council provide direction regarding whether the current threshold of obtaining the signatures of owners of over 50% of the properties in the boundary be maintained or changed. The draft ordinance under review highlights this area (Subsection D(4)). •New language is also added to emphasize that the petition forms indicate that signatories’ representation of ownership is true and made under potential penalty of perjury to address concerns raised by City Council.
157 of 259

89b
4 5
3 5

30.25.030(E)
Planning Commission Review of Proposed Historic District Overlay Zone Current and Streamlined Process
•Planning Commission (PC) review is required for all zone change applications, including those for historic district overlay zones. The Commission will make a recommendation to City Council on whether or not the zone change should be approved. PC is provided with an overview of the findings of the historic district survey and HPC’s recommendation to help inform its deliberation. The PC recommendation is included, along with that of HPC, in the staff report to Council for its final deliberation about a district designation and zone change. This subsection references GMC Chapters 30.61 and 30.63, which establish the City Council’s role in the final review and possible designation of districts, so no other information regarding that step is required in 30.25.030.

30.25.030(F)
Modification or Deletion of Historic District Overlay Zone.

Current and Streamlined Process
•No change is proposed.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from further CEQA review as a Class 8, "Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment," exemption pursuant to Section 15208 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it provides for the enhancement and protection of historic resources.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Introduce and subsequently adopt the proposed ordinance to streamline the historic district designation process, with selection of the desired percentage threshold required from owners of properties.
158 of 259

99b
4 5
3 5
Alternative 2: Decline to introduce the proposed ordinance to streamline the historic district designation process, in which case, the current process will remain in place.

Alternative 2: Any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Comparison Chart: Current and Proposed Designation Processes 159 of 259

1 9
5 3
5 ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 30.25.030 OF TITLE 30 OF THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE, 1995 RELATING GENERALLY TO STREAMLINING THE CITY’S HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION PROCESS (CASE NO. PZC-0002-2022) BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1. Section 30.25.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended as follows:

30.25.030 Procedure for historic district overlay zone designation and expansionmodification.

The following shall be the procedures for establishing anddesignating or modifying historic district overlay zones:

A.Applications for Historic District Overlay Zone Designation or Modification. Requests Applications for the establishment or modification of historic Historic district District overlay Overlay zones Zones must originate with the owners of any three (3) properties within the proposed district boundary (the study area) and shall be presented submitted to the Director of Community Development for consideration.

Requests Applications shall be accompanied byinclude a the draft proposed historic district overlay zone study area boundary, addresses of all properties to be included in the proposed historic district overlay zone, a historical written contextnarrative describing the history and development of the area, and a statement describing why the proposed or expanded historic district overlay zone designation or modification meets the criteria for designation under Section 30.25.020., and any proposed supplements to the citywide historic district design guidelines. For study areas containing non- residential buildings, the request shall contain draft historic district design guidelines for those buildings. The draft historic district design guidelines for non-residential buildings shall identify the standards which will be applied to design review within the district, differentiating review standards for properties and features within the district that contribute to the historical significance of the area and those that do not, as well as for standards for in-fill development.

B. HPC Review of Application and Establishment of Pending Historic District. Once the application to designate or modify a Historic District Overlay Zone is deemed complete, tThe Director of Community Development shall forward set a community forum and a public hearing the request beforeto the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission shall hold the community forum to inform residents and owners about the proposed historic district and historic districts in general, as well as 160 of 259

2 9
5 3
5 answer questions. Immediately following the community forum, the Commission will conduct the public hearing to make a preliminary determination whether the application contains sufficient information indicating the study area appears likely to meet the thresholds and criteria set forth in Chapter 30.25 for purposes of subsequently undergoing more detailed analysis. to conduct a preliminary consideration of the request to determine eligibility under the criteria set forth in Section30.25.020 of this chapter. In preparation for the community forum and public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission, tThe Director of Community Development may conduct meetingsmeet with residents of the community, seek advice of preservation professionals and historians, and conduct or receive any preliminary research or studies to assist the Historic Preservation Commission with its decisionpreliminary determination whether the proposed district meets the criteria and thresholds for designation in Chapter 30.25.

1. Notice of the community forum and public hearing shall be mailed to every property owner, and every household that is not owner occupied according to the most recent Los Angeles County Assessor’s office property records, in the proposed historic district overlay zone, and to every property owner within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the proposed historic district overlay zone. The notice shall be accompanied by a document prepared by the Director of Community Development containing information describing the proposed historic district overlay zone, a map showing the proposed district boundary, the address ranges of the properties within the proposed district boundary, and instructions for locating relevant documents, including the application materials and general information about historic districts, on the City of Glendale website.

C2. If the Historic Preservation Commission preliminarily determines that the study areaproposed Historic District Overlay Zone appears to be is eligible to become a historic district overlay zone or expand an existing onefor designation or modification, it shall authorize the project proponent(s) to circulate a petition requesting a historic resources survey to affected property owners, asking the City Council to authorize preparation of a historic resources survey or modification of an existing survey. Upon this preliminary determination, a proposed study area shall be deemed a “Pending Historic District Overlay Zone” until such time as the application is approved or denied by City Council, or is withdrawn by the applicants. the Director of Community Development shall send notice of such preliminary determination pursuant to Section

30.25.030(B)(3) of this Code.

3. If the Historic Preservation Commission determines the proposed historic district does not appear eligible for designation, the application shall be deemed denied and the Director of Community Development shall send notice of such determination pursuant to Section 30.25.030(B)(3).

D4. If the Historic Preservation Commission preliminarily determines that the proposed study areaHistoric District Overlay Zone is appears eligible for designation or modificationto become a new historic district overlay zoneorexpandan existing one, but 161 of 259

3 9
5 3
5 additional evidence demonstrating public support for the application is warranted, then the Historic Preservation Commission may require the applicant to circulate a petition within the proposed district requesting that City Council authorize preparation of a historic district survey.
a. All petition forms, whether circulated physically or digitally, shall be accompanied by an informational document prepared by the Director of Community Development containing information regarding the proposed historic district overlay zone, a map indicating the proposed district boundary, the address ranges of the properties within the boundary, and instructions for locating relevant documents, including the application and general information about historic districts, on the Glendale Community Development Department website. The petition forms shall be distributed to the applicant and shall contain a statement that all signatories acknowledge their ownership and their authority to sign the petition under penalty of perjury. the director of community development shall send notice of such preliminary determination to every property owner, and every household that is not owner occupied according to the County Assessor’s office, in the study area, and to every property owner within five hundred (500) feet of the preliminary boundary. In addition, the director of community development shall mail to all owners, and each household that is not owner occupied according to the County Assessor’s office, a document containing basic information regarding the proposed historic district overlay zone, a map indicating the proposed district boundary and the addresses of the properties within the boundary, and links to documents on the city of Glendale website, including the Historic District Design Guidelines and any supplements thereto proposed for the proposed district; the Historic District Handbook, and any other appropriate informational materials.

E.b. Within ninety (90) days of the public hearingpreliminary determination of eligibility by of the Historic Preservation Commission, or within ninety (90) days of a City Council action sustaining the Historic Preservation Commission’s determination following an appeal, the project proponents shall submit to the Director of Community Development the a petition requesting a historic resources district survey. The time limit may be extended for another ninety (90) days by the historic preservation commission Director of Community Development upon showing of good cause. Any request for an extension of time must be made prior to the expiration of the initial ninety (90) day time limit. Any petition that is deemed denied may not be re-submitted for a period of six (6) months after the date of denial.
c. The Director of Community Development shall verify the number of properties represented on the petition by valid signatures. If the owners of more than twenty-five (25) percent of the properties in the study area have signed the petition, the historic district overlay zone application shall move forward in the designation process and the Director of Community Development shall send notice of such preliminary determination pursuant to Section 30.25.030(B)(3). If the owners of twenty-five (25) percent or less of the properties in the study area have signed the petition, the application shall be deemed denied and the Director of Community Development shall send notice of such determination pursuant to Section 30.25.030(B)(3) below. 162 of 259

4 9
5 3
5 d. For the purpose of this section the signature of an “owner of property” to constitute a valid petition signature, the petition shall be signed by one (1) of the following:
1i. Where the property is held by one individual, the petition shall be signed by that individual;
2ii. Where the property is held in a form of co-tenancy, including joint tenancy, tenants in common, tenants in partnership or community property, then each such co- tenant shall be required to sign the petition;
3iii. Where the property is held by a business entity, such as a corporation, limited partnership, general partnership, or limited liability, an authorized agent of such business entity with the power to bind the entity in contract shall sign the petition; 4iv. Where the property is a common interest development, as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351, the authorized agent of the homeowner’s association or other agent designated in the common interest development’s governing documents shall sign the petition; or
5v. Where the property is held in trust, all co-trustees shall sign the petition unless the California Probate Code allows otherwise.
e. Properties owned by any public agency shall not be considered, either as signatories or when determining the total number of properties, in judging whether a petition has sufficient signatures.

F. At the time of submittal of the petition requesting a historic resources survey, the project proponent(s) may request amendment of the application, including the boundaries of the study area, any supplements to the citywide historic district design guidelines, any design guidelines proposed for non-residential structures, or any other aspect of the application. Any amendment of the application must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, to determine that the amendment is consistent with the commission’s preliminary determination that the area is eligible to become a historic district overlay zone, pursuant to subsection A, above. The Historic Preservation Commission’s determination on the amendment may be appealed to the City Council, following the uniform appeals procedures of the Glendale Municipal Code.

5. Upon the determination of the If the Historic Preservation Commission determines that the proposed Historic District Overlay Zone designation or modification appears eligible for designation or modificationstudy area is eligible, to become a historic district overlay zone or expand an existing one and the Director of Community Development’s acceptance of any petition required under Section 30.25.030(B)(2), the proposed Historic District Overlay Zone shall be deemed a “Pending Historic District Overlay Zone” until such time as the application is approved or denied by City Council or is withdrawn by the applicants. the The Director of Community Development shall 163 of 259

5 9
5 3
5 send mail a notice of such preliminary this determination to every property owner, and every household that is not owner occupied according to the County Assessor’s office, in the study area, and to every property owner within five hundred (500) feet of the preliminary boundary. This notice shall include information about the transfer of design review authority in the pending district from the Design Review Board to the Historic Preservation Commission pursuant to Section 30.25.040, the applicability of the Historic District Design Guidelines for design review of applications submitted subsequent to the date of this determination pursuant to Section 30.25.050, and instructions for locating the Guidelines, the application, and general information about historic districts on the Glendale Community Development Department website. The notice shall also include information about the process to oppose the designation of a historic district.

6. In the event the Historic Preservation Commission denies the application pursuant to Section 30.25.030(B)(1) or the petition fails to receive the minimum threshold level of support required under Section 30.25.030(B)(2), the Director of Community Development shall send notice that the application is denied to every property owner, and every household that is not owner occupied according to the then- current Los Angeles County Assessor’s property information, in the proposed Historic District Overlay Zone, and to every property owner within five hundred (500) feet of the preliminary study area boundary.

G. Upon receipt of the petition requesting a historic resources survey, the Director of Community Development shall verify that the petition meets the requirements of subsection D, above, and, after the Historic Preservation Commission’s review of amendments to the historic district overlay zone application, if any, the Director of Community Development shall forward the petition to the City Council for authorization to conduct a historic resources survey.

C. Following the Historic Preservation Commission’s determination that the proposed Historic District Overlay Zone designation or modification appears eligible to be established pursuant to Chapter 30.25, the Director of Community Development shall issue a request for proposals to preservation consulting firms meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. In the event the Historic Preservation Commission required a petition requesting a historic district survey pursuant to Section 30.25.030(B)(2), the request for proposals shall not be issued until the Director of Community Development has received said petition and verified that it bears the signatures of the owners of over twenty-five (25) percent of the properties in the proposed district boundary.

Upon review of the consultants’ submitted proposals, the Director of Community Development shall prepare a ranked list of recommended consultants and set a hearing before City Council to review the proposals and request funding authorization, as follows:
164 of 259

6 9
5 3
5 1. City Council shall select a preferred bidder and authorize funding for the historic district survey, directing the Director of Community Development to prepare a contract between the City and the consultant chosen by City Council.

2. City Council shall select a preferred bidder but, in the event that the Historic Preservation Commission did not require a petition requesting a historic district survey pursuant to Section 30.25.030(B)(2) and City Council finds reason to require further public input to indicate the level of support for establishing or modifying a historic district overlay zone, it may require that the project proponents circulate a petition requesting a historic district survey to property owners within the proposed boundary, or any boundary modified by the Historic Preservation Commission or City Council, asking the City Council to authorize preparation of a historic district survey or modification of an existing survey in accordance with the process established in Section 30.25.030(B)(2).

City Council shall also authorize the Director of Community Development, upon his or her receipt and verification of a petition bearing the signatures of the owners of over twenty-five (25) percent of the properties in the proposed district boundary, to prepare a contract between the City and the consultant chosen by City Council.

HD. Hearing to Review Draft Historic District Survey. Upon the consultant’s completion of the a draft historic resources district survey, including any recommended additions to the Historic District Design Guidelines necessitated by the findings of the survey, the Director of Community Development shall set the draft survey for review before the Historic Preservation Commission in a duly noticed community forum and public hearing according to the procedures set forth in Section 30.61 of this Title. The mailed notice shall be accompanied by a document containing basic information regarding the findings of the draft survey, a map of the final district boundary verified by the consultant, and the address ranges of the properties within that boundary, and instructions for locating relevant documents, including the draft historic district survey and all property specific DPR 523a survey forms, on the Glendale Community Development Department website. The notice shall be mailed to every property owner, and every household that is not owner occupied according to the County Assessor’s office, in the study area.
forward the survey to the Historic Preservation Commission for its review and approval.

Upon approving the survey, the Historic Preservation Commission shall authorize the project proponent(s) to circulate petitions to affected property owners asking the City Council to initiate the designation process. The petitions shall be accompanied by a copy of the citywide historic district design guidelines, and any supplements proposed thereto, any draft historic district guidelines prepared for non-residential buildings, and shall also refer to where the historic district design guidelines and any such proposed supplements, and any draft design review guidelines for non-residential buildings may be reviewed. The commission’s approval of the historic resources survey may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to Chapter 2.88 of this code.

1. The Commission may approve the draft historic district survey as presented or provide direction to the Director of Community Development to make any specific minor 165 of 259

7 9
5 3
5 revisions required to transform the draft survey into the final Historic District Survey. The Historic Preservation Commission shall then, or upon completion of any required minor revisions, authorize the project proponents to circulate a petition to affected property owners asking the City Council to establish the historic district overlay zone. All petition forms, whether circulated physically or digitally, shall be accompanied by an informational document prepared by the Director of Community Development containing basic information regarding the findings of the final survey, a map of the final district boundary verified by the consultant, the address ranges of the properties within the boundary, and instructions for locating relevant documents, including the final historic district survey and all property-specific DPR 523a survey forms, the Historic District Design Guidelines, and general information about historic districts on the Glendale Community Development Department website.

2. If the Historic Preservation Commission determines the draft historic district survey requires significant revision, it may continue the hearing item and direct the Director of Community Development to work with the consultant to revise the survey to address the Commission’s specific concerns. The revised draft survey will be returned to the Commission at a duly noticed community forum and public hearing at which the survey, if approved, will become the final historic district survey. The notice shall be mailed to every property owner, and every household that is not owner occupied according to the County Assessor’s office, in the study area. The notice for the continued community forum and public hearing shall be accompanied by an informational document prepared by the Director of Community Development containing basic information regarding the findings of the final survey, a map of the final district boundary verified by the consultant, the address ranges of the properties within the boundary, and instructions for locating relevant documents, including the final historic district survey and all property-specific DPR 523a survey forms, the Historic District Design Guidelines, and general information about historic districts on the Glendale Community Development Department website.

3. Upon the Historic Preservation Commission’s approval of the final historic district survey per Section 30.25.030(D)(1) or 30.25.031(D)(2), above, it shall issue its final recommendation to City Council regarding the establishment of the historic district overlay zone. The Commission shall also authorize the project proponents to circulate a petition requesting a historic district overlay zone to affected property owners asking City Council to establish a historic district overlay zone. All petition forms, whether circulated physically or digitally, shall be accompanied by an informational document prepared by the Director of Community Development containing basic information regarding the findings of the final survey, a map of the final district boundary verified by the consultant, the address ranges of the properties within that boundary, and instructions for locating relevant documents, including the final historic district survey and all property-specific DPR 523a survey forms, the Historic District Design Guidelines, and general information about historic districts on the City of Glendale website.
166 of 259

8 9
5 3
5 I4. Within six (6) monthsone hundred-eighty (180) days of the Historic Preservation Commission’s authorization to circulate a Petition petition Requesting requesting a historic district overlay zone, the project proponents shall submit said petition to the Director of Community Development. Said petition must be signed by the owners of more than fifty/XX (50/XX) percent of the properties in the historic district study area, or part thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a petition satisfying the requirements of Article XV, Section 2 of the Glendale City Charter shall satisfy the requirement of this subsection. If such a petition is not submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development within one hundred-eighty (180) dayssix (6) months of the Historic Preservation Commission’s authorization to circulate the petitions, the application for a historic district overlay zone shall be deemed denied. The six-month time limit may be extended by the Historic Preservation CommissionDirector of Community Development upon showing of good cause. Any request for an extension of time must be made prior to the expiration of the one hundred-eighty (180) daysix (6) month time limit. Any petition that is deemed denied may not be re-submitted for a period of six (6) months after the date of denial.
a. For the purpose of this section, for the signature of an “owner of property” to constitute a valid petition signature, the petition shall be signed by one of the following:
1i. Where the property is held by one individual, the petition shall be signed by that individual;
2ii. Where the property is held in a form of co-tenancy, including joint tenancy, tenants in common, tenants in partnership or community property, then each such co-tenant shall be required to sign the petition;
3iii. Where the property is held by a business entity, such as a corporation, limited partnership, general partnership, or limited liability, an authorized agent of such business entity with the power to bind the entity in contract shall sign the petition; 4iv. Where the property is a common interest development, as defined in California Civil Code Section 1351, the authorized agent of the homeowner’s association or other agent designated in the common interest development’s governing documents shall sign the petition; or
5v. Where the property is held in trust, all co-trustees shall sign the petition unless the California Probate Code allows otherwise.
b. Properties owned by any public agency shall not be considered, either as signatories or when determining the total number of properties, in judging whether a petition has sufficient signatures.

J5. Upon receipt of the petition, and verification by the Director of Community Development that the petition satisfies the requirements of subsection I Section

30.25.030(D)(3), above, the community development department Director of Community 167 of 259

9 9
5 3
5 Development shall prepare a report which will that details the appropriateness of the boundaries recommended boundary consistent with the historic district overlay zone designation criteria, provide the percentage of the property owners in the district petitioning the City Council, provide an overview ofdocument the history and significance of the area, provide photographs of all properties within the area (both contributing and non-contributing buildings), and present any supplements to the citywide historic district design guidelinesHistoric District Design Guidelines prepared by the consultant. proposed for the historic district overlay zone and any proposed design guidelines for non-residential buildings, and indicate whether the historic resources survey has found that the supplements concern characteristics which have been identified in the historic resources survey to make significant contributions to the character of the potential historic district. Once complete, the Director of Community Development shall present the report to the Historic Preservation Commission for its consideration and recommendation to City Council.

KE. Planning Commission Review of Proposed Historic District Overlay Zone.

The Director of Community Development shall forward the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation to the Planning Commission for consideration of a zone change to create the specific historic district overlay zone. The application shall then be processed according to the procedures set forth under Chapters 30.61 and 30.63 of this titleTitle.

L. If the request for a historic district overlay zone includes any supplements to the citywide historic district design guidelines specific to the requested overlay zone, the City Council may not approve the supplements unless it finds that the supplements concern characteristics which have been identified in the historic resources survey to make significant contributions to the character of the potential historic district overlay zone.

M.F. Modification of Deletion of Historic District Overlay Zone. The procedures for modification or deletion of a historic district overlay zone shall follow the procedures outlined in this section and elsewhere in the Zoning Code (Title 30) and the City Charter as applicable. (Ord. 5949 § 31, 2020; Ord. 5747 § 21, 2011; Ord. 5535 § 9, 2006; Ord. 5399 Attach. A, 2004)
SECTION 2. Severability. This Ordinance’s provisions are severable. If any portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, that decision does not affect the validity of the Ordinance’s remaining portions and the Ordinance’s application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance without the invalid or unconstitutional provision.

SECTION 3. The City Council finds and determines that this ordinance is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3) Section 15308 168 of 259

10 9
5 3
5 [actions taken for the protection of the environment] because the ordinance provides for the enhancement and protection of historic resources.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective on the thirtieth (30th) day after its passage.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the ____ day of ________, 2023.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. _________ was adopted by a 4/5 ths vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _________________, 2023, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________________
City Clerk
169 of 259

Historic District Application
Application Review and Recommendation
1st HPC – Community Forum/
Preliminary Review
RFP / Bidder Recommendation
CC Authorize Funding and Contract
Draft Historic Resource Survey
2nd HPC - Review of Survey
Recommendation to Council
Authorization of Petition
Final Historic Resource Survey
Petition Circulation
PC Review of Zone Change
Recommendation to Council
Council Final Determination
Historic District Application
Application Review and Recommendation
1st HPC - Preliminary Review
RFP / Bidder Recommendation
CC Authorize Funding and Contract
Draft Historic Resource Survey
2nd HPC - Review of Survey
Authorization of Petition
Final Historic Resource Survey
2nd Petition Circulation
PC Review of Zone Change
Recommendation to Council
Council Final Determination
1st Community Meeting
1st Petition Circulation
2nd Community Meeting
3rd - HPC Review of Survey and Petition
Recommendation to Council
1st Petition Circulation
3rd HPC – Review of Final Survey
Comparison: Existing and Proposed Historic District Designation Process public input
administrative
HPC/CC discretion
new timeline
Exhibit 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
170 of 259

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Review of Owner Request to Remove 1527 Cedarhill Road from the Glendale Register of Historic Resources

1. Resolution to delete the property at 1527 Cedarhill Road from the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for September 12, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The residence located at 1527 Cedarhill Road is a two-story Craftsman-style single- family home built in 1912 and modified c. 1917. The current owners bought the property in 1988 and it was placed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources when the current designation program was adopted in 1997 (Gregorians House, GR No. 33).

Unfortunately, staff at that time did not identify, acknowledge, or assess the numerous changes made to the house by previous owners. In 2019, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) considered the current owners’ request for a Mills Act contract and voted to recommend that the City not enter into one because there is insufficient documentation to restore the house to its earlier appearance and because the previous alterations render it ineligible in its current condition for continued listing under today’s designation criteria. Due to this, the owners withdrew the Mills Act application and now request to delete, remove, or de-list the property. HPC considered this request on April 20, 2023, and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend that Council delete/remove the property from the Glendale Register.
171 of 259

29c
4 5
3 6

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Not applicable.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt a resolution to delete the property at 1527 Cedarhill Road from the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it no longer conforms to any of the findings identified in Section 15.20.050 of the Glendale Municipal Code and has diminished historic significance or value upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence, including that this diminution is not the result of demolition by neglect or work performed without permit.

BACKGROUND
The residence at 1527 Cedarhill Road was one of the first of thirty-seven properties listed when the Glendale Register was adopted in 1997 (Gregorians House, GR No. 33). The current owners bought the property in 1988 and were later encouraged by City staff to list it in the new register. Unfortunately, staff at that time did not identify, acknowledge, or assess the numerous changes made to the house by the previous owners. In 2019, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) considered the owners’ request for a Mills Act contract and voted to recommend that the City not enter into one because there is insufficient documentation to restore the house to its earlier appearance, which in itself would require significant work the owners do not wish to undertake, and because the previous alterations render it ineligible in its current condition for continued listing under today’s designation criteria.

When the property was listed in the Glendale Register in 1997, it was found eligible under two of the criteria in place at that time:
•identifies interest or value as part of the heritage of the City; and •exemplifies one of the best remaining architectural types of a neighborhood.

A brief description from the staff report noted that:

It is a very large home with exceptionally well preserved features such as paneling, flooring, uniquely styled windows and doorways, fully restored basement and stairs, wide overhanging eaves, and exceptionally well kept garden with several century old trees. Architecturally the house itself is historically significant, socially it reminds of the place in history which Glendale served as an area where prominent Los Angeles citizens established summer homes specifically designed for the climate.

Neither of the two criteria remain in place in today’s code and it is clear from the description that elements, such as interior features and finishes, were considered that are not even evaluated in today’s designation review process. No mention was made of 172 of 259

39c
4 5
3 6
the multiple alterations made prior to 1988, when it was bought by the current owners.

The large, c. 1917 Craftsman-style addition is of interesting design but was appended awkwardly to the 1912 house. At later dates, other changes were made at multiple locations across all facades. The formerly open front porch was enclosed with stucco- clad walls and large single-pane windows, and a sliding glass door was inserted below to provide garden access from the basement level. The peaked roof gables (which may have dated to the 1917 alterations) were removed and all windows in the 1912 portion of the house were replaced, primarily with single-pane wood casement windows. In addition, a post-and-beam patio cover was built out from the rear façade and the detached garage was altered.

Upon the owners’ request to remove the property from the Glendale Register, which was made after the 2019 HPC decision, staff conducted deeper research into the history of the house. A notice was found in Southwest Builder and Contractor for the construction of the c. 1917 addition that indicated its architect was Arthur S. Heineman, an important early architect in the Los Angeles area. Recognizing his significance, staff arranged for an independent assessment to be prepared by a consultant with experience researching and reviewing Heineman’s work. Teresa Grimes | Historic Preservation provided a memorandum in August 2022 (“Grimes Memorandum”) (Exhibit 1) that served as a peer review of staff’s 2019 determination that the house no longer meets the Glendale Register criteria for designation. It also assessed the addition in the context of Heineman’s other work in the Craftsman style during the same period.

Grimes concludes that:

There is only one historic photograph that reflects the original design by Heineman…. As he enlarged and redesigned an existing house, the result was somewhat awkward in terms of the massing and roof configuration. In some places the gables appear to crash into one another. Heineman had referenced elements from Japanese architecture in Craftsman style houses before, so in this regard the subject house is not unique. Furthermore, most of those elements have been removed with the exception of a few casement windows with a cloud lift mullion design. In its current state, the house is not a notable example of the work of Heineman. Although the house is in good condition, it is too altered to be considered an excellent example of the Craftsman style or a significant example of the work of a master architect. It appears that the work in the 1970s and 1980s included more than electrical and plumbing and resulted in the removal and/or replacement of character-defining features. Furthermore, many of the alterations do not appear to be reversible and there is not enough documentary evidence to accurately restore missing features.

HPC and Planning staff agree with this conclusion and find it reasonable to honor the owners’ request to de-list the property. No previous owners or events appear to have 173 of 259

49c
4 5
3 6
been historically significant (Criteria 1 and 2) and the architectural alterations preclude consideration under Criterion 3; therefore, the house does not meet the findings established in Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”) section 15.20.050.

The Historic Preservation Ordinance (GMC Chapter 15.20) allows for the deletion of properties from the Glendale Register and sets forth the procedures for such a request (GMC §15.20.055-060). City Council, acting upon a recommendation by HPC, can delete a property if it finds that it no longer conforms to any of the four designation criteria, and makes one of three findings supporting deletion. Here, of the three potential findings for deletion, GMC section 15.20.055 B is applicable:
“The deletion of any designated historic resource shall be granted only if City Council first finds that the historic resource no longer conforms to any of the findings identified in section 15.20.050 of this Code and:
. . .
[B.] Has diminished historic significance or value upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence, including that this diminution is not the result of demolition by neglect or work performed without permit . . .”
Here, clear and convincing evidence supports the conclusion that the residence has diminished historic significance and value. Staff analysis and additional analysis in the Grimes Memorandum demonstrates that the residence does not qualify for any of the current Glendale Register designation criteria and that the property has diminished historic significance and value. The Grimes Memorandum concluded that “ . . . the house . . . is too altered to be considered an excellent example of the Craftsman style or a significant example of the work of a master architect. . . . Furthermore, many of the alterations do not appear to be reversible and there is not enough documentary evidence to accurately restore missing features.” (Exhibit 1, Grimes Memorandum at pg. 13). It should be emphasized that all of the alterations that result in this recommendation were made prior to the Gregorians’ purchase of the property in 1988, as well as the 1997 designation. Some were likely made without permits, as noted in the Grimes Memorandum, but this cannot be held against the current owners and should not be seen as prejudicial with regard to their current request.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Code requires public notice when the Council considers deletions from the Glendale Register. Staff has mailed copies of the notice to all property owners and occupants within 500’ of the project. Also, public notices were posted on the property and the City’s website., as required by GMC section15.20.060(D)(2)(a-e). 174 of 259

59c
4 5
3 6

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Staff conducted environmental review and determined that the project is exempt from further California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) review because there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment (Public Resources Code § 15061(b)(3)) because it does not involve any physical changes (demolition or alteration) to the property and any future demolition, alteration, construction, or any other future activity at the property, will undergo CEQA review at that time.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of any members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the property are attached in Exhibit B, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt a resolution to delete 1527 Cedarhill Road from the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

Alternative 2: Decline to adopt a resolution to delete 1527 Cedarhill Road from the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. In this case, the property will continue to be listed in the Glendale Register.

Alternative 2: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Approved by:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Memorandum – Teresa Grimes | Historic Preservation (Grimes Memorandum) Exhibit 2: Campaign Finance Disclosure Form
175 of 259

1 RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, TO DELETE 1527 CEDARHILL ROAD

FROM THE GLENDALE REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
WHEREAS, the owner of record of the residential property located at 1527 Cedarhill Road (the “Property”) has requested that the Property be deleted from the Glendale Register of Historic Resources pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.055 of the Glendale Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission, at a regularly scheduled meeting on April 20, 2023, unanimously recommended deletion of the Property’s current listing (Gregorians House, GR No. 33) from the Glendale Register of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Glendale, pursuant to Sections

15.20.055 and 15.20.060, finds based on all of the information in the record, and based on clear and convincing evidence, that the Property, currently listed on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources as Gregorians House, GR No. 33, no longer conforms to any of the findings identified in Section 15.20.050 of the Glendale Municipal Code, and has diminished historic significance or value, including that this diminution is not the result of demolition by neglect or work performed without permit, as further described in the September 12, 2023 Staff Report regarding the Property (such evidence including, but not limited to, the fact that the Property is too altered to be considered an excellent example of the Craftsman style or a significant example of the work of a master architect, and many of the alterations do not appear to be reversible and there is not enough documentary evidence to accurately restore missing features).

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

Section 1. The recitals above are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. That the property located at 1527 Cedarhill Road (currently listed as Gregorians House, GR No. 33) is hereby deleted from the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.
176 of 259

2 Section 3. That the deletion of the Property from the Glendale Register of Historic Resources is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 CCR Sections 15061(b)(3) (common sense exemption).

Adopted this _______ day of __________________________, 2023. ______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, SUZIE ABAJIAN, Ph.D., Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ______day of _________, 2023, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_________________________
City Clerk
177 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 1
MEMORANDUM Teresa Grimes | Historic Preservation [email protected] 323-868-2391 Date: August 31, 2022 For: Jay Platt Principal Planner Community Development Department 613 E. Broadway Glendale, CA 91206 [email protected] Project: 1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale Subject: Master Architect Analysis ______________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION The property at 1527 Cedarhill Road was listed in the Glendale Register in 1997. The owners are requesting the de-listing of the property, which is occupied by a single-family house and is located north of W. Kenneth Road between Valley View Road and Basso Terrace (see Figure 1). According to the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor, the house was initially constructed in 1912 and is currently 3,107 square feet in size. The property was listed under two of the original criteria of the Glendale Register, which was subsequently amended.1 It was determined to “identif[y] interest or value as part of the heritage of the City; and, exemplif[y] one of the best remaining architectural styles of a neighborhood.” Additionally, a property may be eligible for listing in the Glendale Register if it “represents a notable work of a master designer, builder, or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession.” The City is seeking assistance in determining if the property merits listing based upon new information that a circa 1917 addition was designed by the architect Arthur Heineman. In preparing this memorandum, I inspected the property, conducted research on the construction of the house, and conducted research on the work of Heineman. My qualifications as a historic preservation professional are included in Appendix A. 1 Glendale Municipal Code 15.20.050. Ordinance 5949, Section 6, May 19, 2020. 178 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 2
Figure 1: 1527 Cedarhill Road outlined in yellow
179 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 3
Figure 2: 1925 Sanborn Map, Sheet 299A, property outlined in yellow 180 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 4
Figure 3: 1928 aerial photograph, yellow arrow pointing toward house, UCSB Library Geospatial Collection 181 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 5
Figure 4: 1950 Sanborn Map, Sheet 299A, property outlined in yellow OWNER AND CONSTRUCTION HISTORY The property was originally a much larger parcel with the address 1501 Kenneth Road. It was part of the Baugh Tract that was subdivided in 1886. As previously stated, the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor indicates the single-family house was constructed in 1912. There is no building permit on record with the City and the size of the original house is unknown, but the physical inspection suggests that the two-story portion on the north was the core of the initial construction (see Figure 6). Based upon the physical inspection of the interior, the house may not have originally been Craftsman in style. The staircase newel post and balustrade, moldings, built-in cabinets, and door hardware suggest the house may have been Colonial Revival in style. In 1917, the owner at that time, Alfred G. Faulkner2 retained Arthur S. Heineman to design an addition that was described in Southwest Builder and Contractor as “The living and dining rooms 2 Faulkner (1881-1932) moved to California from his home state of Virginia in 1908. He initially settled in Los Angeles and was an automobile dealer and insurance broker. 182 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 6
will be increased in size, a nook will be added,3 several sleeping porches will be enlarged,4 and one bedroom and bathroom will be added to the residence.”5 There is no building permit for the addition; however, the physical inspection indicates the house was mostly expanded on the south and west. During the 1910s, Heineman was working in various idioms associated with the Arts and Crafts movement. The enlarged and redesigned house became Craftsman in style with Japanese motifs as seen in the pagoda-like gabled roofs with wide, overhanging eaves that peaked at the apex and flared at the ends and the cloud lift design in the window mullions (see Figure 5). Faulkner continued to reside at the property until at least 1920 according to the U.S. Census. By 1925, the property included a two-story building to the northeast that apparently included a garage on the ground floor and living space on the second floor (see Figure 2). The building was demolished, likely after 1955 when the property was subdivided. Additionally, the property included the one-story building to the northwest, which is now used as a garage. Although there is no building permit, the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office Building Slip indicates the building was converted into a garage in 1954 (see Appendix B). The Building Slip states that the building was an “old reservoir”, which explains the thickness of the concrete walls. As early as 1929, the owners of the property were Myrtle and Jeanette Baldwin, who were sisters from Ohio but longtime residents of Glendale.6 They both died in 1932, Myrtle in March and Jeanette in November.7 By this time, the address had been changed to 281 Kenneth Road (see Figure 4). In 1955, the property was part of a subdivision called Tract No. 18964 that resulted in the creation of Cedarhill Road. The current configuration of the property dates from this period. The building permit record (see Appendix C) does not begin until 1957. Up until this point the Sanborn maps from 1925 and 1950 (see Figures 2 and 4) document that the footprint of the house remained unchanged. The building permit record does not document any major changes to the house; however, alterations obviously occurred based upon the physical inspection. In 1973 there was a fire, which caused the City to inspect the property. In addition to the fire damage, the City noted that the house was in a substandard condition and ordered improvements. At that time, the owner was Robert Emerson who then applied for an electrical permit. In 1974, the City inspected the property again and noted that it was still unsafe and dilapidated. The owner applied for more permits for electrical and plumbing work. By 1976, the property had been sold and the new owner applied for more permits for electrical and plumbing work (1976-1981) as well as a new 3 There is an inglenook in the northwest corner of the house; however, the chimney and fireplace do not appear to date from 1917. 4 The east end of the second floor may have been a sleeping porch that was enclosed to create a second bedroom. 5 “Alterations and Additions,” Southwest Builder and Contractor, October 5, 1917. 6 U.S. Census 1930. 7 U.S. Death Index. 183 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 7
roof (1976), a kitchen remodel (1976), a wood deck (1977), a swimming pool (1981), and a retaining wall (1981 and 1982). More recent work has included the replacement of the roof as well as fascia boards (2012), the removal of the 1981 pool and the construction of a new pool including the surrounding paving (2015), and the removal and replacement of the asphalt driveway (2015).

Figure 5: View looking north, circa 1920, courtesy of property owner Figure 6: Building footprint from 1950 Sanborn map; possible original footprint shaded in red Figure 7: Building footprint from 2022 Google map; possible changes since 1950 outlined in red Alterations that are evident from the physical inspection, but not documented by the building permit record are as follows: • The one-story porch wrapping the southeast corner of the house has been enclosed with glazing and the gable end has been filled and stuccoed. 184 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 8
• The breakfast room at the north end of the east façade appears to be an addition. • The original chimneys have been removed and a new one constructed at the northwest corner of the house. • The second floor sleeping porches at the southeast and southwest corners of the second floor have been enclosed with glazing; the southeast porch has also been stuccoed. • A one-story porch has been added across the north façade. • Numerous windows have been replaced with single light casements. • The Japanese-style roof features such as the fascia boards have been removed. ARTHUR HEINEMAN, ARCHITECT (1878-1974) Arthur Seelman Heineman was born in Chicago in November of 1878, the son of Theodore William Heineman and Gertrude Seelman Heineman. Arthur, like his brothers Alfred (1882-1974) and Herbert (1872-1963), began his architectural career as a speculator interested in real estate and land development. The fourth and oldest brother Walter (1868-1940) was also in real estate but remained a businessman. The Heineman brothers had moved to Southern California with their parents in 1894, just as a land boom that had collapsed in 1887 was about to spring to life again. The brothers worked together in various combinations and independently at different points in time. In the 1904 Los Angeles City Directory, Arthur’s occupation is listed as building contractor,8 Alfred’s as carpenter, and Herbert’s as travel agent.9 The A.S. Heineman & Company first appears in the Los Angeles City Directory in 1905. The company was located in downtown Los Angeles and Arthur Heineman is listed as the secretary, Walter Heineman as the treasurer, and Eldon Brightman as the president. Brightman’s relationship with the Heinemans is unknown. At any rate it was brief because the next year Arthur Heineman and Ross Smith were partners in the Heineman and Smith Construction Company and Walter was an employee. This company also appeared to exist only briefly. At the same time, Alfred was working independently as a designer and contractor. He may have designed the house for his brother Walter at 1117 W. 22nd Street, Los Angeles in 1903 and for his father and stepmother10 at 949 Lincoln Avenue, Pasadena in 1904. His first documented houses include 950 and 966 N. Marengo Avenue, 925 and 935 Worcester Avenue, and 540 W. California Boulevard, all of which were constructed in Pasadena in 1905.11 In addition to the houses he designed and constructed, Alfred’s work was also published in periodicals such as Ladies Home Journal and catalogues such as Sweet’s Bungalow Company. Bungalow companies like Sweet’s provided floor plans, elevations, and often photographs of bungalows that were given away by 8 A newspaper article regarding a traffic accident identifies Arthur as an automobile dealer, “Arrest of Los Angeles Autoist For Running Down San Diegan,” Los Angeles Times, November 26, 1905. 9 Herbert’s occupation in secondary sources about the Heinemans is often identified as real estate agent or broker, but no primary sources were found to verify this information. 10 Gertrude Heineman was killed in a streetcar accident in 1899 and Theodore married Charlotte in 1904. 11 City of Pasadena, California Historical Resources Inventory Database. 185 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 9
contractors to prospective clients, usually without crediting the architect or designer from whom they came.12 Alfred’s lack of business skills caused him to form a partnership with his brother Herbert sometime around 1906.13 Calling their firm the Heineman and Heineman Realty Company, 14 they constructed a number of houses before Alfred went to work for Arthur around 1909. In the 1909 Los Angeles City Directory, Arthur and Herbert are listed as building contractors, Alfred as architect, and Walter as broker and they all shared an office at 408 S. Spring Street in downtown Los Angeles – indicating the fluidity of their occupations and working relationships. The documented work of Heineman and Heineman (Alfred and Herbert) includes 285 W. Mountain Street (1906) and 269 W. Mountain Street (1907) in Pasadena, which have since been destroyed. Herbert continued to work independently as a building contractor for the remainder of his life.15 At the reconstituted A.S. Heineman & Company, Arthur would meet with the customers and map out the general plan for the house. He was primarily interested in the size, shape, and arrangement of rooms. He would then hand the design to someone else in the office who had drafting experience.16 The first house that Arthur and Alfred worked on together was the Hindry House in 1909. This was the company’s most prestigious commission to date and may have been the motivation for Arthur asking his brother to join the firm.17 The press was exuberant in its praise for the Hindry House, declaring its seventeen rooms, five porches, terraces, and pergolas the “most elaborate residence in Prospect Park.”18 When Arthur became a licensed architect in 1910, the two agreed that the name of the firm would be Arthur S. Heineman, Architect and Alfred Heineman, Associate – or sometimes Arthur S. Heineman and Associates.19 By all accounts, Arthur was in charge of client relations and Alfred was in charge of construction, but the design could be attributed to either Arthur or Alfred, which is why the firm is commonly referred to as Heineman and Heineman. At the height of the 12 Christine Lazaretto, “The Bungalow and the Automobile: Arthur and Alfred Heineman and the Invention of the Milestone Motel” (Master of Historic Preservation Thesis, University of Southern California, 2007), 16. 13 Robert Winter, editor, Toward a Simpler Way of Life, The Arts & Crafts Architects of California (Berkeley: University of California Press,1997), 139. 14 “New Realty Company in the Field,” Pasadena Daily News, September 19, 1906. 15 U.S. Census 1910 and U.S. World War I Draft Registration Cards, September 11, 1918, occupation is listed as self-employed building contractor and address is listed as 818 Montrose Avenue, South Pasadena. U.S. Census 1920 and 1930, occupation is listed as self-employed building contractor and address is listed as 2144 Beachwood Drive, Los Angeles. U.S. Census 1940 occupation is listed as self-employed building contractor and address is listed as 836 S. Stanley Street, Los Angeles. 16 Winter, 137. 17 Winter, 139. 18 “New $60,000 Home,” Pasadena Daily News, December 4, 1909. 19 Winter, 138. 186 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 10
company’s success, there were at least eighteen draftsmen.20 The firm was a major force in the Arts and Crafts movement in California, and is best known for their Craftsman style bungalows, although their work also included other architectural styles and building types. Between 1909 and 1917, the period of the Heinemans’ strongest interest in Arts and Crafts design, the firm produced over twenty residences in Pasadena, fourteen in the Craftsman style. There are also numerous examples of their work in Los Angeles neighborhoods such as West Adams, Hancock Park, Hollywood, and Westlake (see Table 2). The Heinemans were also pioneers in the development of the bungalow court. The first bungalow court is believed to have been St. Francis Court designed by Sylvanus Marston in 1909. The design consisted of eleven small houses arranged in a U-shaped formation around a central landscaped courtyard. The bungalow court idea quickly gained traction in Pasadena. In an August 1910 article, the Pasadena Star reported that small courts built in exclusive districts had been becoming popular in Pasadena, and highlighted a new, more moderately priced “cottage court” that was planned.21 The new project, Bowen Court at 539 E. Villa Street designed by the Heinemans, began to be featured widely in publications. A 1912 article in the Technical World Magazine touted the bungalow court as a new idea in apartments, with Bowen Court as the featured example. Explaining it as a movement in “apartments that, in a way, are not apartments but little individual bungalow homes,” the article noted that a number of these “community courts” had already been developed in Southern California in the last two or three years.22 Bowen Court is the oldest bungalow court standing in Southern California today.23 Arthur also worked on ideas for several concepts that were never realized. One of the most grandiose was for an early condominium complex on the top of Mt. Washington, a neighborhood in northeast Los Angeles, in 1913. It was an "own your own apartment" complex called "Parnassus". As well as individual apartments, the six-story reinforced concrete building was to have a dining room, ball and assembly room, playrooms, billiard rooms, an art gallery, bowling alleys, a gymnasium, tennis courts, and Roman baths.24 A few years later Arthur would assist in the development of a hillside community for the Theosophical Society. The modern Theosophical Society was formed in 1875 and became popular with well-educated freethinkers in Europe, America, and India. In 1906, Albert Powell Warrington envisioned a Theosophical community centered around an institute of higher learning. The name Krotona was derived from the commune of the ancient mathematician Pythagoras. By 1912, Warrington had purchased ten acres in lower Beachwood Canyon. Arthur was retained to draw plans for the Krotona Institute reflecting the society’s eastern cultural connections. The plans 20 Lazaretto, 20. 21 Thirteenth Street Architects, Inc. “Bungalow Courts in Pasadena, Amendment,” National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1994) Section 7, 11. 22 Charles Alma Byers, “New Ideas in Apartments,” Technical World Magazine Vol. 16, No. 6, February 1912, 696. 23 Lazzeretto notes the Heinemans also designed Los Robles Court in 1910 and Alexandria Court in 1914, both in Pasadena but demolished, 43-44 as well as several bungalow courts in Hollywood, 49. 24 “Great Hotel for Hilltop,” Los Angeles Times, July 6, 1913. 187 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 11
included a group of six large buildings for the Theosophical University, a temple, administration buildings, and various villas for students and residents. Although the larger scheme for the community was abandoned, the Heinemans designed a number of buildings – as did the San Diego-based architecture firm of Mead and Requa – that were constructed (see Table 2).25 Although the Heinemans are often thought of as residential architects, they also designed a number of commercial buildings. Their most important commercial client may have been the owner of Pig n' Whistle, a chain of cafes and candy shops found by John Gage in 1908. Arthur designed the third store in the chain at 712-14 S. Broadway in 1914. The exterior of the store was described in the Los Angeles Times as ivory colored enamel with pink dancing pigs repeated in “odd and unexpected places.”26 The Heinemans continued to work for the chain after the ownership changed, designing restaurants from San Diego to Seattle.27 The brothers also designed fanciful buildings for the expositions of 1915. At the San Diego Exposition, they were responsible for the ostrich farm and the Chinese Underground Life exhibit, and at the San Francisco Exposition another ostrich farm and the roller coaster.28 They also designed the roller coaster in Ocean Park. Following the earliest period of bungalow courts and with the ownership of automobiles filtering down to the middle class, Arthur conceived of the idea of a "motel" instead of a hotel for the traveling public. On December 24, 1925 he registered the name "Mo-tel" with the Library of Congress, and during the following year built the first motel--the Milestone Motel, parts of which still stand next to the Apple Farm resort on Highway 1 at the north end of San Luis Obispo. Like the Hindry House, the architecture of the Milestone Motel drew upon the Mission Revival style. Arthur was not just the architect of the Milestone Motel; he was also an owner. He was professionally and financially invested in its success, which turned out to be his downfall. Although the motel remained in business until 1991, the chain that was planned for the Pacific Coast was foiled by the Great Depression. The architecture firm remained in business, but Arthur lost interest and the staff slowly moved on until only Alfred remained. The firm officially closed in 1933.29 Arthur spent the rest of his days focused on his inventions. Among the hundreds of ideas he developed were: a machine for slicing butter, signal lights for motor vehicles, a nasal device to aid breathing, a foam-rubber envelope-type soap holder, a stool for stoop labor in the fields, 25 Alfred Willis, A Survey of Buildings of the Krotona Colony in Hollywood,” Architronic, Vol. 8, No. 1., 1998. 26 “Pig n’ Whistle Opening,” Los Angeles Times, December 9, 1914. Although Heineman is not mentioned as the architect in the article, his name is on the building permits. 27 It should be noted that the Heineman’s were not the exclusive architects for the chain, other architecture firms that worked for the chain included Morgan, Walls, and Clements. 28 Winter, 144. 29 Lazzaretto, 91. 188 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 12
safety belts for automobiles, a photo/slide device, an electric pulsar for regulating heartbeats while sleeping, and an orthopedic footstool for watching television.30 During the last twelve years of his life, after the death of his wife, Arthur lived in Los Angeles with Alfred, who had never married. He died February 4, 1972 at the age of 93. Alfred worked on some independent projects for structures and did considerable independent work in Palm Springs during the late 1920s and early 30s, and again during parts of the 1940s. He had a financial interest in a Palm Springs tract, serving as its architectural supervisor and designing some of the houses. He died January 27, 1974 at the age of 91. Table 2 represents a list of known works by Arthur and Alfred Heineman, which was created from online historic resource survey databases, newspaper articles, and books on the architectural history of Southern California. The name of the architect is from the source and was not independently verified through original sources such as building permits. Many other examples of their work were reported in newspaper articles; however, addresses were not provided. CONCLUSIONS Whether individually or in partnership with his brother, Arthur Heineman is recognized as a master architect. Notable examples of his work have been listed under federal, state, and local landmark programs and numerous examples of his work have been listed as contributing buildings in historic districts. His career included a broad range of architectural styles and building types; however, he was best known for designing single-family houses in styles related to the Arts and Crafts movement. As the subject house was designed by Heineman in the Craftsman style in 1917, it is appropriate to consider the house in the context of his other work in this style and period. Notable examples of Craftsman style houses designed by Heineman include the Parson House (1909, 1605 E. Altadena Drive, Altadena), the Lucien and Blanche Gray Houses (1909, 2515 4th Avenue, Los Angeles), and the William O’Brien House (1912, 1327 S. Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena). Of his documented work, the subject house is most similar to the Wilbur Miner House at 221 St. Andrews Place, Los Angeles (see Figure 8). Designed in 1913, the Miner House is a two-story Craftsman style house that also features Japanese motifs. The two other documented works by Heineman from 1917 include the Lydia C. Edmonds House at 1233 Wentworth Avenue and the James Freeman House at 1341 Hillcrest Avenue, both in Pasadena. The design of Edmonds House is still within the Arts and Crafts movement; however, it has Cotswold style features as well as Craftsman. Robert Winter actually described the Edmonds House as a free interpretation of a Japanese style farmhouse.31 The Freeman House, not to be confused with the early house designed by Heineman for James Allen Freeman, is within the Period Revival movement. Thus, 30 Ibid. 31 Winter, 144. 189 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 13
the subject house was designed when Heineman was expanding his interest beyond the Craftsman style.

Figure 8: Wilbur Miner House at 221 St. Andrews Place, Los Angeles, MLS March 2022 There is only one historic photograph that reflects the original design by Heineman (see Figure 5). As he enlarged and redesigned an existing house, the result was somewhat awkward in terms of the massing and roof configuration. In some places the gables appear to crash into one another. Heineman had referenced elements from Japanese architecture in Craftsman style houses before, so in this regard the subject house is not unique. Furthermore, most of those elements have been removed with the exception of a few casement windows with a cloud lift mullion design. In its current state, the house is not a notable example of the work of Heineman. Although the house is in good condition, it is too altered be considered an excellent example of the Craftsman style or a significant example of the work of a master architect. It appears that the work in the 1970s and 1980s included more than electrical and plumbing and resulted in the removal and/or replacement of character-defining features. Furthermore, many of the alterations do not appear to be reversible and there is not enough documentary evidence to accurately restore missing features. 190 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 14
TABLE 1: CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS NOTES

Figure 9: North and west façades, camera facing southeast, TGHP March 17, 2022 1. Chimney does not appear to date from 1912-1917 2. Porch added at unknown date 3. Paving added at unknown date

Figure 10: North façade, camera facing south, TGHP March 17, 2022 1. Sleeping porch may have been enclosed in 1917 or later date 2. Porch and paving added at unknown date

Figure 11: East façade, camera facing west, TGHP March 17, 2022 1. Breakfast room does not appear to date from 1912-1917 2. Paving, steps, and retaining wall added in 1981 and removed and replaced in 2015 191 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 15
TABLE 1: CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS NOTES

Figure 12: East façade, camera facing northwest, TGHP March 17, 2022 1. Sleeping porch enclosed and stuccoed at unknown date 2. Japanese-style roof details removed at unknown date 3. Single light windows do not appear to date from 1912-1917

Figure 13: South façade, camera facing northwest, TGHP March 17, 2022 1. Japanese-style roof details removed at unknown date 2. Gable ended filled and stuccoed at unknown date 3. Porch enclosed at unknown date

Figure 14: South façade, camera facing north, TGHP March 17, 2022 1. Doors from basement added at unknown date beneath porch 192 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 16
TABLE 1: CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS NOTES

Figure 15: West façade of porch, camera facing north, TGHP March 17, 2022 1. Porch and stairs added in 1917; this may have served as the main entrance to the house 2. Doors added at unknown date; porch was originally open

Figure 16: South façade, camera facing north, TGHP March 17, 2022 1. Wood casement window with cloud lift mullion design from 1917 193 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 17
TABLE 1: CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS NOTES

Figure 17: West façade, camera facing east, TGHP March 17, 2022

Figure 18: West façade, camera facing east, TGHP March 17, 2022 1. Wood casement window with cloud lift mullion design from 1917

Figure 19: Garage, camera facing north, TGHP March 17, 2022

194 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 18
TABLE 2: SELECTED WORKS OF ARTHUR AND ALFRED HEINEMAN Year Address Name Architect Notes 1903 1117 W. 22nd Street, Los Angeles Walter S. Heineman House Alfred Heineman, attributed Contributing to University Park HPOZ 1904 949 Lincoln Avenue, Pasadena Theodore and Charlotte Heineman House Alfred Heineman, attributed 1904 2645 Van Buren Place, Los Angeles Clarence H. Minton House Arthur Heineman Contributing to Van Buren Place National Register Historic District 1905 950 N. Marengo Avenue, Pasadena None Listed Alfred Heineman Contributing to Garfield Heights Historic District 1905 966 N. Marengo Avenue, Pasadena None Listed Alfred Heineman Contributing to Garfield Heights Historic District 1905 1116 N. Marengo Avenue, Pasadena None Listed Alfred Heineman 1905 1240 N. Summit Avenue, Pasadena None Listed Alfred Heineman 1905 925 Worcester Avenue, Pasadena None Listed Alfred Heineman Contributing to Garfield Heights Historic District 1905 935 Worcester Avenue, Pasadena Augusta J. Senter House Alfred Heineman Contributing to Garfield Heights Historic District 1905 540 W. California Boulevard, Pasadena Norton House Alfred Heineman Contributing to Lower Arroyo Seco National Register Historic District 1906 950 N. Marengo Avenue, Pasadena None Listed Alfred Heineman Contributing to Garfield Heights Historic District 1907 201 S. Ardmore Avenue, Los Angeles None Listed Arthur Heineman Contributing to Serrano Avenue-Ardmore Avenue Potential Historic District 195 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 19
TABLE 2: SELECTED WORKS OF ARTHUR AND ALFRED HEINEMAN Year Address Name Architect Notes 1908 903 N. 5th Avenue, Tucson None Listed Arthur Heineman Contributing to West University Park National Register Historic District 1909 781 Prospect Boulevard, Pasadena Willis Hindry House Arthur and Alfred Heineman Pasadena Historic Monument and Contributing to Prospect Park National Register Historic District 1909 1605 E. Altadena Drive, Altadena 444 E. California Boulevard, Pasadena original location Parson House Arthur Heineman
1909 2515 4th Avenue, Los Angeles Lucien and Blanch Gray House Arthur Heineman LAHCM No. 600 1909 1186 W. 27th Street, Los Angeles Mary E. Smith House Arthur Heineman LAHCM No. 798 and Contributing to University Park HPOZ 1910 635 S. Mentor Avenue, Pasadena None Listed Arthur Heineman, attributed Contributing to Tournament Fields Historic District 1910 975 S. Oakland Avenue, Pasadena None Listed Arthur Heineman, attributed Contributing to South Oakland Historic District 1910 110-12 S. Ardmore Avenue, Los Angeles None Listed Arthur Heineman Contributing to Serrano Avenue-Ardmore Avenue Potential Historic District 1911 909 Arden Road, Pasadena Bassett House Arthur Heineman 1911 476 S. Marengo Avenue, Pasadena Winslow B. Ross House Arthur Heineman Contributing to South Marengo National Register Historic District 196 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 20
TABLE 2: SELECTED WORKS OF ARTHUR AND ALFRED HEINEMAN Year Address Name Architect Notes 1911 885 S. El Molino Avenue, Pasadena None Listed Arthur Heineman 1911 1250 S. El Molino Avenue, Pasadena Hogan Company Arthur Heineman, attributed 1911 2305 S. Los Robles Avenue, Pasadena Krebser House Arthur Heineman 1911 697 Magnolia Avenue, Pasadena John H. Simpson House Arthur Heineman Contributing to Magnolia Historic District 1911 674 Elliot Drive, Pasadena Ross House Heineman and Heineman Individually Listed in National Register 1910-12 539 E. Villa Street, Pasadena Bowen Court Arthur and Alfred Heineman Individually Listed in National Register 1912 611 W. 124th Street, Los Angeles M.T. Campbell House Arthur Heineman 1912 228 S. Ardmore Avenue, Los Angeles None Listed Arthur Heineman Contributing to Serrano Avenue-Ardmore Avenue Potential Historic District 1912 1327 S. Oak Knoll Avenue, Pasadena William E. O’Brien House Arthur Heineman 1913 1330 Hillcrest Avenue, Pasadena James Allen Freeman House Arthur Heineman Individually Listed in National Register, Pasadena Historic Monument, and Contributing to Oak Knoll Potential Historic District 1913 605 S. Plymouth Boulevard, Los Angeles; moved from Ardmore Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard in 1924 Juanita Gless House Arthur Heineman Contributing to Hancock Park HPOZ 197 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 21
TABLE 2: SELECTED WORKS OF ARTHUR AND ALFRED HEINEMAN Year Address Name Architect Notes 1913 221 St. Andrews Place, Los Angeles Wilbur F. Miner House Arthur Heineman LAHCM No. 1108 1913 1919 S. Harvard Boulevard, Los Angeles James R. Dennison House Arthur Heineman LAHCM No. 818 1914 6101-03 W. Scenic Avenue, Los Angeles Mary Russak House Arthur and Alfred Heineman Associated with Krotona Colony 1914 2130 N. Vista Del Mar Avenue, Los Angeles Grand Temple of the Rosy Cross Arthur and Alfred Heineman Associated with Krotona Colony 1914 6205 W. Temple Hill Drive, Los Angeles Ternary Building Grace Shaw Duff House Arthur and Alfred Heineman Associated with Krotona Colony 1915 4051 W. 7th Street, Los Angeles None Listed Arthur Heineman Contributing to Wilshire Park HPOZ 1916 1800 N. Camino Palmero, Los Angeles R.E. Fuller House Samuel Goldwyn House Arthur Heineman 1917 1233 Wentworth Avenue, Pasadena Lydia C. Edmonds House Arthur and Alfred Heineman Individually Listed in National Register and Contributing to Oak Knoll Potential Historic District 1917 1341 Hillcrest Avenue, Pasadena James Freeman House Arthur Heineman Contributing to Oak Knoll Potential Historic District 1919 179 S. Ardmore Avenue, Los Angeles None Listed Arthur Heineman Contributing to Serrano Avenue-Ardmore Avenue Potential Historic District 1922 46 N. Haldeman Street, Los Angeles Harry Haldeman House Alfred Heineman Contributing to Uplifters Potential Historic District 198 of 259

Grimes Memorandum
1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale 22
TABLE 2: SELECTED WORKS OF ARTHUR AND ALFRED HEINEMAN Year Address Name Architect Notes 1923 38 N. Haldeman Street, Los Angeles Marco Hellman House Alfred Heineman Non-Contributing to Uplifters Potential Historic District 1923 1 N. Latimer Road, Los Angeles Fred Kiley House Alfred Heineman Contributing to Uplifters Potential Historic District 1923 7 N. Latimer Road, Los Angeles Heather Hill House Alfred Heineman Contributing to Uplifters Potential Historic District 1924 2234 Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles None Listed Alfred Heineman 1924 1938 N. Normandie Avenue, Los Angeles G.L. Ritchey House Arthur Heineman Contributing to Los Feliz Square Potential Historic District 1924 3 N. Latimer Road, Los Angeles William M. Beamish House Alfred Heineman Contributing to Uplifters Potential Historic District 1925 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo Milestone Motel Alfred Heineman 1927 18 N. Latimer Road, Los Angeles Clair Brunson House Alfred Heineman Contributing to Uplifters Potential Historic District 1927 19 N. Latimer Road, Los Angeles Robert Bowman House Alfred Heineman Contributing to Uplifters Potential Historic District 1937 6609 W. Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles Good Humor Ice Cream Company Arthur Heineman 199 of 259

1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale Appendix A
Appendix A – Grimes Resume TERESA GRIMES | Historic Preservation [email protected] 323-868-2391 Teresa Grimes has 30 years of experience in the field of historic preservation. She is widely recognized as an expert in the identification and evaluation of historical resources having successfully prepared dozens of landmark and historic district applications for a wide variety of property types. Teresa graduated from the University of California with a Master of Art degree in Architecture and has worked in the private, public, and non-profit sectors. Teresa has extensive experience in the preparation of environmental compliance documents in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act including the identification of historical resources, analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, and development of mitigation measures. Her many projects throughout Southern California include the Art Center College of Design Master Plan, Baldwin Hills Crenshaw Plaza, Cinerama Dome Entertainment Center, City of Hope Master Plan, Claremont Graduate University Master Plan, Claremont McKenna College Master Plan, John Anson Ford Theatres, Oakwood School Master Plan, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Times Mirror Square, Sunset Las Palms Studios, and Sunset Bronson Studios. Educational Background Professional Experience • M.A., Architecture, University of California, Los Angeles, 1992 • B.A., Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, 1986 • Teresa Grimes | Historic Preservation, Principal, 2020 - Present • GPA Consulting, Principal Architectural Historian, 2009-2020 • Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, Senior Architectural Historian, 2006-2009 • Teresa Grimes | Historic Preservation, Principal, 1999-2005, 1993-1994, 1991-1992 • Historic Resources Group, Architectural Historian, 1994-1998 • Getty Conservation Institute, Research Associate, 1992-1993 • Los Angeles Conservancy, Preservation Officer, 1988-1991 Qualifications • Meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for history and architectural history pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A. Professional Activities • Pasadena Heritage Board Member, 2008-2012 • Highland Park Heritage Trust, Board Member, 1996-1998 • West Hollywood Cultural Heritage Advisory Board, 1990-1994 200 of 259

1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale Appendix B
Appendix B - Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor Building Information 201 of 259

202 of 259

203 of 259

204 of 259

205 of 259

206 of 259

207 of 259

1527 Cedarhill Road, Glendale Appendix C
Appendix C – City of Glendale Building Permit Record
208 of 259

209 of 259

210 of 259

211 of 259

212 of 259

213 of 259

214 of 259

215 of 259

216 of 259

217 of 259

218 of 259

219 of 259

220 of 259

221 of 259

222 of 259

223 of 259

224 of 259

225 of 259

226 of 259

227 of 259

228 of 259

229 of 259

230 of 259

231 of 259

232 of 259

233 of 259

234 of 259

235 of 259

236 of 259

237 of 259

238 of 259

239 of 259

240 of 259

241 of 259

242 of 259

243 of 259

244 of 259

245 of 259

246 of 259

247 of 259

248 of 259

249 of 259

250 of 259

251 of 259

252 of 259

253 of 259

254 of 259

255 of 259

256 of 259

257 of 259

258 of 259

259 of 259

Glendale City CouncilSeptember 12, 2023

Glendale City Council
September 12, 2023