Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, July 30, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

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.

JULY 30, 2024

ROLL CALL

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

Conference with Legal Counsel. Anticipated Litigation - Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9:

Two potential cases

1 TYPED 7/24/2024 1:09:32 PM
07 30 24
CC

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Claim of State Farm Insurance Co. (Ruiz), Claim No. 24-0209
c.

Public Employment - Attorneys
d.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Najarian v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 24STCP02101
e.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to Litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9.

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

Flag Salute: Mayor Elen Asatryan
b.

Invocation: Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c.

Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the July 30, 2024 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on July 24, 2024, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.

Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, August 6, 2024 b.

Proclamation Designating July 30, 2024, as Korean Comfort Women Day c.

Proclamation Designating July 2024, as Disability Pride 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 Special City Council Meeting of July 16, 2024 b.

Glendale Water and Power, re:

Award of a Design-Build Contract for the
Chilton/Kenneth Phase I Pipeline Replacement Project (RFP No. 3938)

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute a design-build contract with J. De Sigio Construction, Inc. of Baldwin Park, CA, for the Chilton/Kenneth Phase I Pipeline Replacement Project (RFP No. 3938), in the amount of $6,636,490 plus a ten (10) percent contingency of $663,649

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENT
(3-Minutes; 5-Speaker Limit) – Per Mayor Policy,
This Item Also Permits Speakers Wishing to Speak Under General Oral Communications, Subject to the Three Minute Time Limit. Discussion is Limited to Matters Not on the Agenda.

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a.

City Attorney, re: Ordinance Amending Section 2.36.010 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, Pertaining to Terms of Board Members and Commissioners (Gharpetian, 07/16/24)
b.

Community Development, re: Ordinance Extending, by an Additional One Year,

2 TYPED 7/24/2024 1:09:32 PM
07 30 24
CC

Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 6011 Prohibiting Issuance of Entitlements and/or Permits for Establishment of New or Replacement Retail Uses Selling Firearms or Ammunition (Kassakhian, 07/16/24)

8. ACTION ITEMS
a.

Management Services, re:

Building Electrification Reach Code Replacement
Options

1. Motion directing staff to prepare an alternative reach code to replace Section 4.1(b), subsection 4.106.5 and Section 5.106.13 of the local amendments to the California Energy Code
b.

Community Development, re: Project Update- Bicycle Transportation Plan

1. Motion providing direction on the update of the Bicycle Transportation Plan c.

Community Development, re: Initiation of Code Amendments to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code Related to Development Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units

1. Motion Providing Direction for and Initiating Amendments to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code Related to Development Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
d.

Public Works, re:

Glendale Beeline Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Integration Study

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a PSA with Dan Boyle & Associates LLC for a Beeline comprehensive operational analysis and integration study in an amount not to exceed $392,139

2. Resolution of appropriation of $150,000 in State Grant and Measure M Local Return funds for the integration study

9. HEARINGS
a.

Fire Department, re: Weed abatement charges for FY 2023-2024

1. Resolution confirming weed abatement charges

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION
a.

City of Glendale Draft Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Update

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS
a.

Councilmember Najarian’s request to agendize a discussion of a policy for removing items from the agenda after it has been published

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 7/24/2024 1:09:32 PM
07 30 24
CC

1 A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
JULY 16, 2024
The Special Public Meeting of the Glendale City Council convened in the Brand Studios, in said City, at 3:10 p.m. on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:

July 16, 2024
Date
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, July 16, 2024, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Police Department, re: Tow Contractor Request for Proposals a. Motion to release Request for Proposals

2. City Attorney, re: Nomination Process for Boards and Commissions a. Resolution Establishing a Recruitment and Selection Process for Appointment of Individuals to Boards and Commissions
b. Motion Removing Title 2 Board Members and Commissioners Subject to Their Replacement or Reappointment
c. Resolution Establishing the Procedure to Address Complaints or Allegations of Misconduct or Poor Performance Against Members of Boards and Commissions d. Ordinance for Introduction Amending Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, Section 2.36.010 Pertaining to Terms of Members of Boards and Commissions e. Motion Providing Direction to Staff
Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. July 16, 2024 Glendale, CA Upon Vartan Gharpetian at 5:00 p.m. July 16, 2024 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. July 16, 2024 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. July 16, 2024 Glendale, CA Upon Elen Asatryan at 5:00 p.m. July 16, 2024 Glendale, CA Mayor Asatryan called the meeting to order at 3:12 p.m.

ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, July 16, 2024 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on July 11, 2024, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.
4 of 487

2 1. Police Department, re: Tow Contractor Request for Proposals Presenting:

Tigran Topadzhikyan, Police Lt.
a. Motion to release Request for Proposals
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Gharpetian
Vote as Follows
a.

2. City Attorney, re: Nomination Process for Boards and Commissions Staff Comment:

Mike Garcia, City Attorney
a. Resolution 24-128 Establishing a Recruitment and Selection Process for Appointment of Individuals to Boards and Commissions
Moved: Gharpetian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
b.
b. Motion Removing Title 2 Board Members and Commissioners Subject to Their Replacement or Reappointment
Moved: Gharpetian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
c.
c. Resolution 24-129 Establishing the Procedure to Address Complaints or Allegations of Misconduct or Poor Performance Against Members of Boards and Commissions Moved: Gharpetian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
d.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Gharpetian, Najarian, Asatryan
Brotman, Kassakhian
None
None
5 of 487

3 d. Ordinance for Introduction Amending Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, Section 2.36.010 Pertaining to Terms of Members of Boards and Commissions Introduced by: Gharpetian
e. Motion Providing Direction to Staff
ADJOURNMENT – 4:07 p.m.

Moved:Brotman Seconded: Gharpetian
Mayor of the City of GlendaleMayor of the City of GlendaleMayor of the City of Glendale Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Mayor of the City of GlendaleMayor of the City of Glendale City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Mayor of the City of Glendale
6 of 487

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Award of a Design-Build Contract for the Chilton/Kenneth Phase I Pipeline Replacement Project (RFP No. 3938).

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute a design-build contract with J. De Sigio Construction, Inc. of Baldwin Park, CA, for the Chilton/Kenneth Phase I Pipeline Replacement Project (RFP No. 3938) in the amount of $6,636,490 plus a ten (10) percent contingency of $663,649.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for July 30, 2024 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glendale Water and Power (GWP) maintains and operates over 400 miles of pipeline throughout its distribution system. GWP regularly installs new water mains to replace ageing pipelines and improve system reliability. As part of this program, GWP has completed the Request for Proposal (RFP) process for the Chilton/Kenneth Phase I Pipeline Replacement Project. Staff now seeks to award a Design-Build Construction Contract to J. De Sigio Construction, Inc., for a not-to-exceed Contract Price of $6,636,490, plus a ten percent contingency in the amount of $663,649, as well as $350,000 in internal inspection costs, project management costs, and field staff assistance costs.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to enter into and execute a design-build contract with J. De Sigio Construction, Inc. for the Chilton/Kenneth Phase I Pipeline Replacement Project in the amount of $6,636,490, plus a ten percent contingency of $663,649. 7 of 487

24b
5 3
0 7

ANALYSIS
On January 10, 2023, the City Council approved Resolution No. 23-01 authorizing the General Manager of GWP to prepare an RFP using the design-build alternative project delivery method for the Pipeline Management Program FY 2022-23 Phase I Project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for proposals.

The Chilton/Kenneth Phase I Pipeline Replacement Project (RFP No. 3938) consists of the design and construction of approximately 11,745 linear feet of new eight-inch ductile iron water pipeline to replace a 98 year-old, tuberculated, four-inch and six-inch cast iron pipe in various streets in the City (see Exhibit A).

On May 8, 2024, GWP advertised the RFP for the project. The Notice Inviting Proposals (NIP) was published in the Glendale Independent newspaper on May 9 and May 13, 2024. The RFP was also advertised on Bidnet Direct, a public contracts advertising company. Bidnet Direct advertises to a wide range of contractors, firms, and other public agencies, and allows for coordination and communication between those entities and the advertising agency, Glendale Water & Power. The NIP was also posted to the City’s website.

The RFP stated the scope of the project and project performance criteria. The RFP also stated the minimum qualifications for Proposers. The criteria and basis of selection of the design-build entity (DBE) were as follows:
▪45% Price and fees (hourly personnel rates and billing unit charges). While price and fees are important, they will not be used as the sole determinant in the selection process.
▪15% Description of project approach and schedule. Demonstrate understanding of the project’s nature and GWP’s needs. Provide detailed plans on how to deliver the project timely and efficiently. ▪30% Demonstrated design-build experience on similar (scope and dollar amount) water projects that include installation of water pipelines.

Proposer must submit information and references for only three of its most recently completed projects, for which Proposer acted as the design-build contractor. At least one project must be from a Municipal water provider.
▪10% Completeness and quality of the response.

On May 22, 2024, GWP utilized a “Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting” to further ensure clear communication with a committed, informed proposer pool. There were nine attendees that represented five Design-Build Entities (DBEs) at the meeting. 8 of 487

34b
5 3
0 7
On June 5, 2024, four proposals were received from the four Design-Build entities of J.

De Sigio Construction, Inc., Big Ben Engineering, Teichert Energy & Utilities and CEM Construction, Inc.

Staff evaluated the four proposals based on price, experience, project approach, schedule and quality of response. Of the four, one proposal (CEM Construction) did not meet the minimum requirements of the RFP; the three responsive proposals are tabulated below.

Proposer Proposal Amount Overall Proposal Score
(Of a Possible 100)
Teichert Energy & Utilities $10,671,436 62.0
Big Ben Engineering $ 8,226,500 73.0
J. De Sigio Construction, Inc. $ 6,636,490 95.0
Engineer’s Estimate: $6,800,000 - $7,900,000
The evaluation of the Qualifications Section of the Proposal submitted by CEM Construction determined that this Design-Build Entity was not qualified to perform the work presented in the RFP issued by the City. Their Proposal is considered to be non-responsive and disqualified and therefore was not considered for any further evaluation. CEM Construction failed to submit the required example project history in which they worked as a paired Design-Build Entity on the same project and that project being of a municipal water system project of similar size and nature to that described in the RFP. CEM Construction also failed to submit a complete proposal with all requested prices and information properly. Finally, their proposal bond documentation was incomplete and did not meet the requirements of the proposal bond documentation as specified in the RFP.

J. De Sigio Construction, Inc. scored high on project understanding, proposed schedule, and has provided exceptional customer service to City residents during construction on five recent design-build projects in Glendale, and as well as submitting all the required documents to provide the City a complete and thorough proposal.

In addition, Staff recommends a reserve of ten percent or $663,649 for contingencies for this project. This amount is based on previous experience and is commensurate with the nature of the project. This will allow GWP to account for any incidental work or unforeseen field conditions that could be encountered during construction and the resulting field changes that may be necessary.

Staff has verified with the State of California Contractor’s License Board that J. De Sigio Construction, Inc. has a license that is current, active and in good standing.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
GWP conducts public outreach to residents and stakeholders at various stages of each project it manages. The outreach for this project is outlined below:
9 of 487

44b
5 3
0 7
•Council Meeting authorizing the RFP process for this project. •Council meeting (for the consideration of this Report) authorizing the award of a contract for this project.
•GWP Website Updates.
•Direct mail to affected customers and businesses a few weeks prior to commencement of work in their area.
•Project signboards, temporarily installed at each entrance to the active project area.
•Door hangers within a few days of planned work and shutdowns. •Individual phone calls as needed to schedule night work if businesses may be impacted during shutdowns.
•“No Parking” signs as needed when work progresses within a specific area. •Knocking on the doors of residences when water service is switched from the old service to the new service at each property.
•Ad-hoc communication related to placing road plates over trenches for access into and out of driveways.
•Coordination with trash pick-up days to ensure access for waste hauling.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Chilton/Kenneth Phase I Pipeline Replacement Project will cost approximately $7,600,000, inclusive of internal staffing costs, which is available in the FY 2024-25 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
$7,600,000 GL: 52100-5930-GWP-0020-P0000
PL: GWP01065AN
Water Depreciation Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This project is categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15301 and 15302, repair, maintenance, or minor alterations of existing utility facilities, and replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems or facilities.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744, attached to this Report are disclosures which contain the names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest or more in the companies who submitted proposals. Attached as Exhibit B is the Campaign Finance Disclosure for 10 of 487

54b
5 3
0 7
J. De Sigio Construction, Inc.; attached as Exhibit C is the Campaign Finance Disclosure for Big Ben Engineering, and attached as Exhibit D is the Campaign Finance Disclosure for Teichert Energy & Utilities.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Choose not to award the contract as recommended herein. This will result in postponement of the Chilton/Kenneth Phase I Pipeline Replacement Project, increasing the risk of service outages due to pipeline and service line breaks and will maintain an unimproved level of performance of the water system for fighting fires in this area, and require the current level of energy use for pumping water through this area.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

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

Chisom Obegolu, P.E., Assistant General Manager - Water Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Chilton/Kenneth Phase I Pipeline Replacement Project Location Map Exhibit B: Campaign Finance Disclosure for J. De Sigio Construction, Inc.

Exhibit C: Campaign Finance Disclosure for Big Ben Engineering Exhibit D: Campaign Finance Disclosure for Teichert Energy & Utilities 11 of 487

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale, having previously by Resolution No. 23-01, authorized the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power (GWP) to prepare a Request For Proposals (RFP) using the alternative project delivery method for the design and construction of the Pipeline Management Program FY 2022-23, Phase I Project, hereby accepts and approves the proposal of J. De Sigio Construction, Inc. of Baldwin Park, CA for the Chilton/Kenneth Phase I Pipeline Replacement Project (RFP No. 3938) as recommended by the Report dated July 30, 2024 by the General Manager of GWP, and authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, subject to approval by the City Attorney, to enter into a design-build contract with J. De Sigio Construction, Inc. of Baldwin Park, CA in the not-to-exceed amount of $6,636,490, plus a ten (10%) contingency in the amount of $663,649.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
12 of 487

Exhibit A

CITY OF BURBANK
Area C -RANGEVIEW 8" WMR
Area B-WATSON 8" WMR
Area A -CHILTON 8" WMR
Area K -ALAMEDA [ALT] 8" WMR
2,500'
Area I -HAMPTON 8" WMR
0 I
' BRAND
PARK.-+-��----
Area D- IRVING 8" WMR
\
I
Area E -THOMPSON 8" WMR
Area F -RAYMOND 8" WMR
2,500'
t.lllFORO ST i5
--- BASE WORK LOCATION
--- ALTERNATE WORK LOCATION
WMR = WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT
WM = NEW WATER MAIN
SCALE: 1" = 2,500'

CITY OF GLENDALE
WATER ft POWER DEPARTMENT

WATER ENGINEERING
-

WS PIPELINE - CHILTON/KENNETH

PHASE I
-PROJECT LOCATIONS MAP-
12/09/2022
SCALE: 1" = 4,000'
13 of 487

14 of 487

15 of 487

16 of 487

17 of 487

18 of 487

EXHIBIT D Teichert Energy & Utilities Group, Inc.
dba Teichert Utilities

CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE
City of Glendale

DISCLOSURE - CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE
The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, “Campaign Finance Ordinance,” which became effective on September 9, 2011, and subsequently amended it with Ordinance No. 5768, which became effective on March 15, 2012, and Ordinance No. 5885, which became effective on November 3, 2016 (“the Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits: (1) A contractor* (including a subcontractor**)― who has a contract with the City of Glendale (“City”), the Successor Agency (“SA”), or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale (“HA”) and that contract is subject to approval by the City Council, SA, or HA― from making a contribution to a City Council member, SA member, HA member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer; and (2) Council members, SA members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract with a person who has provided a campaign contribution.

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

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

A contractor must provide the information listed below when: A subcontractor must provide the information listed below when:
 The City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more; or  The subcontract through a City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $25,000 or more; or
 A combination or series of City Contracts have a value of $50,000 or more.  A combination or series of subcontracts, for the same or different projects, have an aggregate value of $25,000 or more.

Information that must be disclosed: ● Name of the person, entity, or organization (i.e., the Contractor or Subcontractor) ● Name of the Chief Executive Officer/President
● Chief Operating Officer
● Chief Financial Officer
● Chairperson
● All members of the Board of Directors
● All persons who own more than 10% of the person, entity, or organization ● Name of any campaign committee owned or controlled by the person, entity, or organization Please complete the following disclosure form:

Contractor(s)*:

Name Address
CityFull Name Title Business Address State
CA
Zip
Chairperson
Eric Streich
Laura L. Degano
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
3500 American River Drive
3500 American River Drive
Sacramento
Sacramento
95864
95864Chief Financial Officer CA
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, SA, or HA or any member 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 WS Pipeline - Chilton/Kenneth Phase I Project
RFP No. 3938

PROPOSAL FORMS
EXHIBIT I – DISCLOSURE - CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE
PF-29
19 of 487

20 of 487

1 ORDINANCE NO. ____________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 2.36.010 OF THE GLENDALE
MUNICIPAL CODE, 1995, PERTAINING TO TERMS OF BOARD

MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1. Section 2.36.010 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 2.36.010 Appointment-generally; Terms of office A. No person may serve more than two four-year terms on a single board or commission. This section shall apply regardless of whether or not a commissioner's or board member's service of a term has commenced or occurred prior to the effective date of the ordinance imposing the two-term limit established by this section; provided nothing herein shall require the removal of a commissioner who has exceeded two terms by virtue of the adoption of Ordinance No. 6005 codifying this section and enacting the two-term limit set forth herein.

B. No person may serve on a board or commission under this title while concurrently serving on another board or commission under this title, the civil service commission, or the Burbank Glendale Pasadena Airport Authority. Elected officials shall not serve on any board or commission under this title, or the civil service commission, or the Burbank Glendale Pasadena Airport Authority except where an ordinance specifically permits or requires a member to be an elected official.

C. The terms of office for all voting members of boards and commissions under this title shall be four years or until their successors are appointed and qualified; provided, the term of each member shall be coterminous with the council member that nominates that member to a board or commission regardless of when nominated and appointed. Vacancies for any unexpired term of membership on any board or 21 of 487

2 commission under this title shall be filled by appointment by majority vote of the council.

An appointment to fill a vacancy of a partial term shall be coterminous with the term of the council member making the nomination. For purposes of the limit of terms as set forth in subsection A of this section, a board member or commissioner who serves 24 months or more of a term shall be deemed to have served a full term. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, any term that is less than four (4) years as a result of a delay by the Council in nominating and appointing a board member or commissioner during a councilmember’s term (in contrast to a removal, resignation or incapacitation) shall nevertheless constitute a full term.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the _____ day of __, 2024.

_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
22 of 487

3 ) SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ______ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of ____________, 2024, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

______________________________
City Clerk
23 of 487

1 1
1 9
5 0
ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING, BY AN ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR, INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 6011 PROHIBITING ISSUANCE

OF ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR PERMITS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW OR

REPLACEMENT RETAIL USES SELLING FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION

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, Governments at all levels have a substantial interest in protecting the people from those who acquire guns lawfully or illegally and then use them to commit crimes resulting in injury or death of their victims, or who use them in the commission of other crimes such as robbery, sexual assault or homicide, particularly mass shootings such as those that have occurred since 2017 in Chicago, Illinois; Thousand Oaks, California; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Perryman, Maryland; Bakersfield, California; Cincinnati, Ohio; Annapolis, Maryland; Santa Fe, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; Parkland, Florida; Melcroft, Pennsylvania; Rancho Tehama, California; Sutherland Springs, Texas; Boulder, Colorado; Edgewood, Maryland; Las Vegas, Nevada; El Paso, Texas; Buffalo, New York; Uvalde, Texas, as well as the many other mass shootings over the past several years; and
WHEREAS, seven (7) retail establishments that are licensed to sell firearms and ammunition currently operate in the City of Glendale [1 per 27,480 residents], while neighboring cities of Pasadena and Los Angeles have three (3) [1 per 47,339 residents] and thirty-six (36) [1 per 110,277 residents], respectively; the City of Glendale has a much higher concentration of firearms/ammunition retailers than these two neighboring cities, second only to the City of Burbank (a city that imposed a similar firearms/ammunition retailer moratorium), that has fourteen (14) retail establishments that are licensed to sell firearms and ammunition [1 per 7,386 residents]; and
WHEREAS under the City’s current zoning regulations retail firearm stores are allowed by-right in the Commercial Districts of C2, C3, CR, and CH zone, and Mixed-Use Districts of IMU and IMU-R, and firearm retailers simply require a business registration certificate and a permit from the Chief of Police, neither of which have a mechanism to impose distancing requirements or other land use conditions related to health and safety; and
24 of 487

2 1
1 9
5 0
WHEREAS, many of the commercial zones where existing and future retail firearm stores are located are adjacent to residential neighborhoods and other uses that include amongst other things, schools, child day care facilities, places of public assembly including places of worship, public parks and libraries; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution to make and enforce all local, police, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and

WHEREAS the City Council finds and declares that it has questions and concerns about the proliferation of this type of land use in the City, adjacent to residential neighborhoods and in proximity to schools, child day care facilities and places of public assembly and seeks to analyze the current regulations and alternative regulations and administrative procedures to ensure the future locations of retail establishments that sell firearms and ammunitions do not detrimentally impact the health, safety and welfare of residential neighborhoods and other, specific uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is necessary for the City staff to study, develop, and propose for review by the Planning Commission and adoption by the City Council regulations within a reasonable time regarding the disallowance of a land use for the retail sales of firearms and ammunition, a conditional use permit requirement for such use, and/or additional land use regulations for the use in the City of Glendale; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that given the potential deleterious effect an otherwise lawful but unregulated business selling ammunition or firearms can have on other incompatible neighboring uses, passage of this extension Interim Urgency Ordinance will provide City staff sufficient time to research this issue and present a comprehensive zoning proposal to help ensure that the establishment of a retail sales use engaged in the sale of firearms or ammunition within the City will not be located as to be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that other California cities have adopted zoning ordinances and business regulations that govern the sales of ammunition and firearms, and several municipalities, have adopted moratoria on an urgency basis prohibiting new commercial sales of ammunition or firearms while such ordinances or regulations are studied and considered; and
WHEREAS, in the absence of a moratorium, there is no way to study and consider the appropriate location of retail establishments that sell firearms and ammunition in the City, and the nature and extent of health and safety regulations that could be imposed on such businesses due to the nature of the products they sell in relation to neighboring uses, thus impairing the City’s substantial interests in economically sustainable development, health, public safety, vitality, and image of the City; and WHEREAS, maintaining the status quo with respect to retail establishments that sell firearms and ammunition in the City by assuring that no applications for developments 25 of 487

3 1
1 9
5 0
that contain uses or standards with new or converted retail establishments that sell firearms and ammunition in the City are accepted, processed or approved, and no building permits for new or converted retail establishments that sell firearms and ammunition in the City are issued while the City conducts a study of such use(s), is consistent with good planning; and
WHEREAS, during the course of the effective date of Ordinance No. 6011, Community Development Department staff have reviewed and analyzed current standards for retail establishments that sell firearms and ammunition in the City and, following such study, determined that additional studies are warranted that may require consultation with experts and the retention of various consultants. Until this additional policy study is complete, 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 gun stores 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 retail establishments that sell firearms and ammunition in the City, the impact of the current permitted locations/standards, and other land use standards and requirements on such development, including, but not limited to, whether there is a need for additional such establishments in the City or whether such establishments should be subject to the requirement to obtain a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the potential exists that applications for proposed retail uses selling firearms or ammunition that are inconsistent and in conflict with any new development policies, zoning, or revised standards of property development may be filed during the term that the City is studying potential revisions to such uses; and WHEREAS, any approval of new or converted retail uses selling firearms or ammunition in the City has the potential to contravene future revised use, 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 July 25 and August 15, 2023, the City evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of Interim Ordinance No. 6009 temporarily barring new or replacement retail uses selling firearms or ammunition in the City of Glendale within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and subsequently, on September 19 and 26, 2023 the City evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of Interim Ordinance No. 6011 (extending Interim Ordinance No. 6009 for an additional 10 months and 15 days), and the Council found that the adoption of both ordinances was consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment and thereby approved a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), 15307, and 15308, and certified that Interim Ordinance 26 of 487

4 1
1 9
5 0
Nos. 6009 and 6011 were exempt from additional environmental review, including from the preparation of an environmental impact report; and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2023, the City Council, by a fourth-fifths vote, adopted Interim Ordinance No. 6009 imposing a 45-day moratorium on the approval of any new or replacement retail uses selling firearms or ammunition in the City; and WHEREAS, on or before September 19, 2023, the City issued a "10-day report" describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of Interim Ordinance No. 6009, 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 September 26, 2023 following a duly-noticed public hearing, the City Council, by a fourth-fifths vote, adopted Interim Ordinance No. 6011 extending Interim Ordinance No. 6009 by an additional 10 months and 15 days; and WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is now necessary for the City to extend Interim Ordinance No. 6011 by an additional one year in order to continue to undertake action to review and revise applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Code (Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code) and/or other sections of the Code, in order to provide for the reexamination within a reasonable time, of development and entitlement standards and requirements for new or replacement retail uses selling firearms and ammunition; 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 No. 6011 on new or replacement retail uses selling firearms or ammunition within the City of Glendale 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 No. 6011 for an additional one year was given pursuant to Government Code Sections 65090 and 65858, by publication in Glendale News Press on July 6, 2024, and by posting and making available all written materials referenced herein, which notified the public the City would be considering a one- year extension of the adopted Interim Ordinance No. 6011 imposing a moratorium on all new or replacement retail uses selling firearms or ammunition within the City of Glendale. 27 of 487

5 1
1 9
5 0

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 Interim Ordinance temporarily barring new or replacement retail uses selling firearms or ammunition 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) and 15308, and certifies that this Interim 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 land uses and other 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, as well as maintaining compatibility of uses with surrounding land uses, and promoting economically sustainable development, community health, and perceptions of safety and public image.

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 does not have adequate regulations concerning the land use or licensing requirements for the retail sale of firearms and ammunition, allowing this use as a permitted use in several zones, without consideration of location and/or proximity to other affected land uses or other conditions, and subject only to a business registration certificate and a revokable permit for the Retail Sales of Concealable Weapons.

7. Maintaining the status quo zoning regulations has the potential to result in the further proliferation of new or replacement retail uses that sell firearms or ammunition without the proper analysis of any potential impacts to public health, safety, and welfare.

By studying and analyzing local land use regulations for the retail sale of firearms and ammunition during the moratorium, the City will be able to best tailor future regulations to the needs of its community in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare. 28 of 487

6 1
1 9
5 0

8. The current regulations have the potential to result in new or replacement gun or ammunition retail stores that can displace other neighborhood-serving retail and service commercial uses from tenant spaces and therefore create a threat to critical commercial corridors and the City’s effort to preserve aesthetically inviting storefronts and pedestrian- friendly retail, restaurants and offices in such spaces, which have historically been the lifeblood of the community and a beacon to visitors.

9. In Suter v. City of Lafayette, 57 Cal. App. 4th 1109 (1997), the California Court of Appeal held that State law authorizes local governments to impose additional licensing requirements on firearms and ammunition dealers.

10. This moratorium is necessary to prevent irreversible issuance of permits, business licenses, and developments that could have a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Without it, the potential exists that establishment of new or replacement commercial operations engaged in the retail sale of firearms or ammunition within the City without addressing appropriate regulation could result in incompatibility of land uses and adverse impacts on residents, businesses and neighborhoods that present a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.

SECTION 2. Moratorium.

1. There is hereby imposed a one year extension of Interim Ordinance No. 6011, imposing a moratorium that prohibits the establishment of new or replacement stores, shops, establishments or other locations throughout the City that engage in “Firearms, weapon sales”, as defined in Glendale Municipal Code section 30.70.070 [“’Firearms, weapon sales’ means the retail sales of guns, ammunition, and related products and accessories.“] (hereinafter, “New or Replacement Gun Store Project”). For purposes of this moratorium the following definitions apply:
a. “Firearm” shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or other device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which a projectile is expelled through a barrel by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion, or any device which is capable of being altered so as to expel a projectile in such manner.
b. “Ammunition” shall mean any projectile designed to be expelled through the barrel of a firearm by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.

2. Any application(s) for approval(s) of a New or Replacement Gun Store Project which has been accepted as complete may continue to be processed and reviewed, but shall not be finally approved during the pendency of this moratorium or any extensions thereof.
29 of 487

7 1
1 9
5 0

3. Said moratorium shall not apply to any New or Replacement Gun Store Project that has received all land use entitlements prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, and shall not apply to any subsequent approvals or project modifications to a project previously approved by the City.

4. It is the intent of the City Council that any proposal for a New or Replacement Gun Store Project in the City during the period of the moratorium shall be considered inconsistent with this Ordinance and with the City’s land use policies and zoning regulations for all purposes, and by all agencies charged with reviewing any application for such use except as specifically exempted in Section 3 above.

5. City staff is directed to undertake a comprehensive study, as described above, and recommend new or amended policies, Zoning Code amendments, and/or other Code amendments with respect to uses and development of new or replacement retail uses selling firearms or ammunition for consideration by the City Council.

6. 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.

7. 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.
30 of 487

8 1
1 9
5 0
SECTION 5. Adoption and Incorporation.

The findings and information contained in the City Council staff reports dated July 25, 2023, September 19, 2023 and July 16, 2024, 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. 6011 and shall be of no further force and effect one year from the expiration date of Interim Ordinance No. 6011, 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 ________, 2024.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
31 of 487

9 1
1 9
5 0

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 _________________, 2024, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________________
City Clerk
32 of 487

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Building Electrification Reach Code Replacement Options Motion: City Council direct staff to prepare an alternative reach code to replace Section

4.1(b), subsection 4.106.5 and Section 5.106.13 of the local amendments to the California Energy Code.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for July 30, 2024 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2022, the City of Glendale engaged Rincon Consultants to draft building electrification, photovoltaic (PV), and electric vehicle (EV) charging Reach Codes, later adopted as amendments to the 2022 California Building and Energy Code. Key requirements included:

1. Building Electrification: Mandated all new constructions to be all-electric, with exemptions and infeasibility waivers.

2. PV Infrastructure: Required non-residential and multifamily buildings to install PV systems covering at least 50% of rooftop space or offset 100% of projected electricity use.

3. EV Charging Infrastructure: Required new residential and non-residential constructions to include EV charging infrastructure, with certain exemptions and waivers.

In 2024, following the 9th Circuit Court's decision rejecting Berkeley’s natural gas ban, Glendale suspended enforcement of the all-electric requirement but continued with other provisions, which were not affected by the court decision. Staff asked Rincon Consultants to prepare a memorandum on alternate approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution from buildings that the City may pursue now that enforcement of the all- electric requirement has been suspended. Rincon identified three alternative approaches:
33 of 487

28a
5 2
6 4

1. Gas Ban Through Local Amendment (Glendale’s existing approach)

2. Air Quality Ordinance

3. Single Margin Source Energy Code Amendment
Staff recommend the City pursue the third approach.
34 of 487

38a
5 2
6 4

RECOMMENDATION
Recommend staff to prepare a Single Margin Source Energy reach code to replace Section 4.1(b), subsection 4.106.5 and Section 5.106.13 of the local amendments to the California Energy Code.

ANALYSIS
In 2022, the City of Glendale hired Rincon Consultants to develop building electrification, photovoltaic (PV), and electric vehicle (EV) charging Reach Codes, which were adopted through a local amendment to the 2022 California Building and Energy Code.

The reach codes required the following:

1. Building Electrification: All new construction (including standalone accessory dwelling units (ADUs)) must be all-electric with limited exemptions and subject to an infeasibility waiver.

2. PV Infrastructure: Require non-residential and multifamily PV systems to be installed on all new buildings to offset 100 percent of projected electricity use or cover at least 50 percent of rooftop space and include an infeasibility waiver for projects unable to meet the requirement due to shading or other technical constraints.

3. EV Charging Infrastructure: Require EV charging infrastructure for new single- and multifamily dwellings, townhouses with attached private garages, multifamily dwellings with residential parking facilities, and new non-residential construction, with limited exceptions and subject to an infeasibility waiver.

At the November 1, 2022, City Council meeting, the ordinance was introduced (Exhibit 1) with modifications to specific definitions and the EV infeasibility waiver process; the Reach Code ordinance was subsequently adopted on November 15, 2022.

In 2019, the California Restaurant Association (CRA) sued the City of Berkeley regarding their ordinance banning fuel gas piping in new buildings. A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court struck down Berkeley's ordinance in April 2023, agreeing with the CRA that the city overstepped the federal Energy and Policy Conservation Act when it passed the ban in 2019. Berkeley had the option to seek rehearing either by the three-judge panel that heard the case or en-banc rehearing by 11 Ninth Circuit judges.

In 2024, the 9th Circuit declined to reconsider the decision rejecting the Berkeley, California, natural gas ban. As a result of this decision, several Cities that had natural gas bans or ordinances for new construction either halted the enforcement of the ordinance, considered alternatives, or continued with enforcement. 35 of 487

48a
5 2
6 4
In response to the 9th Circuit's decision, on June 4, 2024, the City Council directed staff to suspend enforcement of those portions of Ordinance No. 5999 that require all newly constructed buildings in Glendale to be "All-Electric." All other provisions of Ordinance No. 5999, including but not limited to those pertaining to photovoltaic requirements and EV charging, as well as all requirements in the California Building Code and/or the California Energy Code regarding electric readiness, continue to be enforced.

As a result of the ruling, the City of Glendale asked Rincon Consultants to prepare a memorandum (Exhibit 2) outlining alternative options that the City may pursue to achieve its goals of cost effectively reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from new buildings.

Approach Options
Now that enforcement of the existing all-electric component of the Ordinance No. 5999 has been suspended, Rincon has identified three possible approaches that the City may consider. All approaches will further the City's goals of offering a cost-effective method to assist in decarbonizing the built environment, and help developers and building owners reduce emissions, use efficient technologies, and improve air quality.

The three possible approaches Rincon identified are summarized below from the Rincon Memorandum - Building Electrification Post Berkeley.

1.Gas Ban Through a Local Amendment to the Building Code The City of Glendale may continue implementing the building electrification ordinance. Implementing this code, especially in the short term, would limit new gas infrastructure, but doing so carries the risk of potential legal challenges. In light of recommendations from the Glendale City Attorney and the subsequent decisions by the Glendale City Council to suspend the "All-Electric" provisions of Ordinance No. 5999, staff recommend this option not be pursued at this time.

2.Air Quality Ordinance
In this approach, Glendale would adopt standards for one or more air pollutants.

The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act establish air quality targets for cities and counties to help achieve regional standards for regulated air pollutants. Under the California Clean Air Act, cities and counties can implement local control measures to improve air quality in their region. As the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) noted, "Local governments have the flexibility to address air quality issues through ordinances, local circulation systems, transportation services, and land use. No other level of government has 36 of 487

58a
5 2
6 4
that authority, including the AQMD.” Several cities in California have adopted air quality standards that address NOx (Nitrogen Oxide) emissions, including Los Altos Hills, which has adopted a zero NOx requirement for space and water heating. This is ahead of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Rules 9-6 and 9-4, which will also set a zero NOx standard beginning in 2027 for water heaters and 2029 for space heating.

Glendale could similarly establish a NOx emissions standard, which would greatly reduce gas combustion and pollution emissions from new construction. It is not clear whether new local air quality regulations of this type would be subject to legal challenge on the ground that they are preempted by state or federal law. However, California can request waivers from the federal Clean Air Act to enforce its standards. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in Ohio v EPA, recently (April 2024) upheld California's Clean Air Act waiver, allowing California to set zero-emission vehicle sales requirements.

The Sustainability Commission, at their June 17, 2024, meeting, recommended that the City Council direct staff to research an emission standards ordinance as a future policy approach for the council to consider. Staff support the commission’s recommendation to investigate this approach for possible future adoption but recommend that the City instead pursue the following approach at the present time.

3.Single Margin Source Energy Code Amendment
Staff recommend that the city pursue this third option, as the most effective and timely approach to replace the current all-electric component of the ordinance.

Cities in California can adopt local amendments to the California Energy Code (Title 24) within certain limits. One of the areas where cities can adopt more stringent requirements than the state code is under the source energy rating (EDR1 for single-family), which is an energy performance metric. In this approach, a single energy efficiency margin, or metric, is established for all energy types. This approach does not specify one kind of energy (gas vs. electric) and is considered compliant with the federal Energy and Policy Conservation Act. Because all-electric buildings meet a much lower source energy rating than mixed fuel buildings, buildings that include gas combustion may need to complete additional energy efficiency actions such as larger solar arrays, battery storage, insulation, and other design strategies in order to achieve the same source energy rating.
37 of 487

68a
5 2
6 4
The 2022 California Energy Code provides baseline efficiency and building performance standards that a project must meet prior to receiving a building permit. The code provides two pathways: a prescriptive pathway in which developers follow a check list of requirements, and a performance pathway in which developers model energy usage and must stay within a set energy budget.

The performance method offers maximum flexibility to trade off the energy performance of different building components to achieve compliance. The efficiency margin is expressed slightly differently for different building types Source Energy Design Rating (EDR1) for single family residential and Total Compliance Margin for multi-family and non-residential.

The standard efficiency model includes water heating, space heating, space cooling, indoor air quality (IAQ) fan energy, and solar generation.

Cost Effectiveness
One of the requirements for California Energy Commission approval of a reach code is that it be cost-effective. To be cost effective, the money saved from the reduced energy costs needs to be enough to cover the initial cost within a reasonable period of time.

City staff connected with the Statewide Reach Code Program to develop cost effectiveness studies for the City of Glendale (Exhibits 3-5).

Practical Implementation
San Luis Obispo has adopted a similar performance reach code and provided an explanation of how the reach code would work, which is described below:
"A building designer working on a single-family home built to the code minimum would likely include high efficiency LED lighting, rooftop solar, an electric heat pump hot water heater, a natural gas furnace, insulated walls, an insulated attic, and efficient windows, among other things. The designer would load the building design into a computer model and estimate its energy performance. The energy modeling software would provide standard reporting metrics, including an EDR1 score. The designer would then compare the EDR1 score to a standard design building. In this case, the designed building's EDR1 score would be equal to the standard design building's EDR1 score and would comply with that part of the California Energy Code.

With the reach code in place, the designer would now need to achieve an EDR1 score that is 5 points better than the standard design building. If this building designer replaced the gas furnace with a commonly available heat pump HVAC system, the building would achieve a score that is 5 EDR1 points better than the code minimum and would be consistent with the proposed reach code requirements. Alternatively, the 38 of 487

78a
5 2
6 4
building designer could keep the gas furnace and install a battery storage system, which would also result in an increase of more than 5 EDR1 points. The building designer also has the option to develop a package of efficiency and solar measures; so long as the measures lead to an increase of 5 or more EDR1 points better than the code minimum, it is consistent with the reach code.

This example is similar to those for the other building types, where the compliance margins could be achieved by either installing electric heat pump HVAC equipment or installing a package of additional solar capacity and efficiency measures.” Existing Buildings
The report primarily addresses the replacement of the all-electric reach code requirement in new construction. However, the Rincon report also includes information about potential options for the City to consider in relation to existing buildings, such as equipment replacement, energy savings checklists, electric readiness, and other relevant measures.

Staff recommend further discussion of these options after the adoption of a new Single Margin Source Energy reach code, such as incorporating them into the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
At their June 17, 2024, meeting the Sustainability Commission received a presentation on the options to replace the existing building electrification ordinance. The Commissioners provided comments recommending that City Council pursue the single margin source energy code amendment and direct staff to undertake research on an emission standard ordinance prior to the next update of the California Energy Code in 2025.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Not Applicable.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternate: City Council may direct staff continue suspension of the all-electric provision of ordinance 5999 and not prepare an alternate option.
39 of 487

88a
5 2
6 4
Alternate 2: City Council may direct staff to pursue an air quality ordinance.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

John Takhtalian, Assistant City Manager
Prepared by:

David Jones, Sustainability Officer
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Report: Introduction of an Ordinance of the City of Glendale, California, Amending the Glendale Building and Safety Code Volume IX to Adopt Local Amendments to the 2022 Edition of the California Building and Energy Code Pertaining to Building Electrification, Solar Photovoltaic and Electric Vehicle Charging Installations.

Exhibit 2: Rincon Memorandum - Building Electrification Post Berkeley.

Exhibit 3: Custom Cost Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale.

Exhibit 4: Custom Cost Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale - Multifamily New Construction.

Exhibit 5: Custom Cost Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale – Nonresidential. 40 of 487

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council
Member , that the City Council directs staff to prepare an alternative reach code to replace Section 4.1(b), subsection 4.106.5 and Section 5.106.13 of the local amendments to the California Energy Code as set forth in the Report to Council dated July 30, 2024 and as further directed by Council.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
41 of 487

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Introduction of an Ordinance of the City of Glendale, California, Amending the Glendale Building and Safety Code Volume IX to Adopt Local Amendments to the 2022 Edition of the California Building and Energy Code Pertaining to Building Electrification, Solar Photovoltaic and Electric Vehicle Charging Installations.

1. Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Glendale Building and Safety Code, Volume IX, to Adopt Local Amendments to the 2022 Edition of the California Building and Energy Code.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for November 1, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Glendale hired Rincon Consultants to develop building electrification, photovoltaic (PV), and electric vehicle (EV) charging reach codes to be adopted through a local amendment to the 2022 California Building and Energy Code.

The proposed reach codes will require the following:

1.Building Electrification: Require all new construction (including standalone accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to be all-electric with limited exemptions and subject to an infeasibility waiver.

2.PV Infrastructure: Require non-residential and multifamily PV systems to be installed on all new buildings to offset 100 percent of projected electricity use or cover at least 50 percent of rooftop space, and include an infeasibility waiver for 42 of 487

28c
3 6
6 7
projects unable to meet the requirement due to shading or other technical constraints.

3.EV Charging Infrastructure: Require EV charging infrastructure for new single and multi-family dwellings, townhouses with attached private garages, new construction multifamily dwellings with residential parking facilities, and new non- residential construction, with limited exceptions and subject to an infeasibility waiver.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Environmental Stewardship: Implementation of building electrification, PV and EV charging are cornerstones of modern climate action planning and can lay the foundation for significant GHG reduction across the building and transportation sectors.

Infrastructure: Electrifying our homes has major health benefits. Burning gas releases nitrogen oxides and particulates, which can have serious health consequences.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council introduce an ordinance amending the Glendale Building and Safety Code, Volume IX, to a include local reach code amendments to the 2022 Edition of the California Building and Energy Code.

BACKGROUND
The City of Glendale is considering three new reach codes, which would be adopted through local amendments to the 2022 California Building and Energy Code. These reach codes would go beyond the State’s minimum requirements for buildings required by California Building and Energy Code to emphasize even more significant energy savings and GHG reductions. The proposed reach codes will focus:

1. Electrifying new construction;

2. Expanding local solar generation; and

3. Increasing EV charging capacity.

At the September 22, 2020, City Council meeting, staff presented a report asking for direction on requiring commercial development in Glendale to provide rooftop solar photovoltaic systems. In the report, staff concluded in part; “Should City Council decide to pursue adoption of a Reach Code requirement for commercial photovoltaic, further study would need to be conducted toward that aim. In addition to a Glendale-specific cost-effectiveness study for commercial photovoltaics, City Council may desire to include other provisions within the Reach Code, which would require further study.” 43 of 487

38c
3 6
6 7
City Council directed staff to explore hiring a consultant team to determine the feasibility of adopting a commercial PV requirement. In addition, City Council asked that any reach code study include information on building electrification and EV charging.

On March 22, 2022 the City Council approved the hiring Rincon Consultants, Inc., an experienced environmental science, planning and engineering firm to provide technical assistance and support development of local reach codes for building electrification, PV infrastructure, and EV charging for the City.

ANALYSIS
A goal of adopting reach codes is to continue on the pathway to decarbonize the City’s built and transportation sectors. To that end, and based on analysis of building electrification, PV and EV reach codes across California, review of best practices, examination of Glendale’s built environment and existing PV and EV infrastructure, and based on 2022 cost-effectiveness studies, Rincon has recommended Glendale consider adopting the following reach codes:

1. Building Electrification: Require all new construction (including standalone accessory dwelling units (ADUs)) be all-electric with limited exemptions and subject to an infeasibility waiver. This approach advances the most substantial climate benefit by requiring developers to provide proof of technical infeasibility of building electrification instead of categorizing entire building types as electrification-exempt.

2. PV Infrastructure: Require non-residential and multifamily PV systems be installed on all new buildings, in order to offset 100 percent of projected electricity use or to cover at least 50 percent of rooftop space. The PV infrastructure codes would include an infeasibility waiver for projects unable to meet the requirement due to shading or other constraints. This approach allows for PV installation sizes that produce a more ambitious GHG reduction for lower-density buildings while allowing flexible implementation in Glendale's urban environment, where buildings with a large energy footprint may have a small available amount of rooftop space.

3. EV Charging Infrastructure:
a. Require new one and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages to install EV charging infrastructure consisting of one Level 2 EV Ready parking space for each dwelling unit. And, if a second parking space is provided, require that space to be Level 1 EV Ready. 44 of 487

48c
3 6
6 7
b. Require new construction of multifamily dwellings with residential parking facilities to install EV charging infrastructure as follows:
i. New construction with less than 20 dwelling units would be required to install EVCS with Level 2 EV Ready parking spaces where 50% of dwelling units have parking spaces. Required an additional 5% of dwelling units with parking spaces shall be Level 2 Electric Vehicle Charging Spaces. In addition, a further 20% of dwelling units with parking spaces shall be Level 2 EV Capable. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. ii. New construction with 20 dwelling units or more shall be required to provide EVCS with Level 2 EV Ready for 50% of dwelling units with parking spaces. ALMS shall be permitted to reduce load when multiple vehicles are charging. An additional 15% of dwelling units with parking spaces shall be Level 2 Electric Vehicle Charging Spaces. An additional 10% of dwelling units with parking spaces shall be Level II EV capable. EV-ready spaces, EV-capable spaces, and EVCS in multifamily developments shall comply with California Building Code, Chapter 11A, Section 1109A. EVCS shall comply with the accessibility provisions for EV chargers in the California Building Code, Chapter 11B.
c. Electric vehicle (EV) charging for new non-residential and hotel construction will be required to provide Tier 2 level charging capability.

A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL PROPOSED REACH CODES

1. Existing Building Requirements: The proposed ordinance does not require electrification of existing buildings.

2. Commercial Kitchens: The proposed ordinance, based on cost effectiveness study for full service and quick services restaurants provides a limited exemption for a newly constructed food service establishments and would only apply to the area of its building with cooking equipment or a commercial kitchen. It is proposed that the exemption for commercial kitchens not-extend beyond December 31, 2023.

3. Affordable Housing: The requirements of the proposed ordinance shall not affect any other state or local requirements related to the delivery of affordable housing, including but not limited to state and local density bonus requirements under Government Code Section 65915 et seq. and GMC Chapter 4.11, Chapter

30.35 and Chapter 30.36.
45 of 487

58c
3 6
6 7

4. Infeasibility Waivers Process Generally: There are certain facility types with specialized operations that may not be able to immediately to adopt all-electric options. Based on these circumstances staff proposes allowing permit applicants to apply for infeasibility waivers whereby applicants may show circumstances that make it technically infeasible to meet the requirements of the proposed reach code. Applicant’s will have the obligation to provide proof of infeasibility, subject to the review and approval of the City’s Building Official and/or GWP General Manager or their respective designee(s). Applicants for infeasibility waivers would still be required to make the facility electrification-ready to the greatest possible extent so that a future transition from natural gas to electric equipment will be easier.
a.Infeasibility. Infeasibility is defined as the inability of a project to meet the requirements of the local amendments to the building code due to a lack of commercially available equipment, lack of specific technologies, or unique site characteristics that make it technically impossible to install and or implement the code required all-electric systems.
b.Applications for Infeasibility Waivers. Building permit applicants seeking an infeasibility waiver will be required to apply for a waiver following an application process (to be developed). The waiver application will require the applicant to show the maximum threshold of compliance they believe is feasible for the project and demonstrate the circumstances that make further compliance infeasible.

5. Building Electrification Infeasibility Waiver Process: If an applicant for a building permit believes there are circumstances that make it technically infeasible to meet the ordinance's requirements for building electrification, the applicant may be able to justify installing natural gas appliances so long as the building is pre-wired for future electric appliance installation. Each natural gas appliance installed pursuant to an infeasibility waiver would be required to provide the following:
a. A dedicated circuit, phased appropriately, for each appliance.

Each circuit having a minimum amperage requirement for a comparable electric appliance (based on the manufacturer’s recommendations), an electrical receptacle or junction box that is connected to the electric panel, and conductors of adequate capacity within 3 feet of the appliance. Each such circuit shall be accessible with no obstructions;
46 of 487

68c
3 6
6 7
b. Both ends of the unused conductor or conduit shall be labeled with the words “For Future Electric Appliance” and be electrically isolated;
c. A reserved circuit breaker space shall be installed in the electrical panel adjacent to the circuit breaker for the branch circuit and labeled for each circuit, an example is as follows: “For Future Electric Range”; and iv. All electrical components, including conductors, receptacles, junction boxes, or blank covers, related to this section shall be installed in accordance with the California Electrical Code.

6. Solar PV System Infeasibility Waiver Process: Applicants may request an infeasibility waiver from the PV System installation requirements from the Building Official. The Building Official may grant the waiver if the Building Official determines that PV system installation and implementation is technically infeasible. Technical infeasibility may include practical challenges such as building site constraints, limited rooftop availability, shading from nearby structures, topography, or vegetation.

7. EV System Infeasibility Waiver Process: Applicants may request an infeasibility waiver from EV system installation requirements from the Public Works Director, and or the General Manager of Glendale Water and Power.

Public Works and/or GWP, depending on the applicant, may determine that EV charging and infrastructure are not feasible where there is no local utility power supply, or the local utility cannot supply adequate power, or where parking is not required. For example, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) are not required to supply additional parking facilities, electrical panel upgrades, or new panel installation.

However, ADUs and JADUs without additional parking but with electrical panel upgrades or new panels will be required to provide reserved breakers and electrical capacity.

B. STAFFING RESOURCES.

Implementing the proposed reach codes and the 2022 California Building Code may require additional staffing resources in the Community Development Department and in Glendale Water & Power.

1. Community Development
47 of 487

78c
3 6
6 7
As a consequence of changes brought about by state mandates regarding Solar/Photovoltaic, Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, and the adoption of new state laws granting greater flexibility to develop ADUs/JADUs, among other housing laws, the City has experienced a substantial increase in permit applications. Over the last four years, City staff has so far been able to offset increase in applications by implementing streamlining practices, using third-party vendors and hourly employees, and authorizing overtime. However, these short term fixes are not sustainable as a long-term work load solution.

Staff anticipates that work load will increase in connection with the 2022 State Building Code and Reach Code implementation. The increased work will principally be experienced in the processing of planning applications, plan checks, and inspections.

These are areas already impacted by understaffing. Staff recommends adding a dedicated plan check engineer (Building Code Specialist III) and an inspector (Inspector II) with skills necessary to review photovoltaic systems by engineering analysis, evaluation of energy efficiency, and solar projects involving residential, commercial, or industrial customers. The dedicated inspector will apply knowledge of structural energy requirements, fire life safety, solar technology, and proper system installation.

Fiscal Impact:
- Building Code Specialist III - $132,282 (FTE - fully burdened) - Inspector II $103,543 (FTE - fully burdened)
Planning and permitting fees are statutorily permitted to be set at levels that will cover the cost of these services.

2. Glendale Water and Power
The proposed reach codes and the 2022 California Building Code are geared towards further electrifying the built environment in California. The proposed reach codes focus on delivering an all-electric buildings starting January 2023. The 2022 California Building Code encourages the construction of all-electric buildings and requires that new buildings be electric-ready, meaning that the all-electric infrastructure needs to be in place, even if it will not be immediately capable of being used.

It is GWP’s obligation to ensure the City has sufficient utility infrastructure to handle electrical loads from panels installed by the customers regardless of whether or not these panels are used. This includes the electrical distribution, sub- transmission/substations, generation infrastructure, and most importantly, the required 48 of 487

88c
3 6
6 7
decommissioning/replacement/upgrade of existing aging utility infrastructure based on South Coast Air Quality District permitting, contractual and statutory reliability requirements – all of which has been discussed in the context of the Grayson Repowering Project, GWP’s Integrated Resource Plan, among other plans and reports.

The added demand on existing electrical infrastructure is real and is important to understand. For example, reach codes and Cal Green standards (100% electric) will increase electrical loads from multi-family buildings where EV charging will be required.

If the increase load exceeds the existing 5MW feeder threshold, new feeders may need to be installed to connect the substation to serve the added electrical demand to these sites. The estimated cost to install a new feeder system is $5 to $7 million, and is chargeable to the project applicant. This new utility infrastructure may be a combination of overhead (OH)/underground(UG) – 12 KV feeder and substation equipment such as High Voltage Transformers/Circuit Breakers and associated hardware /protection systems.

New electrical infrastructure for single family homes development and major renovations of existing homes/ multi-unit apartments could cost in the range of $1K for a simple OH service to $3K to include a new pole, or $25K to $50K for a new UG service conduit/cable. A new second primary service typically costs from $100K to $200K – including new UG Conduits/Cables/Vault/ Transformer.

GWP will need to study, plan for, fund and develop infrastructure. These tasks require personnel to support administrative services such as plan development and checking new electrical installations. GWP is in the process of analyzing the impact of the proposed reach code and the 2022 California Building Code on staffing and infrastructure and will be submitting a staffing budget request in the near future, however, in the near term GWP anticipates it will need up to twenty (20) full time employees, including:

•Field Personnel - these positions are to Install/Construct/Maintain – New Reach Code Infrastructure/Feeders.
•Customer Service Planning/ Inspector Series - to locate electrical panels and assist customer in the design/location/inspection of new panels and increased service sizes to serve loads add EV chargers and electrify homes. •Engineering Personnel - to plan and design GWP system/utility infrastructure upgrades and growth. As the GWP system grows and aging infrastructure is modernized and/or replaced, GWP will need additional staffing and resources to respond to 100% electrification of Glendale’s buildings and the transportation sector.
49 of 487

98c
3 6
6 7

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Staff has engaged in stakeholder outreach to obtain professional and community feedback on the proposed reach codes. The following groups were invited to attend the webinar and workshops:
•Glendale Chamber of Commerce
•American Institute of Architects, Los Angeles Chapter (AIA|LA) •Sustainability Commission
•Sierra Club of the Foothills
•MPI Construction
•Architects
•EBE Associates
•UpDevelopment
•SEC Development
•NextGen Vision
•Sturgill Associates
•ArcSTEM
•Arch N Tech
•Structural AF
•Domus Design
•Franco Noravian and Associates
•Orange Green ARC
•Haks Design
•USGBC Los Angeles
•Glendale Environmental Coalition
•American Institute of Architects - Pasadena and Foothill Chapter •Building Electrification Working Group
•USGBC Los Angeles
•City of Glendale Affordable Housing Team
The stakeholder outreach program included:

1. Introduction Webinar explaining reach codes and the types of reach codes the City of Glendale proposes.

2. A website describing the proposed City of Glendale reach codes, webinar presentations, a survey, and a FAQ corner.
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/office-of-the-city- manager/new-building-electrification-ordinance

3. Workshops: The City hosted two workshops, one for the professional community and one for the general community. The workshop sessions provided an in-depth look at the reach codes and allowed participants to ask detailed questions about the scope and scale of the proposed reach codes.
50 of 487

108c
3 6
6 7

4. Rincon provided a detailed presentation and recommendations on the reach codes to the Sustainability Commission.

Survey Results
51 of 487

118c
3 6
6 7
Next Steps
If the City Council introduces the ordinance amending the Glendale Building and Safety Code Volume IX to Adopt Local Amendments to the 2022 Edition of the California Building and Energy Code, the following actions will occur:

1. After the ordinance in adopted, staff will prepare the required documentation to be submitted to the California Energy Commission to be agendized for consideration of the proposed PV reach code on the first available monthly CEC meeting docket.

2. Staff will prepare the required documentation to be submitted to the California Building and Standards Commission.

3. Upon adoption of the ordinance, staff will file a CEQA notice of exemption with the Los Angeles County Clerk and with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) at the state.

If the ordinance is introduced, adoption will be scheduled for the November 15, 2022 City Council meeting, and will become effective January 1, 2023. The PV reach code will become effective upon CEC approval.

FISCAL IMPACT
The implementation of the reach codes and the 2022 California Building Code will require additional staffing resources in the Community Development Department and/or Glendale Water and Power as detailed in this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is exempt from review under 52 of 487

128c
3 6
6 7
the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§15000, et seq., "CEQA"), and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines") because it consists of revisions and clarifications to an existing code of construction-related regulations and specification of procedures related thereto being taken for enhanced protection of the environment and while there may be added infrastructure resulting from the implementation of the Reach Codes, it does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment; to the contrary, the transition from fossil fuel sources is part of the State of California’s overall plan to decrease GHG emissions from stationary and transportation sources. Adoption of the Ordinance is categorically exempt in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15305 as a minor alteration in land use limitations which do not result in any changes in land use or density and is exempt under CEQA Guidelines §15308 as an action taken by a regulatory agency as authorized by California law to assure maintenance or protection of the environment.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Introduce an ordinance requiring all electric new construction, installing PV and EV infrastructure thus amending the Glendale Building and Safety Code to adopt Local Amendments to the 2022 Edition of the California Building and Energy Code.

Alternative 2: Introduce an ordinance requiring all electric new construction starting January 1, 2023, and to phase in PV and EV reach codes.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

David Jones, Sustainability Officer
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
53 of 487

138c
3 6
6 7

1. Ordinance of the City of Glendale, California, amending the Glendale Building and Safety Code Volume IX to adopt local amendments to the 2022 Edition of the California Building and Energy Code.

2. 2022 Code Cycle Custom Cost Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale - Nonresidential
54 of 487

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
180 North Ashwood Avenue
Ventura, California 93003
805-644-4455
www.rinconconsultants.com

5.13.24 Project Number: 21-11996
David Jones – Sustainability Officer
City of Glendale
Suite 200
Glendale, California, 91206
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: Building Electrification Post Berkeley
Dear Addressee:

Rincon Consultants has compiled a summary of the 9 th Circuit Court decision in the California Restaurant Association (CRA) vs. City of Berkley litigation, its impacts on building electrificaiton ordinances, and the remaining options for cities to help decarbonize their buildings in pursuit of the State of California GHG reduction targets.

What was the outcome of the 9th Circuit Court decision in California Restaurant Association (CRA) vs. City of Berkeley? The 9th Circuit Court determined that Berkeley’s electrification ordinance (which was codified in the health and safety section of the City’s Municipal Code) preempted the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). EPCA sets countrywide appliance efficiency standards which have historically served as one of the nation’s most effective energy conservation policies. The first efficiency standards were set in California in 1974, before being adopted at the federal level in 1975.1 The policy also was developed to preempt state level legislation to save manufacturers money and reduce regulatory burden resulting from several different state-level policies. Based on the preemption clause in EPCA, the 9th Circuit Court found that “no State regulation concerning the energy efficiency, [or] energy use . . . of such covered product shall be effective with respect to such product.” In this finding, the Court took an exceptionally broad reading of energy use to not only apply to appliance efficiency specifically, but to the type of energy used for those appliances as well.

Berkeley appealed to the 9th Court for an En Banc review, which allows all 9th Circuit Judges to review the case, however, the 9th Circuit declined. While the language in the decision is broad, according to a memo developed by Shute, Mihaley & Weinberger, the only definite legal repercussion of the finding is that direct bans or prohibitions of natural gas on an energy or efficiency basis are preempted and that while the court did directly address building code provisions, it did recognize that "The EPCA does not permit States and localities to doge 1 https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/history-and-impacts 55 of 487

City of Glendale
Building Electrification Options Post Berkeley
2 preemption by hiding 'energy use' regulations in building codes.” Berkeley has since paused their enforcement of the ordinance as they investigate new directions.

Why do we need Reach Codes in the first place?
The State of California Green Building Code (Title 24) has made real progress in decarbonizing new buildings and California has some of the most efficient buildings in the County. With all this progress, why are local reach codes still important?
State Codes are Limited.
2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2025 Title 24/Energy Code) will still allow for the installation of natural gas infrastructure and will lack existing building and appliance specific requirements. The 2025Title 24 requirements will likely use heat pump water heating and HVAC units as the “baseline” performance standard but will stop short of requiring all- electric buildings and will have no consideration for other methane gas appliances like stoves and dryers.

Limits Gas Infrastructure to Save Money Long Term.

One of the primary drivers of a natural gas infrastructure ban is to prevent the installation of gas infrastructure that is expensive to maintain. Much of the cost associated with installing new or upgrading existing gas mains, spurs, and meters is offset by ratepayers. This means that much of the cost of each therm of natural gas consumed is to pay for installation and maintenance of the gas system. In order to reach our climate goals, much of the gas system we use today will have to change (either to allow for decarbonized fuels or to be decommissioned). Every piece of gas infrastructure we install today will increase the cost of gas in the future. This could cause significant increases in gas costs of up to 5x by 2050.2 Limiting the installation of new infrastructure is key to long-term savings and a managed transition.

Consistency with Climate Action Plan and GHG Targets.

The City of Glendale, and California as a whole, cannot reach its GHG emissions reduction goals without decarbonized buildings and electrification has been demonstrated to be the most cost-effective way to decarbonize. Requiring as many new buildings and retrofits as possible to be all-electric will be key to meeting these long-term goals.

Signals the Market.

The existing Glendale electrification ordinance provided a strong signal to developers that new construction should be decarbonized. This signal also reached the State as they incorporated many facets of local reach codes into the State code. By continuing to show commitment to electrification as the new standard, Glendale can send a clear message to important decision-makers and interested parties and avoid inconsistent legislation. 2 https://gridworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/CA_Gas_System_in_Transition.pdf 56 of 487

City of Glendale
Building Electrification Options Post Berkeley
3 What are the Remaining Options to Drive Electrification? Several options remain for local governments to retain jurisdictional control over how their buildings are constructed. These options exist on a spectrum of risk, and each carry their own pros and cons in the short- and long-term. The following options have been organized based on their perceived risk following the CRA vs. City of Berkeley decision. The section has also been divided between new and existing construction. While the City of Berkeley decision was specific to new construction, the finding impacts existing building policies which are also critical to reaching carbon neutrality. This summary covers remaining options for both new and existing buildings.

New Building Electrification Options
Gas Ban Through a Local Amendment to the Building Code – High Risk While the City of Berkeley decision was not specific to local amendments to the building code, the breadth of the finding suggests that these codes would not be legally defensible if litigated.

However, some cities are continuing to implement their gas infrastructure or appliance bans while they await further litigation in this area. Continuing to implement these codes, especially in the short-term, would limit new gas infrastructure but carries with it potentially serious legal risk.

Some cities, like San Francisco, who have slightly different codes have signaled that they will continue to implement their codes until further notice. The Berkeley decision is likely just the first of many legal cases which will play out over time on this topic.

Pros
•Complete gas ban (minus exemptions)
•Easy to understand
•Easy to implement
Cons
•Legally tenuous
Air Quality Ordinance – Untested
Both the federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act establish targets for cities and counties to meet in order to reach attainment in criteria pollutants. Under the California Clean Air Act, cities and counties can implement local control measures to improve air quality in their region.3 As noted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), “Local governments have the flexibility to address air quality issues through ordinances, local circulation systems, transportation services, and land use. No other level of government has that authority, including the AQMD”. NOx emissions are a byproduct of burning fossil fuels like natural gas and have been found to have negative health effects, especially for children, and are a precursor for the development of Ozone. The SCAQMD estimates that NOx emissions 3 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/chapter-1---introduction.pdf 57 of 487

City of Glendale
Building Electrification Options Post Berkeley
4 must be reduced by 67% by 2037 in order to meet federal regulations.4 To address these issues, some cities have begun to regulate NOx emissions directly.

For example, New York State is currently implementing a NOx emissions requirement that effectively bans natural gas in new construction. This ordinance is currently under litigation (Mulhern Gas Co. V. Rodriguez) in the Norther District of New York federal courts,5 but no decision has been made. Several cities in California have also adopted air quality standards that address NOx emissions including Los Altos Hills who have adopted a zero NOx requirement for space and water heating. This is ahead of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Rule 9- 6 and 9-4 which will also set a zero NOx standard beginning in 2027 for water heaters and 2029 for space heating. Furthermore, the California Air Resources Board is also planning on implementing their own statewide zero NOx threshold for appliances.6 Pros
•Complete gas ban (minus exemptions)
•EPCA Compliant
•Supported by SCAQMD and CARB efforts
Cons
•Untested legally (some risk)
Single Margin Source Energy Code Amendment – Lowest Risk Cities in California can adopt local amendments to the energy code (Title 24). One of the areas where cities can adopt more stringent requirements is under the source energy rating (EDR1 for single family) which is an energy performance metric. The key to this approach is that one margin, or metric, is established for all energy types. This approach does not specify one type of energy (gas vs. electric) and it is considered to be EPCA compliant. Because all electric buildings meet a much lower source energy rating than mixed fuel buildings, the EDR score can be reduced to a level where gas buildings must complete additional (yet cost effective) energy efficiency actions such as larger solar arrays, battery storage, insulation, and other design strategies. This effectively increases the cost of building with gas compared to all-electric.

However, this route does leave the door open for buildings to be built using electric space and water heating, but use gas for cooking. While this result will lower GHG emissions, it does increase the installation of new gas infrastructure which could contribute to future gas rate increases and the possibility of stranded assets (gas lines which need to be decommissioned before 2045). This approach may also not work for all building types depending on climate zone and cost effectiveness results. Therefore, while this approach is the lowest risk, it is not 100% effective at eliminating natural gas in new construction. 4 https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality- management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/03-
es.pdf?sfvrsn=6#:~:text=We%20project%20that%20emissions%20of%20NOx%20%E2%80%93,programs%20by%20 2037%20to%20meet%20the%20standard.
5 https://climatecasechart.com/case/mulhern-gas-co-v-rodriguez/ 6 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/zero-emission-space-and-water-heater-standards/about 58 of 487

City of Glendale
Building Electrification Options Post Berkeley
5 Pros
•EPCA Compliant
•Well established and low legal risk
Cons
•Gas can still be installed in new construction
•Potential for stranded assets/inefficient resource allocation •More difficult modeling to show compliance
Existing Building Electrification Options
In addition to ordinances for new construction, there are also several existing building ordinances that cities in California have started to implement to work towards their decarbonization goals. These ordinances have also been developed based on the findings of the CRA vs. City of Berkeley case.

Substantial Remodels - Depends on New Construction Ordinance Adopted One of the easiest ways to begin addressing existing buildings is to capture significant remodels with the new building ordinance. Most cities already have a definition for what constitutes a significant remodel based on square footage of the remodel (example: 50% or more) or cost (example: $100,000). Building remodels which meet these thresholds are required to follow the new construction requirements established by the new construction reach code. This requirement can be added to the new construction ordinance which makes adoption more straight forward.

Pros
•No need for additional requirements (tier off new construction) •Established definitions for “substantial remodel”
Cons
•Only a few building remodels of this size per year
Two-Way Air-Conditioning Ordinance – Untested
Another option to begin decarbonizing buildings is the “two-way” air conditioning requirement.

This approach requires new air conditioners to provide both heating and cooling. Heat pumps can meet this requirement at similar costs to dedicated AC units. This is a cost-effective way to deploy heat pumps to more buildings allowing building owners to keep their gas furnace but making it less likely they will replace their furnace in the future since the heat pump already provides both heating and cooling. Furthermore, buildings with dedicated air conditioners will not need additional electrical work to accommodate the heat pump. This approach is being implanted by the City of San Mateo and is expected to be included as a voluntary measure in the 2025 code cycle for CALGreen.7
7 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/3363/Reach-Codes
59 of 487

City of Glendale
Building Electrification Options Post Berkeley
6 Pros
•Cost effective
•No additional electrical work
Cons
•Only covers HVAC
Remodel Minimum Energy Savings Checklist – Low Risk
Cities also have the ability to require additional “cost effective” energy efficiency upgrades at time of remodel in order to meet a minimum energy savings threshold. The City can set a threshold (such as cost of project or square footage) and then provide a checklist of several energy efficiency upgrades which could include heat pump installation, insulation, LED lighting, and more. The Local Codes and Standards program can provide a complete list of cost-effective approaches for inclusion in the checklist.8 Because this list provides many options to meet the requirements, it is considered EPCA compliant, even though it includes electrification actions.

Cities like Piedmont have been implementing a similar program for several years.9 This approach could be used to heavily incentivize heat pump installation at time of retrofit.

Pros
•Cost effective
•Flexible to include different sizes/types of retrofits Cons
•More complex due to several options
Additional Existing Building Electrification Options
Additional requirements which can help promote electrification are also being developed and implemented by cities around California. These include:

Electrification Readiness – The City can require sufficient panel capacity for complete electrification for all projects which require changes to electric panels. The City could also require new 220v circuits and receptacles whenever kitchens, laundry rooms, or mechanical rooms are renovated.

Require Heat Pump Rooftop Package Units – Or higher efficiency gas units. The Draft of the 2025 Title 24 code requires heat pump rooftop package units OR additional energy efficiency options such as variable frequency drives or economizers. Since heat pump rooftop package units are easy replacements for mixed fuel package units, switching to a heat pump on replacement will likely be lower cost than adding additional energy efficiency equipment. 8 https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/policies/options?only_study_type=existing-buildings 9 https://cdnsm5-
hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_13659739/File/Government/Departments/Planning%20Division/Re ach_Codes/2023%20Reach%20Code%20Piedmont%20Checklist%20for%20Homeowners.pdf?v=w0oN4k5gg&v=w0 oN4k5gg
60 of 487

City of Glendale
Building Electrification Options Post Berkeley
7 Building Performance Standards – Building performance standards (BPS) are ideal for larger commercial buildings (25,000 sq. ft. or larger). The building performance standard can be developed to phase in over time and provide time for data collection, retro-commissioning, and finally actions to reduce emissions. Thresholds for GHG emissions per square foot can be established to guide building owners towards decarbonization over time. Several California cities such as San Jose10 and Brisbane11. Additionally, cities like Denver Colorado have well established BPS programs.12
10 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/environmental-services/climate-smart-san- jos/energy-and-water-building-performance-ordinance
11 https://www.brisbaneca.org/bbep
12 https://www.cmta.com/news/energize-denver-
faq#:~:text=To%20summarize%2C%20Energize%20Denver%20is,and%20to%20reach%20Net%20Zero 61 of 487

Prepared by:

Frontier Energy, Inc
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC

Prepared for:

Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas and Electric Last modified: 2024/05/15
Revision: 1.0
2022 CODE CYCLE :

Custom Cost Effectiveness Analysis:

City of Glendale

62 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale

Legal Notice
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

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

Acronym List
B/C – Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
CBECC - California Building Energy Code Compliance
CBSC - California Building Standards Commission
CEC - California Energy Commission
CZ – Climate Zone
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
GWP – Glendale Water and Power
IOU – Investor-Owned Utility
POU – Publicly Owned Utility
PG&E – Pacific Gas & Electric (utility)
SCE – Southern California Edison (utility)
SCG – Southern California Gas (utility)
SDG&E – San Diego Gas & Electric (utility)
CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities
LADWP – Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
kWh – Kilowatt Hour
NPV – Net Present Value
PV - Solar Photovoltaic
TDV - Time Dependent Valuation
Title 24 – California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6

63 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 4 2 Methodology and Assumptions .......................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Reach Codes .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Costs ............................................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1.3 Metrics .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.4 Utility Rates ................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................................................. 6 3 Prototype Designs and Measure Packages ..................................................................................... 7 4 Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 5 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 10 6 References .............................................................................................................................................. 12 7 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................. 13

7.1 Map of California Climate Zones ........................................................................................................................................................ 13

7.2 Utility Rate Schedules .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14

7.2.1 Glendale Water and Power ......................................................................................................................................... 14

7.2.2 SCG ............................................................................................................................................................................ 15

7.2.3 Fuel Escalation Rates ................................................................................................................................................. 17

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Utility Tariffs in City of Glendale .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Table 2: Residential Prototype Characteristics ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3. Climate Zone 9 Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Summary .................................................................................................. 9 Table 4. Climate Zone 9 ADU Cost-Effectiveness Summary ................................................................................................................ 9 Table 5: Summary of Single Family EDR1 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness ...................................................................................... 11 Table 6: Summary of ADU EDR1 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 11 Table 7: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) ................................................................................................................................ 16 Table 8: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 17

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of California climate zones. .......................................................................................................................................... 13 64 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 4

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

1 Introduction
The California Codes and Standards (C&S) Reach Codes program provides technical support to local governments considering adopting a local ordinance (reach code) intended to support meeting local and/or statewide energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction goals. The program facilitates adoption and implementation of the code when requested by local jurisdictions by providing resources such as cost-effectiveness studies, model language, sample findings, and other supporting documentation.

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (CEC, 2019) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (the Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.

This report is an addendum to the 2022 Single Family New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2024) modified to accurately represent the City of Glendale, California. The study analyzes cost- effectiveness of measures and measure packages that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2023, in newly constructed buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities - collectively known as the Reach Codes Team.

The prototype building designs analyzed in this study are newly constructed:
• Single Family Home
• Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
The methodology, prototype characteristics, and measure packages are retained from the main studies referenced above except for the energy costs are calculated using local Glendale Water and Power (GWP) utility rates. Measure packages include combinations of energy efficiency, electrification, solar photovoltaics (PV), and battery storage with results evaluated for California Climate Zones 9.

This report presents measures or measure packages that local jurisdictions may consider adopting to achieve energy savings and emissions reductions beyond what will be accomplished by enforcing minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6), effective January 1, 2023.

Local jurisdictions may also adopt ordinances that amend different Parts of the California Building Standards Code or may elect to amend other state or municipal codes. The decision regarding which code to amend will determine the specific requirements that must be followed for an ordinance to be legally enforceable. Although a cost-effectiveness study is only required to amend Part 6 of the CA Building Code, it is important to understand the economic impacts of any policy decision. This study documents the estimated costs, benefits, energy impacts and greenhouse gas emission reductions that may result from implementing an ordinance based on the results to help residents, local leadership, and other stakeholders make informed policy decisions.

Model ordinance language and other resources are posted on the C&S Reach Codes Program website at LocalEnergyCodes.com. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance may contact the program for further technical support at [email protected].

65 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 5

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

2 Methodology and Assumptions
The Reach Codes Team analyzed two residential prototype designs to represent a variety of common building types using the cost-effectiveness methodology detailed in this section below. The general methodology is consistent with analyses of other prototypes, whereas some specifics such as utility rate selection are customized for the City of Glendale rates.

2.1 Reach Codes
This section describes the approach to calculating cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection.

2.1.1 Benefits
This analysis used both on-bill and time dependent valuation (TDV) of energy-based approaches to evaluate cost- effectiveness. Both on-bill and TDV require estimating and quantifying the energy savings and costs associated with energy measures. The primary difference between on-bill and TDV is how energy is valued:
• On-Bill: Customer-based lifecycle cost approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year duration for residential and 15 years for nonresidential designs, accounting for a three percent discount rate and energy cost inflation per Appendix 7.2.3.
• TDV: TDV was developed by the Energy Commission to reflect the time dependent value of energy including long-term projected costs of energy such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs including projected costs for carbon emissions and grid transmission impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods.

The Reach Codes Team performed energy simulations using certified software available for 2022 Title 24 code compliance analysis, CBECC-Res v3.0.

2.1.2 Costs
The Reach Codes Team assessed the incremental costs of the measures and packages over a 30-year lifecycle.

Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2022 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements or standard industry practices. Present value of replacement cost is included for measures with lifetimes less than the evaluation period.

In calculating On-Bill cost effectiveness, incremental first costs for the single family and ADU were assumed to be financed into a mortgage or loan with a 30-year loan term and four percent interest rate. Financing was not applied to future replacement or maintenance costs. In calculating TDV cost effectiveness, incremental first costs were not assumed to be financed into a mortgage or loan.

2.1.3 Metrics
Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics. • NPV: The Reach Codes Team uses net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs) as the cost-effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost effective. Negative net savings represent net costs to the consumer. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the measure are even more negative (i.e., construction and maintenance cost savings).
• B/C Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 30 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criteria for cost-effectiveness is a B/C greater than 1.0. A value of one 66 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 6

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment.

Improving the energy performance of a building often requires an initial investment. In most cases the benefit is represented by annual on-bill utility or TDV savings, and the cost by incremental first cost and replacement costs.

However, some packages result in initial construction cost savings (negative incremental cost), and either energy cost savings (positive benefits), or increased energy costs (negative benefits). In cases where both construction costs and energy-related savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the benefit while the increased energy costs are the cost. In cases where a measure or package is cost-effective immediately (i.e., upfront construction cost savings and lifetime energy cost savings), B/C ratio cost-effectiveness is represented by “>1”.

Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values.

2.1.4 Utility Rates
In coordination with the City of Glendale, the Reach Codes Team determined appropriate tariffs for each package, summarized in Table 1, based on the annual load profile of the prototype and the corresponding package, and the most prevalent rate for each building type.

For a more detailed breakdown of the rates selected refer to Appendix 7.2 Utility Rate Schedules.

Table 1. Utility Tariffs in City of Glendale
Electric / Gas Utility Electricity Natural Gas
Residential (Single Family and Detached ADU)
GWP / SoCalGas L-1-A GR

Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions detailed in Appendix 7.2. Please see the main 2022 Single Family New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2024) for further details on methodology.

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The analysis uses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates built-in to CBECC-Res. There are 8760 hourly multipliers accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including renewable portfolio standard projections. Natural gas fugitive emissions, which are shown to be substantial, are not included. There are two strings of multipliers—one for Northern California climate zones, and another for Southern California climate zones.1.

1 CBECC-Res multipliers are the same for CZs 1-5 and 11-13 (presumed to be Northern California), while there is another set of multipliers for CZs 6-10 and 14-16 (assumed to be Southern California). 67 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 7

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

3 Prototype Designs and Measure Packages
Table 2 describes the basic characteristics of each residential prototype design. The prototypes have equal geometry on all walls, windows and roof to be orientation neutral.

Table 2: Residential Prototype Characteristics
Characteristic Single Family
One-Story
Single Family
Two-Story ADU
Conditioned Floor Area 2,100 ft2 2,700 ft2 625 ft2
Num. of Stories 1 2 1
Num. of Bedrooms 3 4 1
Window-to-Floor Area Ratio 20% 20% 19.2%

The Reach Codes Team evaluated three packages for mixed fuel homes and five packages for all-electric homes for each prototype and climate zone, as described below.

1. All-Electric Code Minimum: This package applied the prescriptive requirements of the 2022 Title 24 Code and replaced gas equipment with minimum efficiency electric equipment.

2. Efficiency Only, all-electric: This package used only efficiency measures that don’t trigger federal preemption issues including envelope, water heating distribution, and duct distribution efficiency measures. For ADUs, this also included ductless variable capacity heat pumps (VCHPs). This package was evaluated for the all- electric homes only.

3. Efficiency + High Efficiency (Preempted) Equipment, all-electric and mixed fuel: This package builds off the Efficiency Only package, adding water heating and space conditioning equipment that is more efficient than federal standards. The Reach Codes Team considers this more reflective of how builders meet above code requirements in practice. This package was evaluated to compare compliance results against the other non- preempted packages, however cost-effectiveness was not evaluated for this package since it cannot serve as the basis for adoption of a local ordinance. Specifically, it applied:
a. Water heating, all-electric: Heat pump water heaters with a NEEA Tier 3 rating (3.45 UEF). b. Water heating, mixed fuel: High efficiency (0.95 UEF) gas tankless. c. Space conditioning, single family: High efficiency (16 SEER2/8 HSPF2) heat pumps. In mixed fuel packages, for climate zones with prescriptive gas heating, high efficiency (16 SEER2/95 AFUE) units were applied.

4. Efficiency + PV, all-electric and mixed fuel: This package also builds on the Efficiency Only package, excluding preempted equipment. Instead, PV capacity was added to offset all of the estimated annual electricity use.

5. Efficiency + PV + Battery, all-electric and mixed fuel: Using the Efficiency + PV package as a starting point for the all-electric analysis, a battery system was added. For mixed fuel homes the package of efficiency measures differed from the all-electric homes in some climate zones to arrive at a cost-effective solution.

68 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 8

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

4 Results
Results are presented as per the prototype-specific Measure Packages described in Section 3. Overarching factors impacting the results include:

• Designation of a ‘benefit’ or a ‘cost’ varies with the scenarios because both energy savings, and incremental construction costs may be negative depending on the package. Typically, utility bill savings are categorized as a ‘benefit’ while incremental construction costs are treated as ‘costs.’ In cases where both construction costs are negative and utility bill savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the utility bill negative savings are the ‘cost.’ • All-electric packages will have lower GHG emissions than equivalent mixed-fuel packages in all cases, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers. • The Reach Codes Team coordinated with the City of Glendale to select the most prevalent tariffs for each prototype given the annual energy demand profile. The Reach Codes Team did not compare a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost-effectiveness although utility rate changes or updates can affect on- bill cost-effectiveness results.

Table 3 and Table 4 show results for the single family and ADU prototypes, respectively, for Climate Zone 9. Results are shown for all the evaluated packages. All packages are cost-effective based on TDV with the exception of the mixed fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery single family and ADU packages. All of the all-electric packages are On-Bill cost- effective with the exception of the All-Electric Code Minimum ADU and All-Electric Efficiency Only ADU packages. 69 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 9

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

Table 3. Climate Zone 9 Single Family Cost-Effectiveness Summary

Table 4. Climate Zone 9 ADU Cost-Effectiveness Summary

Case
Total
EDR1
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Annual
GHG
Savings
(mtons)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First Year Lifecycle
(2022$) First Year Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
All-Electric
Code Minimum 3.6 -1,453 84 0.3 ($268) ($5,210) ($7,065) ($6,983) 1.3 $1,774 5.5 $5,013 Efficiency Only 4.4 -1,285 84 0.3 ($222) ($4,172) ($5,870) ($5,642) 1.4 $1,470 >1 $5,087 Efficiency + PV 7.1 923 84 0.4 $354 $8,785 ($2,441) ($1,039) >1 $9,824 >1 $8,007 Efficiency + PV + Battery 21.8 783 84 0.9 $318 $7,977 $4,432 $13,555 0.6 ($5,578) 1.3 $3,630 Mixed Fuel
Efficiency + PV 2.0 923 2.7 0.1 $242 $5,475 $2,220 $2,762 2.0 $2,713 1.5 $1,256 Efficiency + PV + Battery 16.2 833 3 0.5 $219 $4,960 $9,152 $17,435 0.3 ($12,475) 0.8 ($3,839) Case
Total
EDR1
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Annual
GHG
Savings
(mtons)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First Year Lifecycle
(2022$) First Year Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
All-Electric
Code Minimum 0.4 -903 38 0.1 ($230) ($4,877) ($4,692) ($4,605) 0.9 ($272) 2.4 $2,321 Efficiency Only 1.1 -815 38 0.1 ($201) ($4,217) ($3,404) ($2,648) 0.6 ($1,569) 2.3 $1,280 Efficiency + PV 4.5 3,487 38 0.3 $947 $21,630 $3,278 $6,322 3.4 $15,308 2.4 $7,709 Efficiency + PV + Battery 24.9 3,470 38 0.7 $942 $21,531 $10,230 $21,020 1.0 $510 1.0 ($279) Mixed Fuel
Efficiency + PV 1.7 3,487 0 0.1 $903 $20,341 $5,744 $7,635 2.7 $12,706 1.7 $4,913 Efficiency + PV + Battery 19.6 3,497 0.2 0.5 $906 $20,415 $12,691 $22,327 0.9 ($1,913) 0.8 ($3,318) 70 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 10

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

5 Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine and document the code compliance and cost-effectiveness impacts of improving performance among single family new construction – both standard sized homes and ADUs. To this end, the Reach Codes Team evaluated packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with solar PV generation and battery storage, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Codes Team coordinated with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely to change results.

Table 5 (single family) and Table 6 (ADU) summarize results for each prototype and depict the EDR1 compliance margins achieved for each package. Because local reach codes must both exceed the Energy Commission performance budget (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) and be cost-effective, the Reach Codes Team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify the upper boundary for potential reach code policies.

All results presented in this study have a positive compliance margin. • Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches.
• Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.
• Cells not highlighted depict a package that was not cost-effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach. • Cells highlighted in grey depict the high efficiency equipment packages where cost-effectiveness was not evaluated.

The Reach Codes Team concluded the following from the results of this study. • The all-electric single family and ADU homes were found to be cost-effective based on TDV in all cases. • All-electric code minimum construction results in an increase in first year utility costs relative to a mixed fuel.

The addition of efficiency measures, market dominant HPWHs that meet NEEA’s Advanced Water Heating Specification, high efficiency heat pumps, increased PV, and batteries all reduce utility costs, and a combination of these options was found to reduce annual utility costs relative to a mixed fuel home in all cases.
• A reach code with a single performance target based on source energy, EDR1 for single family / ADU, can be structured to strongly encourage electrification. This approach requires equivalent performance for all buildings and in allowing mixed fuel buildings it minimizes the risk of violating federal preemption.

71 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 11

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

Table 5: Summary of Single Family EDR1 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All-Electric Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum Efficiency
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ09 GWP/SCG 3.6 4.4 5.7 7.1 21.8 3.2 2.0 16.2

Table 6: Summary of ADU EDR1 Margins and Cost-Effectiveness Climate
Zone
Electric
/Gas Utility
All-Electric Mixed Fuel
Code
Minimum Efficiency
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
Efficiency +
High
Efficiency
Equipment
Efficiency
+ PV
Efficiency
+ PV +
Battery
CZ09 GWP/SCG 0.4 1.1 2.3 4.5 24.9 1.9 1.7 0.4

72 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 12

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Modified in 2024. Retrieved from
https://localenergycodes.com/download/1240/file_path/fieldList/2022%20Single%20Family%20NewCon%20 Cost-eff%20Study.docx

73 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 13

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

7 Appendices

7.1 Map of California Climate Zones
Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 1. The map in Figure 1 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 1. Map of California climate zones.

74 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 14

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

7.2 Utility Rate Schedules
The Reach Codes Team used the City of Glendale tariffs detailed below to determine the On-Bill savings for each package.

7.2.1 Glendale Water and Power

7.2.1.1 Residential
Following shows the City of Glendale electricity tariffs applied in this study. The L-1-A Phase 2 rate was applied to all packages.

The following reflects the details for the net energy metering (NEM) arrangement applied in this analysis per Net Energy Metering (NEM) Program | City of Glendale, CA (glendaleca.gov). A NEM compensation rate of $ 0.0817/kWh was applied based on information provided by City of Glendale staff. 75 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 15

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

7.2.2 SCG
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. For Climate Zone 9 the baseline territory of 1 was assumed.

The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 7.

These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the April 2024 tariff based on ten years of historical gas 76 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 16

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

data. Long-term historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges.2 The baseline and excess transmission charges were found to be consistent over the course of a year and applied for the entire year based on 2024 rates. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GR tariff.

Table 7: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Procurement
Charge
Transportation Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
January $0.52 $0.93 $1.35 $1.44 $1.87
February $0.35 $0.93 $1.35 $1.27 $1.70
March $0.30 $0.93 $1.35 $1.23 $1.66
April $0.26 $0.93 $1.35 $1.19 $1.61
May $0.28 $0.93 $1.35 $1.20 $1.63
June $0.30 $0.93 $1.35 $1.23 $1.66
July $0.32 $0.93 $1.35 $1.24 $1.67
August $0.35 $0.93 $1.35 $1.28 $1.71
September $0.32 $0.93 $1.35 $1.25 $1.67
October $0.30 $0.93 $1.35 $1.23 $1.65
November $0.33 $0.93 $1.35 $1.26 $1.69
December $0.39 $0.93 $1.35 $1.31 $1.74

2 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site: https://www.socalgas.com/for-your- business/energy-market-services/gas-prices RES2023.xlsx (live.com) 77 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 17

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

7.2.3 Fuel Escalation Rates

7.2.3.1 Residential Occupancies
The average annual escalation rates in Table 8 were used in this study. These are based on assumptions from the CPUC 2021 En Banc hearings on utility costs through 2030 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021a). Escalation rates through the remainder of the 30-year evaluation period are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2022 TDV factors. Rates were applied for the same 30-year period and are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2025 LSC factors from 2027 through 2053.3 These rates were developed for electricity use statewide (not utility-specific) and assume steep increases in gas rates in the latter half of the analysis period. Data was not available for years 2024, 2025, and 2026 and so the CPUC En Banc assumptions were applied for those years using the average rate across the three IOUs for statewide electricity escalation. No data was available to estimate electricity escalation rates for the utilities that serve Glendale, therefore electricity escalation rates for SCE and statewide natural gas escalation rates were applied.

Table 8: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions

3 https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-hourly-factors. Actual escalation factors were provided by consultants E3.

Year
Statewide Natural
Gas Average Rate
(%/year, real)
SCE Electric
Average Rate
(%/year, real)
2024 4.6% 1.6%
2025 4.6% 1.6%
2026 4.6% 1.6%
2027 4.6% 1.6%
2028 4.6% 1.6%
2029 4.6% 1.6%
2030 4.6% 1.6%
2031 2.0% 0.6%
2032 2.4% 0.6%
2033 2.1% 0.6%
2034 1.9% 0.6%
2035 1.9% 0.6%
2036 1.8% 0.6%
2037 1.7% 0.6%
2038 1.6% 0.6%
2039 2.1% 0.6%
2040 1.6% 0.6%
2041 2.2% 0.6%
2042 2.2% 0.6%
2043 2.3% 0.6%
2044 2.4% 0.6%
2045 2.5% 0.6%
2046 1.5% 0.6%
2047 1.3% 0.6%
2048 1.6% 0.6%
2049 1.3% 0.6%
2050 1.5% 0.6%
2051 1.8% 0.6%
2052 1.8% 0.6%
2053 1.8% 0.6%
78 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 18

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-15

Get In Touch
The adoption of reach codes can differentiate jurisdictions as efficiency leaders and help accelerate the adoption of new equipment, technologies, code compliance, and energy savings strategies.

As part of the Statewide Codes & Standards Program, the Reach Codes Subprogram is a resource available to any local jurisdiction located throughout the state of California.

Our experts develop robust toolkits as well as provide specific technical assistance to local jurisdictions (cities and counties) considering adopting energy reach codes. These include cost-effectiveness research and analysis, model ordinance language and other code development and implementation tools, and specific technical assistance throughout the code adoption process.

If you are interested in finding out more about local energy reach codes, the Reach Codes Team stands ready to assist jurisdictions at any stage of a reach code project.

Visit LocalEnergyCodes.com
to access our resources and
sign up for newsletters.

Contact
[email protected] for
no-charge assistance from expert
Reach Code advisors.

79 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

Prepared by:

Frontier Energy, Inc
Misti Bruceri & Associates, LLC

Prepared for:

Kelly Cunningham, Codes and Standards Program, Pacific Gas and Electric

Last modified: 2024/6/20
Revision: 1.0
2022 CODE CYCLE :

Custom Cost Effectiveness Analysis:

City of Glendale - Multifamily New Construction

80 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

Legal Notice
This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric
Company and funded by the California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

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

Acronym List
B/C – Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
CBECC - California Building Energy Code Compliance
CBSC - California Building Standards Commission
CEC - California Energy Commission
CZ – Climate Zone
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
IOU – Investor-Owned Utility
POU – Publicly Owned Utility
PG&E – Pacific Gas & Electric (utility)
SCE – Southern California Edison (utility)
SCG – Southern California Gas (utility)
SDG&E – San Diego Gas & Electric (utility)
CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities
LADWP – Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
kWh – Kilowatt Hour
NPV – Net Present Value
PV - Solar Photovoltaic
TDV - Time Dependent Valuation
Title 24 – California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6

81 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Methodology and Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Reach Codes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1.1 Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.2 Costs ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1.3 Metrics .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.4 Utility Rates ................................................................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Multifamily Prototype Buildings ............................................................................................................................................. 6

3.2 Measure Packages ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 4 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8 5 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 10 6 References ............................................................................................................................................................... 11 7 Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................. 12

7.1 Map of California Climate Zones ......................................................................................................................................... 12

7.2 Utility Rate Schedules ......................................................................................................................................................... 13

7.2.1 Glendale Water and Power ......................................................................................................................................... 13

7.2.2 SCG ............................................................................................................................................................................ 15

7.2.3 Fuel Escalation Rates ................................................................................................................................................. 16

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Incremental Costs for Larger Solar Thermal System (Present Value (2023$)) ....................................................................... 4 Table 2. Utility Tariffs in City of Glendale .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Table 3: Residential Prototype Characteristics ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 4: Climate Zone 9 3-Story Multifamily Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit ................................................................. 9 Table 5: Climate Zone 9 5-Story Multifamily Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit ................................................................. 9 Table 6: Summary of Compliance Margins and Cost-Effectiveness for the 3-Story Prototype ........................................................... 10 Table 7: Summary of Compliance Margins and Cost-Effectiveness for the 5-Story Prototype ........................................................... 10 Table 8: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm) ................................................................................................................................ 15 Table 9: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 16

82 of 487

83 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 1

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6 (Title 24) (CEC, 2022) is maintained and updated every three years by two state agencies: the California Energy Commission (the Energy Commission) and the Building Standards Commission (BSC). In addition to enforcing the code, local jurisdictions have the authority to adopt local energy efficiency ordinances—or reach codes—that exceed the minimum standards defined by Title 24 (as established by Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards). Local jurisdictions must demonstrate that the requirements of the proposed ordinance are cost-effective and do not result in buildings consuming more energy than is permitted by Title 24. In addition, the jurisdiction must obtain approval from the Energy Commission and file the ordinance with the BSC for the ordinance to be legally enforceable.

This report is an addendum to the 2022 Multifamily New Construction Cost-effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2023) modified to accurately represent the City of Glendale, California. The study analyzes cost- effectiveness of measures and measure packages that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2023, in newly constructed buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities - collectively known as the Reach Codes Team.

Two multifamily prototypes were evaluated in this study. A 3-story loaded corridor and a 5-story mixed use prototype, which combined are estimated to represent 91 percent of new multifamily construction in California. The methodology, prototype characteristics, and measure packages are retained from the main studies referenced above except for the energy costs are calculated using local Glendale Water and Power (GWP) utility rates. Measure packages include combinations of energy efficiency, electrification, solar photovoltaics (PV), and battery storage with results evaluated for California Climate Zone 9.

Model ordinance language and other resources are posted on the C&S Reach Codes Program website at LocalEnergyCodes.com
. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance may contact the program for further technical support at [email protected].

84 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 2

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

Summary of Revisions
Date Description Reference (page or section)
6/20/2024 Original Release -

85 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 3

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

2 Methodology and Assumptions
The Reach Codes Team analyzed the 3-story and 5-story prototypes to represent a variety of common building types using the cost-effectiveness methodology detailed in this section below. The general methodology is consistent with the statewide study, any differences are described below.

1. Utility costs were calculated using local GWP electricity rates. SoCalGas gas rates were updated to reflect rates through April 2024.

2. Energy models were updated to a recent version of California’s Building Energy Code Compliance (CBECC) software, CBECC 2022.3.1.

3. The PV capacities were resized to offset annual building electricity use and avoid oversizing which would violate net energy metering (NEM) rules.

4. A new package was evaluated that included larger battery capacity building on the 5-story mixed fuel efficiency + PV package.

5. A new package was evaluated where the solar fraction was increased for the gas boiler system with solar thermal building on the 5-story mixed fuel + efficiency package.

2.1 Reach Codes
This section describes the approach to calculate cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection.

The Reach Codes Team performed energy simulations using California’s Building Energy Code Compliance Software (CBECC 2022.3.1) for 2022 Title 24 code compliance analysis.

2.1.2 Costs
The Reach Codes Team assessed the incremental costs and savings of the energy packages over the lifecycle of 30 years for the multifamily buildings. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacement, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2022 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements or standard industry practices. The Reach Codes Team obtained measure costs from manufacturer distributors, contractors, literature review, and online sources such as Home Depot and RS Means. Taxes and contractor markups were added as appropriate. Maintenance and replacement costs are included where appropriate.

The new mixed fuel package with a larger solar thermal water heating system required developing incremental costs for a 35% solar fraction collector relative to a 20% solar thermal fraction collector. Table 1 reports these costs for the 86 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 4

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

5-story prototype. Costs include equipment and labor. Replacement costs are based on an effective useful life of 20 years for the solar thermal collectors. For the solar thermal systems, it’s also assumed that the glycol is replaced at years 9, 18 and 27. Please see the main 2022 Multifamily New Construction Cost-effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2023) and the 2022 Multifamily All-Electric Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) report (Statewide CASE Team, 2020c) for further details on cost assumptions.

Table 1. Incremental Costs for Larger Solar Thermal System (Present Value (2023$)) Item
5-Story
Source & Notes 35% vs 20% solar
thermal fraction
First Cost $21,720
Costs based on component
costs from the 2022
Multifamily All-Electric
CASE Report. Replacement Cost $9,431
Total Incremental Cost $31,151
Incremental Cost per Dwelling Unit $354

2.1.3 Metrics
Cost-effectiveness is presented using net present value (NPV) and benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio metrics. • NPV: The Reach Codes Team uses net savings (NPV benefits minus NPV costs) as the cost-effectiveness metric. If the net savings of a measure or package is positive, it is considered cost effective. Negative net savings represent net costs to the consumer. A measure that has negative energy cost benefits (energy cost increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the measure are even more negative (i.e., construction and maintenance cost savings).
• B/C Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 15 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criterion for cost-effectiveness is a B/C greater than 1.0. A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment.

Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values.

2.1.4 Utility Rates
In coordination with the City of Glendale, the Reach Codes Team determined appropriate tariffs for each package, summarized in Table 2, based on the annual load profile of the prototype and the corresponding package, and the most prevalent rate for each building type.
87 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 5

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

The analysis applies GWP residential electricity rates forecasted for Phase 2 July 2024 and current Southern California Gas (SCG) natural gas rates as of April 2024. For a more detailed breakdown of the rates selected refer to Appendix

7.2 Utility Rate Schedules.

Electricity use for central water heating was evaluated using the residential L-1-A rate. The water heating utility bill was calculated separately from the in-unit electricity bill. Photovoltaic (PV) and battery energy storage benefits were applied assuming virtual net energy metering (VNEM) program is in place. PV was first assigned to the central water heating meter to offset 100 percent of the electricity use. The remaining PV and all of the battery impacts were then split evenly across the apartment meters.

The multifamily prototypes used in this analysis include common area spaces that serve the residents (lobby, leasing office, corridors, etc.). Most of the energy use for these spaces could not be separated from that for the dwelling units within the CBECC model. As a result, average per dwelling unit hourly energy use was calculated to include both the dwelling unit and common space energy use.

Table 2. Utility Tariffs in City of Glendale
Electric / Gas Utility Electricity Natural Gas
GWP / SoCalGas L-1-A (Phase 2) GM

Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions detailed in Appendix 9.2 of the main report. Please see the main 2022 Multifamily New Construction Cost-effectiveness Study (Statewide Reach Codes Team, 2023) for further details on methodology.

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The analysis uses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates built-in to CBECC software. There are 8,760 hourly multipliers accounting for time dependent energy use and carbon emissions based on source emissions, including RPS projections. There are 32 strings of multipliers, with a different string for each California CZ and each fuel type (metric tons of CO
2 per kWh for electricity and metric tons of CO2 per therm for natural gas). 88 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 6

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

3 Prototype Designs and Measure Packages

3.1 Multifamily Prototype Buildings
The Energy Commission defines building prototypes which it uses to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to Title 24 requirements. There are 4 multifamily prototypes used in code development: a 2-story garden style, a 3-story loaded corridor, a 5-story mixed use and a 10-story mixed use. Based on work completed for the 2022 Title 24 code development, the 3-story and the 5-story represent 33 percent and 58 percent, respectively, of new multifamily construction in California. As a result, these two prototypes are used in this analysis. Additional details on all four prototypes can be found in the Multifamily Prototypes Report (TRC, 2019).

Table 2 describes the basic characteristics of each prototype.

Table 3: Residential Prototype Characteristics
Characteristic 3-Story Loaded Corridor 5-Story Mixed Use Conditioned Floor
Area 39,372 ft2
113,100 ft2 total:
33,660 ft2 nonresidential
79,440 ft2 residential
Num. of Stories 3
6 Stories total:
1 story parking garage (below grade)
1 story of nonresidential space
4 stories of residential space
Num. of
Bedrooms
(6) Studio
(12) 1-bed
(12) 2-bed
(6) 3-bed
(8) studios
(40) 1-bed units
(32) 2-bed units
(8) 3-bed units
Window-to-Wall
Area Ratio 25% 25%
Wall Type Wood framed Wood frame over a first-floor
concrete podium
Roof Type Flat roof Flat roof
Foundation Slab-on-grade Concrete podium with underground parking

89 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 7

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

3.2 Measure Packages
The Reach Codes Team evaluated the following packages for mixed fuel and all-electric homes for each prototype, as described below.

1. All-Electric Prescriptive Code: This package meets all the prescriptive requirements of the 2022 Energy Code.

2. All-Electric Prescriptive Code + PV: Using the code minimum package as a starting point, PV capacity of 108 kW and 285.5 kW for the 3-story and 5-story, respectively, was added to offset 100 percent of the estimated annual electricity use.

3. Mixed Fuel Efficiency Only: This package uses only efficiency measures that do not trigger federal preemption including envelope and duct distribution efficiency measures.

4. Mixed Fuel Efficiency Only + 35SF: Using the mixed fuel efficiency only as a starting point, the size of the solar thermal system supporting the gas boiler water heating system was increased from the prescriptive requirement of 20% to 35% solar fraction. This only applies to the 5-story prototype.

5. Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV: Using the Efficiency Package as a starting point, PV capacity of 238.3 kW was added to offset 100 percent of the estimated annual electricity use. This package only applies to the 5-story prototype.

6. Mixed Fuel Efficiency + PV + Battery: Using the Efficiency Package as a starting point, PV capacity of 93 kW and 238.3 kW for the 3-story and 5-story, respectively, was added to offset 100 percent of the estimated annual electricity use. A battery system was also added for the 3-story prototype. The 5-story prototype includes a battery system in the baseline per the 2022 prescriptive requirements and the battery size was increased from 256 kWh to 400 kWh.

90 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 8

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

4 Results
Cost-effectiveness results are presented per prototype and measure packages described in Section 3.2. The TDV and On-Bill based cost-effectiveness results are presented in terms of B/C ratio and NPV. Energy savings, compliance margin, utility bill savings, and incremental costs are also shown.

In the following figures, green highlighting indicates that the case is cost-effective with a B/C ratio greater than or equal to 1 and a NPV greater than or equal to 0. Red highlighting indicates the case is not cost-effective.

Compliance margins are presented as percentages both for the efficiency TDV and the source energy metrics. A compliance margin that is equal to or greater than 0 indicates the case is code compliant.

Table 3 and Table 4 show results for the 3-story multifamily prototype and 5-story multifamily prototype, respectively.

91 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 9

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

Table 4: Climate Zone 9 3-Story Multifamily Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit

Table 5: Climate Zone 9 5-Story Multifamily Cost-Effectiveness Results per Dwelling Unit Case
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$) First Year Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
All-Electric
Code Minimum 13% 6% -707 98 ($117) ($2,179) $697 $1,029 0.0 ($3,208) 8.1 $2,389 Code + PV 13% 15% 1,131 98 $356 $8,781 $2,282 $3,091 2.8 $5,690 3.9 $7,000 Mixed Fuel
Efficiency Only 1% 0% 26 0 $7 $163 $146 $156 1.0 $7 1.4 $68 Efficiency + PV + Battery 1% 16% 1,071 0 $276 $6,397 $3,063 $4,932 1.3 $1,465 1.3 $1,593 Case
Efficiency
TDV
Comp
Margin
Source
Comp
Margin
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Utility Cost Savings Incremental Cost On-Bill TDV
First
Year
Lifecycle
(2022$) First Year Lifecycle
(2022$)
B/C
Ratio NPV B/C
Ratio NPV
All-Electric
Code Minimum 7% 3% -762 92 ($144) ($2,880) $608 $1,185 0.0 ($4,065) 1.9 $985 Code + PV 7% 11% 268 92 $135 $3,587 $1,432 $2,256 1.6 $1,331 2.9 $4,242 Mixed Fuel
Efficiency Only 1% 0% 29 0 $8 $182 $142 $149 1.2 $33 1.7 $97 Efficiency Only + 35SF 4% 5% 25 14 $27 $784 $389 $503 1.6 $282 2.2 $598 Efficiency + PV 1% 0.5% 69 0 $18 $422 $178 $195 2.2 $227 2.1 $218 Efficiency + PV + Battery 1% 2% 57 0 $15 $350 $1,323 $2,264 0.2 ($1,914) 0.3 ($1,695) 92 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 10

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

5 Summary
The Reach Codes Team developed packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with solar PV generation, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Codes Team coordinated with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely to change results.

Table 5 and Table 6 summarize results for each prototype and depict the source energy compliance margins achieved for each package. Because local reach codes must both exceed the Energy Commission performance budget (i.e., have a positive compliance margin) and be cost-effective, the Reach Codes Team highlighted cells meeting these two requirements to help clarify the upper boundary for potential reach code policies. All results presented in this study have a positive compliance margin.
• Cells highlighted in green depict a positive compliance margin and cost-effective results using both On-Bill and TDV approaches.
• Cells highlighted in yellow depict a positive compliance and cost-effective results using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.
• C ells not highlighted depict a package that was not cost effective using either the On-Bill or TDV approach.

The Reach Codes Team concluded the following from the results of this study. • All-electric packages for 3-story and for 5-story multifamily new construction was found to be cost-effective based on TDV.
• Source energy compliance margins for the all-electric packages are higher than mixed fuel construction with the exception of the mixed fuel efficiency + PV + battery package and the mixed fuel + efficiency + 35SF package for the 3-story and 5-story, respectively.
• For a reach code that allows for mixed fuel buildings, the mixed fuel efficiency + PV + battery package was found to be cost effective for the 3-story prototype based On-bill and TDV, but not cost effective based On- bill or TDV for the 5-story prototype. The mixed fuel efficiency + PV package was found to be cost effective based On-bill and TDV for the 5-story prototype

Table 6: Summary of Source Compliance Margins and Cost-Effectiveness for the 3-Story Prototype
Climate Zone Electric/Gas
Utility
All-Electric
Prescriptive
Code
All-Electric
+ PV
Mixed Fuel
Efficiency
Mixed Fuel
Efficiency + PV
+ Battery
CZ09 GWP/SCG 6% 15% 0% 16%

Table 7: Summary of Compliance Margins and Cost-Effectiveness for the 5-Story Prototype Climate Zone Electric/Gas
Utility
All-Electric
Prescriptive
Code
All-Electric
+ PV
Mixed Fuel
Efficiency
Mixed Fuel
Efficiency +
35SF
Mixed Fuel
Efficiency + PV
Mixed Fuel
Efficiency + PV
+ Battery
CZ09 GWP/SCG 3% 11% 0% 5% 0.5% 2%

93 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 11

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

6 References
California Public Utilities Commission. (2021a). Utility Costs and Affordability of the Grid of the Future: An Evaluation of Electric Costs, Rates, and Equity Issues Pursuant to P.U. Code Section 913.1. Retrieved from https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/office-of-governmental-affairs- division/reports/2021/senate-bill-695-report-2021-and-en-banc-whitepaper_final_04302021.pdf E3. (2021). Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=233260&DocumentContentId=65748 NORESCO. (2020). Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=233257&DocumentContentId=65743 Statewide CASE Team. (2020c). Multifamily All-Electric Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) Initiative 2022 California Energy Code. Prepared by TRC.

Statewide Reach Codes Team. (2023). 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Multifamily New Construction. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Prepared by Frontier Energy. Retrieved from https://localenergycodes.com/download/1552/file_path/fieldList/2022%20Multifamily%20NewCon%20Cost- Eff%20Report.pdf
TRC. (2019). Multifamily Prototypes. Prepared for Southern California Edison. Retrieved from https://title24stakeholders.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SCE- MFModeling_MultifamilyPrototypesReport_2019-06-07_clean.pdf

94 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 12

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

7 Appendices

95 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 13

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

7.2 Utility Rate Schedules
The Reach Codes Team used the City of Glendale tariffs detailed below to determine the On-Bill savings for each package.

7.2.1 Glendale Water and Power

7.2.1.1 Residential
The following shows the City of Glendale electricity tariffs applied in this study. The L-1-A Phase 2 rate was applied to all packages.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 14

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

97 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 15

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

7.2.2 SCG
Following are the SoCalGas natural gas tariffs applied in this study. For Climate Zone 9 the baseline territory of 1 was assumed.

The SoCalGas monthly gas rate in $/therm was applied on a monthly basis according to the rates shown in Table 7.

These rates are based on applying a normalization curve to the April 2024 tariff based on ten years of historical gas data. Long-term historical natural gas rate data was only available for SoCalGas’ procurement charges. 1 The baseline
and excess transmission charges were found to be consistent over the course of a year and applied for the entire year based on 2024 rates. CARE rates reflect the 20 percent discount per the GR tariff.

Table 8: SoCalGas Monthly Gas Rate ($/therm)
Month Procurement
Charge
Transportation Charge Total Charge
Baseline Excess Baseline Excess
January $0.52 $0.93 $1.35 $1.44 $1.87
February $0.35 $0.93 $1.35 $1.27 $1.70
March $0.30 $0.93 $1.35 $1.23 $1.66
April $0.26 $0.93 $1.35 $1.19 $1.61
May $0.28 $0.93 $1.35 $1.20 $1.63
June $0.30 $0.93 $1.35 $1.23 $1.66
July $0.32 $0.93 $1.35 $1.24 $1.67
August $0.35 $0.93 $1.35 $1.28 $1.71
September $0.32 $0.93 $1.35 $1.25 $1.67
October $0.30 $0.93 $1.35 $1.23 $1.65
November $0.33 $0.93 $1.35 $1.26 $1.69
December $0.39 $0.93 $1.35 $1.31 $1.74

1 The SoCalGas procurement and transmission charges were obtained from the following site: https://www.socalgas.com/for-your- business/energy-market-services/gas-prices RES2023.xlsx (live.com) 98 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 16

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

7.2.3 Fuel Escalation Rates

7.2.3.1 Residential Occupancies
The average annual escalation rates in Table 8 were used in this study. These are based on assumptions from the CPUC 2021 En Banc hearings on utility costs through 2030 (California Public Utilities Commission, 2021a). Escalation rates through the remainder of the 30-year evaluation period are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2022 TDV factors. Rates were applied for the same 30-year period and are based on the escalation rate assumptions within the 2025 LSC factors from 2027 through 20532. These rates were developed for electricity use statewide (not utility-specific) and assume steep increases in gas rates in the latter half of the analysis period. Data was not available for years 2024, 2025, and 2026 and so the CPUC En Banc assumptions were applied for those years using the average rate across the three IOUs for statewide electricity escalation. No data was available to estimate electricity escalation rates for the utilities that serve Glendale, therefore electricity escalation rates for SCE and statewide natural gas escalation rates were applied.

Table 9: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions

2 https://www.energy.ca.gov/files/2025-energy-code-hourly-factors. Actual escalation factors were provided by consultants E3.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 17

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-6-20

As part of the Statewide Codes & Standards Program, the Reach Codes Subprogram is a resource available to any local jurisdiction located throughout the state of California.

If you are interested in finding out more about local energy reach codes, the Reach Codes Team stands ready to assist jurisdictions at any stage of a reach code project.

Visit LocalEnergyCodes.com
to access our resources and
sign up for newsletters.

Contact
[email protected]
for
no-charge assistance from expert
Reach Code advisors.

100 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

Prepared by:

TRC Companies, Inc

Prepared for:

Amy Discher, Codes and Standards Program, Southern California Edison Last modified: 2024/5/13
Revision: 1.2
2022 CODE CYCLE :

Custom Cost Effectiveness Analysis:

City of Glendale - Nonresidential

101 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

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

Acronym List
B/C – Benefit-to-Cost Ratio
CBECC - California Building Energy Code Compliance
CBSC - California Building Standards Commission
CEC - California Energy Commission
CZ – Climate Zone
GHG - Greenhouse Gas
IOU – Investor-Owned Utility
POU – Publicly Owned Utility
PG&E – Pacific Gas & Electric (utility)
SCE – Southern California Edison (utility)
SCG – Southern California Gas (utility)
SDG&E – San Diego Gas & Electric (utility)
CPAU – City of Palo Alto Utilities
LADWP – Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
kWh – Kilowatt Hour
NPV – Net Present Value
PV - Solar Photovoltaic
TDV - Time Dependent Valuation
Title 24 – California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6

102 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Methodology and Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Reach Codes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4

2.1.1 Benefits ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.2 Costs ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.1.3 Metrics .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.4 Utility Rates ................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Nonresidential Occupancies ................................................................................................................................................. 5 3 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

3.1 Nonresidential Occupancies ................................................................................................................................................. 8 4 Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 5 References ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 6 Appendices .............................................................................................................................................................. 15

6.1 Map of California Climate Zones ......................................................................................................................................... 15

6.2 Utility Rate Schedules ......................................................................................................................................................... 16

6.2.1 Glendale Water & Power (GWP) ................................................................................................................................. 16

6.2.2 Southern California Gas (SCG) ................................................................................................................................... 16

6.2.3 Fuel Escalation Rates ................................................................................................................................................. 19

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Nonresidential Building Utility Tariffs in City of Glendale ........................................................................................................ 5 Table 2: Nonresidential Prototype Characteristics ................................................................................................................................ 6 Table 3. Medium Office Cost-Effectiveness Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8 Table 4. Medium Retail Cost-Effectiveness Summary .......................................................................................................................... 9 Table 5. Quick-Service Restaurant Cost-Effectiveness Summary ........................................................................................................ 9 Table 6. Small Hotel Cost-Effectiveness Summary ............................................................................................................................ 10 Table 7. Summary of Medium Office Packages .................................................................................................................................. 12 Table 8. Summary of Medium Retail Packages .................................................................................................................................. 12 Table 9. Summary of Quick Service Restaurant Packages ................................................................................................................ 12 Table 10. Summary of Small Hotel Packages ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 11: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions ................................................................................................................... 19

103 of 487

104 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 1

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

This report is an addendum to the 2022 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study modified to accurately represent the City of Glendale, California. The study analyzes cost-effectiveness of measures and measure packages that exceed the minimum state requirements, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, effective January 1, 2023, in newly constructed buildings. This report was developed in coordination with the California Statewide Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) Codes and Standards Program, key consultants, and engaged cities - collectively known as the Reach Code Team (or “the Team” in short).

The prototype building designs analyzed in this study are newly constructed:
• Medium Office
• Medium Retail
• Quick-Service Restaurant
• Small Hotel
The Reach Code Team performed cost-effectiveness analysis based on the prescriptive 2022 Title 24 code requirements:
• For the retail building type, the prescriptive code minimum is all-electric. Fuel substitution packages revert to mixed-fuel appliances.
• For all other building types, the prescriptive code minimum is mixed-fuel. Fuel substitution packages switch to all-electric appliances.

The methodology, prototype characteristics, and measure packages are retained from the main studies referenced above except for the energy costs are calculated using local City of Glendale utility rates. Measure packages include combinations of energy efficiency, electrification, solar photovoltaics (PV) with results evaluated for California Climate Zone 9.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 2

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

any policy decision. This study documents the estimated costs, benefits, energy impacts and greenhouse gas emission reductions that may result from implementing an ordinance based on the results to help residents, local leadership, and other stakeholders make informed policy decisions.

Model ordinance language and other resources are posted on the C&S Reach Codes Program website at LocalEnergyCodes.com
. Local jurisdictions that are considering adopting an ordinance may contact the program for further technical support at [email protected].

106 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 3

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

Summary of Revisions
Date Description Reference (page or section)
10/11/2022 Original Release -
5/13/2024 Updated Utility rates - GWP Electricity and SCG gas.

Baseline for retail prototype is updated to all-electric to align with most recent updates in main report after
the original release of Glendale custom report.

107 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 4

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

2 Methodology and Assumptions
The Reach Codes Team analyzed four nonresidential prototypes to represent a variety of common building types using the cost-effectiveness methodology detailed in this section below. The general methodology is consistent with analyses of other prototypes, whereas some specifics such as utility rate selection are customized for the City of Glendale rates.

2.1 Reach Codes
This section describes the approach to calculate cost-effectiveness including benefits, costs, metrics, and utility rate selection.

2.1.1 Benefits
This analysis used both on-bill and time dependent valuation (TDV) of energy-based approaches to evaluate cost- effectiveness. Both on-bill and TDV require estimating and quantifying the energy savings and costs associated with energy measures. The primary difference between on-bill and TDV is how energy is valued:
• On-Bill: Customer-based lifecycle cost approach that values energy based upon estimated site energy usage and customer on-bill savings using electricity and natural gas utility rate schedules over a 30-year duration for residential and 15 years for nonresidential designs, accounting for a three percent discount rate and energy cost inflation per Appendix 6.2.3.
• TDV: TDV was developed by the Energy Commission to reflect the time dependent value of energy including long-term projected costs of energy such as the cost of providing energy during peak periods of demand and other societal costs including projected costs for carbon emissions and grid transmission impacts. This metric values energy use differently depending on the fuel source (gas, electricity, and propane), time of day, and season. Electricity used (or saved) during peak periods has a much higher value than electricity used (or saved) during off-peak periods. This refers to the “Total TDV” that includes all the energy end uses such as space-conditioning, mechanical ventilation, service water heating indoor lighting, photovoltaic (PV) and battery storage systems, and covered process loads.

The Reach Codes Team performed energy simulations using California’s Building Energy Code Compliance Software CBECC 2022.1.0 (1250) (June 8, 2022) for 2022 Title 24 code compliance analysis. . This version was used for the 2022 statewide reach code analysis, and the Reach Code Team didn’t update the models to the most recent software version (CBECC 2022.3.1) for this analysis update.

2.1.2 Costs
The Reach Codes Team assessed the incremental costs and savings of the energy packages over the lifecycle of 15 years for the nonresidential buildings. Incremental costs represent the equipment, installation, replacements, and maintenance costs of the proposed measure relative to the 2022 Title 24 Standards minimum requirements or standard industry practices. The Reach Code Team obtained baseline and measure costs from manufacturer distributors, contractors, literature review, and online sources such as RS Means.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 5

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

increase) can still be cost effective if the costs to implement the measure are even more negative (i.e., construction and maintenance cost savings).
• B/C Ratio: Ratio of the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs over 15 years (NPV benefits divided by NPV costs). The criterion for cost-effectiveness is a B/C greater than 1.0. A value of one indicates the savings over the life of the measure are equivalent to the incremental cost of that measure. A value greater than one represents a positive return on investment.

Because of these situations, NPV savings are also reported, which, in these cases, are positive values.

This version of report is updated with more recent utility rates as applicable to City of Glendale. The analysis is updated with Glendale Water & Power (GWP) electricity rate forecasted for Phase 1 July 2024 and current Southern California Gas (SCG) natural gas rates as of April 2024. For a more detailed breakdown of the rates selected refer to Appendix 6.2 Utility Rate Schedules.

Table 1. Nonresidential Building Utility Tariffs in City of Glendale Electric / Gas Utility Electricity Natural Gas
GWP / SCG LD-2-B TOU GN-10

Utility rates are assumed to escalate over time, using assumptions detailed in Appendix 9.2 of the main report. Please see the main 2022 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study for further details on methodology.

2.3 Nonresidential Occupancies
Table 2 describes the basic characteristics of each nonresidential prototype design. 109 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 6

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

Table 2: Nonresidential Prototype Characteristics

Medium Office

Medium Retail

Quick-Service Restaurant

Small Hotel
Conditioned floor
area (ft2) 53,628 24,563 2,501 42,554
(77 guest rooms)
Number of stories 3 1 1 4
Window-to-Wall
Area ratio 0.33 0.07 0.11 0.14
Window U-
factor/SHGC
U-factor:

CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.34
SHGC:

CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
U-factor:

CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.34
SHGC:

CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
U-factor:

CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.34
SHGC:

CZ 1-8, 10, 16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22
Nonresidential:

U-factor:

CZ 1-8,10,16 – 0.36
CZ 9, 11-15 –0.34
SHGC:

CZ 1-8,10,16 – 0.25
CZ 9, 11-15 – 0.22

Guest Rooms:

U-factor: 0.36
SHGC: 0.25
Solar PV size 123 kW – 204 kW
Depending on CZ
64 kW – 87 kW
Depending on CZ None 17 kW – 25 kW
Depending on CZ
Battery Storage 217 kWh – 360 kWh
Depending on CZ
70 kWh – 94 kWh
Depending on CZ None 16 kWh – 24 kWh
Depending on CZ
HVAC System
VAV reheat system with
packaged rooftop units,
gas boilers, VAV terminal
units with hot water
reheat
CZ 1
Heat recovery for Core
Retail space only

CZ 1, 16
< 65 kBtu/h: SZAC with gas
furnace
> 65 kBtu/h and < 240
kBtu/h: SZHP and gas
furnace (i.e., dual fuel heat
pump). VAV.
> 240 kBtu/h: SZAC VAV
with gas furnace

CZ 2-15
< 65 kBtu/h: SZAC with gas
furnace
> 65 kBtu/h and < 240
kBtu/h: SZHP VAV
> 240 kBtu/h: SZAC VAV
with gas furnace
< 65 kBtu/h:

SZAC + gas furnace

> 65 kBtu/h:

SZAC VAV
Nonresidential and Laundry:

VAV reheat system with
packaged rooftop units, gas
boilers, VAV terminal units
with hot water reheat

Guest Rooms: SZAC with gas
furnaces
SHW System 5-gallon electric resistance
water heater
5-gallon electric resistance
water heater
100-gallon gas water
heater
Nonresidential: 30-gallon
electric resistance water
heater
Laundry Room: 1 20-gal gas
storage water heater
Guest rooms: Central gas
water heater, 250 gallons
storage, recirculation loop

110 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 7

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

The Reach Codes Team evaluated mixed fuel efficiency and all-electric packages for each prototype and climate zone, as described below.
 Mixed Fuel + Efficiency Measures: Mixed-fuel prescriptive building per 2022 Title 24 requirements, including additional efficiency measures.
 Al l -Electric Code Minimum Efficiency: All-Electric building to minimum Title 24 prescriptive standards and federal minimum efficiency standards. This package has the same PV size as mixed-fuel prescriptive baseline.  Al l -Electric Energy Efficiency: All-Electric building with added energy efficiency measures related to HVAC, SHW, lighting or envelope.
 Al l -Electric Energy Efficiency + Load Flexibility: All-Electric building with added energy efficiency and load flexibility measures.
 All-Electric Energy Efficiency + Solar PV: All-Electric building with added energy efficiency and additional Solar PV. The added PV size is larger than prescriptive 2022 Title 24 code requirements and accounts for roof space availability.

For Quick Service Restaurant (QSR), the Reach Code Team has analyzed two scenarios for All-Electric packages, one with electric cooking and the one with gas cooking (the latter of which is referred to as the “HS” package to reflect all- electric HVAC and SHW).

For Small Hotel, the Reach Code Team also analyzed an alternative scenario with PTHP instead of SZHP in All-Electric scenario. It is denoted by the “PTHP” in parenthesis in package name. 111 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 8

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

3 Results
Results are presented as per the prototype-specific Measure Packages described in Section 4. Overarching factors impacting the results include:
• Designation of a ‘benefit’ or a ‘cost’ varies with the scenarios because both energy savings, and incremental construction costs may be negative depending on the package. Typically, utility bill savings are categorized as a ‘benefit’ while incremental construction costs are treated as ‘costs.’ In cases where both construction costs are negative and utility bill savings are negative, the construction cost savings are treated as the ‘benefit’ while the utility bill negative savings are the ‘cost.’
• Most all-electric packages will have lower GHG emissions than equivalent mixed-fuel packages in all cases, due to the clean power sources currently available from California’s power providers.
• The Reach Codes Team coordinated with the City of Glendale to select the most prevalent tariffs for each prototype given the annual energy demand profile. The Reach Codes Team did not compare a variety of tariffs to determine their impact on cost-effectiveness although utility rate changes or updates can affect on-bill cost-effectiveness results.

3.1 Nonresidential Occupancies
Table 3 through Table 6 shows results for the four nonresidential prototypes for all the evaluated packages for climate zone 9. The On-Bill cost-effectiveness for all-electric packages have been affected negatively due to increase in GWP electricity rates and decrease in SCG gas rates. • Across all prototypes and climate zones, the Reach Code Team identified cost effective energy efficiency measures when added to the mixed-fuel baseline model except for Medium Retail, which has an all-electric baseline.

• The Team identified both On-Bill and TDV cost effective packages for all-electric Medium Office and Medium Retail with Glendale rates. The Team could not identify any cost effective all-electric packages for Quick Service Restaurant in terms of either the On-Bill or TDV metric. For Small Hotel, all-electric packages are only On-Bill cost effective with PTHP instead of SZHP system type, however, all-electric packages are all TDV cost effective.

Table 3. Medium Office Cost-Effectiveness Summary
Package
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Annual
GHG
savings
(tons)
Eff TDV
Margin
Total
Compliance
Margin
Source
kBtu
Margin
Upfront
Incremental
Package
Cost
Lifecycle
Energy
Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV
(On-bill)
NPV
(TDV)
Mixed-Fuel +
Efficiency Measures 10,560 (46) 0.9 4% 7674% 9% $715 $33,672 $24,992 47.1 35.0 $32,957 $24,277 All Electric Code
Minimum Efficiency (23,780) 1,119 (0.3) -8% -12217% -2% ($39,415) ($17,224) ($39,789) 2.3 1.0 $22,192 ($373) All Electric Energy
Efficiency (14,205) 1,119 0.6 -3% -4992% 7% ($38,700) $15,249 ($16,257) >1 2.4 $53,949 $22,443 All-Electric Energy
Efficiency and Load
Flexibility
(6,098) 1,119 2.9 3% 5033% 27% ($38,700) $78,267 $16,391 >1 >1 $116,967 $55,091 112 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 9

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

Table 4. Medium Retail Cost-Effectiveness Summary

Table 5. Quick-Service Restaurant Cost-Effectiveness Summary Package
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Annual
GHG
savings
(tons)
Eff TDV
Margin
Total
Compliance
Margin
Source
kBtu
Margin
Upfront
Incremental
Package
Cost
Lifecycle
Energy
Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-
bill)
B/C
Rati
o
(TD
V)
NPV (On-
bill) NPV (TDV)
Mixed-Fuel +
Efficiency Measures 3,764 444 3.1 11% 11% 18% $16,150 $20,134 $21,426 1.2 1.3 $3,984 $5,276 All Electric HS Energy
Code Minimum
Efficiency
(29,886) 2,233 6.2 -14% -14% 48% $22,106 ($39,561) ($26,069) -1.8 -1.2 ($61,667) ($48,176) All-Electric HS Energy
Efficiency (20,124) 2,233 8.2 0% 0% 56% $38,256 ($12,283) $820 -0.3 0.0 ($50,539) ($37,436) All-Electric HS Energy
Efficiency + Load
Flexibility
(20,702) 2,233 9.0 2% 2% 59% $43,666 ($15,673) $3,539 -0.4 0.1 ($59,339) ($40,126) All-Electric HS Energy
Efficiency + Solar PV 11,939 2,233 9.8 0% 34% 62% $88,664 $64,348 $62,638 0.7 0.7 ($24,316) ($26,025) All Electric Code
Minimum Efficiency (126,307) 9,687 28.7 -11% -11% 48% $148,937 ($264,784) ($113,479) -1.8 -0.8 ($413,721) ($262,415) All Electric Energy
Efficiency (115,801) 9,687 30.9 4% 4% 57% $165,086 ($235,715) ($84,863) -1.4 -0.5 ($400,802) ($249,950) All-Electric Energy
Efficiency + Load
Flexibility
(116,494) 9,687 31.7 5% 5% 60% $170,496 ($234,069) ($82,432) -1.4 -0.5 ($404,566) ($252,929)

Package
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Annual
GHG
savings
(tons)
Eff TDV
Margin
Total
Compliance
Margin
Source
kBtu
Margin
Upfront
Incremental
Package
Cost
Lifecycle
Energy
Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On-
bill)
NPV
(TDV)
Mixed Fuel Code
Minimum 226 (495) (2.1) -3% -6% -13% $9,020 ($23,299) ($12,981) -2.6 -1.4 ($32,319) ($22,000) Mixed-Fuel +
Efficiency Measures 22,532 (583) 0.9 11% 21% 5% $21,820 $45,716 $48,072 2.1 2.2 $23,896 $26,252 All Electric
Energy Efficiency 21,051 495 5.4 14% 27% 20% $12,800 $69,976 $60,736 17.0 19.5 $60,583 $69,937 113 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 10

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

Table 6. Small Hotel Cost-Effectiveness Summary
Package
Annual
Elec
Savings
(kWh)
Annual
Gas
Savings
(therms)
Annual
GHG
savings
(tons)
Eff TDV
Margin
Total
Compliance
Margin
Source
kBtu
Margin
Upfront
Incremental
Package
Cost
Lifecycle
Energy
Cost
Savings
Lifecycle
$-TDV
Savings
B/C
Ratio
(On-bill)
B/C
Ratio
(TDV)
NPV (On-
bill)
NPV
(TDV)
Mixed-Fuel +
Efficiency Measures 9,535 1,661 10.5 13% 16% 17% $21,214 $74,900 $82,450 3.5 3.9 $53,686 $61,236 All Electric Code
Minimum Efficiency (170,301) 10,246 41.7 0% 0% 51% ($178,858) ($414,414) ($47,270) 0.4 3.8 ($235,556) $131,587 All Electric Energy
Efficiency (145,720) 10,246 43.5 10% 12% 54% ($157,644) ($294,250) $13,998 0.5 >1 ($136,606) $171,642 All Electric Code
Energy Efficiency +
Solar PV
(53,022) 10,246 47.4 10% 44% 60% ($11,515) ($82,861) $187,360 0.1 >1 ($71,346) $198,876 All-Electric Code
Minimum Efficiency
with PTHP
(170,479) 10,246 41.6 0% 0% 51% ($650,843) ($418,202) ($46,533) 1.6 14.0 $232,641 $604,309 114 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 11

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

4 Summary
The Reach Codes Team developed packages of energy efficiency measures as well as packages combining energy efficiency with solar PV generation, simulated them in building modeling software, and gathered costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of multiple scenarios. The Reach Codes Team coordinated with multiple utilities, cities, and building community experts to develop a set of assumptions considered reasonable in the current market. Changing assumptions, such as the period of analysis, measure selection, cost assumptions, energy escalation rates, or utility tariffs are likely to change results.

The combined result of cost effectiveness and code compliance across all packages are detailed in Table 7 through
Table 10 below. The tables are formatted to show:
 “Both” with green highlight – for scenarios that are cost effective on both metrics and have positive compliance margin across all three compliance metrics.
 “TDV/On-Bill” with yellow highlight – for scenarios that are cost effective on either one of the metrics and has positive compliance margin across all three compliance metrics.  “Comp” with gray highlight – for scenarios that are not cost effective on either metric but have positive compliance margin across all three compliance metrics.
 “-” with no color highlight – for scenarios that do not comply across any one code compliance metric and may or may not be cost effective.

The package names in table results columns are as follows:
 Mixed fuel – EE: Mixed Fuel + Efficiency Measures
 All-Electric – Code Min: All-Electric Code Minimum Efficiency  All-Electric – EE: All-Electric Energy Efficiency
 All-Electric – EE+ LF: All-Electric Energy Efficiency and Load Flexibility  All-Electric – EE + PV: All-Electric Energy Efficiency and Solar PV  All-Electric – Code Min with PTHP: All-Electric Code Minimum Efficiency with PTHP The QSR has two electrification scenarios, with and without cooking appliance electrification, which is denoted by “HS” prefix.

The Small Hotel has an extra package that evaluates a different HVAC type in the All-Electric Code Minimum Efficiency package, a Packaged Terminal Heat Pump (PTHP) instead of a Single Zone Heat Pump.

Due to the greenhouse gas savings potential, the Reach Code Team advises jurisdictions to require All-Electric packages where there is green or yellow highlight (cost effective and compliant). Jurisdictions may also consider adopting all-electric requirements where packages are shown as gray highlight (compliant but may or may not be cost effective) if they are looking to require electrification based on energy code compliance alone and less concerned about cost impacts.

115 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 12

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

Table 7. Summary of Medium Office Packages
CZ Utility Mixed Fuel All-Electric
EE Code Min EE EE + LF
cz09 GWP Both - - Both
Table 8. Summary of Medium Retail Packages
CZ Utility Mixed Fuel All-electric
Code Min EE EE
cz09 GWP - Both Both
Table 9. Summary of Quick Service Restaurant Packages
CZ Utility Mixed Fuel All-electric All-electric "HS" (HVAC+SHW) EE Code Min EE EE + LF Code Min EE EE + LF EE + PV
cz09 GWP Both - Comp Comp - Comp Comp Comp
Table 10. Summary of Small Hotel Packages
CZ Utility
Mixed Fuel All-Electric
EE Code Min EE EE + PV Code Min + PTHP
cz09 GWP Both Comp Comp Comp Both

LEGEND KEY

Please refer to the limitations of this study, described in 2022 Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost Effectiveness Study Section 3.5, while using these results to inform reach code policies.

Results support reach code adoption for energy efficiency measures over mixed fuel nonresidential building types for all four prototypes in Glendale except for Medium Retail in climate zone 9. For Medium Retail, the mixed-fuel code- minimum package is neither cost-effective nor code compliant since the baseline is all-electric. However, with added energy efficiency measures, the mixed-fuel packages are both cost-effective and code compliant.

The All-Electric packages indicate capability of achieving the greatest greenhouse savings as compared to mixed-fuel buildings. The Reach Codes Team found All-Electric code compliant new construction to be feasible and cost effective based on Glendale electricity rates for some nonresidential prototypes with added measures in climate zone 9. Here is a summary of the results:
• For Medium Office, all-electric package with added efficiency measures is cost-effective but is not code compliant due to the use of electric resistance VAV reheat systems. The most likely all-electric replacement for a central gas boiler serving a variable air volume reheat system would be a central heat pump boiler; however, this central heat pump boiler cost-effectiveness analysis report is currently in progress and will become available in the second half of 2024. As such, the Reach Code Team is treating this analysis as temporary until a compliance pathway is established for a central heat pump boiler in the Energy Code and results can be updated accordingly. Heat pump systems are more efficient but may also be more costly than the electric resistance reheat systems currently analyzed. However, with further added load flexibility, the package is both code compliant and cost-effective.
• The Reach Codes Team found All-Electric Medium Retail with added efficiency to be code complaint and cost effective.

Both Compliant & c/e on both metrics
On-bill/TDV Compliant & c/e on one metric
Comp Compliant not c/e
- Not compliant
116 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 13

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

• For Quick-Service Restaurant, the Team couldn’t identify On-Bill cost-effective options for all-electric packages. However, the all-electric packages are “code-compliant” with or without cooking appliance electrification, and added energy efficiency or load flexibility or PV measures. • For Small Hotel, the all-electric package is On-Bill cost-effective with PTHP system type only, but not with SZHP system type. None of the all-electric packages with SZHP system type are cost-effective but are code compliant.

117 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 14

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

5 References
California Public Utilities Commission. (2021a). Utility Costs and Affordability of the Grid of the Future: An Evaluation of Electric Costs, Rates, and Equity Issues Pursuant to P.U. Code Section 913.1. Retrieved from https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/office-of-governmental-affairs- division/reports/2021/senate-bill-695-report-2021-and-en-banc-whitepaper_final_04302021.pdf E3. (2021). Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=233260&DocumentContentId=65748 NORESCO. (2020). Time Dependent Valuation of Energy for Developing Building Efficiency Standards. Retrieved from https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=233257&DocumentContentId=65743

118 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 15

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

6 Appendices

6.1 Map of California Climate Zones
Climate zone geographical boundaries are depicted in Figure 1. The map in Figure 1 along with a zip-code search directory is available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html Figure 1. Map of California climate zones.

119 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 16

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

6.2 Utility Rate Schedules
The Reach Codes Team used the City of Glendale tariffs detailed below to determine the On-Bill savings for each package.

6.2.1 Glendale Water & Power (GWP)

6.2.1.1 Nonresidential
Following are the GWP electricity tariffs applied in this study. LD-2-B is applied based on the demands. The analysis is updated with GWP electricity rate forecasted for Phase 1 July 2024.

6.2.2 Southern California Gas (SCG)
Following is the SCG gas rates applied in this study. This analysis is updated with the current SCG natural gas rates as of April 2024.

120 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 17

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

121 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 18

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

122 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 19

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

6.2.3 Fuel Escalation Rates

6.2.3.1 Nonresidential Occupancies
Table 11 below documents the escalation rates used for nonresidential buildings.

Table 11: Real Utility Rate Escalation Rate Assumptions

Source
Statewide Electric
Nonresidential Average
Rate (%/year, real)
Statewide Natural Gas
Nonresidential Core Rate
(%/year, real)
2023 E3 2019 2.0% 4.0%
2024 2022 TDV 0.7% 7.7%
2025 2022 TDV 0.5% 5.5%
2026 2022 TDV 0.7% 5.6%
2027 2022 TDV 0.2% 5.6%
2028 2022 TDV 0.6% 5.7%
2029 2022 TDV 0.7% 5.7%
2030 2022 TDV 0.6% 5.8%
2031 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.3%
2032 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.6%
2033 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.4%
2034 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.4%
2035 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.2%
2036 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.2%
2037 2022 TDV 0.6% 3.1%

123 of 487

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 20

California Energy Codes & Standards | A statewide utility program 2024-05-13

As part of the Statewide Codes & Standards Program, the Reach Codes Subprogram is a resource available to any local jurisdiction located throughout the state of California.

If you are interested in finding out more about local energy reach codes, the Reach Codes Team stands ready to assist jurisdictions at any stage of a reach code project.

Visit LocalEnergyCodes.com
to access our resources and
sign up for newsletters.

Contact
[email protected]
for
no-charge assistance from expert
Reach Code advisors.

124 of 487

1 5
0 6
3 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Project Update- Bicycle Transportation Plan

1. Motion providing direction on the update of the Bicycle Transportation Plan.

CITY COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council initiated the update of the Citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) in February 2022, with a vision to shape the next two decades of safe, convenient, and inviting biking infrastructure in Glendale.

Engaging the public through an interactive online map and significant outreach events, as well as input from the city staff and Buro Happold Consulting Engineers technical team, Project Development Team (PDT), Planning Commission (PC), Sustainability Commission (SC), and Transportation and Parking Commission (TPC), resulted in the development of a well-connected citywide proposed Bikelane Network. In this report, staff presents an update on the progress of the BTP development, and requests further input and direction from the City Council on the proposed Bikelane Network (Exhibit 1), implementation phasing (Exhibits 2 & 3), cost estimate (Exhibit 4), and policy recommendation (Exhibit 5). The overarching goal for the BTP is to establish an all-ages, all-abilities Bikelane Network for the entirety of Glendale.

Item Type: Action Item
Approved forJuly 30, 2024 calendar
125 of 487

2 5
0 6
3 RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction on the update on the Bicycle Transportation Plan.

ANALYSIS:

On February 15, 2022, City Council awarded a contract to Buro Happold Consulting Engineers, Inc., to update to Bicycle Transportation Plan. The purpose of the updated BTP is to address components of a complete system including infrastructure, community outreach, and evaluation of policy and infrastructure improvements that will ensure greater success of the city’s multi-modal infrastructure.

The BTP update has been informed by plans that have been newly adopted and those that are still in progress, including the recently adopted Citywide Pedestrian Plan, the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation, the Verdugo Wash Visioning, and the Metro NOHO Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit project. The BTP also includes new insights and ideas in today’s context as well as interventions developed in active transportation planning at the regional and state levels. The BTP seeks to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, both of which are important Council priorities.

The following aspects (tasks) have been assessed and included in the updated BTP:
•Identifying viable bicycle and pedestrian corridors, linking to the city’s existing mobility policy and plan structure, including the Citywide Pedestrian Plan, Safe Healthy Streets Plan and West Glendale Sustainable Transportation, Safe Routes to School, and Citywide Safety Education Plan.
•Assessing intersections and corridors with high bicycle collision rates, as well as identifying intersections with high bicycle and pedestrian volumes. •Targeting improvements and developments of bicycle infrastructure, which provides safety and connectivity in Glendale’s multimodal system. •Creating a coordinated and targeted community outreach strategy throughout the update of the plan development, including coordination with any ongoing city education and safety programs, so that each effort informs the others. •Ensuring equity and that disadvantaged communities fully share in BTP program benefits; and
•Incorporating policy and infrastructure recommendations based on field work assessments, best practices in active transportation, and feedback received from the community and technical team.

Project Goals:
•Safety: Create a bike network that feels safe and encourages people to ride.

Decrease frequency and severity of crashes while increasing biking overall. 126 of 487

3 5
0 6
3 •Connectivity: Create a connected bike network across the city that links major destinations to primary bike corridors.
•Accessibility: Create an all-ages, all-abilities bike network that is easy and enjoyable to use.
•Equity: Prioritize bike infrastructure in areas of equity concern. •Implementable: Create a plan that is ambitious yet implementable, phased to meet current and future challenges.
•Public Health: Increase public health by encouraging active transportation. •Environment: Reduce single occupancy vehicle trips for local trips.

Progress to Date
The BTP project team presented the proposed draft of the Bikelane Network to the Project Development Team on September 21, 2023 and January 10, 2024, Transportation and Parking Commission on November 21, 2023, the Sustainability Commission on December 06, 2023, and Council on January 9, 2024. Subsequently, adjustments were made based on the feedback to formulate the recommended Bikelane Network along with a comprehensive 20-year phasing plan. This phasing plan is delineated into four distinct phases, reflecting the project's priorities concerning safety, connectivity, community input, trip potential, trade-offs, social equity, and geographic equity. Staff then presented both the bike lane network and project phasing to the Project Development Team on March 11, 2024, Planning Commission and Sustainability Commission on March 6, 2024, and the Traffic and Parking Commission on March 25, 2024 for final comments, input, and recommendations. All the comments and questions from the commissions are attached in (Exhibit 6).

Also included in the report is a cost estimate and policy recommendations for the Bicycle Transportation Plan 20-year implementation plan. The final steps in this process, after receiving the comments and recommendations from the Council, include undertaking a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis, initiating a 30-day public comment period, and ultimately presenting the finalized draft plan to the City Council for consideration of its adoption in early summer 2024.

Proposed Bikelane Network Recommendation:

Technical Analysis
Developing the proposed Bikelane Network recommendations was a careful process that combined analysis of existing conditions, extensive public feedback, and input from staff, the Project Development Team, Commissions, and the City Council. The goals for the project were established through outreach with the public and the PDT, with the greatest priorities being to create a safe, connected, and all-ages, all-abilities network. Other priorities include incorporating public feedback and developing an implementable network. With project priorities in mind, the project team established two network 127 of 487

4 5
0 6
3 principles: “spiderwebs” (i.e., connections between neighborhoods) and connected neighborhoods (i.e., connections within neighborhoods). An analysis was then conducted to combine the crash and destinations data with public input on where people would like to bike. This analysis produced the first proposed draft network. Using guidance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Caltrans, and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), a facility type was selected for each corridor based on three primary factors: road typology, vehicle volume, and speed limit. The facility selected for each corridor maximizes safety and connectivity for cyclists.

The proposed bike network went through a rigorous drafting process that involved key stakeholders throughout. The project team developed Draft #1 in August 2023, based on the technical analysis, including the crash analysis, public outreach, and connecting key destinations and neighborhoods. The complimentary network principles of “spiderwebs” and “connected neighborhoods” were used to develop this first draft. “Spiderweb” offers a centralized network of bicycle routes supporting short, all-purpose trips which are fed by direct routes that support longer-distance trips. “Connected neighborhoods” create smaller neighborhood networks of facilities which are connected by longer-distance “distributor routes.”
Draft #1 was reviewed by city staff in the Community Development Department (CDD) and Public Works Department (PWD) and was modified to create Draft #2 in August 2023. The second draft was then presented to the Project Development Team (PDT) and edited based on their feedback to create Draft #3 in October 2023. This third draft was presented to the public at open houses and online through the webmap, to the Transportation and Parking Commission, and Sustainability Commission. Based on the feedback gathered during this critical phase, Draft #4 was created in December 2023 and presented to City Council for comments. Finally, based on the comments from City Council, Draft #5 was created in January 2024. This final version was then used for the phasing and costing analysis.

Facility Definitions
• Class I Multi-Use Path: An off-street facility with exclusive space for bicyclists and pedestrians, with minimal crossings by vehicle traffic. 128 of 487

5 5
0 6
3 • Class II Bike Lane: A conventional striped bike lane denoted by pavement markings. • Class II Climbing Lane: A striped bike lane in the uphill direction that provides separation between bicyclists and vehicles for bicyclists ascending steep hills. • Class III Bike Routes: Signed bike routes on low-stress streets that use a shared lane, designated through shared lane markings and signage.
• Class III Bike Boulevard: Low-stress, marked bikeways located on low-volume, low- speed local streets that operate as shared streets. These require traffic-calming features such as neighborhood traffic circles, chicanes, and traffic diverters to maintain low vehicle speeds and volumes.
• Class IV Protected Bike Lane: Bike lanes that are physically separated from vehicle traffic and parking lanes using vertical and horizontal features, such as bollards, planters, barriers, and parked vehicles. Exhibit 7 illustrates facility types.

These recommendations are the culmination of almost two years of analysis, public outreach, and collaboration between project team members, city staff, the public, stakeholders, Commissions, and City Council. Exhibit 1 illustrates the draft proposed Bikelane Network recommendations.

Proposed Bikelane Network Mileage:

Facility Type Proposed Miles
Class I Multi-Use Path 0.3
Class IV Protected Bike Lane 46.7
Class II Bike Lane 13.2
Class II Climbing Lane 3.5
Class III Bike Boulevard 24.9
Class III Bike Route 1.6
Total 90.3
Crash Analysis
The crash analysis utilizes data on bicycle involved crashes from California’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and Glendale Police Department and reflects requested changes from both city staff and the PDT, including expanding the date range from 5 to 10 years from 2012 to 2021 to better understand pre- and post- pandemic trends. Property Damage only crashes were also included in the analysis after comments from the PDT.

Overall, the data on Exhibit 8 shows crashes involving cyclists declining over the analysis period. Compared to Pasadena and LA County, Glendale has lower crash rates.

The crash analysis also highlighted corridors with a greater safety concern. These corridors tend to be the wider arterials through downtown that carry large volumes of traffic during rush hour and have higher speeds when not congested. These include 129 of 487

6 5
0 6
3 segments of Glenoaks Blvd., South Brand Blvd., Colorado St., Broadway, South Glendale Ave., North Glendale Ave., Verdugo Rd., Pacific Ave., San Fernando Rd., South Central Ave., and Chevy Chase Dr.

The crash analysis, along with an analysis on equity, demographics, trip demand, PDT recommendations, public input and survey results informed the proposed draft Bikelane network.

Project Phasing
A phasing plan was developed for the final proposed network using the project goals to establish a ranking criterion, mixed with a deep understanding of local needs, priorities, and geography. (Exhibit 2)
Given that Glendale does not have an existing connected bike network, it was important to build key corridors in the first phase to create connected neighborhoods. Phase 1 are those key corridors, which are drawn from our network principles of “spiderwebs” and “connected neighborhoods.” The projects in the subsequent phases were selected based on their connectivity to prior phase(s), geographic equity, and weighted score among seven criteria listed below. Adjustments were made to ensure that the project phasing created a safe, connected, and buildable network.

Using the project goals, six ranking criteria were developed and confirmed with the PDT, Commissions, and the City Council. The criteria, ranked by priority, are:

1.Safety: Crash density, based on the crash analysis conducted.

2.Connectivity: Connected to key destinations, based on the destinations analysis conducted.

3.Community Support: Received support in online survey, web map, or in person events.

4.Trip Potential: Serves an area with a high concentration of short trips, based on the trip potential analysis conducted.

5.Trade-Offs: Requires a lane reconfiguration (i.e., a moving or parking lane is reallocated as a bike facility). Trade-offs on arterials were given a lower score than trade-offs on minor streets.

6.Social Equity: Serves an area of equity concern, as defined by the California Healthy Places Index.

A seventh criteria of geographic equity was used to evenly distribute projects between phases.

Geographic Equity: This criterion does not have an associated score. It was used to distribute projects evenly throughout Glendale for each phase. The four zones are shown in the map below and Exhibit 3:
130 of 487

7 5
0 6
3 Criteria 1 through 6 were assigned a weight based on overall project priorities based on feedback from stakeholders and policy makers. The distribution of weight is listed below, with safety ranking highest:

Criteria Ranking Weight
Safety 6 28.6%
Connectivity 5 23.8%
Community
Support
4 19.0%
Trip Potential 3 14.3%
Trade-Offs 2 9.5%
Social Equity 1 4.8%
Total 100%
The proposed bike network was divided into individual projects based on corridor and facility type. Each project was then assigned a score for metrics 1 through 6 and adjusted to account for weighting listed above. It should be noted, the final weighted scores were not the only factor used to determine phasing. Connectivity to prior phase(s) and geographic equity impacted ultimate rankings, with further adjustments to balance phasing lane miles and project complexity. For example, La Crescenta Avenue received 131 of 487

8 5
0 6
3 a weighted score of 53% but was included in Phase 1 because it is an already planned project.

The proposed network is divided into four phases. Each phase is estimated to take five years, totaling 20 years to complete all improvements.

Cost Estimate
The cost estimates provided in this report represent planning-level assessments intended to provide an initial understanding of project expenses. These estimates serve as a foundation for individual bikeway projects, with further refinement expected during subsequent design phases. Cost estimates do not necessarily include the full cost of the associated capital project as bike projects are done in conjunction with larger repaving or reconfiguration projects. These estimates do not include the costs of items such as sidewalk ADA upgrades or full repaving.

Table 1 illustrates the rounded per mile cost estimates for different facility types in the Glendale Bike Plan are as follows:

Table 2 outlines the rounded cost estimates by phase:

These estimates are detailed in Exhibit 4 of the memo provided by consultant Buro Happold.
132 of 487

9 5
0 6
3 STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Outreach was conducted in two phases to provide the public with a tangible framework to ensure the most valuable feedback. During the first phase of the project, which established existing conditions and set project goals, the project team participated in a variety of public outreach events. Outreach was primarily focused on understanding how the community bikes or perceives biking in Glendale, and engage the public in the planning process. The team participated in seven events for the first phase of outreach in 2023:

1. April 22: City Earth Day Fair, Pacific Community Center & Park

2. April 27: Earth Day Celebration, Glendale Community College

3. April 27: Shaping the Future of Energy, Central Library

4. May 17: Bike to Workday

5. June 10: Mayor Bike Ride & Americana at Brand outreach event

6. June 22: Go Glendale Bike Safety 101 Workshop

7. June 24: Bike Safety Day, Pacific Park
During the seven events, attendees completed a survey, shared their opinions on interactive boards, and provided their contact information for further engagement. The survey was available online in English, Armenian, Spanish, and Korean and asked 17 questions about biking, safety, trip types, priorities, and demographics. Over 400 community members responsed to the survey.

Overarching themes from the survey and outreach events were that people wanted safe, connected, and useable bike infrastructure. Alongside the public events and survey, the BTP updates and progress were shared online on the City website and through non- profit organizations’ websites such as Walk Bike Glendale and Go Glendale.

Additionally, details about the plan and outreach efforts were disseminated via e- newsletters from the Office of Sustainability, Community Services and Parks, Economic Development, and Walk Bike Glendale. Similarly, physical flyers were distributed to key locations, including bike shops, the Glendale YMCA, all City libraries, and during the Riverwalk Workday event.

Dates of the second phase of outreach for proposed Bikelane Network in 2023:

1. October 21: Glendale Annual Fall Festival, Pacific Community Center & Park

2. October 27: Youth & Student Workshop, Glendale Community College

3. November 8: Teen Workshop for 13- to 18-year-olds, Central Library

4. November 11: BTP Open House, Spar Heights Community Center

5. November 12: BTP Open House at the Adult Recreation Center The second phase of outreach allowed the public to view the comments received from phase one in a visual format. Attendees of these events had the ability to comment both digitally and physically on display boards.
133 of 487

10 5
0 6
3 This second phase garnered greater interaction by the public as it demonstrated a map of the proposed Bikelane Network.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
N/A

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Note and file the report and provide further direction and refinement to the proposed Bicycle Transportation Plan.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Arezoo Kamali, Planning Associate
Fred Zohrehvand, Principal Mobility Planner
Approved by:

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

Exhibit 1: City of Glendale Proposed Bikelane Network
Exhibit 2: City of Glendale Proposed Network Phase 1 to 4 Exhibit 3: City of Glendale Geographic Areas
Exhibit 4: Cost Estimate
Exhibit 5: Policy Recommendation
Exhibit 6: TPC, SC, and PC Comments and Recommendations Exhibit 7: Facility Definitions
Exhibit 8: Crash Analysis Findings
134 of 487

MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council
Member , that with respect to the Report to the City Council dated July 30, 2024 pertaining to the Update on the Bicycle Transportation Plan, the City Council directs staff as to the Bikelane Network, implementation phasing, cost estimate and policy recommendations as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
135 of 487

City of Glendale
Proposed Bike Network
Existing Network
Existing Bike Facility
Planned Projects
Verdugo Wash
Metro BRT
Proposed Network
Class I Shared Use
Class II
Class II Climbing
Class III Route
Class III Bike Blvd
Class IV Protected
March 2024
EXHIBIT 1
136 of 487

PACIFIC AVE

HONOLULU A VE

PENNSYLVANIA AVE

NEW YORK A VE

LA CRESCENTA A VE

ACACIA AVE

WILSON A VE

CENTRAL A VE

BRAND BLVD

ADAMS ST

CHEVY CHASE DR

KENNETH RD

SONORA A VEVICTORY
BLVD

FLOWER ST

PELANCONI AVE

GLENOAKS BLVD

PALMER AVE
Length (Miles)
Propose Facility Type 1 2 3 4 Total
Class I Multi-Use Path 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
Class IV Protected Multi-Use Path 17.1 14.0 10.0 5.7 46.7 Class III Bike Blvd 1.7 12.9 3.8 6.5 24.9
Class III Bike Route 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.5 1.6
Class II Bike Lane 4.7 1.9 1.4 5.4 13.2
Class II Climbing 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.5
Total 25.0 31.2 16.0 18.0 90.3
City of Glendale
Proposed Network
Phase 1 of 4
Existing Network
Existing Bike Facility
Planned Projects
Verdugo Wash
Metro BRT
Bridges & Entrances
Exist. Bike-Ped Access
Glendale-LA Garden River
Proposed Network
Current Phase
March 2024
EXHIBIT 2
137 of 487

GRAN
DV

IEW A V
E

BOSTON AV

SAN FERNANDO BLVD

RAMSDELL A VE

ROSEMONT AVE

VERDUGO BLVD

ROSELAWN AVE

LAS PALMAS AVE

VERDUGO RDSTOCKER STWESTERN A VE
HAZ
EL ST

FAIRMONT AVE
HIG

HLAND AVE

LEXINGTON DRLOUISE ST

COLUMBUS AVE

MAPLE ST

DORAN ST

ADAMS ST

MONTEREY RD

ROCK GLEN AVE

LOWELL A V

FOOTHILL BLVD

MONTROSE AVE

DUNSMORE AVE
MAYFIE
LD AVE
Length (Miles)
Propose Facility Type 1 2 3 4 Total
Class I Multi-Use Path 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
Class IV Protected Multi-Use Path 17.1 14.0 10.0 5.7 46.7 Class III Bike Blvd 1.7 12.9 3.8 6.5 24.9
Class III Bike Route 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.5 1.6
Class II Bike Lane 4.7 1.9 1.4 5.4 13.2
Class II Climbing 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.5
Total 25.0 31.2 16.0 18.0 90.3
City of Glendale
Proposed Network
Phase 2 of 4
Existing Network
Existing Bike Facility
Planned Projects
Verdugo Wash
Metro BRT
Bridges & Entrances
Exist. Bike-Ped Access
Glendale-LA Garden River
Proposed Network
Current Phase
March 2024
138 of 487

OPECHEE WAY

GLORIETTA A VE

KENILWORTH AVE

CONCORD ST

PACIFIC AVE

ORANGE ST

HIGHLAND AVE

GLENWOOD RD

ALLEN AVE
CAÑADA BLVD

GLENOAKS BLVD

COLORADO ST

HARVARD ST

STOCKER ST

GOODE AVE

LOS FELIZ RD

SAN FERNANDO RD

CERRITOS AVE

CENTRAL A VE

GLENDALE A VE
Length (Miles)
Propose Facility Type 1 2 3 4 Total
Class I Multi-Use Path 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
Class IV Protected Multi-Use Path 17.1 14.0 10.0 5.7 46.7 Class III Bike Blvd 1.7 12.9 3.8 6.5 24.9
Class III Bike Route 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.5 1.6
Class II Bike Lane 4.7 1.9 1.4 5.4 13.2
Class II Climbing 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.5
Total 25.0 31.2 16.0 18.0 90.3
City of Glendale
Proposed Network
Phase 3 of 4
Existing Network
Existing Bike Facility
Planned Projects
Verdugo Wash
Metro BRT
Bridges & Entrances
Exist. Bike-Ped Access
Glendale-LA Garden River
Proposed Network
Current Phase
March 2024
139 of 487

MOUNTAIN ST

CUMBERLAND RD

ETHEL ST

DAVIS AVE

LAKE ST

JACKSON ST

BRAND BLVD

CEDAR ST

BRAND BLVD

CHEVY CHASE DR

ALAMEDA AVE

BROADVIEW DR

LINCOLN AVEHARVARD ST

PALMER AVE

MARKRID
GE RD

MOUNTAIN ST

MONTEREY RD

V ALLEY VIEW RD

GLENOAKS BLVD

EAST CALIFORNIA AVE
Length (Miles)
Propose Facility Type 1 2 3 4 Total
Class I Multi-Use Path 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
Class IV Protected Multi-Use Path 17.1 14.0 10.0 5.7 46.7 Class III Bike Blvd 1.7 12.9 3.8 6.5 24.9
Class III Bike Route 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.5 1.6
Class II Bike Lane 4.7 1.9 1.4 5.4 13.2
Class II Climbing 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.5
Total 25.0 31.2 16.0 18.0 90.3
City of Glendale
Proposed Network
Phase 4 of 4
Existing Network
Existing Bike Facility
Planned Projects
Verdugo Wash
Metro BRT
Bridges & Entrances
Exist. Bike-Ped Access
Glendale-LA Garden River
Proposed Network
Current Phase
March 2024
140 of 487

PACIFIC AVE BRAND BLVD

HONOLULU A VE

PENNSYLVANIA AVE

NEW YORK A VE

LA CRESCENTA A VE

ACACIA A VE

WILSON AVE

CENTRAL A VE

ADAMS ST

CHEVY CHASE DR

KENNETH RD

SONORA A VE

VICTORY BLVD

FLOWER ST

PELANCONI AVE

GLENOAKS BLVD

PALMER A VE
Length (Miles)
Propose Facility Type 12 3 4 T o t a l
Class I Multi-Use Path 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
Class IV Protected Multi-Use Path 17.1 14.0 10.0 5.7 46.7 Class III Bike Blvd 1.7 12.9 3.8 6.5 24.9
Class III Bike Route 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.5 1.6
Class II Bike Lane 4.7 1.9 1.4 5.4 13.2
Class II Climbing 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.5
Total 25.0 31.2 16.0 18.0 90.3
City of Glendale
Proposed Network
Phase 1 of 4
Existing Network
Existing Bike Facility
Planned Projects
Verdugo Wash
Metro BRT
Bridges & Entrances
Exist. Bike-Ped Access
Glendale-LA Garden River
Proposed Network
Class I Shared Use
Class II
Class II Climbing
Class III Route
Class III Bike Blvd
Class IV Protected
March 2024
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 miles0 0.5 1 1.5 2 miles0 0.5 1 1.5 2 miles 141 of 487

GRANDVIEW A VE

BOSTON AV

SAN FERNA

NDO BLVD

RAMSDELL A VE

ROSEMONT AVE

VERDUGO BLVD

ROSELAWN AVE

LAS PALMAS AVE

VERDUGO RD

STOCKER STWESTERN A VE

HAZEL ST

FAIRMONT AVE

HIGHLAND AVE

LEXINGTON DRLOUISE ST

COLUMBUS AVE MAPLE ST

DORAN ST

ADAMS ST

MONTEREY RD

ROCK GLEN AVE

LOWELL A V

FOOTHILL BLVD

MONTROSE AVE

DUNSMORE AVEMAYFIELD AVE
Length (Miles)
Propose Facility Type 1 2 3 4 Total
Class I Multi-Use Path 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
Class IV Protected Multi-Use Path 17.1 14.0 10.0 5.7 46.7 Class III Bike Blvd 1.7 12.9 3.8 6.5 24.9
Class III Bike Route 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.5 1.6
Class II Bike Lane 4.7 1.9 1.4 5.4 13.2
Class II Climbing 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.5
Total 25.0 31.2 16.0 18.0 90.3
City of Glendale
Proposed Network
Phase 2 of 4
Existing Network
Existing Bike Facility
Planned Projects
Verdugo Wash
Metro BRT
Bridges & Entrances
Exist. Bike-Ped Access
Glendale-LA Garden River
Proposed Network
Class I Shared Use
Class II
Class II Climbing
Class III Route
Class III Bike Blvd
Class IV Protected
March 2024
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 miles
142 of 487

OPECHEE WAY

GLORIETTA AVE

KENILWORTH AVE

CONCORD ST

PACIFIC AVE

ORANGE ST

HIGHLAND A VE

GLENWOOD RD

ALLEN AVE
CAÑADA BLVD

GLENOAKS BLVD

COLORADO ST

HARVARD ST

STOCKER ST

GOODE AVE

LOS FELIZ RD

SAN FERNANDO RD

CERRITOS AVE

CENTRAL A VE

GLENDALE AVE
Length (Miles)
Propose Facility Type 1 2 3 4 Total
Class I Multi-Use Path 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3
Class IV Protected Multi-Use Path 17.1 14.0 10.0 5.7 46.7 Class III Bike Blvd 1.7 12.9 3.8 6.5 24.9
Class III Bike Route 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.5 1.6
Class II Bike Lane 4.7 1.9 1.4 5.4 13.2
Class II Climbing 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 3.5
Total 25.0 31.2 16.0 18.0 90.3
City of Glendale
Proposed Network
Phase 3 of 4
Existing Network
Existing Bike Facility
Planned Projects
Verdugo Wash
Metro BRT
Bridges & Entrances
Exist. Bike-Ped Access
Glendale-LA Garden River
Proposed Network
Class I Shared Use
Class II
Class II Climbing
Class III Route
Class III Bike Blvd
Class IV Protected
March 2024
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 miles
143 of 487

MOUNTAIN ST

CUMBERLAND RD

ETHEL ST

DA VIS A VE

LAKE ST

JACKSON STBRAND BLVD

CEDAR ST

BRAND BLVD

CHEVY CHASE DR

ALAMEDA AVE

BROADVIEW DR

LINCOLN AVE

HARVARD ST

PALMER AVE

MARKRIDGE RD

MOUNTAIN ST

MONTEREY RD

V ALLEY VIEW RD

GLENOAKS BLVD

City of Glendale
Geographic Areas
North
Glendale
Central
Glendale
West
Glendale
South
Glendale
Existing Network
Existing Bike Facility
Planned Projects
Verdugo Wash
Metro BRT
Proposed Network
Class I Shared Use
Class II
Class II Climbing
Class III Route
Class III Bike Blvd
Class IV Protected
March 2024
EXHIBIT 3
145 of 487

Memorandum
To City of Glendale Date April 24, 2024
From Buro Happold Job no 0051385
Copied to
Subject Glendale Bike Plan Final Phasing and Cost Estimate 1 Introduction
The attached cost estimates are planning-level costs that reflect a high-level estimation of the project costs. Each estimation represents a starting point for separate bikeway projects and are expected to be further refined as projects move through design stages. Cost estimates do not necessarily include the full cost of the associated capital project since bike projects are done with larger repaving or reconfiguration projects that often include full street paving and ADA upgrades. The estimated costs do not encompass these associated non-bike improvements, making them subject to change based on future developments.

For all facility types except Class I and Class III bike routes, high- and low-cost estimates are provided to identify a range of potential project costs. The differences account for ranges in treatment considerations, with high-cost estimates typically reflecting additional facility design features and roadway improvements such as full or partial repaving of the roadway.

Total estimated project costs of the proposed 20-year network are shown in Table 3. The high proportion of Class IV protected bikeways in the proposed network (52% of the network by mileage) results in a safer and more inviting network that also costs more on a per-mile basis. The estimated costs also do not reflect locations where complementary improvements are already partially existing, such as speed hump and cushions and traffic circles, which may result in costs lower than estimated for those Class III bike boulevard corridors. 2 Methodology & Data Sources
Opinions of probable cost were developed by identifying major pay items and establishing rough quantities to determine a rough order of magnitude cost. Contingencies are included to cover items that are undefined or are typically unknown early in the planning phase of a project. Unit costs are based on 2023 dollars and were assigned based on historical cost data from the Caltrans Contract Cost Data. Unit costs were determined through recent bids provided by the City of Glendale
1 and through Caltrans Cost Data, and are noted within the Master Unit Costs table.

Cost opinions do not include easement and right-of-way acquisition; permitting; surveying, geotechnical investigation, environmental documentation, special site remediation, escalation, or the cost for ongoing maintenance. A general cost has been assigned to certain general categories such as utility relocations; however, these costs can vary widely depending on the exact details and nature of the work. The overall cost opinions are intended to be general and used only for planning purposes. TDG Engineering, Inc. makes no guarantees or 1 San Fernando Road Beautification Project; La Crescenta Ave Rehabilitation Project; North Brand Complete Street Demonstration Project; Palmer Ave and Green Street Rehabilitation Project; Fiscal Year 2023 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Program EXHIBIT 4
146 of 487

BURO HAPPOLD
warranties regarding the cost estimate herein. Construction costs will vary based on the ultimate project scope, actual site conditions and constraints, schedule, and economic conditions at the time of construction.

Actual costs may vary based on project scope and current market conditions. Caltrans maintains historical cost indices and forecast at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/pjs/index.html Assumptions for each facility type are documented in the cost estimates, creating an estimated cost per mile of that facility treatment. Those costs were then applied to proposed project lengths. For proposed Class II climbing lanes, typical Class II bike lane costs were applied, as the costs involved in striping removal are approximately the same, and the cost difference of the downhill striping is expected to be offset by the addition of required shared lane markings.

2.1 Soft Costs and Contingencies
As applicable, contingencies for construction, environmental impacts, drainage, utilities, and design are assumed.

Contingencies that vary facility type to facility type are based upon our experience with the complexities of implementing them. Costs associated with outreach and engagement activities that occur during project design phases are incorporated into Engineering and Design Costs.

Soft costs are described below in Table 1.

Table 1 Contingency Costs, by percent of Construction Costs Contingency Percentage
Engineering and Design Costs, Outreach 25%
Mobilization 5%
Traffic Control 5%
Construction Management 10%
Construction Cost Contingency 20%
Utility Contingency 5%
Drainage Contingency 5%
Environmental Contingency 5%
3 Cost Estimates
For Class III bike boulevards, Class II bike lanes, and Class IV protected lanes, separate low and high costs are provided to account for variations in potential treatments and details of implementation, such as repaving.

Class III Bike Routes and Class I Shared Use Paths make up a small portion of the network by mileage and have a more limited range in possible treatment designs. As such, both of those facility types received a single cost estimate.

3.1 Explanation of Low Cost
For low end costs, the below details per facility broadly include:
- Class III Bike Boulevard: Speed humps, bikeway directional signage and speed hump signage, shared lane markings, and road lane striping
- Class II Bike Lane: Removal of existing roadway striping, installation of bike lane striping, installation of green conflict marking striping at intersections
147 of 487

BURO HAPPOLD
- Class IV Protected Bike Lane: Bike detection loops, installation of bicycle traffic signals, curb ramps and crosswalk striping at signalized intersections, signage, traffic and buffer striping, green conflict markings at intersections, and K-71 bollards

3.2 Explanation of High Cost
Estimated high-end costs reflect implementation of additional facility design considerations and roadway improvements, as well as items such as paving. High-end cost estimations, by facility include:
- Class III Bike Boulevard: All improvements identified under low-cost, as well as installation of landscaped traffic circles at regular intervals and upgraded curb ramps at intersections with traffic circles - Class II Bike Lane: Roadway repaving, all improvements identified under low cost save for the removal of existing roadway striping
- Class IV Bike Lane: Installation of concrete curb buffer, partial roadway repaving for bike lanes and within the sawcut boundaries for the installation of the concrete buffer, and all improvements under low cost save for bollards

3.3 Unit Cost by Facility Type
Table 2 Proposed Network Per Mile Estimates
Facility Type
Rounded Per Mile Cost Estimate
(2023)
Low Cost High Cost
Class I $ 9,000,000
Class II $ 710,000 $ 3,330,000
Class III - Bike Route $ 470,000
Class III - Bike Boulevard $ 880,000 $ 1,770,000
Class IV $ 2,590,000 $ 9,170,000

3.4 Total Cost by Phase
Table 3 Cost Estimates by Phase
Phase
Rounded Cost Estimate
(2023)
Low Cost High Cost
1 $ 50,232,000 $ 180,219,000
2 $ 53,160,000 $ 166,800,000
3 $ 30,750,000 $ 103,470,000
4 $ 24,418,000 $ 81,451,000
Total $ 158,560,000 $ 531,940,000

3.5 Comparison with Public Works Estimates
Additional estimates provided by Department of Public Works (PW) detail probable costs based on road classification and Pavement Condition Index (PCI) records as of Winter 2024. Ranges provided vary by pavement condition, with better condition (over 74) resulting in lower estimates. Where condition was especially poor 148 of 487

BURO HAPPOLD
(below 40), further investigation was noted and no estimate provided. A 10% contingency for design and planning soft costs and a 10% contingency for operations and maintenance costs were requested.

These estimates vary from the BTP estimates as they reflect the assumption of bicycle facility implementation as part of a larger capital project. The PW estimates include non-bicycle related treatments including full road repaving and ADA upgrades (sidewalks and curb ramps). Whereas the BTP estimates reflect the incremental cost of the bicycle facility. Overall, the PW approach is more expansive, assigning the full capital expense to the bicycle facility, whereas the BTP approach only incorporates some of these treatments. The PW costs do not specify what treatment types, such as Class IV bike lane separator or Class III bike boulevard traffic calming treatments, are integrated into their assumptions.

As shown in Table 4, the greatest differences occur in treatments where full or partial repaving is not integrated (Class II low costs and both Class III – Bike Boulevard costs). It should be noted that exact comparisons between costs may be misleading given the range of assumptions covered in PW capital project costs.

Table 4 Public Works Estimates Comparison (Cost per Mile) Facility Type Local Roads –
PW Estimate
Arterial and
Collector Roads –
PW Estimate
BTP Cost
Estimates
Class I Not provided Not provided $ 9,000,000
Class II $3,000,000 -
$4,800,000
$4,800,000 -
$7,200,000
$710,000-
$3,330,000
Class III - Bike
Route Not provided Not provided $470,000
Class III - Bike
Boulevard
$1,800,000 -
$3,600,000
$3,600,000 -
$6,000,000
$880,000 -
$1,770,00
Class IV $4,200,000 -
$6,000,000
$6,000,000 -
$8,400,000
$2,590,000 -
$9,170,000
4 Appendix
See attached table.
149 of 487

Street Name From To Proposed Facility Zone Phase
Centerline
Length
(Miles)
Low Cost
(2023)
High Cost
(2023)
Weighted
Score
Phase 1
PACIFIC AV Glenoaks Blvd Kenneth Rd class ii Central Glendale 1 0.72 520,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 92% KENNETH RD Grandview Ave Sonora Ave class iii blvd Central Glendale 1 0.11 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 86% KENNETH RD Western Glendale City Limits Brand Blvd class ii Central Glendale 1 2.33 1,660,000 $ 7,760,000 $ 75% HONOLULU AV Verdugo Rd Las Palmas class iii blvd North Glendale 1 0.39 350,000 $ 700,000 $ 88% HONOLULU AV Las Palmas Boston Ave class iv protected North Glendale 1 2.18 5,650,000 $ 20,000,000 $ 69% PENNSYLVANIA AV Honolulu Ave Montrose Ave class iv protected North Glendale 1 0.31 810,000 $ 2,850,000 $ 59% NEW YORK AV Honolulu Ave Markridge Rd class ii climbing North Glendale 1 1.55 1,110,000 $ 5,170,000 $ 58% LA CRESCENTA AV Verdugo Rd Honolulu Ave class iv protected North Glendale 1 1.26 3,270,000 $ 11,560,000 $ 53% NEW YORK AV Verdugo Wash Honolulu Ave class iii blvd North Glendale 1 0.22 200,000 $ 390,000 $ 51% LA CRESCENTA AV Montrose Ave Honolulu Ave class ii North Glendale 1 0.31 230,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 29% ACACIA AV Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd class iv protected South Glendale 1 0.36 940,000 $ 3,310,000 $ 93% WILSON AV San Fernando Rd Eastern Glendale Border class iv protected South Glendale 1 2.57 6,660,000 $ 23,570,000 $ 91% BRAND BLVD Glenoaks Blvd Mountain St class iv protected South Glendale 1 0.52 1,322,000 $ 4,679,000 $ 91% CENTRAL AV Glenoaks Blvd San Fernando Rd class iv protected South Glendale 1 2.26 5,860,000 $ 20,730,000 $ 90% ADAMS ST Chevy Chase Dr - Colorado St Wilson Ave - Doran St class iii blvd South Glendale 1 1.03 910,000 $ 1,830,000 $ 85% ADAMS ST Colorado St Wilson Ave class ii South Glendale 1 0.38 270,000 $ 1,270,000 $ 81% CHEVY CHASE DR Western Glendale City Limits Tyler St class iv protected South Glendale 1 1.51 3,920,000 $ 13,850,000 $ 79% PALMER AV Adams St Adams St class ii South Glendale 1 0.01 10,000 $ 40,000 $ 74% GLENOAKS BLVD Western Glendale Limits Geneva St class iv protected West Glendale 1 3.36 8,710,000 $ 30,820,000 $ 88% SONORA AV Glenoaks Blvd Kenneth Rd class ii West Glendale 1 0.43 300,000 $ 1,400,000 $ 86% SONORA AV Southern Glendale border Glenoaks Blvd class iv protected West Glendale 1 0.88 2,280,000 $ 8,070,000 $ 62% VICTORY BLVD Western Glendale Border Riverside Dr class iv protected West Glendale 1 0.58 1,510,000 $ 5,320,000 $ 51% FLOWER ST Fairmont Ave Allen Ave class iv protected West Glendale 1 1.27 3,290,000 $ 11,650,000 $ 45% PELANCONI AV San Fernando Rd Glenoaks Blvd class ii West Glendale 1 0.25 180,000 $ 840,000 $ 28% FLOWER ST San Fernando Rd Fairmont Ave class ii West Glendale 1 0.23 170,000 $ 770,000 $ 26% 150 of 487

Street Name From To Proposed Facility Zone Phase
Centerline
Length
(Miles)
Low Cost
(2023)
High Cost
(2023)
Weighted
Score
Phase 2
VERDUGO RD Glendale Ave Honolulu Ave class iv protected Central Glendale 2 3.00 7,770,000 $ 27,510,000 $ 79% GRANDVIEW AV Kenneth Rd Mountain St class iii blvd Central Glendale 2 0.55 490,000 $ 980,000 $ 63% GRANDVIEW AV Glenaoks Blvd Kenneth Rd class ii Central Glendale 2 0.53 380,000 $ 1,770,000 $ 62% MOUNTAIN ST Western Glendale Border Grandview class iii blvd Central Glendale 2 1.28 1,130,000 $ 2,270,000 $ 58% HIGHLAND AV Glenwood Rd Mountain St class iii blvd Central Glendale 2 0.72 640,000 $ 1,280,000 $ 51% MONTEREY RD Naranja Dr Verdugo Rd class iii blvd Central Glendale 2 0.13 120,000 $ 240,000 $ 44% GALER PL 134 Freeway Monterey Rd class iii route Central Glendale 2 0.04 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 27% VERDUGO BLVD Honolulu Ave Eastern Glendale Border class iv protected North Glendale 2 0.60 1,530,000 $ 5,420,000 $ 78% FOOTHILL BLVD Western Glendale Limits Eastern Glendale Border class iv protected North Glendale 2 1.25 3,240,000 $ 11,470,000 $ 76% RAMSDELL AV Montrose Ave La Crescenta Ave class ii climbing North Glendale 2 0.31 230,000 $ 1,040,000 $ 61% DUNSMORE AV Honolulu Ave Markridge Rd class ii climbing North Glendale 2 1.47 1,050,000 $ 4,900,000 $ 58% MONTROSE AV Pennsylvania Ave Roselawn Ave class iv protected North Glendale 2 0.97 2,520,000 $ 8,900,000 $ 54% ROSEMONT AV Sycamore Ave Montrose Ave class iii blvd North Glendale 2 0.35 310,000 $ 620,000 $ 52% LOWELL AV Honolulu Ave Mayfield Ave class ii climbing North Glendale 2 0.16 120,000 $ 540,000 $ 49% LAS PALMAS AV La Crescenta Ave Honolulu Ave class iii blvd North Glendale 2 0.52 460,000 $ 930,000 $ 49% ROSELAWN AV La Crescenta Ave Sycamore Ave class iii blvd North Glendale 2 0.39 350,000 $ 700,000 $ 49% MARKRIDGE RD New York Ave Boston Ave class iii blvd North Glendale 2 0.50 440,000 $ 890,000 $ 46% MAYFIELD AV Lowell Ave Boston Ave class iii blvd North Glendale 2 0.32 290,000 $ 570,000 $ 27% BOSTON AV Honolulu Ave Mayfield Ave class iii blvd North Glendale 2 0.19 170,000 $ 340,000 $ 23% COLUMBUS AV Chevy Chase Dr 134 Freeway class iii blvd South Glendale 2 1.55 1,370,000 $ 2,750,000 $ 92% SAN FERNANDO RD Grandview Ave Colorado St class iv protected South Glendale 2 1.53 3,970,000 $ 14,040,000 $ 89% VERDUGO RD Southern Glendale Border Mountain St class iv protected South Glendale 2 2.15 5,570,000 $ 19,720,000 $ 88% SAN FERNANDO RD Colorado St Southern Glendale Border class iv protected South Glendale 2 1.90 4,930,000 $ 17,430,000 $ 87% DORAN ST Concord St - Brand Blvd Maryland Ave - Naranja Dr class iii blvd South Glendale 2 1.57 1,390,000 $ 2,780,000 $ 82% LEXINGTON DR Central Ave Maryland Ave class iv protected South Glendale 2 0.24 630,000 $ 2,210,000 $ 78% LEXINGTON DR Kennilworth Dr - Central Ave Maryland Ave - Verdugo Rd class iii blvd South Glendale 2 1.49 1,320,000 $ 2,640,000 $ 74% LOUISE ST Glenoaks Blvd Maple St class iii blvd South Glendale 2 1.36 1,200,000 $ 2,410,000 $ 73% MAPLE ST Pacific Ave Verdugo Rd class iii blvd South Glendale 2 1.77 1,560,000 $ 3,140,000 $ 73% DORAN ST Central Ave - Maryland Concord St - San Fernando Rd class iv protected South Glendale 2 0.48 1,250,000 $ 4,410,000 $ 67% ADAMS ST Chevy Chase Blvd Southern Glendale Border class ii South Glendale 2 0.59 420,000 $ 1,970,000 $ 61% ROCK GLEN AV Lincoln Ave Verdugo Rd class iii blvd South Glendale 2 0.23 210,000 $ 410,000 $ 57% FAIRMONT AV Flower St Concord St class iv protected West Glendale 2 0.75 1,950,000 $ 6,880,000 $ 69% STOCKER ST Brand Blvd Pacific Ave class ii West Glendale 2 0.57 410,000 $ 1,900,000 $ 66% WESTERN AV Victory Blvd Riverside Dr class ii West Glendale 2 0.17 130,000 $ 570,000 $ 53% WESTERN AV Glenoaks Blvd San Fernando Rd/Victory Blvd class iv protected West Glendale 2 0.64 1,660,000 $ 5,870,000 $ 48% WESTERN AV San Fernando Rd Flower St class i West Glendale 2 0.28 2,520,000 $ 2,520,000 $ 44% GRANDVIEW AV Flower St Glenoaks Blvd class iv protected West Glendale 2 0.51 1,330,000 $ 4,680,000 $ 33% HAZEL ST 5 Freeway Flower St class iii route West Glendale 2 0.16 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 23% 151 of 487

Street Name From To Proposed Facility Zone Phase
Centerline
Length
(Miles)
Low Cost
(2023)
High Cost
(2023)
Weighted
Score
Phase 3
STOCKER ST Rossmont Ave Brand Blvd class iii blvd Central Glendale 3 0.78 690,000 $ 1,390,000 $ 80% CANADA BLVD Verdugo Rd Verdugo Rd class iv protected Central Glendale 3 1.72 4,460,000 $ 15,780,000 $ 76% ALLEN AV Glenoaks Blvd Mountain St class iii blvd Central Glendale 3 0.96 840,000 $ 1,690,000 $ 70% OPECHEE WAY Verdugo Ct Verdugo Rd class iii route Central Glendale 3 0.43 210,000 $ 210,000 $ 54% GLENOAKS BLVD Ethel St Verdugo Rd class iv protected Central Glendale 3 0.32 830,000 $ 2,940,000 $ 44% GLENOAKS BLVD Geneva St Ethel St class iii blvd Central Glendale 3 0.36 320,000 $ 640,000 $ 39% GLORIETTA AV Canada Blvd Verdugo Rd class iii route Central Glendale 3 0.20 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 23% GLENDALE AV Colorado St Verdugo Rd class iv protected South Glendale 3 1.52 3,940,000 $ 13,940,000 $ 91% PACIFIC AV Colorado St Glenoaks Blvd class iv protected South Glendale 3 1.17 3,040,000 $ 10,730,000 $ 91% COLORADO ST San Fernando Rd Eastern Glendale City Limits class iv protected South Glendale 3 2.34 6,070,000 $ 21,460,000 $ 90% GLENDALE AV Colorado St San Fernando Rd class iv protected South Glendale 3 1.40 3,630,000 $ 12,840,000 $ 87% HARVARD ST Glendale Ave Adams St class iii blvd South Glendale 3 0.36 320,000 $ 640,000 $ 80% PACIFIC AV Elk Ave San Fernando Rd class iii blvd South Glendale 3 0.32 290,000 $ 570,000 $ 79% ORANGE ST Doran St Broadway class iv protected South Glendale 3 0.57 1,480,000 $ 5,230,000 $ 75% LOS FELIZ RD Gardena Ave Glendale Ave class iv protected South Glendale 3 0.47 1,220,000 $ 4,310,000 $ 72% CENTRAL AV Glendale Transportation Center San Fernando Rd class iii blvd South Glendale 3 0.15 140,000 $ 270,000 $ 68% PACIFIC AV Colorado St Elk Ave class ii South Glendale 3 0.06 50,000 $ 200,000 $ 64% CERRITOS AV San Fernando Rd Glendale Ave class ii South Glendale 3 0.21 150,000 $ 670,000 $ 63% CONCORD ST Broadway Glenoaks Blvd class ii South Glendale 3 0.91 650,000 $ 3,040,000 $ 60% CERRITOS AV Glendale Transportation Center San Fernando Rd class iii blvd South Glendale 3 0.13 120,000 $ 240,000 $ 58% KENILWORTH AV South St Concord St class iii blvd West Glendale 3 0.12 110,000 $ 220,000 $ 74% KENILWORTH AV South St Glenoaks Blvd class iii blvd West Glendale 3 0.23 210,000 $ 410,000 $ 74% CONCORD ST Glenoaks Blvd Glenwood class iii blvd West Glendale 3 0.37 330,000 $ 660,000 $ 67% GLENWOOD RD Virginia Ave School St class iii route West Glendale 3 0.24 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 67% GLENWOOD RD Pacific Ave Virginia Ave class ii West Glendale 3 0.20 150,000 $ 670,000 $ 63% GOODE AV Brand Blvd Central Ave class iv protected West Glendale 3 0.17 450,000 $ 1,560,000 $ 48% HIGHLAND AV Glenoaks Blvd San Fernando Rd class iv protected West Glendale 3 0.32 830,000 $ 2,940,000 $ 31% 152 of 487

Street Name From To Proposed Facility Zone Phase
Centerline
Length
(Miles)
Low Cost
(2023)
High Cost
(2023)
Weighted
Score
Phase 4
BRAND BLVD Mountain St Kenneth Rd class iii route Central Glendale 4 0.30 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 82% GLENOAKS BLVD Verdugo Rd Arcade Place class ii Central Glendale 4 1.84 1,310,000 $ 6,130,000 $ 79% CHEVY CHASE DR Solway St Eastern Glendale Border class ii Central Glendale 4 2.69 1,910,000 $ 8,960,000 $ 72% JACKSON ST Doran St Glenoaks Blvd class iv protected Central Glendale 4 0.25 650,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 68% MOUNTAIN ST Ethel St Verdugo Rd class iii route Central Glendale 4 0.12 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 65% MONTEREY RD Jackson St Naranja Dr class iv protected Central Glendale 4 0.64 1,660,000 $ 5,870,000 $ 62% ETHEL ST Glenoaks Blvd Mountain St class iii blvd Central Glendale 4 0.59 520,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 55% VALLEY VIEW RD Cumberland Rd Kenneth Rd class iii blvd Central Glendale 4 0.13 120,000 $ 240,000 $ 51% ALAMEDA AV Bel Aire Dr Glenoaks Blvd class iii blvd Central Glendale 4 0.64 570,000 $ 1,140,000 $ 46% CUMBERLAND RD Valley View Rd Highland Ave class iii blvd Central Glendale 4 0.66 590,000 $ 1,170,000 $ 27% ROSSMOYNE AV Dryden St Stocker St class iii route Central Glendale 4 0.09 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 21% ROSSMOYNE AV Dryden St Ethel St class iii blvd Central Glendale 4 0.06 60,000 $ 110,000 $ 21% BROADVIEW DR Roselawn Ave Verdugo Rd class iii blvd North Glendale 4 0.57 510,000 $ 1,010,000 $ 62% CALIFORNIA AV Brand Blvd - Isabel St Glendale Ave - Cedar St class iii blvd South Glendale 4 0.43 380,000 $ 770,000 $ 93% CALIFORNIA AV Isabel St Glendale Ave class ii South Glendale 4 0.18 130,000 $ 600,000 $ 93% BRAND BLVD Colorado St Glenoaks Blvd class iv protected South Glendale 4 1.16 3,008,000 $ 10,641,000 $ 91% CHEVY CHASE DR Acacia Ave Solway St class iv protected South Glendale 4 2.11 5,470,000 $ 19,350,000 $ 89% BRAND BLVD Southern Glendale City Limits Colorado St class iv protected South Glendale 4 1.50 3,890,000 $ 13,760,000 $ 87% JACKSON ST California Ave Broadway class ii South Glendale 4 0.25 180,000 $ 840,000 $ 86% JACKSON ST Harvard St Stocker St class iii blvd South Glendale 4 0.83 740,000 $ 1,470,000 $ 79% LINCOLN AV Rock Glen Ave Colorado St class iii blvd South Glendale 4 0.17 150,000 $ 310,000 $ 77% HARVARD ST Brand Blvd Glendale Ave class ii South Glendale 4 0.40 290,000 $ 1,340,000 $ 77% PALMER AV Glendale Ave Adams St class iii blvd South Glendale 4 0.56 500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 76% CEDAR ST Lexington Dr Colorado St class iii blvd South Glendale 4 0.64 570,000 $ 1,140,000 $ 61% GARDENA AV Central Ave Cerritos Ave class iii blvd South Glendale 4 0.14 130,000 $ 250,000 $ 51% GARDENA AV Los Feliz Boulevard Central Ave class iii blvd South Glendale 4 0.14 130,000 $ 250,000 $ 46% LAKE ST Western Glendale Border Davis Ave class iii blvd West Glendale 4 0.76 670,000 $ 1,350,000 $ 29% DAVIS AV Garden St Lake St class iii blvd West Glendale 4 0.13 120,000 $ 240,000 $ 26% 153 of 487

E X H I B I T 5

BIKE SUPPORTIVE

POLICIES AND

Bike Supportive policies and
Recommendations

1. 2.

3. 4.

Regularly collect data on bicycling in Glendale
Maintain updated bicycle network map and information
Provide convenient and accessible bicycle parking throughout Glendale Incorporate bicycle facilities in new developments through zoning requirements

5. Pilot active transportation projects to gauge impact and build support

6. Incorporate bicycle network implementation and maintenance into regular road repairs

7. 8.

Conduct education outreach campaigns
Lower speed limits

9. End penalties for bicycle safety measures

10. Prohbit vehicles from turning right on red lights in areas with high bicycle and pedestrian traffic

11. Adopt guidelines for reconfiguring traffic lanes in the General Plan Circulation Element

156 of 487

157 of 487

158 of 487

159 of 487

160 of 487

161 of 487

162 of 487

163 of 487

164 of 487

165 of 487

166 of 487

167 of 487

General Comments
• Concerned about the lack of inclusivity for bicyclist for people with disabili�es, elderly, and children. Commute doesn’t seem a logical when the majority of residents are motorists. • Is there a cost es�mate for the construc�on, opera�ons, and maintenance of the proposed network?
o The dra� cost es�mate is undergoing internal city review and will be presented to City Council once veted.
• There was a series of comments/ques�ons about the post cards sent out related to a current street project and how best to involve the public in these types of projects. o Commissioner asked if it was possible to see all outreach materials before they are sent out.
• How does AI and self-driving vehicles aﬀect this plan? o The regulatory regime will shape the adop�on of self-driving cars. However, regardless that technology, this is a plan to make it safe and enjoyable to bike all over Glendale for all ages and abili�es.
• When was the Circula�on Element last updated?
o In 1998. It is being updated now.

Suppor�ng Infrastructure and Policies
• Asked for clariﬁca�on on how bike ac�vated traﬃc signals work and how they compare to pedestrian signals.
• Comment that does not agree with legalizing sidewalk riding in business districts. • Comment that motorized vehicles and e-mobility should be prohibited from using the sidewalk. • Do peer ci�es or other jurisdic�ons allow sidewalk riding? Is there safety data to indicate the poten�al impacts on pedestrians?
o There is not consistently good data on crashes that occur on sidewalks between pedestrians and cyclists. The sample size is very small and the data is uneven. Pasadena and Glendale have no reported crashes, and Los Angeles has six such crashes in the past ﬁve years. In general, ped-bike crashes resul�ng in injury are rare across the region and vehicles pose the greatest threat to pedestrians and cyclists. • Comment that people ride on sidewalks because Glendale does not have a safe, in-street network. Lacking a safe place to ride in the street means some people who have to ride may ride on the sidewalk. There should be a compromise where sidewalk riding is allowable if there isn’t a dedicated bike lane on the street.
• Anything about bicycle licensing in the plan?
o No, this is not part of the bike plan. Licensing people to ride bikes creates a large barrier to biking and is not a common practice.
• Comment on how reducing speed limits could impact traffic. • Comment that an education campaign is needed to teach rights and responsibilities of the roadway to all road users.
• Comment expressing concern about prohibiting right turns on red. • Can the city collect data on bike parking in private buildings, especially new buildings.

EXHIBIT 6
168 of 487

Opera�ons and Maintenance
• How will bike lanes be maintained? Will special staﬀ be required to maintain them? Lane Reconﬁgura�on
• What can be learned from the redesign of Figueroa Street in Los Angeles? o The street redesign has resulted in a 11% decrease in vehicle volumes and a decrease in average speed and speeding. Bicycle traﬃc decreased by 4% and pedestrian traﬃc increased by 8%. Ac�ve modes on the corridor increased from 17% to 24% a�er the redesign.

• Have you spoken with emergency services (PD and FD) about the plan? o No, we have been coordina�ng with Public Works and the public commissions.

Network and Phasing
• Which of these projects are included in the CIP?
o The project team is working with Public Works to align Phase I with the CIP . In general, projects that can happen sooner than the assigned phase due to funding or capital projects, should be advanced.
• Can we see streets that are losing lanes a map of high and low volume streets? o A map of poten�al trade-oﬀs has been produced along with miles of street type. • Comment sugges�ng that public engagement be weighted lower in the Weighted Score. • Can the railroad right of way along San Fernando be used for bike infrastructure? o Caltrans has reserved that land for high speed rail.
• Is there a poten�al to upgrade some of our exis�ng bike routes into bike boulevards? o Based on feedback from previous mee�ngs we have looked at these corridors and upgraded them where feasible.
• Comment that the bike facility on Honolulu should con�nue west under the freeway to connect directly to La Tuna Canyon Road.
• Include Glendale and Chevy Chase in Phase I in coordina�on with the CIP . • How were the geographic areas determined for the geographic equity map? o West Glendale aligns with the West Glendale Plan. South Glendale is everything south of the Ventura Freeway. North Glendale is everything north of where N Verdugo Road and La Crescenta Avenue split. And Central Glendale is everything else.

Crash Analysis
• How do you consider fault data in the crash analysis? 169 of 487

o The SWITRS parties data does collect fault data, however there are a few factors that complicate how that data is collected and interpreted. The main ones are police biases and presence or lack of bike infrastructure. For example, a bicyclist may feel more comfortable riding in ways technically illegal and be cited for it, especially where there is no bike facility.
• Is there a regional or national standard for crash density and rates, and how does Glendale compare?
o There is no such standard. The purpose of the crash analysis is to identify unsafe corridors in Glendale relative to the city itself. The information can also be used to identify other corridors that do not yet have high concentrations of crashes but share similar characteristics.
• Is the crash methodology used, including the crash density, a national standard. o There is no national standard for how to conduct a crash analysis. The important thing to take away from the crash analysis is to identify high crash corridors in Glendale. Based on feedback from the PDT, we expanded the analysis to include 10 years of data and property only crashes (PDO). Typical methodologies use only 5 years of data and injury involved crashes only.
• Relative to Los Angeles, Glendale appears to have safer streets. o The point of the crash analysis is to identify unsafe streets and look for solutions to improve safety and save lives. Data from other jurisdictions is not used to say, we are doing better, but rather to understand if the city’s trends are normal or irregular. In this case, the trend is similar to that of Los Angeles.
• Why in the crash analysis are they called Draft Safety Corridors? o To align with the language of AB43.
170 of 487

EXHIBIT 7
Bike Lane Types
Class I Multi-Use
Path
Class IV Protected
Bike Lane
Class II Bike Lane Class II Climbing
Lane
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Class III Bike Routes
An off-street facility with Bike lanes that are A conventional striped bike lane denoted by
pavement markings.

A striped bike lane in
the uphill direction that
provides separation
between bicyclists and
vehicles for bicyclists
ascending steep hills.

Low-stress, marked
bikeways located on
low-volume, low-speed
local streets that
Signed bike routes on
low-stress streets that
use a shared lane,
designated through
shared lane markings
and signage.
exclusive space for
bicyclists and
physically separated
from vehicle traffic and
parking lanes using
vertical and horizontal
features, such as
pedestrians, with
minimal crossings by
vehicle traffic.
operate as shared
streets. These require
traffic calming features
such as neighborhood
traffic circles, chicanes,
and traffic diverters to
maintain low vehicle
speeds and volumes.
bollards, planters, and
parked vehicles.
9COPYRIGHT © 1976-2021 BURO HAPPOLD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 171 of 487

EXHIBIT 8
CRASH ANALYSIS – FINDINGS
Glendale Bicycle Plan Update
October 11, 2023
T
he below document outlines findings from the crash analysis portion of the Existing Conditions subtask of the Glendale Bicycle Plan Update. The crash analysis utilizes data on bicycle crashes from California’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and reflects requested changes to the Crash Analysis methodology.

Incorporating these changes, this analysis utilizes bicycle-involved crashes within the City of Glendale within a ten-year period between 2012 and 2021 and considers all bicycle crashes inclusive of property damage- only (PDO) crashes. Bicycle-involved crashes that took place on a state highway within Glendale have been excluded.

Summary Crash Statistics
The below section presents descriptive data derived from the last ten years of available data from bicycle crashes in the City of Glendale. The descriptive data also notes crashes included from the overall dataset that resulted in fatalities or severe injuries (killed or severely injured, or KSI). 172 of 487

2 General Crash Descriptions
Figure 1. Glendale Bicycle Crashes by Year (2012 – 2021)

0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Other Crashes KSI Crashes
173 of 487

3 Figure 2. Bicycle Injury and Fatal Crashes Comparison by Year (2012 – 2021)

Table 1. Bicycle Crashes by Year1
(excluding PDO crashes)

Total
Bicycle
Crashes
%
Crashes
# of KSI
Crashes % of KSI Injury and Fatal Crashes /
100,000 residents
Glendale Pasadena LA County
2012 68 15% 2 10% 27.4 65.1 49.9
2013 61 14% 3 15% 29.8 68.5 46.5
2014 54 12% 4 20% 26.0 76.9 43.7
2015 53 12% 1 5% 21.7 51.1 41.2
2016 53 12% 3 15% 22.0 45.1 37.2
2017 48 11% 6 30% 22.3 45.8 35.6
2018 30 7% 1 5% 13.4 29.7 34.9
2019 32 7% 0 0% 15.6 43.3 33.1

1 The first column of each table lists total bicycle-involved crashes, including those resulting in fatalities or severe injuries (KSI). The KSI columns record the number of KSI crashes (20 total over ten years), and the percent of KSI crashes by year out of that separate total. 0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
LA County Injury and Fatal Crashes
Glendale Injury and Fatal Crashes
Glendale LA County
174 of 487

4 2020 25 6% 0 0% 11.7 32.4 24.9
2021 21 5% 0 0% 10.4 39.8 18.4
Grand
Total 445 100% 20 100%

Bicycle crashes in Glendale have declined in the past ten years, from a peak in 2012 at the beginning of the observed period. The most number of severe injuries occurred in 2017. The decrease in overall bicycle-involved crashes in this period follows broader regional trends, as shown in Figure 2. KSI crashes in Glendale peaked in 2017, and none have been recorded in the last three years of the observed period.

The chart also shows rates of bicycle crashes resulting in injury or fatality per 100,000 residents, comparing to Pasadena and broader LA County. PDO crashes were excluded for comparison purposes. Pasadena, a peer city with similar land uses and approximately a third fewer people, also experienced a similar drop in crashes. While a multitude of factors likely influenced this trend, American Community Survey data does show bicycle commuting falling significantly in this period, suggesting fewer people were biking overall. When comparing by population, Glendale has fewer bicycle crashes per 100,000 people than LA County or Pasadena throughout this period.

It should be noted, however, that the data is not normalized by exposure and ridership, and data collected during 2020 and 2021 may be affected by changes in travel patterns brought upon by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Additional factors such as land use, availability of bicycle facilities, and demographic composition also likely influence exposure and ridership rates.

Table 2. Bicycle Crash Severity
Crash Severity # Crashes % Crashes
Property Damage Only 50 11%
Complaint of Pain 165 37%
Other Visible Injury 210 47%
Severe 18 4%
Fatal 2 0.4%
Grand Total 445 100%

Two fatal crashes and 18 crashes resulting in severe injuries took place in City of Glendale streets between 2012 and 2020. Only 11 percent of crashes in Glendale were property damage only, and nearly half resulted in a visible injury. By comparison, Pasadena had a similar distribution of severe and fatal crashes over this period, while LA County as a whole saw higher rates of severe and fatal crashes.

175 of 487

5 Table 3. COVID-19 and Crash Injury Comparison
Year KSI Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain PDO Total
Crashes
Pre-COVID-19 Total 1 30 27 4 62
2018 1 15 12 2 30
2019 0 15 15 2 32
COVID-19 Total 0 26 17 3 46
2020 0 13 10 2 25
2021 0 13 7 1 21

The incidence of bicycle-involved crashes within Glendale slowed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the two preceding years, the total number of crashes fell by approximately 25 percent. Crashes caus ing complaints of pain fell by nearly a third. While there was only one crash resulting in a severe injury in 2018, no crashes caused fatalities or severe injuries during the pandemic. Causes for the sharp reduction during the pandemic likely have multiple complex causes, possibly owing to a combination of changes in commuting behaviors and modes.

Figure 3. Bicycle Crashes by Time of Day

More than half of all crashes, including KSI crashes, occurred during the daytime, between 8:00 am and 4:00 pm.

Notably, nearly a third of crashes occurred in the early evening hours, between 4:00 pm and 8:00 pm, when conditions are darker or becoming darker. KSI crashes followed these trends, with 90 percent taking place during the day or early evening.
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
12 - 4 AM 4 - 8 AM 8 AM - 12 PM 12 PM - 4 PM 4 PM - 8 PM 8 PM - 12 AM Total Crashes KSI Crashes
176 of 487

6 Crash Behaviors
Table 4. Most Common Vehicle Code Violation Categories
Violation Category # Crashes % Crashes # of
KSI % of KSI
Wrong Side of Road 98 22% 2 10%
Automobile Right of Way 88 20% 3 15%
Improper Turning 75 17% 2 10%
Other Hazardous Violation 47 11% 2 10%
Traffic Signals and Signs 38 9% 4 20%
Unsafe Speed 31 7% 3 15%

Table 4 shows the six most common vehicle code violation categories cited in the crash data. As this is a selection of most common factors, the table does not total to 445 crashes. These violations include “Wrong Side of the Road,” “Automobile Right of Way,” and “Improper Turning.” The first refers to a vehicle operating on the wrong side of the street or bicyclists not riding as far right as practicable as required by law, while the second includes violations where road users fail to yield properly, such as failing to yield to others when making turns or entering the roadway. “Improper Turning” refers to unsafe turning practices by road users.

Notably, while “Traffic Signals and Signs” and “Unsafe Speed” are cited for only 9 and 7 percent of all crashes respectively, they comprise 20 and 15 percent of KSI crashes. “Unsafe Speed” includes instances where a person was driving or riding at a speed considered “unreasonable,” which includes exceeding the speed limit, while “Traffic Signals and Signs” includes violations such as failing to come to a complete stop at stop signs and red lights. Responding officers to these crashes under these common violation categories found both drivers and bicyclists commonly at fault.

Table 5. Crashes by Collision Type
Collision Type # Crashes % Crashes # of KSI % of KSI
Head-On 15 3% 1 5%
Sideswipe 77 17% 0 0%
Rear End 37 8% 4 20%
Broadside 244 55% 8 40%
Hit Object 4 1% 0 0%
Overturned 3 1% 0 0%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 16 4% 1 5%
Other/Not Recorded 49 11% 6 30%
177 of 487

7 Grand Total 445 100% 20 100%

Table 5 details the distribution of crashes by their collision type, or how the collision physically occurred. Many collisions in this period were broadsides, in which a bicyclist and motorist collided at a right angle. This also contributed to a plurality of KSI crashes, suggesting that conditions relating to broadside crashes may include those that frequently yield more severe crash outcomes, such as higher speeds.

Table 6. Alcohol Involved Crashes
Alcohol
Involved? # Crashes % Crashes # of KSI % of KSI
Yes 26 6% 4 20%
No 419 94% 16 80%
445 100% 20 100%

Table 6 depicts the influence of alcohol in bicycle-involved crashes. Six percent of all crashes involved alcohol, but 20 percent of all KSI crashes involved at least one party being under the influence of alcohol.

Environmental Factors
Table 7. Collision by Lighting Condition
Lighting Condition # Crashes % Crashes # of KSI % of KSI Daylight 348 78% 15 75%
Dusk - Dawn 12 3% 0 0%
Dark - Street Lights 78 18% 4 20%
Dark - No Street Lights 3 1% 1 5%
Not Stated 4 1% 0 0%
Grand Total 445 100% 20 100%

As most crashes took place during the day, daylight lighting is the most common condition. However, almost a fifth of crashes took place during the dark under streetlights. This pattern is shared by KSI crashes as well.

178 of 487

8 Table 8. Collisions by Location in Street
Crash Location # Crashes % Crashes # of KSI % of KSI
At street segment 127 29% 6 30%
At intersection 318 71% 14 70%
Grand Total 445 100% 20 100%

More than a third of bicycle collisions took place at intersections, which, when combined with the above rates of right-of-way and turning vehicle violations, may support a high need for intersection safety improvements.

Bicycle Crash Party Descriptions

Table 9. Bicyclists by Race
Bicyclist Race Count
Not stated 253
White 94
Hispanic 72
Asian 11
Black 9
Other 6
Total 445

Note: Table 9 documents the race of bicyclist parties involved in crashes, as is presented in the SWITRS crash data. For more than half of people involved in a crash, no race was provided.

Additional work may be done to separate racial makeup of crash victims from other parties involved; however, the large number of missing entries may not yield data that is easily comparable to other trends or conditions.

Table 10. Bicyclist Victims by Age
Ages Number of
Victims Percent of Victims Number of
KSI Victims
Percent of
KSI Victims
7-14 35 8% 1 5%
179 of 487

9 15-19 61 14% 0 0%
20-24 46 10% 0 0%
25-29 56 13% 4 20%
30-34 51 11% 1 5%
35-39 26 6% 1 5%
40-44 29 7% 2 10%
45-49 28 6% 3 15%
50-54 31 7% 3 15%
55-59 32 7% 3 15%
60-64 14 3% 0 0%
65-69 13 3% 0 0%
70 and Above 12 3% 1 5%
Unknown 11 2% 1 5%
Total 445 100% 20 100%

Figure 4. Bicycle Crash Victims by Age Range2

2 For summary purposes, age ranges are not presented in equal intervals. 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
7-19 20-34 35-49 50-64 65 and above
Number of Victims Number of KSI Victims
180 of 487

10 More than 50 percent of crash victims were 34 or younger, and more than a third were between the ages of 20 and 34.

Table 11. Collision Victims by Gender
Gender Total Crashes Percent of Total
Crashes KSI Crashes Percent of KSI
Crashes
Female 55 12% 3 15%
Male 385 87% 17 85%
Unknown 5 1% 0 0%
Grand Total 445 100% 20 100%

181 of 487

11 Bicycle Crash Density
The below map shown in Figure 5 demonstrates the density of bicycle-involved crashes within the City of Glendale. As with the above summary statistics, this analysis uses 2012-2021 crash data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Record System.

Methodology
Based on these trends, several Safety Corridors have been identified. The analysis uses the Sliding Windows methodology to understand crashes throughout the street network, identifying segments with the highest crash density, weighted by crash severity. The analysis is done by determining the number and severity of crashes in a half-mile “window” on a roadway and shifting that window along the roadway 1/10 mile at a time. Crashes are weighted by severity, and individual street segments receive a score. Following input from the Project Development Team, crashes resulting in only property damage were included in the analysis. To preserve the balance in segment scoring by severity, weights were adjusted to five points for KSI crashes, two points for all other injuries, and one point for PDO crashes.

The below findings present the results of the Sliding Windows analysis of historical crash data with functional classifications, with some cleaning conducted to remove segments double-counted at intersection crashes. The list comprises the highest-scoring segments, as well as several additional streets that included consistent clusters of crashes. The Sliding Windows results may be further modified based on additional considerations, such as ground truthing lane width, intersection conditions on high-scoring segments, and stakeholder input.

Initial Findings
The below Safety Corridors are largely major arterials that connect major destinations, neighborhoods, and commercial areas in downtown and central Glendale. Several arterials, such as Glenoaks Blvd and Brand Blvd, are key connections to Burbank and Los Angeles, respectively. Several corridors that cross SR -134 north-south appear in the list: these are often where access across the highway is restricted to major streets. No streets in northern Glendale appeared in the list, as fewer crashes occurred there.

The inclusion of additional years of bicycle crash data, as well as PDO crashes, within the analysis, surfaced several additional low and medium crash density segments, several of which are along residential streets. These include Columbus Ave and Riverdale Dr in southwestern Glendale, as well as E Chevy Chase Dr and E Glenoaks Blvd as they pass beneath the 2 Freeway in eastern Glendale.

Highest-scoring streets generally include wide thoroughfares with four-to-six lanes and no bicycling infrastructure.

Some, such as Pacific Ave and Broadway, include sharrow markings on the outer lanes to signify bicycling routes.

Glenoaks Blvd, which is six lanes wide with a planted median, does include a striped, Class II bike lane adjacent to parking lanes. Central Ave features Class II bike lanes as well, though these end to the north of the highest scoring segment (Broadway to Chevy Chase Dr).

Table 12. Draft Safety Corridors

CORRIDOR FROM TO
GLENOAKS BLVD Allen Ave Brand Blvd
S BRAND BLVD Los Feliz Rd Glenoaks Blvd
COLORADO ST Pacific Ave Brand Blvd
182 of 487

12 BROADWAY San Fernando Rd Chevy Chase Dr
S GLENDALE AVE San Fernando Rd Chestnut St

N GLENDALE AVE/

VERDUGO RD
Broadway Mountain St
PACIFIC AVE Broadway Glenwood Rd
SAN FERNANDO RD Central Ave SR-134
S CENTRAL AVE Broadway Chevy Chase Dr
CHEVY CHASE DR Windsor Rd Broadway

183 of 487

13 Figure 5. Revised Bicycle Crash Density and Bicycle Crashes (2012 – 2021)

184 of 487

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Initiation of Code Amendments to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code Related to Development Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for July 30, 2024 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Zoning standards for accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”) were first established in 2017 and have since been amended several times to bring them into compliance with constantly evolving State law. State law requires cities to ministerially approve ADUs and JADUs subject to very limited standards.

Following a comprehensive review of the City’s ADU/JADU standards, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) alleges several standards are not in compliance with State law. Staff disagrees that many of such standards are out of compliance, but in some cases is recommending amendments to ADU/JADU zoning standards, while in other cases recommends that the Council adopting findings regarding the City’s compliance with State law. Staff has summarized the areas identified by HCD and provided options for amendments. This report is the first step in completing these amendments, in that staff is requesting that Council provide direction and initiate amendments to Title 30 of the GMC as it relates to development standards for ADUs and JADUs.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council review this report and provide direction regarding amendments to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code related generally to zoning development standards for ADUs and JADUs.
185 of 487

28c
5 3
0 4

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The City of Glendale first established zoning standards for ADUs in 2017 as a result of State legislation (AB 2299 and SB 1069) that required local agencies to ministerially approve ADUs. Since then, and in response to changing legislation from the State, the City has adopted a series of ordinances regarding zoning requirements for ADUs and JADUs on residential properties. The most recent update to the ordinance (Ordinance No. 5997) was adopted by City Council on November 15, 2022, and is codified in Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) Section 30.34.080 (“ADU/JADU Ordinance”).

In a letter dated December 7, 2023, HCD identified 16 general areas where they contend the City’s ADU ordinance conflicts with State law. The City responded to HCD on January 31, 2024, and addressed each of the 16 areas, analyzing reasons its ADU/JADU Ordinance complies with State law in all 16 areas, but committing nevertheless, to bring forth certain clarifying and other amendments to City Council for consideration. Since then, a series of written communications have been exchanged with HCD regarding the ADU/JADU Ordinance, including a Notice of Violation issued by HCD on June 19, 2024 that requires the City to either amend its ADU/JADU Ordinance to satisfy HCD’s findings of non-compliance, or adopt its own findings to explain reasons its Ordinance complies with State law.1
The City responded to the June 16 letter by reiterating its position that its ADU/JADU Ordinance complies with State law, but ultimately committed to a timeline for potential adoption of various amendments (or findings, as the case may be) to the Ordinance by early November of 2024. The first step in adoption of such amendments requires Council to initiate the changes and provide direction to staff. Below is a list of the topics associated with the 16 areas HCD initially identified in their December 7, 2023, letter.

1. Dwelling Unit Size

2. Where JADUs are Permitted

3. ADUs in Proposed Multi-Family Development

4. Size Limits on Attached ADUs

5. JADUs and Development Standards

6. Accessory Living Quarters*

7. Street-Front and Street-Side Setback

8. JADUs and Short-Term Rentals

9. JADUs and Separate Sales

10. Unit Mix – Number of ADUs Allowed*

11. Architectural Compatibility*

12. ADUs Above a Detached Garage*

13. ADUs in Proposed Multi-Family Development (Similar to #3)

14. Parking
1 Government Code Section 66326(b)(2) provides that if HCD finds a city’s ordinance does not comply with State law, a city must either amend its ordinance to make changes HCD claims are necessary to achieve compliance, or “[a]dopt the ordinance without changes. The [city must] include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with [State law] despite the findings of [HCD].” 186 of 487

38c
5 3
0 4

15. Covenant and Agreement Requirements

16. JADUs and Owner Occupancy
For a majority of these items, staff agrees that clarifying amendments to the City’s Zoning Code are prudent. For those items noted with an asterisk (*), staff is specifically seeking direction from Council on how to proceed. Also, some of these topics are related to what is commonly referred to as a “mandatory ADU”, which is an ADU that must be allowed, regardless of compliance with other zoning development standards (e.g., FAR, Lot Coverage, Landscaping, etc.) as long as it is limited to 800 square-feet (SF) in size, located at least four feet away from an interior setback and complies with the specified height requirements that range from 16 to 25 feet depending on location on-site and proximity to major transit. Gov’t Code § 66321(b)(3); GMC § 30.34.080(E)(2).

If the City disagrees with HCD’s claims and determines no amendments are necessary, Government Code Section 66326 requires the City to adopt findings explaining why its ordinance complies with State law. The following paragraphs summarize each of the 16 HCD-identified areas and staff’s recommended course of action (whether to amend or adopt findings of compliance). These 16 topics are also discussed in a matrix included as Exhibit 1 to this report.

Dwelling Unit Size
HCD claims that Glendale’s minimum dwelling unit sizes for ADUs and JADUs are more restrictive than the State’s required minimums This is a misunderstanding that can be easily clarified; the standards for minimum dwelling unit sizes in GMC Section 30.11.050 are specifically for standard dwelling units in multi-family zones and under no circumstances apply to ADUs or JADUs, which are defined separately with separate standards. In response to this claim, staff recommends amending the referenced section to clarify that the dwelling unit sizes in GMC Section 30.11.050 do not include ADUs or JADUs, which are defined and governed separately in GMC Section 30.34.080.

Where JADUs are Permitted
Government Code Section 66333 restricts JADUs to lots in single-family residential zones with either an existing or proposed single-family dwelling unit. HCD claims that the City’s ADU/JADU Ordinance violates State law because JADUs are also permitted in the multi- family, commercial, mixed-use, special purpose, and transit-oriented development zones.

The definition of a JADU and the standards specified in GMC Section 30.34.080 are clear that JADUs are restricted to single-family properties, meaning there is only one dwelling unit on the site, regardless of zone. This was done intentionally to be fair and equitable to the many single-family use properties located throughout different zones of the City.

The City acknowledges that State Law restricts JADUs to single-family residential zones, but in adopting regulations, the City did not interpret this provision as a prohibition on allowing JADUs on single-family use properties in other zones. Implementing this change will require amendments to the land use charts in the zoning code and DSP to omit references to JADUs. Moving forward, those properties that are developed with a single- family use outside of a single-family zone would no longer be eligible to construct a JADU, 187 of 487

48c
5 3
0 4
and would be restricted to one or more ADU. Though, Council could find that the ADU/JADU Ordinance does not violate State law by being more permissive and allowing JADUs on single family properties in non-single-family zones, and thus, could direct staff to draft the necessary findings in accordance with Government Code § 66326 to keep this provision as-is, staff recommends that Council direct staff to amend Title 30 to address HCD’s requested amendment.

ADUs in Proposed Multi-Family Development
This topic appears twice in the original HCD’s December 2023 letter, and pertains to .

GMC Sections 30.34.080(D)(1) and 30.34.080(F)(4), which appears to prohibit (or rather, exclude the allowance of) ADUs in proposed multi-family developments, where State law allows ADUs in proposed multi-family developments. This was an oversight and the City never intended to exclude proposed multi-family developments from constructing ADUs.

The City has always allowed and will continue to allow a proposed multi-family development to construct ADUs as part of the development in accordance with applicable standards. Staff is recommending amending both referenced code sections to clarify that ADUs are allowed in proposed multi-family development, which will be consistent with current practice.

Size Limits on Attached ADUs
The development standards in GMC Section 30.34.080(D)(7) include restrictions on the size of ADUs that are proposed to be attached to the existing single-family residences, where the attached ADU cannot exceed 50% of the existing square-footage of the house.

HCD claims that this provision violates State law because it would preclude an owner from developing a “mandatory ADU” which is restricted to a maximum size of 800 SF.

Currently, the City abides by the requirement of State Law to allow an exception to the development standards when they would preclude the construction of a “mandatory ADU”. Staff is recommending amending the applicable code section to clarify that the 50% restriction does not apply to the “mandatory ADUs”, which will be consistent with our current practice.

JADUs and Development Standards
HCD cites GMC Section 30.34.080(D)(3) and claims that the City is in violation of State Law because the proper exception for JADUs is not specified in the ordinance as it relates to JADUs and the underlying zoning development standards. However, this is incorrect, because the GMC states that ADUs and JADUs are subject to the underlying zoning development standards applicable to the primary dwelling, except as set forth in the section. Staff is recommending amending the applicable code section to include a clarifying statement that specifically cites the code section for the mandatory ADUs and JADUs not subject to underlying zoning development standards.

Accessory Living Quarters*
GMC Section 30.34.080(D)(9) establishes restrictions on single-family properties and allows either an ADU or accessory living quarters, but not both. An accessory living quarter can include any building with an “R” Occupancy per the California Building Code.

Common examples include a guest house, pool house, recreation room, workshop, and 188 of 487

58c
5 3
0 4
rumpus room. In their letter, HCD cites Government Code § 66314(d)(3) which provides a choice of the type of ADU created and includes attached or located within the primary dwelling (including attached garages, storage areas or similar uses), or an accessory structure.

HCD claims that because there is no language in State Law requiring an existing accessory living quarters to be converted to an ADU, that the City’s restriction is in violation. Staff contends that since there is no language in State law specifically prohibiting a local agency from requiring a property with existing accessory living quarters from either converting it or demolishing it to build an ADU, that there is no violation of State law. The intent of this restriction was to minimize a proliferation of detached accessory buildings on lots which further reduces landscaping and open space, and contributes to additional lot coverage and FAR, and to encourage applicants to convert accessory living quarters to ADUs which contributes to independent living facilities to support renters. Staff is recommending that no amendments to the current ordinance be proposed and Council direct staff to draft the necessary findings in accordance with Government Code Section 66326. Alternatively, the Council can consider amending the ordinance to omit this prohibition, which would allow all applicants moving forward to maintain their accessory living quarters and build an ADU. If this alternative moves forward, staff recommends considering amending the residential standards to limit the number of accessory living quarters permitted on a property to minimize the proliferation of detached accessory buildings on single-family lots.

Street-Front and Street-Side Setback
Regardless of the city’s street-front and street-side setback requirements, if construction of a “mandatory ADU” would be prohibited by such requirements, the City must allow such “mandatory ADU” in the street-front and street-side setback areas so long as the 4’- 0” interior setbacks are provided. The City’s current language in GMC Section

30.34.080(D)(10) already allows this for single-family properties in accordance with State Law. Staff oversight in drafting the ordinance originally excluded the multi-family ADUs in the language, however, our practice is to allow them in accordance with State Law. Staff is recommending clarifying language be added to the referenced section to include multi- family properties.

JADUs and Short-Term Rentals
The City has established a minimum rental term of 30 days for ADUs and JADUs in the Zoning Code. GMC § 30.34.080(d)(11) (“Any rental of an accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term longer than 30 days.”) In other words, ADUs and JADUs cannot be used as home-sharing short- term rentals. HCD claims that the City is in violation of State law as it relates to JADUs because there are no restrictions on the rental terms established in State law for JADUs, only for ADUs. Staff disagrees that just because State law does not specify a minimum rental term for JADUs, does not mean the City cannot impose one. However, the Council can consider removing this restriction on JADU rental terms, which would allow JADU owners to rent their property on a short-term basis (subject to JADU owner-occupancy requirements and the City’s home-sharing regulations).
189 of 487

68c
5 3
0 4
JADUs and Separate Sales
Starting January 1, 2024, cities have the option to allow the separate sale of ADUs from the primary dwelling, but the separate sale of JADUs is prohibited. HCD claims that the City should clarify that prohibition for JADUs. Staff disagrees that a clarification in the City’s ADU/JADU Ordinance is necessary because the current Ordinance language already references the applicable sections of the Government Code. However, since this amendment would not be substantive, staff recommends that the Council direct staff to amend the language in GMC Section 30.34.080 to clarify that a JADU may not be sold separately under any circumstances.

Unit Mix – Number of ADUs Allowed*
HCD claims that the provisions of Government Code § 66323(a)(1) thru (4) require the City to allow a maximum of three units to be permitted on single-family properties consisting of one converted ADU, one detached new construction ADU, and one JADU.

On multi-family properties, HCD claims that State law allow owners to combine the right to build two detached ADUs and multiple ADUs by converting existing non-livable space.

The City does not agree that the intent of the referenced sections of State Law is to allow up to three accessory units on single-family properties, and multiple accessory units on multi-family properties by combining new construction and conversions.

The City Attorney’s Office researched the legislative history of AB 68 and AB 881 (the bills that amended State ADU law to allow these combinations in 2019), and both contain reports evidencing that the legislature intended to allow a maximum of one ADU and one JADU in single-family developments. For example, with respect to AB 68, the April 3, 2019 report titled "Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development", on page 4 under the heading "Relaxing ADU Standards", states: "[t]his bill makes major changes to the ADU statute to facilitate the development of more ADUs ... , including the following: Increases the number of AD Us allowed to be constructed per lot by potentially allowing two ADUs on lots with single-family homes, and multiple ADUs on lots with multi- family dwellings." Similar language is contained in the September 9, 2019 report titled "Concurrence in Senate Amendments", at page 2 ("This bill ... [i]ncreases the number of ADUs allowed to be constructed per lot by potentially allowing two ADUs on lots with single-family homes, and multiple ADUs on lots with multi-family dwellings.") Moreover, with respect to AB 881, the Senate Floor Analysis dated September 1, 2019 contains a table on page 5 that delineates that each lot may only have one JADU and one ADU.

HCD argues that the word "any" contained in Government Code Section 66323(a)(1-2) means that a property owner could construct any and all (a phrase that is missing from State law) of what follows. This is a strained and illogical reading of this section that contradicts the overall ADU/JADU statutory scheme. Section 66323's language requires a local agency to ministerially approve an application "to create any of the following" and then delineates what is clearly two different and distinct alternate scenarios: 1) a "converted" ADU and a JADU meeting certain specifications; or 2) a detached new construction ADU and a JADU. The legislature was clear that each type of ADU (converted or new construction) could also combine with a JADU (and only one JADU with each type of ADU). Under HCDs reading of the statute, requiring the allowance of 190 of 487

78c
5 3
0 4
any and all of the listed types of ADUs/JADUs on one lot, an applicant could create each of the two kinds of ADUs and a JADU for each ADU (resulting in 2 ADUs and 2 JADUs).

However, a lot cannot have more than one JADU pursuant to Government Code Section 66333 Accordingly, HCDs construction of the statutory language is not in harmony with Section 66333, and thus violates the rules of statutory construction. See Skidgel v.

California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 12 Cal. 5th 1, 14 (20 21) (holding court must "construe the words in question in context, keeping in mind the statutes' nature and obvious purposes. . .. [and] harmonize the various parts of the enactments by considering them in the context of the statutory [framework] as a whole"). The same statutory construction should thus apply to section 66323(a)(3-4), in that an applicant must choose either two detached ADUs or conversion of non-livable existing space up to 25% of the existing units. Accordingly, the City’s position is that this section of its ADU/JADU Ordinance is in compliance with State law.

Staff is recommending that no amendments to the current Ordinance be proposed and Council direct staff to draft the necessary findings in accordance with Government Code § 66326 explaining why the City is in compliance with State law. Alternatively, at Council’s direction, staff can draft amendments to the ADU ordinance to reflect HCD’s interpretation of this section.

Architectural Compatibility*
As it relates to design, State Law allows local agencies to establish objective standards for ADUs. The zoning standards in GMC 30.34.080 establish an “architectural compatibility” requirement for ADUs which means the proposal must use matching or complementary building materials unless compliance would preclude the development of a “mandatory ADU”. HCD claims that the “architectural compatibility” requirement is subjective and therefore the city is in violation of State law. Staff is recommending omitting references in the zoning code to the architectural compatibility requirement for ADUs and creating objective standards, similar to what was created for SB9 units, but focusing on façades directly facing the street and second-story additions. Alternatively, Council may choose not to implement any objective design standards on ADUs. In that case, the only exception would be related to historic properties where the City would maintain existing language that prohibits changes visible from the public realm.

ADUs Above a Detached Garage*
Currently, the zoning requirements for ADUs prohibit ADUs to be built on top of existing detached garages or carports. This was allowed for the first few years of Glendale’s ADU/JADU Ordinance, however, in 2020 the Council amended the Ordinance to prohibit this type of ADU from being constructed. This change was in response to an increase in the number of complaints from residents regarding privacy issues.

Government Code § 66314(d)(3) allows ADUs to be attached to detached garages and HCD is asserting that the term “attached” would include an ADU built on top of an existing detached garage. The City maintains that neither the language nor intent of State law supports this claim. The referenced Government Code section mandates that the City allow an ADU to be attached to or located within the space of the primary dwelling 191 of 487

88c
5 3
0 4
(including attached garages and other areas that are attached), or mandates that the City allow an ADU to be converted from an accessory structure, or that the ADU be detached from the primary dwelling, including detached garages. The City allows all of these scenarios and is therefore in compliance. Staff is recommending that no amendments to the current ADU/JADU Ordinance be proposed and Council direct staff to draft the necessary findings in accordance with Government Code § 66326. Alternatively, at Council’s direction, staff will craft amendments to the ADU ordinance to allow an ADU above a detached garage or carport. If Council elects this option, staff can also draft objective design standards for such ADUs that could minimize privacy concerns, such as prohibiting windows and/or balconies from overlooking a neighboring property.

Parking
HCD identified one of the required parking exceptions for ADUs that is specified in State law and missing from the City’s ADU/JADU Ordinance. The exception would not require parking be provided for the ADU when submitted with a permit application to build a new single-family dwelling or new multi-family dwelling, so long as the ADU satisfies other criteria in the sub-section. This was an oversight by the City to not include this exception and staff is recommending amending the ADU/JADU Ordinance to include this.

Covenant and Agreement
Currently, all property owners developing an ADU and/or JADU on their property are required to enter into a covenant and agreement with the City regarding prohibition of individual sales, compliance with required parking, owner-occupancy restrictions on JADUs, short term rental prohibitions, that the permit runs with the land, and provisions for when the ADU and/or JADU must be removed. HCD contends that because State law does not require deed restrictions for ADUs, the City’s requirement for the Covenant and Agreement is in violation of State law. The City disagrees that simply because State law does not require a deed restriction for ADUs, it prohibits the City from requiring one.

However, the main reason for the ADU covenant in the first place was to ensure current and future owners would have notice of the owner-occupancy requirement for a property with an ADU, but this requirement was eliminated by State law effective January 2020.

Accordingly, since the main purpose of the Covenant (notice of owner-occupancy requirement) has been eliminated, staff recommends that Council direct staff to remove the requirement to enter into and record a covenant as a condition of approval of an ADU building permit application.

JADUs and Owner Occupancy
Pursuant to State law, the owner of a property with a JADU is required to live in either the JADU or the remaining portion of the residence. Government Code § 66333(b). The City’s ADU/JADU Ordinance, however, provides that if the owner does not live on-site, the property can only be rented as a whole (meaning that, though the owner does not have to live at the property, the residential dwelling and JADU cannot be rented separately to different renters). The City’s ADU/JADU Ordinance is more permissive than State law, which, again, requires owner-occupancy for properties with an existing JADU. The City’s position has been that a more permissive standard is allowed under State law. However, the plain language of Section 66333(b) requires owner-occupancy of properties with a 192 of 487

98c
5 3
0 4
JADU, and thus, staff recommends that Council direct staff to amend the ADU/JADU Ordinance to make this change to be consistent with State law, requiring an owner of a property with a JADU to live at the property.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Stakeholder and public outreach may be conducted during policy studies. Council may provide any additional direction regarding outreach methods; however, Council should note that the City has committed to HCD that it will follow a timeline that ensures adoption of amendments by early November.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA)
No environmental review is required for City Council to initiate code changes, as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that this activity will have a significant effect on the environment, but such review will be conducted prior to Code adoption. The amendments will likely be exempt from further environmental review, as they will concern former Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22, second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone, which are exempt from further review per the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15282(h).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Decline to direct staff to begin the process of modifying the Zoning Code for ADU/JADU development standards.

2. Choose any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Vista Ezzati, Principal Planner
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1:ADU/JADU Matrix Regarding HCD Claims and City Responses 193 of 487

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________________, that the Council hereby initiates preparation of amendments to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code related to development standards for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, as set forth in the July 30, 2024 staff report from the Director of Community Development, and per additional or further direction provided by Council at the meeting of the same date. Staff is further directed to submit the Ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation and then to the Council for its consideration. Council direction for the preparation of said code amendment is as follows:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _______.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
194 of 487

No. Topic Zoning Code
Section
Gov't Code Section
Cited
New Section
HCD Claim City Response Proposed/Suggested Amendments
1 D welling Unit
Size 30.11.050 65852. 2 (j)(1)
66313 (a) and (d)
GMC standard for dwelling unit size
minimums are more restrictive than State's
ADU regulations and definition.

Those standards are for standard dwelling units in a multi-family zone and does not apply to an ADU, which has a separate definition and standards.

City is not violating State law but clarifying language proposed.

GMC Section 30.11.050, Sub-Section A
Development Standards for Dwelling Unit Size in Multi-Family Zones Amend language to clarify that the dwelling unit sizes in this section do not include Accessory D
welling Units or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, which are defined and governed separately in GMC Section 30.34.080.

No
option
2 W
here
JADUs are
Permitted
Table 30.11-A

30.11.020
The State only
identifies this
section, however,
the change would
impact many code
sections
.
65852.22 (a)
66333
Under State law JADUs can only be created
in single-family zones, where the GMC also
allows them in multi-family zones.

The definition of a JADU as well as the standards specified in GMC Section

30.34.080 are clear that they are only allowed on single-family properties, meaning there is only 1 dwelling unit existing on-site. The GMC allows JADUs on properties with a single-family use, regardless of zone and this was done intentionally in order to be fair and equitable as there are many single-family use properties located in multi-family and non-residential zones. While the City acknowledges that State Law specifies single-family residential zones, the City does not interpret this section as a prohibition on the allowance of JADU construction in multi-family zones that contain a single-family residence. Nevertheless, the City will bring an amendment forward for Council consideration.

GMC: Table 30.11-A, Section 30.11.020 (Residential Districts) Table 30.12-A, Section 30.12.020 (Commercial Districts) Table 30.14-A, Section 30.14.020 (Mixed Use Districts)
T
able 30.15-A, Section 30.15.020 (Special Purpose Districts) Table 30.16.020-A, Section 30.16.020 (TOD Districts)
Table 3-A-I, Section 3.3 of the DSP
Omit references to JADUs in the various land use charts so that they are only permitted in single- family zones.

No
option
3 A
DUs in
proposed
multi-family
dev
elopment

30.34.080 (D) (1) 65852. 2 (a)(1)(D)(ii)
66314 (d)(2) and (3)
GMC prohibits ADUs within proposed multi-
family developments.

The intent of this section is not to limit ADUs with proposed dwelling units in single- family zones. The City has always and will continue to allow a proposed multi- family development to construct one or more ADUs in conformance with the multi- f
amily ADU standards. Nevertheless, the City will bring an amendment to clarify this fact.

Amend Referenced Section -
Accessory dwelling units shall be permitted in any zone that allows residential uses and is developed with residential uses or, in the case of single-family zones only, is proposed to be developed with a residential use. a residential dwelling unit.

Also Amend GMC Section 30.34.080.F
Additional Standards Specific Only to Accessory Dwelling Units on Lots Developed with Existing Multiple Residential Dwelling Units. The following standards and criteria apply to accessory dwelling units on lots developed with existing or proposed multiple residential dwelling units.

No
option
4 S
ize Limits
on Attached
ADUs

30.34.080 (D)
(3), (D)(7), (E)(1) 65852.2 (c)(2)(C)
66321(b)(3)
GMC restricts new construction ADUs
attached to the primary residence to 50% of
the existing house SF, but the City has to
al
low ADUs up to 800 SF even if it exceeds
50% of the existing house SF.

The City currently abides by the requirement in State law to allow an exception to any development standard when those would preclude the construction of at least an 800 square foot ADU with 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed i
n compliance with all other local development standards.

Amend GMC Section 30.34.080 (D)(7)
All new construction accessory dwelling units attached to the existing primary dwelling shall not exceed 50% of the existing floor area of the primary dwelling, but in no event shall an accessory dw
elling unit exceed the maximum square feet stated in subsection (D)(6) above. This prohibition does not apply when compliance with this section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under (E)(4) below.

Note: HCD's letter also cites GMC Section 30.34.080(F)(1) with this claim, but that section refers to multi-family properties and based on State law new construction ADUs are not allowed to be attached to primary dwellings
No
option
5 J
ADUs and
Development
Standards

30.34.080 (D)(3)
65852.
2(e)
66323(a)(1)(A) ??
The proper exception for JADUs is not in the
City's Ordinance as it relates to the
underlying zoning development standards.

Code is in compliance with State Law. GMC states that ADUs and JADUs are subject to the underlying zoning development standards (setback, floor area, height, parking, etc.) that are applicable to the primary residential dwelling, except as
otherwise set forth in this section. The exception in the section are the mandatory ADUs and JADUs allowed in GMC 30.34.080(E)(4)(a). Nevertheless, the City will bring an amendment to clarify this fact.

Amend Referenced Section -
Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are subject to the underlying zoning development standards for setback, floor area ratio, lot coverage, height, parking, open space and landscaping that are applicable to the primary residential dwelling, or dwellings, except as otherwise set forth in this section, including subsection (E)(4) below.

No
option
6 A
ccessory
Living
Quarters

30.34.080(D)(9) 65852.
2(a)(1)
66314(d)(3)
GMC prohibits accessory living quarters and
ADUs on a site which is more stringent than
State law which provides a choice of the type
of ADU created and does not require an
existing area such as an accessory living
quarters to be converted to an ADU.

Code is in compliance with State law because it does not prohibit a City from requiring that a property with an existing guest house either convert their guest house into a detached ADU or demolish it it to build an ADU. Applicants are not f
orced - they make a choice to convert their guest house into an ADU.

The purpose is to minimize a proliferation of detached accessory buildings on lots which reduce landscaping and open space, and contribute to additional lot coverage and FAR and to encourage applicants to convert guest houses to ADUs which contributes to independent living facilities that can support renters.

Staff Recommendation
No amendments required, but findings must be drafted and adopted in a resolution that "explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with [State Law] despite [HCD's findings]." Gov't Code §66326
State law allows conversions to add no more than 150 SF to accommodate ingress and egress only. Consider allowing an owner to expand more than that to build up to a 1000 SF ADU.

Option:

Amend the ADU ordinance to allow owners to maintain their accessory living quarters and build an
ADU.

Option
195 of 487

No. Topic Zoning Code
Section
Gov't Code Section
Cited
New Section
HCD Claim City Response Proposed/Suggested Amendments
7 Street-Front
and Street-
Side Setback

30.34.080
(D)(10)
65852.2 (c)(2)(C)
66321(b)(3)
Regardless of a local agency's street front
and street side setback requirements, the city
must allow for an 800 SF attached or
detached ADU in the street front and street
side setback areas so long as a 4-0" side
and rear yard setbacks is provided.

Current language allows this for single-family properties. Staff oversight in drafting the ordinance originally excluded the multi-family ADUs, but that is how it is practiced. Language proposed to be amended to clarify/add a reference to multi- f
amily ADUs.

In no case shall new construction of an accessory dwelling unit be located between the primary residential dwelling(s) and the street front and street side setback. Notwithstanding such prohibition, in cases where a lot has more than one street front (through lot), a new construction attached or detached accessory dwelling unit may be located between the street front setback and the side or rear façade of the primary residential dwelling(s). Further, no additional driveway shall be allowed from any street frontage. These prohibitions do not apply when compliance with this section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under subsection
(
E)(4) and (F)(2)(b) bel
ow.

Advisory note: There is no street-front or street-side setback requirement established in the state law - they only identify side and rear.

No
option
8 J
ADUs and
Short Term
Rentals

30.34.080
(D)(11) and
(H)(1)(d)
65852.2 (e)(5)
66323(d)
State law does not establish a minimum
rental term for JADUs, where the City
esablishes a term for 30 days or more. Only
ADUs are required to have a rental term of at
least 30 days.

Just because the State law does not have a provision for short-term rentals of JADUs does not mean that the City cannot impose one. Nevertheless, the City will request that Council consider removing this restriction on JADU rentals.

Amend the referenced code sections to omit JADUs N o
option
9 J
ADUs and
separate
sales

30.34.080
(D)(12) and
(H)(1)(a)
65852.22(a)(3)(A)
65852.26
66333(c)(1)
Starting January 1, 2024, cities have the
option to allow the separate sale of ADUs
from the primary dwelling. The separate sale
of
JADUs is prohibited. The City's ordinance
should clarify that prohibition for JADUs.

City's Code is in compliance with State law. Clarification in the City's Code is not required, as it refernces the Government Code sections. Nevertheless, if HCD believes an amendment to clairfy that JADUs cannot be sold separately is needed, the City will present this to the Council.

Amendthe referenced sections to clarify that the separate sale of JADUs is prohibited.

GMC Section 30.34.080(D)(12)
Except as provided in Government Code Section 65852.26, the accessory dwelling unit and/ or the junior accessory dwelling unit cannot be sold separately from the residential dwelling(s). In no event may a junior accessory dwelling unit be sold separately.

GMC 30.34.080 (H)(1)(a)

1. A covenant and agreement shall be executed by the property owner and recorded for an accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit prior to final approval of the building permit. The covenant and agreement shall include the following:
a. The accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from
the primary residential dwelling, except as provided in Government Code Section 65852.26 .In no event may a junior accessory dwelling unit be sold separately.

No
option
10 U
nit Mix -
Number of
ADUs
al
lowed

30.34.080
(E)(4)(b) and
(F)(2)
65852.2 (e)(1)(C)
and (e)(1)(D)
66323(a)(1) thru (4)
On single-family properties, up to three
ADUs/JADUs (2 ADUs and 1 JADU) are
permitted under State law - one converted
A
DU, one detached new construction ADU,
and one JADU.

On multi-family properties, State law allows
owners to combine the right to build two
detached ADUs and multiple ADUs by
converting existing non-livable space.

The City does not agree that the intent of State law is to allow single-family developments to construct up to three types of ADUs/JADUs on a lot, nor to allow mult-family developments to construct multiple ADUs by combining construction of t
wo new ADUs and conversion of existing nonlivable space. This is based on legislative history - AB68 and AB881 that amended the ADU law in 2019 have reports that the legislatures intents is to allow a maximum of one ADU and one JADU in single-family developments. HCD argues that the word "any" in the State law means a property owner could construct "any and all" types of ADUs, but this specific phrase is missing from State law and goes against the intent of the legistlature when these rules were adopted. The same applies for multi-family properties, where an applicant must choose either two detached ADUs or conversion of non-livable existing spaces up to 25% of the existing units.

Staff Recommendation:

No amendments are required, but findings must be drafted and adopted in a resolution that "explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with [State Law] despite [HCD's findings]." Gov't Code §66326
Option:

At CC direction staff can alternatievely draft amendment to the ADU ordinance to conform with HCD's interpretation of this section
Option
11 Architectural
Compatibility

30.34.080(E)(6)
and (F)(5)
65852.2(a)(1)(B)(i)
and (a)(7)
66314(b)(1) and
66313(
h)
The City's ADU ordinance has subjective
standards because it states that the
ADU/JADU shall be architecturally
c
ompatible with the primary dwelling which is
in conflict with State law which requires
objective design standards to be
implemented.

Current language in the GMC requires that the ADU/JADU be architecturally compatible with the existing primary residence and must use matching or complementary building materials unless compliance with this section precludes dev
elopment of a mandatory ADU. While the City denies that this provision violates State law, the City acknowledges the language of the State Law requiring objective standards during architectural review and believes it prudent to consider amending the Code.

Staff Recommendation:

Omit references in Code to the subjective requirement of "architectural compatibility".

Amend ADU ordinance to implement objective standards similar to what was created for SB9 units, w
ith a focus on the facades directly facing the street.

Option:

At Council direction staff can alternatively draft an amendment to the ADU ordinance to have no requirement for architectural compatibility or objective standards for ADUs. The only exception is related to historic properties where staff proposes keeping existing language prohibiting changes visible from the public realm.

Option
12 ADUs above
a detached
garage

30.34.080 (E)(7)
and (F)(6)
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(iii)
66314(d)(3)
ADUs above a garage cannot be prohibited
because State law allows them to be
attached to detached garages.

HCD is suggesting that the term "attached" includes an ADU built on top of an existing detached garage. The City maintains that neither the language nor intent of State Law supports this claim. The language mandates that the City allow an A
DU to be attached to or located within the space of the primary dwelling (including attached garages and other areas that are attached), or mandates that the City allow an ADU to be converted from an accessory structure, or that the ADU be detached from the primary dwelling, including detached garages. The City allows these scenarios and is therefore in compliance.

Staff Recommendation:

No amendment required, but findings must be drafted and adopted in a resolution that "explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with [State Law] despite [HCD's f
indings]." Gov't Code §66326
Option:

At Council direction staff can amend the ADU requirements to allow an ADU above a detached garage or carport.

Advisory Note: In 2020 the council amended the ADU ordinance to prohibit ADUs above detached garages and carports. This change was in response to an increase in the number of complaints from residents.

Option
196 of 487

No. Topic Zoning Code
Section
Gov't Code Section
Cited
New Section
HCD Claim City Response Proposed/Suggested Amendments
13 ADUs in
proposed
multi-family
dev
elopment

30.34.080(F)(4)
6 5852.2(a)(1)(D)(ii)
and (e)(1)(D)
66314(d)(2) and
66323(
4)
GMC prohibts ADUs in proposed multi-family
developments See No. 3 above for response. See No. 3 above for response. No option
14 Parking 30.34.080(G) 65852.2(d)(1)(F)
66322(a)(6)
GMC does not include one of the required
parking exceptions specified in State law for
ADUs in conjunction with proposed/new
r
esidential development.

The City will bring forward an amendment to the Council to add this parking exception.

Amend section referenced to include:
g. When a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling or a new multi-family dwelling on the same lot, provided that t
he acessory dwelling unit or the parcel satisfies any other criteria listed in this subdivision.

No
option
15 C
ovenant
and
Agreement

30.34.080(H) 65852. 22(a)(3)
66333(c)
State law does not require deed restrictions
for ADUs and it is only required for JADUs
and is limited to prohibit separate sale and
r
egulate the size and attributes as required
by law. The City does not have the authority
to require deed restrictions for ADUs.

The City disagrees that simply because State ADU law does not require a deed restriction for ADUs, that it prohibits the City from requiring one. Nevertheless, the City will bring an amendment forward for Council consideration.

Amend the referenced code section to omit language related to ADUs. Revise JADU references to reflect the limitations specified in State law.

No
option
16 J
ADUs and
Owner
Occupancy

30.34.080(H)(1)(
c)
65852.22(a)(2)
66333(b)
The GMC doesn't require owner-occupancy
for JADUs because it says if it is not owner-
occupied, the entire property can only be
r
ented as a single rental property. This
conflicts with State law which mandates
owner-occupancy when a JADU is permitted -
the owner must live in either the JADU or the
remaining portion of the residence.

The City was attempting to be more premissive by allowing a JADU owner to rent the property as a whole if not owner-occupied, but will bring amendment for Council consideration.

For properties with junior accessory dwelling units, at all times, the property owner shall comply with one of the following requirements: (i) the property owner must be an owner-occupant and reside in either the residential dwelling or in the junior accessory dwelling unit; or (ii) if the property owner does not reside in either the residential dwelling or the junior accessory dwelling unit, then the property owner shall only rent or lease the property as a single rental property and shall not rent or lease the residential dwelling and junior accessory dwelling unit separately from each other.

No
option.
197 of 487

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Award Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for Glendale Beeline Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Integration Study 1) Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a PSA with Dan Boyle & Associates LLC for a Beeline comprehensive operational analysis and integration study in an amount not to exceed $392,139.
2) Resolution of appropriation of $150,000 in State Grant and Measure M Local Return funds for the integration study.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for July 30, 2024 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Glendale last conducted a Beeline transit route analysis in 2018-2019. Its recommendations were implemented in November 2020. Since then, the City has gone through a pandemic that has affected transit systems worldwide, including the Beeline.

The Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Integration Study (COA) project will help provide a complete vision of how Beeline can adapt to the changes and reorient service to better meet the travel needs of residents and visitors. This analysis is focusing on Beeline service and how Beeline can best work with other transit systems such as Metro, Metrolink, and BurbankBus as a mobility network in Glendale. The analysis will take into consideration future conditions including the Metro Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service, and the Glendale community plans.

The results of this year-long project are expected to allow staff to implement a framework for effective Beeline service deployment within available financial and capital resources. The proposed PSA with Dan Boyle & Associates LLC will cost $392,139, and a resolution of appropriation totaling $150,000 is proposed to cover a portion of these costs.
198 of 487

28d
5 3
3 8

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a PSA with Dan Boyle & Associates LLC for the COA project in an amount not to exceed $392,139; and adopt a resolution of appropriation for $150,000 for the integration study.

ANALYSIS
The COA will develop and update transit delivery strategies to address existing and future conditions. The pandemic, new technologies, changing demographics, and evolving travel preferences continue to disrupt how people get around. The COA is intended to capture an abundance of precise data and analyze the existing network of all fixed route transit services (regardless of provider) in the Glendale Beeline service area and ensure service integration amongst the transit operators and services.

The COA goals and objectives are:
•Understand the state of transit post-pandemic at the local, regional, and national levels.
•Improve multimodal transportation connection between activity nodes for residents, commuters, and visitors amongst the cities. Ensure the transit system supports the area’s future growth and land use changes. •Integrate Beeline, BurbankBus, La Canada Flintridge (LCF) Shuttle, Metro bus (including North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT), Metrolink and Amtrak transit services.
•Ensure equitable access to transit.
•Increase ridership and transit usage.
•Support a resilient, net-zero community, anchored by long-term public transportation investments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and decrease single-occupancy vehicle trips.
•Prioritize a community-focused, multimodal transportation network that is easy to use, efficient, convenient, safe.

COA Key Activities
The analysis requires the selected firm to perform the following key activities:

1. Create and implement an in-depth public outreach program to engage riders and non-riders to inform the study’s fact-finding and service recommendations.

2. Create an existing conditions report that produces an understanding of existing fixed route usage on Beeline, Metro, and LCF shuttle in Beeline service area.

3. Develop a plan that reimagines transit service deployment in the Beeline service area and develops recommendations for coordinated routes among Beeline, Metro and other transit service providers.

Request for Proposals (RFP) Process
The RFP was issued on April 25, 2024. It was posted on the City’s webpage and circulated among approximately 20 consulting firms. On June 12, 2024, the City received two proposals from Dan Boyle & Associates LLC (DBA) and Transportation Management & Design, Inc. (TMD). The proposals were reviewed, and proposer interviews were held on June 26, 2024. Glendale’s Transit Manager and two other 199 of 487

38d
5 3
3 8
transit professionals from LA Metro and the City of Torrance (Torrance Transit) evaluated the proposals based on the RFP evaluation criteria. The individual scores were averaged to provide the final ranking. DBA scored the highest with 96 points and had the lowest cost proposal at $324,841 to TMD’s $409,745.

Evaluation Scoring Summary
Evaluation Criteria Possible
Points DBA TMD
Responsiveness - Understanding of Project Requirements 30 28 28 Qualifications of the Firm and Key Personnel 20 19 19
Work Plan and Technical Approach 30 29 27
References 10 10 10
Cost 10 10 6
Total 100 96 90
The DBA proposal was well-tailored to Glendale’s RFP scope of work. DBA bought a fresher perspective by teaming with another transit consulting firm, Jarrett Walker + Associates. The DBA-assembled team has an outstanding understanding of the Glendale service area, demonstrated subject matter expertise, and demonstrated commitment to Beeline’s continued success.

Additional Requested Services
During negotiations, staff requested additional services from DBA to enhance the study.

Some requested items are additions, while others may be optional depending on various outcomes. The added items include more outreach efforts for data gathering, a fare study, revision of the City’s most recent civil rights Title VI report, the development of collateral materials, and a post-implementation evaluation. These added services increased the total cost to $392,139, which is about $67,000 more than DBA’s initial proposal but still lower than TMD’s proposal.

Anticipated Project Schedule
The COA is anticipated to begin in September 2024 and conclude in about a year.

Grant Funding for COA
Public Works staff successfully secured $100,000 for the COA from the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) managed by the California Transportation Commission. This grant requires a $50,000 local match which staff proposes to cover with Measure M Local Return funds.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Glendale’s Beeline transit service provides residents and visitors with mobility. The COA has a robust public outreach component, which seeks to both understand the community’s travel needs and preferences as well as inform them about the eventual recommendations for changes to transit service in Glendale. 200 of 487

48d
5 3
3 8

FISCAL IMPACT
The COA has a not-to-exceed amount of $392,139, a portion of which was approved as part of the FY 2024-25 budget. Therefore, staff is requesting an appropriation of $150,000 from a TIRCP Grant and Measure M Local Return. The appropriation request is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$242,139 GL: 43110-2220-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: PWD01188AN
Measure M Local Return
Fund
Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$100,000 GL: 32610-2160-
PWD-0020-P0000
PL: PWD01188BG
GL: 43110-2160-
PWD-0020-P0000
PL: PWD01188BG
State Grant -
TIRCP
$50,000 GL: 24212-2220-
PWD-0000-P0000
GL: 43110-2220-
PWD-0020-P0000
PL: PWD01188AN
Measure M Local
Return Fund
Balance

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA pursuant to 14 C.C.R. § 15378(a). Even if it is a project, it is exempt pursuant to 14 C.C.R. § 15061(b)(3), and categorically exempt pursuant to 14 C.C.R. § 15306 as basic data collection, research, experimental management, and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company are attached in Exhibit 1, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Interim Director of Public Works
Prepared by:

Martha D’Andrea, Transit Manager
201 of 487

58d
5 3
3 8
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Campaign Disclosure Forms
202 of 487

1 2
0 1
6 MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________________, seconded by Council Member ______________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a professional services agreement—subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney—with Dan Boyle & Associates LLC to prepare the Glendale Beeline Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Integration Study, as described in the report to the Glendale City Council dated July 30, 2024, in an amount not to exceed $392,139.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________
City Clerk
203 of 487

204 of 487

205 of 487

65 PF: 4- 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**)― who has a contract with the City of 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 to approval by the City Council, GSA, or HA― from making a contribution to a City Council member, GSA member, HA member, City 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.

I
nformation that must be disclosed: ● Name of the person, entity, or organization (i.e., the Contractor or Subcontractor) ● Name of the Chief Executive Officer/President
● Chief Operating Officer
● Chief Financial Officer
● Chairperson
● All members of the Board of Directors
● All persons who own more than 10% of the person, entity, or organization ● Name of any campaign committee owned or controlled by the person, entity, or organization Please complete the following disclosure form:

Contractor(s)*:

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / Preside
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
* “ Contractor” is the person, entity, or organization that is the party, or prospective party, to the contract with the City, 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.

Daniel Boyle
1111 Oronoco Street Unit 124
Alexandria,
VA
22314
Dan Boyle & Associates LLC
1111 Oronoco Street Unit 124, Alexandria, VA 22314

NO EXCEPTION
206 of 487

66 Subcontractor(s)**:

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / Preside
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
** “Subcontractor” is the person, entity, or organization that has entered into a contract for the performance of all or a portion of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. You must also disclose the names of the 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.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

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

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

Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.

Signature: Print Full Name:

Address:

Phone Number: E-mail Address:
5 June 3
24 Alexandria, VA
Daniel Boyle
1111 Oronoco Street Unit 124, Alexandria, VA 22314
619-884-3180
[email protected]
NONE
207 of 487

66 Subcontractor(s)**:

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / Preside
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
** “Subcontractor” is the person, entity, or organization that has entered into a contract for the performance of all or a portion of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. You must also disclose the names of the 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.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

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

Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.

Signature: Print Full Name:

Address:

Phone Number: E-mail Address:

Arellano Associates 5851 Pine Ave., Suite A. Chino Hills, CA 91709 Not Applicable
Not Applicable
June 5 24 Chino Hills
Genoveva L. Arellano
5851 Pine Ave., Suite A. Chino Hill, CA 91709
(909) 627-2974 [email protected]
0 x
208 of 487

66 Subcontractor(s)**:

Name Address

Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / Preside
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
** “Subcontractor” is the person, entity, or organization that has entered into a contract for the performance of all or a portion of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. You must also disclose the names of the 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.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

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

Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.

Signature: Print Full Name:

Address:

Phone Number: E-mail Address:

Jarrett Walker & Associates, LLC
1021 SE Caruthers Street, Portland, Oregon, 97214
Jarrett Walker
as above
Jarrett Walker
as above
N/A
N/A
Michelle Poyourow, Scudder Wagg,...
...Daniel Costantino, Evan Landman, Gavin Pritchard, Alvaro Caviedes, Ricky Angueira addresses as above
none
2 May 23
24 Portland, Oregon
Daniel Costantino
1021 SE Caruthers St, Portland, OR, 97214
971-277-3629
[email protected]
Same persons as Board + Chairperson
209 of 487

66 Subcontractor(s)**:

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / Preside
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
** “Subcontractor” is the person, entity, or organization that has entered into a contract for the performance of all or a portion of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. You must also disclose the names of the 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.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

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

Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.

Signature: Print Full Name:

Address:

Phone Number: E-mail Address:
x
0 May 22 24 Cerritos
Janine A. Brown
11825 Del Amo Blvd. Cerritos, California 90703
562.809.7785
[email protected]
Janine A. Brown
11825 Del Amo Blvd.

Cerritos
CA
90703
Brenda Sanchez Johnson
11825 Del Amo Blvd.

Cerritos
CA
90703
TEMPS, Inc.
11825 Del Amo Blvd. Cerritos, CA 90703
210 of 487

Info
rmation that must be disclosed: ● Name of the person, entity, or organization (i.e., the Contractor or Subcontractor) ● Name of the Chief Executive Officer/President
● Chief Operating Officer
● Chief Financial Officer
● Chairperson
● All members of the Board of Directors
● All persons who own more than 10% of the person, entity, or organization ● Name of any campaign committee owned or controlled by the person, entity, or organization Please complete the following disclosure form:

Contractor(s)*:

Name Address

Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / Preside
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
* “Contractor” is the person, entity, or organization that is the party, or prospective party, to the contract with the City, 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.

Transportation Management & Design, Inc.
2701 Loker Ave W. Suite 110, Carlsbad, CA 92010
2701 Loker Ave W. Suite 110
Carlsbad
CA
92010
Carlsbad
CA
92010
Carlsbad
CA
92010
Melissa Sather
2701 Loker Ave W. Suite 110
2701 Loker Ave W. Suite 110
2701 Loker Ave W. Suite 110
N/A
Melody Kitchens
China Langer
2701 Loker Ave W. Suite 110
Carlsbad
CA
92010
China Langer
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Russell Chisholm, China Langer, Melissa Sather,
Melody Kitchens
Carlsbad
CA
92010
211 of 487

66 Subcontractor(s)**:

Name Address

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

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

Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.

Signature: Print Full Name:

Address:

Phone Number: E-mail Address:

See Attached Campaign Finance Subcontractors Certification for both Arellano Associates and NDS's Board Information 4 Not Applicable -
TMD does not have a Campaign Committee
2701 Loker Ave W. Suite 110
Carlsbad
CA
92010
Please see attached for each subcontractor's information See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
See attached
June 12
24 Carlsbad
Melissa Sather
2701 Loker Ave W. Suite 110, Carlsbad, CA 92010
(760) 476-9600 Ext. 127
[email protected]
212 of 487

66 Subcontractor(s)**:

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / Preside
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
** “Subcontractor” is the person, entity, or organization that has entered into a contract for the performance of all or a portion of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. You must also disclose the names of the 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.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

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

Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.

Signature: Print Full Name:

Address:

Phone Number: E-mail Address:

66 Subcontractor(s)**:

Name Address

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

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

Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.

Signature: Print Full Name:

Address:

Phone Number: E- mail Address:

National Data and Surveying Services, Inc. (NDS)
1535 S La Cienega Blvd. Los Angeles CA 90035
Abraham Tashman
Kevin Deal
Michael Blitz
Los Angeles
Charlotte
NC
28270
CA
90035
1535 S La Cienega Blvd
1811 Sardis Rd N, Ste 205
Los Angeles
N/A
2 5/20
24 Monterey Park
Lindsay Kottwitz, Client Manager
810 S Atlantic Blvd. Monterey Park, CA 91754
323-782-0090
[email protected]
214 of 487

5 3
3 6

AGENDA ITEM

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Report: Report: Public Hearing for Weed abatement charges for FY 2023-2024

1. Resolution confirming weed abatement charges

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Fire Department Vegetation Management Program includes 9,667 parcels within the very high fire hazard area that receive an annual inspection. Of those, 616 are unimproved, vacant properties. The City has an agreement with Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner for weed abatement services on those unimproved properties.

On March 26, and subsequent public hearing on April 30, the City Council approved the declaration list of the vacant properties that constitute a public hazard to permit the County Agricultural Commissioner to abate the hazards within the City. The Commissioner recovers the cost of abatement through assessment on the current property tax assessment roll. This report describing cost of the abatement on all the properties inspected by the Commissioner is submitted to the City for review of the charges, and approval, before forwarding to the County Auditor.

Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved forJuly 30, 2024 calendar
215 of 487

2 RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the attached Resolution confirming Weed Abatement Charges as described on the attached County of Los Angeles Weed Abatement Charge List dated July 18, 2024.

ANALYSIS
The City has a Weed Abatement Agreement with the County of Los Angeles, which was renewed in 2022 for a five-year period. Under this agreement, the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner is the agent of the City authorized to carry out removal of noxious and dangerous weed growth.

The Fire Department, along with Agricultural Commissioner inspectors, conducts inspections to determine if a hazard exists and requests the Commissioner to carry out abatement. The Commissioner recovers the cost of abatement through assessment as permitted under Article II, Chapter 13, Part II, Division 3, Title 4 of Government Code of the State of California. As part of our communication program, the Commissioner has been notifying the Fire Marsal of planned and completed work assignments. For the past several years, the Agricultural Commissioner has been contracting with private vendors to keep the costs of weed abatement as low as possible.

The FY 2023- 2024 Weed Abatement Charges Report was submitted by the Agricultural Commissioner on July 18, 2024, for the period covering July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024.

The Commissioner has provided a copy of the report, describing the cost of abatement on all properties to be posted, setting the date of July 30, 2024, as the date the report will be submitted to the City Council for confirmation of charges. Once approved, the charges will be forwarded to the County Auditor to enter the amounts on the current property tax assessment roll. The public hearing held on April 30, 2024, approved the County’s Declaration List of properties constituting a public nuisance, which then allowed the Commissioner to abate the identified hazards. Property owners are sent letters (in advance of the actual abatement) when charges are estimated to exceed $750. While this notification letter is not a requirement, it is provided.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The stakeholders include the owners of the 622 properties identified in the approved declaration list. A notice will be mailed to the property owners informing them of the program.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
NA

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements. 216 of 487

3 ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Greg Fish, Fire Chief
Prepared by:

Jovan Diaz, Fire Marshal
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
217 of 487

C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\CC_07302024_Resolution_9a1.pdf RESOLUTION NO. _____

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE

RELATING TO CONFIRMATION OF WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE: that the 2023- 2024 Report On the Cost of Weed Abatement prepared by the County of Los Angeles Department of Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures was submitted to the City Council of the City of Glendale on the 30th day of July, 2024 for hearing and confirmation and was, with all objections thereto, duly received and considered, and is now confirmed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Los Angeles County Auditor is hereby ordered, authorized and instructed to enter the amounts of the respective assessments against the respective parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment roll.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale on this day of , 2024. ________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the __________ day of ________________, 2024, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
__________________________________
City Clerk
218 of 487

219 of 487

CITY OF GLENDALE

WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES
JULY 22, 2024

KEY MAPBOOK PAGE PARCEL ZONE CITY CODE CHARGES
6 5459 019 012 7 255 51.59
6 5459 020 017 7 255 51.59
6 5459 020 018 7 255 51.59
6 5601 032 030 7 255 51.59
6 5601 033 020 7 255 1801.97
6 5601 033 021 7 255 3861.17
6 5601 036 020 7 255 51.59
6 5601 037 035 7 255 51.59
6 5601 038 009 7 255 51.59
6 5603 011 004 7 255 51.59
6 5607 020 003 7 255 51.59
6 5607 020 004 7 255 51.59
6 5607 021 001 7 255 51.59
6 5607 021 002 7 255 51.59
6 5607 021 003 7 255 51.59
6 5607 021 006 7 255 51.59
6 5607 021 008 7 255 51.59
6 5607 021 009 7 255 51.59
6 5607 021 034 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 001 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 003 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 005 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 008 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 018 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 022 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 023 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 024 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 025 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 027 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 028 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 032 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 034 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 035 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 042 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 043 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 044 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 045 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 046 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 047 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 048 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 049 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 050 7 255 51.59
6 5607 022 051 7 255 51.59

Page 1 of 14 ends

Glendale City CouncilJuly 30, 2024

Glendale City Council
July 30, 2024