Agenda packet — Glendale City Council, August 22, 2024

A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING: 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.

AUGUST 22, 2024

ROLL CALL
-
2:00 PM
-
Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Thursday, August 22, 2024 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on August 15, 2024, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

1 TYPED 8/15/2024 7:05:51 PM
08 22 24
SP CC

SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING
of the City Council is hereby called to meet at

2:00
PM
on
Thursday, August 22, 2024
, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
,
Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Management Services, re:

Building Electrification Reach Code Replacement Options a. 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

2. Management Services, re: Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Draft Measures and Actions

ADJOURNMENT

2 TYPED 8/15/2024 7:05:51 PM
08 22 24
SP CC

1 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:
3 of 155

21 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.
4 of 155

31 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. 5 of 155

41 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 6 of 155

51 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.
7 of 155

61 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 8 of 155

71 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.
9 of 155

81 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. 10 of 155

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
11 of 155

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 12 of 155

2c
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.” 13 of 155

3c
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. 14 of 155

4c
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.
15 of 155

5c
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;
16 of 155

6c
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
17 of 155

7c
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 18 of 155

8c
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.
19 of 155

9c
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.
20 of 155

10c
3 6
6 7

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

Survey Results
21 of 155

11c
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 22 of 155

12c
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
23 of 155

13c
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
24 of 155

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 25 of 155

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 26 of 155

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 27 of 155

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 28 of 155

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
29 of 155

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
30 of 155

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 31 of 155

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

32 of 155

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

33 of 155

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 34 of 155

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].

35 of 155

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 36 of 155

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). 37 of 155

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.

38 of 155

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. 39 of 155

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) 40 of 155

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.

41 of 155

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

42 of 155

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

43 of 155

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.

44 of 155

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. 45 of 155

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 46 of 155

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) 47 of 155

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%
48 of 155

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.

49 of 155

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

50 of 155

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

51 of 155

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

52 of 155

53 of 155

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].

54 of 155

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 -

55 of 155

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 56 of 155

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.
57 of 155

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). 58 of 155

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

59 of 155

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.

60 of 155

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.

61 of 155

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) 62 of 155

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%

63 of 155

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

64 of 155

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 12

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

7 Appendices

65 of 155

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

67 of 155

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) 68 of 155

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.

70 of 155

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

71 of 155

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

72 of 155

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

73 of 155

74 of 155

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].

76 of 155

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.

77 of 155

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. 79 of 155

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

80 of 155

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. 81 of 155

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 82 of 155

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 83 of 155

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 84 of 155

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.

85 of 155

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
86 of 155

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.

87 of 155

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

88 of 155

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.

89 of 155

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.

90 of 155

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 17

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

91 of 155

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: City of Glendale 18

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

92 of 155

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%

93 of 155

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.

94 of 155

Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Draft Measures and Actions 1 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Draft
Measures and Actions
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) has drafted key strategies to establish the basis for the City of Glendale’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) based on the existing conditions analyses, current trends and technologies in greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction, feedback received from City staff, focus groups, the Sustainability Commission, and the community, and the climate change vulnerability assessment. The strategies included in this internal document detail achievable and implementable emissions reduction measures and supporting actions that help the City reduce its emissions to meet the established target in line with the State of California’s goals. Additionally, they address climate vulnerabilities in the City, and include adaptation measures and supporting actions to increase the City and communities’ resilience to climate impacts. These GHG reduction and adaptation measures and supporting actions are organized into four systems that, when collectively implemented, will help put the City on a path towards reaching their climate goals. The strategies are organized in the following framework: GWP is concerned that its previous work is not captured within the CAAP. GWP would like credit for its previous work or work that is in progress within the Climate Action sphere. - perhaps a separate column for work that is in progress or has been achieved towards CAAP?
▪Systems. A group of related elements that can be directly influenced by the City of Glendale. Measures. Long-range goals that the City has established to reduce emissions and/or improve resilience in line with the State emission reduction goals and local resilience goals. −Actions. Discrete steps the City will take to achieve the measures. Over time, the CAAP will be reviewed, and additional actions will need to be added to make greater progress on the established measures.

The selection of strategies for the CAAP is intended to be an iterative process with City staff, interested parties, and the community. In general, the measures were designed to encompass actions that align with Glendale’s six Climate Policy Pillars that are essential to effective climate policy implementation:
▪Feasibility. Actions that help the City understand the costs, benefits, obstacles, and opportunities associated with programs, policies, and ordinances to make decisions that best serve the community.
▪Education. Actions to increase community awareness of programs available to reduce individual contributions to GHG emissions and increase resilience and to establish or strengthen communication channels between the City and the communities it serves. ▪Equity. Actions that engage vulnerable populations in the decision-making process and establish the policies and programs to provide vulnerable populations with the resources to benefit from each measure’s objectives in an equitable manner.
▪Funding. Actions that provide the financial backing (e.g., grant funding, rebates, financial incentives) and adequate City staffing to establish, implement, and maintain a program. ▪Partnerships. Actions that establish partnerships with external government entities, including Tribes, and community-based organizations to leverage their expertise, resources, and networks to implement programs and policies the City would not be able to achieve alone. 95 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
2 ▪Structural Change. Actions that change existing City programs, policies, and ordinances to allow the City and community to reach the target established within a measure.

The measures and actions developed for the City of Glendale prioritize those activities which provide both mitigation (GHG emissions reductions) and resilience (preparedness for climate change) benefits. Glendale, and much of California, is already seeing the impacts of climate change and each measure taken to address local emissions should also prepare Glendale for future challenges. Any action that provides a resilience benefit includes a separate icon depicting the climate hazard it helps address. Areas for increased focus on resilience include:
▪Wildfire
▪Poor Air Quality
▪Drought
▪Extreme Heat
▪Extreme Precipitation
The measures and actions have been developed to be implemented over time to reduce emissions and increase the City’s resilience in a thoughtful, achievable, and stepwise process. As such, the actions are anticipated to be completed in phases, as outlined below:
▪Phase 1– 2025 – 2027
▪Phase 2 – 2028 – 2030
▪Phase 3 – 2031 – 2033
A lead City department is assigned to each action to clearly denote which department is responsible for implementing the action. Identified City departments include:

Department Abbreviation
Community Development CD
Community Services and Parks CSP
Economic Development ED
Finance F
Fire Department FD
Glendale Library Arts & Culture GLAC
Glendale Police Department GPD
Glendale Water and Power GWP
Human Resources HR
Information Technology IT
Management Services MS
Office of Sustainability OS
96 of 155

Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Draft Measures and Actions 3 Public Works PW
Community Development CD
Community Services and Parks CSP
Finally, a consistency column is included in the tables to indicate the action’s consistency, or alignment, with local/regional plans and programs as well as community feedback received during various engagement efforts throughout the CAAP’s development. 97 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
4 1 Systems, Measures, and Actions
Table 1 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Systems and Measures Measure ID Measure Text
Social and Governance System
SG-1 Provide evacuation and health alert messaging in English, Spanish, Armenian, and Korean, and in multiple forms (e.g., online, brochure, radio) to amplify the Glendale community’s awareness of extreme weather and events (including wildfires, landslides, extreme heat events, and poor air quality days).

SG-2 Establish three resilience centers by 2030 in high social sensitivity areas that provide refuge for vulnerable populations from poor air quality and extreme heat conditions that serve as year-round community resource centers.

SG-3 Change internal protocols and procedures to incorporate a climate and equity lens into all government operational decision-making to increase investments in CAAP implementation for vulnerable populations.

SG-4 Formalize City and community-based relationships to create meaningful and long-lasting relationships with non-profit organizations and increase engagement of vulnerable communities and Tribal governments in local government decision-making processes.

SG-5 Increase community capacity to better withstand climate shocks and stresses.

Building Systems
BLD-1 Increase carbon-free electricity procurement to provide 100% carbon-free electricity community-wide by 2035 and improve electrical system resiliency through additional distributed energy resources, transmission capacity, and demand response.

BLD-2 Require healthy, safe, decarbonized, and resilient new buildings by 2026.

BLD-3 Retrofit 25% of existing buildings by 2030 and 95% by 2045 to be zero-carbon and resilient to extreme heat and wildfires.

BLD-4 Decarbonize and make municipal buildings resilient by 2035.

Mobility and Land Use System
MLS-1 Reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles by promoting increased residential densities along transit and commercial corridors, increasing mix of land uses and expanding the range of attainable housing choices.

MLS-2 Increase active transportation mode share to 3% by 2030 and 10% by 2045 by increasing the safety and availability of the transportation system to support walking and biking for all members of the community.

MLS-3 Enhance the transit system to be more resilient, accessible, and convenient to increase mode share to 5% by 2030 and 10% by 2045.

MLS-4 Increase passenger and commercial zero-emission vehicle use and adoption to 25% by 2030 and 90% by 2045, respectively.

MLS-5 Electrify or otherwise decarbonize 30% of community-operated off-road equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and chainsaws) operations by 2030 and 100% by 2045.
98 of 155

Systems, Measures, and Actions
5 Measure ID Measure Text
MLS-6 Transition to 75% zero-emission municipal fleet by 2030 and 100% by 2040.

Urban Eco-System
UE-1 Increase organics diversion through SB-1383 to divert 75% of organic material by 2025.

UE-2 Increase tree canopy to 25% by 2030 and 30% by 2045 by focusing on communities most vulnerable to extreme heat.

UE-3 Reduce the potential for wildfire to spread in Glendale by actively managing 50-75 acres of land annually through prescribed burns, brush clearance, grazing, and building hardening.

UE-4 Increase access to affordable and fresh produce through partnerships and technical assistance.

UE-5 Reduce per capita water use X% by 2030 and Y% by 2045 by enhancing water conservation and water quality and increase the Glendale water system's resilience to climate extremes by upgrading water and stormwater facilities.

UE-6 Showcase municipal leadership through increased landfill diversion rates, climate-smart food and purchasing behavior, and enhanced water efficiencies. 99 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
6 2 Social and Governance Systems

2.1 7Measure SG-1
Provide evacuation and health alert messaging in English, Spanish, Armenian, and Korean, and in multiple forms (e.g., online, brochure, radio) to amplify the Glendale community’s awareness of extreme weather and events (including wildfires, landslides, extreme heat events, and poor air quality days).

Metrics
▪# of languages utilized for evacuation materials
▪# of non-English speakers signed up to Everbridge emergency notification system ▪# of people reached using non-digital methods
Table 2 Measure SG-1 Actions
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
SG-1.1 Partner with the County of Los Angeles Office of Emergency Management, local hospitals, non-profits, and/or Federally Qualified Health Centers, to establish coordinated notification and response services that seamlessly integrate with advanced communication technologies, providing timely dissemination of critical information through multiple channels, including mobile notifications, social media platforms, and community alert systems. Additionally, implement a robust feedback loop mechanism to gather real-time data from affected individuals, enabling continuous refinement of evacuation strategies and health alert messaging protocols for enhanced public safety and well- being.

Information
Technology,
Fire
Department
1 Partnerships,
Structural
Change
Wildfire,
Extreme Heat,
Poor Air
Quality,
Extreme
Precipitation
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback,
Sustainability
Commission
SG-1.2 Conduct emergency alert notifications in English, Spanish, Armenian, and Korean. Distribute information about Emergency Alert Program sign-up in English, Spanish, Armenian, and Korean in areas of highest risk, including areas of high social sensitivity. Remove procedural equity barriers from the sign-up program. Every five years, reassess which languages are spoken jointly by 5% or more of the Glendale community Information
Technology,
Fire
Department,
Community
Development,
1 Education,
Equity
Wildfire,
Extreme Heat,
Poor Air
Quality,
Extreme
Precipitation
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
100 of 155

Social and Governance Systems
7 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
and expand emergency alert translations to additional languages, consistent with Assembly Bill 1638.

GPD
SG-1.3 Continue to inform residents about the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program and the Neighborhood Watch program by disseminating information in English, Spanish, Armenian, and Korean.

Fire
Department
1 Education All climate
hazards
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback,
National CERT
Program
SG-1.4 Create neighborhood or regionally specific evacuation procedures for vulnerable populations in partnership with community-based organizations and facilities based on needs identified through outreach with affected populations. Once established, conduct short and frequent (e.g., annually) culturally responsive neighborhood evacuation capacity assessments; engaging and empowering evacuation preparedness drills that invite first responders to meet the community in a positive environment with opportunities for youth to see fire engines and other vehicles up-close; community leader trainings; and improved access to evacuation financial resources to streamline evacuation processes in an emergency.

Fire
Department,
Public Works,
GPD
2 Structural
Change,
Education,
Equity,
Partnerships
Wildfire,
Extreme
Precipitation
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback,
Glendale Safety
Element Update
SG-1.5 Increase redundancy in emergency evacuation communication systems in the event of an electric outage through a variety of measures, including back-up power for telecommunication towers and other critical facilities, distributing information via radio channels, promoting ownership of hand cranked radios, and other means. Regularly test alert systems for potential evacuation scenarios.

Information
Technology,
Glendale Water
and Power,
Glendale Fire
Department,
CMO, and
Public Works
3 Structural
Change
Wildfire,
Extreme Heat,
Poor Air
Quality,
Extreme
Precipitation
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
101 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
8 2.2 Measure SG-2
Establish three resilience centers by 2030 in high social sensitivity areas that provide refuge for vulnerable populations from poor air quality and extreme heat conditions that serve as year-round community resource centers.

Metrics
▪Establish three new resilience centers by 2030
Table 3 Measure SG-2 Actions
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar Climate Hazard Consistency
SG-2.1 Complete an analysis of physical locations and assets within the City that have the potential to serve as resilience centers in coordination with community-based organizations that serve vulnerable population groups.

Identify opportunities to establish new resilience centers or expand the functionality of existing community centers in areas of high social sensitivity first. As part of the assessment, identify the City’s current capacity to provide temporary refuge for residents including facilities, infrastructure, services, and community programs during an extreme weather event. Equitably distribute the resilience centers geographically throughout the City to provide convenient access.

Public Works,
Fire
Department,
CSP
1 Feasibility,
Partnerships
Extreme Heat,
Poor Air
Quality
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
SG-2.2 Complete the audit of existing heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems at City owned buildings and establish an upgrade and maintenance cycle, including replacement of filters with at least a MERV 11 rating on a quarterly basis.

Public Works 1 Feasibility Extreme Heat,
Poor Air
Quality
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
SG-2.3 Identify and apply for funding opportunities that support development of a resilience center, and/or staff positions to maintain the center, such as the Office of Planning and Research Regional Resilience Grant Program.

Community
Services & Parks
1 Funding Extreme Heat,
Poor Air
Quality
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
SG-2.4 Partner with local public or private entities to establish resilience centers at privately-owned facilities in the City.

Community
Services &
Parks, (Public
Works, City
Facilities),
Office of
Sustainability
2 Partnerships Extreme Heat,
Poor Air
Quality
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
102 of 155

Social and Governance Systems
9 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar Climate Hazard Consistency
SG-2.5 Provide essential resources such as health programs, food, refrigeration, charging stations, basic medical supplies, multi-lingual support services, and economic development resources at all City-run resilience centers.

Audit and refresh supplies on a biannual basis, including information on any new or updated programs. Expand operating hours of resilience centers during poor air quality days and extreme heat days. Adequately equip the resilience centers to accommodate pets, considering their specific needs and well-being during emergency situations. Additionally, provide information on a centralized climate action and adaptation website how to prepare homes and businesses for extreme weather events, including resources on what to have at home in an emergency kit, with giveaways (e.g., first aid or emergency kits) provided as available.

Management
Services, Office
of
Sustainability,
Community
Services & Parks
2 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat,
Poor Air
Quality
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
SG-2.6 Offer fun and engaging year-round community events with educational resources at resilience centers, providing the community with free access to clear multi-lingual information, resources, and support to effectively prepare for and recover from poor air quality days, extreme weather events and other disasters, while making the resilience centers recognized fixtures in the community.

Management
Services, Office
of
Sustainability,
Fire,
Community
Services &
Parks, Library
Arts and
Culture
Department
2 Education Extreme Heat,
Poor Air
Quality
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
Sustainability
Commission
SG-2.7 Require that the City’s resilience centers (which could either be owned and operated by the City or owned and operated by private or other public entities) have adequate backup power sources and battery storage to mitigate service disruptions and provide redundancy in the event of a power outage.

Community
Development,
Public Works
2 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
SG-2.8 Increase transportation access to resilience centers by adjusting the Glendale Beeline fare pricing and routes during extreme weather events and bad air quality days to better serve vulnerable population groups.

Public Works 2 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat,
Poor Air
Quality
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
103 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
10 2.3 Measure SG-3
Change internal protocols and procedures to incorporate a climate and equity lens into all government operational decision-making to increase investments in CAAP implementation for vulnerable populations.

Metrics
▪% of Glendale budget invested in CAAP implementation, annually ▪# of positions created
▪# of staff hired
▪% of Glendale budget targeting high social sensitivity census tracts, annually Table 4 Measure SG-3 Actions
Action
Lead
Department Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
SG-3.1 Develop a checklist with project design considerations for capital improvements projects to incorporate consideration of climate change impacts as part of the planning and design phase. Checklist will include consideration of future climate projections in project designs.

Public Works 1 Structural
Change
All climate
hazards
SG-3.2 Explore strategies to leverage Glendale’s financing processes and potential funding opportunities to implement CAAP actions. Develop:
▪Ways in which CAAP strategies might fit into existing financing programs/strategies.
▪Existing funding sources that could better tie to climate mitigation and adaptation to develop a list of possible external resources. ▪Develop a high-level means to start tracking availability and applicability of external resources and grants for specific projects and activities.
▪Start considering what local revenue streams (e.g., sewage, trash, and taxes) could be used as leverage to secure external funding or financing streams if they are connected to CAAP efforts.

Finance 1 Feasibility,
Funding
SG-3.3 Establish a Climate and Equity Core Team by 2025 that includes representatives across all City departments to coordinate the implementation and monitoring of this CAAP. The team will meet for quarterly peer-to-peer information sharing sessions to discuss challenges, brainstorm solutions, and track progress towards reaching Management
Services
1 Structural
Change
104 of 155

Social and Governance Systems
11 Action
Lead
Department Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
the City’s key performance indicators. This team will serve as the key organizers for cross-departmental collaboration needed to implement climate goals, as well as community contacts and key researchers for emerging technologies and best practices in climate action. The Chief Climate and Equity Officer (or equivalent role) will support this team with implementation of the CAAP and monitoring progress.

SG-3.4 Develop a training program to increase awareness of all City staff about climate risks to the community and contributions to GHG, importance of the CAAP and how it relates to the City, and internal and external resources. Information could consist of a handout with tailored details about the relevance and process of incorporating climate change in the agency’s process, a formal and recurrent training, onboarding training for new hires, etc.

Management
Services
1 Education All climate
hazards
SG-3.5 Include a description of Glendale’s climate goals and values in job postings, improving talent acquisition and potentially boosting retention and worker morale.

Human
Resources
1 Structural
Change
SG-3.6 Create five new positions and hire staff to fill those roles at the City, including a Chief Climate and Equity Officer (or equivalent), to support the development and implementation and enforcement of new ordinances, policies, and plans included in the CAAP.

Management
Services
1 – 2 Structural
Change
City Staff,
Sustainability
Commission
SG-3.7 Create a City-wide Sustainability Award Program to recognize and celebrate individuals, businesses, and community-based organizations that demonstrate outstanding commitment and innovation in the sustainability and climate realm. The award program will be used to acknowledge exemplary efforts and serve as a platform to share successful sustainability initiatives, fostering collaboration and driving positive and equitable change throughout Glendale.

Management
Services
2 Structural
Change
Sustainability
Commission
SG-3.8 Conduct a thorough review, involving climate data analysis, of health impacts to outdoor workers, and other experts in the field, and adjust policies to adapt City staff and contractor outdoor worker hours and conditions in response to changing climate, in compliance with Cal/OSHA standards and City programs, prioritizing worker safety and well-being.

Human
Resources
2 Feasibility Extreme Heat CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
105 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
12 2.4 Measure SG-4
Formalize City and community-based relationships to create meaningful and long-lasting relationships with non- profit organizations and increase engagement of vulnerable communities and Tribal governments in local government decision-making processes.

Metrics
▪% change in annual budget directed to community-based organizations for CAAP implementation ▪% of community-based organizations under contract or part of MOUs with City ▪# of partnership agreements with Tribal governments
Table 5 Measure SG-4 Actions
Action
Lead
Department Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard
Consistency
SG-4.1 Use existing network channels (working groups, coalitions, meetings, projects, etc.) to build an understanding of adaptation projects and potential collaborators in the Los Angeles region by:
▪Regularly engaging in the Los Angeles Regional Climate Collaborative (LARC).
▪Participating in partner agency’s requests to coordinate and collaborate on adaptation projects to demonstrate Glendale’s commitment.
▪Participating in regional projects as part of a technical advisory committee or on an ad hoc basis.

Use this engagement to learn about adaptation projects taking place in the Los Angeles region, and to foster strong relations with potential external agencies for future collaboration.

Management
Services
1 Feasibility,
Partnerships,
Education
SG-4.2 Develop a community-based organization (CBO) partnership program that includes criteria for partnership participation, funding for participant compensation, and a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to facilitate CBO partnerships in City-led engagement and implementation of CAAP actions.

Management
Services
1 Partnerships,
Funding
SG-4.3 Establish a formal consultation policy with local Tribes to increase Tribal involvement in the scoping, development, adoption, and implementation of sustainable projects beyond the requirements of Assembly Bill 52 and Management
Services,
Community
1 Partnerships,
Equity,
Structural
106 of 155

Social and Governance Systems
13 Action
Lead
Department Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard
Consistency
Senate Bill 18. Development Change
SG-4.4 In alignment with the Innovation Ecosystem-related goals included in the Economic Development Strategic Plan, enhance equitable workforce development programs, such as the Verdugo Job Center, designed to connect Glendale residents, particularly those from marginalized communities, to support unmet demand in climate-related industries in partnership with Unted States Green Business Council USGBC and in alignment with GWP initiatives, such as building electrification.

Community
Development,
Community
Services & Parks
2 Structural
Change, Equity
Economic
Development
Strategic Plan
SG-4.5 Create an Entrepreneurship Incubator, Growth or Startup Accelerator program that elevates Glendale’s profile as a hub for innovation. The program would promote business opportunities for Glendale residents in partnership with qualified operators, the Verdugo Workforce Development Board, Glendale Community College, or similar partners, to help local startups and companies. The intended goals would be to provide invaluable resources, connections, and knowledge to aspiring entrepreneurs and support entrepreneurs’ ability to innovate and scale up by connecting them with local resources including funding groups and mentorship.

Economic
Development,
Community
Development,
Community
Services &
Parks,
Information
Technology,
Glendale Water
and Power
3 Structural
Change,
Partnerships
City Staff, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback
107 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
14 2.6 Measure SG-5
Increase community capacity to better withstand climate shocks and stresses.

Metrics
▪# of Cool Block Programs deployed in high social sensitivity census tracts ▪# of Block Captains trained
▪# of vulnerable populations engaged in CAAP implementation outreach events Table 6 Measure SG-5
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
SG-5.1 Establish equitable community engagement guidelines, or a set of principles and strategies, to increase participation of vulnerable populations in local decision-making processes related to CAAP implementation including the incorporation of participatory budgeting so community members have a direct say in how funds are allocated and spent. Key aspects of equitable community engagement guidelines could include transparency, inclusivity, and responsiveness, with an aim to build trust over time. Strategies should include locating engagement events in areas of high social sensitivity, timing events outside of work hours, providing child-friendly options at the events, and providing translation services in Spanish, Korean, and Armenian. Implement the community engagement guidelines across all City departments that directly interact with the community as part of CAAP implementation.

Community
Services & Parks,
Management
Services,
Community
Development
Department
1 Equity,
Structural
Change
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
Environmental
Justice Element
SG-5.2 Institute a Cool Block Program to encourage residents to get to know their neighbors and to organize neighborhood associations incorporating fun games and events to foster community engagement, through which communities in Glendale can collectively address issues such as safety and climate hazards, and methods to improve quality of life. Reach out to existing neighborhood associations to initiate the Cool Block Program to leverage their local networks and increase the reach of the program throughout the City.

Management
Services
1 Structural
Change
All climate
hazards
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
SG-5.3 Update existing City-run educational programs and campaigns to incorporate information regarding potential health and economic effects of climate change, particularly associated with worsening air quality and Management
Services,
Community
1 Education All climate
hazards
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
108 of 155

Social and Governance Systems
15 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
extreme heat days, including available mental, physical, and financial health/support resources. Incorporate opportunities to collect input from the community on lived experiences as it relates to climate impacts.

Services & Parks ,
Library Arts and
Culture
Department
Sustainability
Commission
SG-5.4 Develop an equity investment program with local employers, businesses, philanthropic institutions, educational institutions, trade associations, businesses, and non-profit organizations to secure local match funding for economic development and climate partner readiness grants for vulnerable populations and investments in areas of high social sensitivity.

Economic
Development
3 Funding,
Equity
All climate
hazards
109 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
16 3 Building Systems

3.0 Measure BLD-1
Increase carbon-free electricity procurement to provide 100% carbon-free electricity community-wide by 2035 and improve electrical system resiliency through additional distributed energy resources, transmission capacity, and demand response.

Performance Metrics
▪Average emission factor of less than 0.00009 MT CO 2e/kWh by 2030 ▪Track the number of customer hours without power per year Table 7 Measure BLD-1 Actions
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar Climate Hazard Consistency
BLD-

1.1 Streamline permitting requirements for battery storage and solar to increase adoption rates.

Community
Development
1 Structural
Change
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
BLD-

1.2 Investigate the ability to pay customers for shifting load through demand response or installation of distributed energy resources such as solar and storage.

Glendale
Water and
Power
1 Feasibility Wildfire, Extreme
Heat
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
BLD-

1.3 Provide education and outreach, rate structures, or other incentives to facilitate the installation of an additional 34 MWh (including at least 10% on residential units) of solar electricity within Glendale by 2030.

Glendale
Water and
Power
1 - 3 Structural
Change
Wildfire, Extreme
Heat
Solar and
Energy
Storage Plan/
Clean Energy
Resolution,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
BLD-

1.4 Regularly update the Wildfire Mitigation Plan and establish a schedule for implementing the Preventative Strategies and Programs in the Wildfire Mitigation Plan. Issue an annual report that provides updates to the community regarding which strategies have been accomplished.

Glendale
Water and
Power, Fire
Department
1 Structural
Change
Wildfire Wildfire
Mitigation
Plan, CAAP
Focus Group
110 of 155

Building Systems
17 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar Climate Hazard Consistency
Feedback
BLD-

1.5 Continue to develop power purchase agreements or other contracts for renewable energy including solar, wind, and geothermal located outside the City of Glendale.

Glendale
Water and
Power
1 – 3 Structural
Change
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
BLD-

1.6 Work with regional partners to increase the transmission capacity of Glendale, allowing for more external carbon free electricity to supplement local generation and storage.

Glendale
Water and
Power
1 - 3 Partnerships CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
BLD-

1.7 Install 75 MW of local battery storage to maximize renewable energy use and reduce reliance on transmission capacity.

Glendale
Water and
Power
2 Structural
Change
Wildfire, Extreme
Heat
City Council
Resolution
No. 22-29,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
BLD-

1.8 Offer rebates and educational materials to community members on the benefits of distributed energy resources for resilience. Upon completion of the Solar and Battery Storage Feasibility Study, provide education and/or incentives to residential customers and design guidelines for installing battery storage and solar to reduce the need for additional distribution resources and to create a more resilient local grid.

Glendale
Water and
Power
2 Structural
Change/
Funding
Wildfire, Extreme
Heat
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
BLD-

1.9 Evaluate the ability to rent, lease, or purchase and use mobile battery generators for emergencies as well as for events and activities that require a reliable power source outside. Mobile access in disasters can support community members, critical infrastructure, or emergency responders. Train staff on how to use mobile battery generators, including information on when and how they would be used in the City (e.g., deployed at facilities that may not have battery back-up onsite, or at a site in the community to charge medical devices, cell phones, radios, or other key devises during an outage).

Community
Services and
Parks, Public
Works, Fire
Department
2 Feasibility Wildfire, Extreme
Heat
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
BLD-

1.10 Identify City-owned locations that currently have diesel powered back- up generators and create a timebound plan to install supplemental solar powered back-up generators onsite to create a seamless transition when the diesel generators reach the end of their useful lives. Prioritize locations in high social sensitivity census tracts.

Public Works 2 Feasibility Wildfire, Extreme
Heat
BLD-

1.11 Increase the clearance requirements for distribution lines in very high fire hazard severity zones so that is more stringent than current standards.

Glendale
Water and
2 Structural
Change
Wildfire Wildfire
Mitigation
111 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
18 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar Climate Hazard Consistency
Power Plan,
Sustainability
Commission
112 of 155

Building Systems
19 3.1 Measure BLD-2
Require healthy, safe, decarbonized, and resilient new buildings by 2026.

Metrics
▪95% of New Construction is Zero Carbon
▪95% of New Construction with Cool Roofs
▪100% of New Construction with Indoor Cooling
Table 8 Measure BLD-2 Actions
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
BLD-

2.1 Based on available legal pathways, implement a new building electrification ordinance which limits the installation of new natural gas infrastructure to improve health, safety, and reduce costs associated with new construction.

Community
Development
1 Structural Change
BLD-

2.2 Amend the building code to require CALGreen Tier 2 Voluntary Standards Section A5.106.11.2 for cool roofs and Section A5.106.7.2 for cool walls by 2026.

Community
Development
1 Structural Change Extreme Heat CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
CALGreen
BLD-

2.3 Amend the building code to require indoor cooling in new multi-family buildings by 2026. Monitor the California Department of Public Health guidance regarding indoor cooling which will inform the 2025 California building codes update cycle.

Community
Development
1 Structural Change Extreme Heat CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
BLD-

2.4 Amend the building code to require all newly installed HVAC units for new buildings to have two-way air conditioning capabilities to provide heating and cooling.

Community
Development
1 Structural Change Extreme Heat
and Poor Air
Quality
BLD-

2.5 Host regular workforce development programs for installers, local contractors, and building owners/operators to provide financial resources and technical requirements, including information on new electric appliances and approaches to electrification. Partner with community-based organizations to connect members of vulnerable communities to these training programs in a culturally appropriate and linguistically clear way.

Community
Development.

Community
Services and
Parks, Economic
Development
1 - 3 Education,
Funding, Equity,
Partnerships
113 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
20 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
BLD-

2.6 Establish minimum standards for the use of low carbon or carbon-neutral building materials.

Community
Development
2 Structural Change
BLD-

2.7 Work with local builders to pilot Sustainable Envelope and Orientation building design to enhance energy efficiency, occupant comfort, and overall sustainability by optimizing the building’s relationship with its environment and working towards zero net energy.

Community
Development,
Glendale Water
and Power, MS
2 Partnerships,
Feasibility
Extreme Heat
BLD-

2.8 Create a partnership with Glendale Community College and/or the Glendale Youth Alliance by leveraging the City's resources to refine the existing curriculum/programs to align with high market demand industries, while actively supporting initiatives such as internships, apprenticeships, labor unions, and mentorship programs with local businesses to guide students towards high-road career paths.

Community
Services and
Parks
2 Partnership Focus group
feedback
114 of 155

Building Systems
21 3.2 Measure BLD-3
Retrofit 25% of existing buildings by 2030 and 95% by 2045 to be zero-carbon and resilient to extreme heat and wildfires.

Metrics
▪25% reduction in residential and commercial natural gas use compared to adjusted forecast ▪# of buildings (residential and commercial) impacted by a natural disaster Table 9 Measure BLD-3 Actions
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard
Consistency
BLD-

3.1 By 2026, complete an existing building electrification study to identify costs and benefits associated with retrofitting residential and commercial building systems, including long-term costs of transitioning fuel use. Based on the findings of the report, identify, and adopt additional cost effective, equitable, and implementable building electrification requirements for existing buildings.

Community
Development
Management
Services
1 Feasibility CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
BLD-

3.2 Establish partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions and industry experts to compile an annually reviewed and updated list of qualified installers and clearly identify disadvantaged businesses, women-owned businesses, veteran- owned businesses, and other underrepresented groups knowledgeable in electrification that will be posted on the City’s centralized climate action and adaptation website and available at the permit counter. Regularly update the list of qualified installers.

Management
Services
Community
Development
1 Structural
Change,
Partnerships
Community
Feedback, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback,
Sustainability
Commission
BLD-

3.3 Adopt an ordinance requiring new roof replacements to utilize cool roof materials by 2026.

Community
Development
1 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
BLD-

3.4 Adopt an electrify-on-replacement ordinance for residential hot water heaters and HVAC systems by 2027.

Community
Development
1 Structural
Change
Poor Air
Quality
Best Practice
BLD-

3.5 Provide resources to landlords and tenants to develop costs/benefit sharing strategies associated with energy efficiency and electrification projects including energy efficiency leases.

Community
Development
1 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat
and Poor Air
Quality
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
BLD-

3.6 Review and update permitting requirements to require same day single permit processing of heat pump hot water heaters and HVAC units.

Glendale Water
and Power,
Community
1 Structural
Change
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
115 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
22 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard
Consistency
Development
BLD-

3.7 Create and promote DIY energy efficiency toolkits. Seek funding to create a lending library of air purifiers and cooling devices. Deploy the program in partnership with local community organizations and trusted community leaders, targeting high social sensitivity census tracts.

Community
Development,
Glendale Library
Arts & Culture
2 Education,
Partnerships,
Equity
Extreme Heat CAAP Focus
Group Feedback,
Sustainability
Commission
BLD-

3.8 Prioritize a comprehensive assessment process to identify opportunities for adaptive reuse of structures as part of the permit application process before considering demolition, aiming to reduce environmental impact and promote sustainable urban development.

Community
Development
2 Structural
Change
Community
Feedback
BLD-

3.9 Adopt a commercial building performance standard which requires buildings to report energy consumption by 2026, complete a building retro- commissioning by 2027, identify a GHG emissions reduction target, and reduce GHG emissions below the identified threshold by 2030. Work with regional partners to develop a consistent methodology and set of requirements for the building performance standard.

Management
Services
Community
Development
2 Structural
Change,
Partnership
Federal Building
Performance
Standard
BLD-

3.10 Amend the building code to require all newly installed HVAC units for existing buildings to have two-way air conditioning unit capabilities to provide heating and cooling by 2026.

Community
Development
2 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat
BLD-

3.11 Develop a service/infrastructure upgrade cost sharing program to mitigate the cost for individual building/homeowners to upgrade their service/panel for electrification purposes.

Glendale Water
and Power
2 Feasibility,
Funding
Extreme Heat
and Poor Air
Quality
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
BLD-

3.12 Explore the feasibility of creating a water heater loan program water heater loan program so that residents who are replacing their natural gas-powered water heaters with electric-powered water heaters at the end of their useful lives can borrow or rent a working natural gas water heater from the City for a specified period of time (e.g., three weeks) to use during any electrical panel upgrade. Participation in this program could signify the initiation of the permit request process and serve as a mechanism to support thoughtful residential transition. Consider expanding the loan program to induction stoves as well.

Glendale Water
and Power,
Community
Development
2 Structural
Change
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
BLD-

3.13 Develop an electrification and weatherization concierge service which would guide building owners through the technical steps for electrifying and weatherizing buildings as well as connect them to incentives (e.g., rebates, subsidies, and tax credits) and other resources (e.g., multi-lingual education and technical expertise). Additionally, provide educational resources to residents and business owners on the benefits of electrification readiness Glendale Water
and Power,
Community
Development
2 Funding,
Education
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback,
Community
Feedback
116 of 155

Building Systems
23 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard
Consistency
including panel upgrades, wiring, and service lines to support building and vehicle electrification over time and avoid emergency repairs.

BLD-

3.14 Improve indoor air quality for homes by establishing an educational campaign with demonstration kitchens to showcase the benefits of switching from gas to induction stoves. Create a rebate program to incentivize adoption of electrical appliances for low-income households. Target outreach to landlords by providing technical resources.

Management
Services,
Glendale Water
& Power
2 Education,
Equity
Poor Air
Quality
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
BLD-

3.15 Complete the feasibility study to evaluate the relative cost and benefits of augmenting centralized power alongside distributed renewable resources through direct install solar and batteries for customers, targeting low-income households, affordable housing developments, and warehouses or large office buildings. The program will include benefit-sharing approaches which would allow Glendale Water and Power to tap into distributed battery storage to facilitate peak shaving during peak demands while providing lower energy costs and increased resilience to targeted customers.

Glendale Water
and Power,
Community
Development
2 Feasibility Extreme Heat CAAP Focus
Group Feedback,
Solar and Energy
Storage Plan/
Clean Energy
Resolution
BLD-

3.16 Streamline permitting requirements and provide cost-saving design standards for replacing single-pane historic, uniquely shaped (e.g., curved) windows with dual-pane windows.

Community
Development
2 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat
and Poor Air
Quality
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
BLD-

3.17 Establish a local weatherization assistance program that builds on the work being done by the California Department of Community Services and Development through a partnership with Southern California Edison by creating a local program that provides energy efficiency and weatherization support for all residents, with an emphasis on reducing energy usage and lowering utility bills and addressing health and safety issues in homes, businesses, and public facilities.

Glendale Water
and Power,
Community
Development
3 Structural
Change,
Partnerships
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
117 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
24 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard
Consistency
BLD-

3.18 Create an incentive program specifically for upgrades at multi-family homes, as well as low income and affordable housing units, to stack existing incentives from TECH Clean California1 and the Inflation Reduction Act funding mechanisms to connect residents to technical and financial support including direct install, incentives, and information on the benefits of electrification.

Deploy the program in partnership with local community organizations and trusted community leaders, targeting high social sensitivity census tracts. Aim to weatherize and decarbonize 100 units annually by 2031 to demonstrate the effectiveness and co-benefits associated with building electrification.

Glendale Water
and Power,
Community
Development
3 Equity,
Funding,
Structural
Change,
Partnerships
Extreme Heat
and Poor Air
quality
Community
Feedback, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback
BLD-

3.19 Work with home and business owners, including those in historic districts, to identify and promote zero-carbon and resilient homes as demonstration projects to showcase the benefits.

Community
Development
3 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat
and Poor Air
Quality
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
BLD-

3.20 Identify locations to feasibly install community-serving microgrids and prioritize areas with high social vulnerability such as areas in South Glendale and Pacific Community Center & Park.

Glendale Water
& Power
3 Equity Extreme Heat
and Wildfire
Microgrid
Incentive
Program
1 https://techcleanca.com/
118 of 155

Building Systems
25 3.3 Measure BLD-4
Decarbonize and make municipal buildings resilient by 2035.

Metrics
▪90% of municipal buildings electrified
▪75% of upgraded/retrofitted municipal buildings with cool roofs ▪100% of municipal buildings in the Fire Hazard Severity Zone retrofitted to meet current fire standards Table 10 Measure BLD-4
Action
Lead
Department Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard
Consistency
BLD-

4.1 Complete the current energy audit and subsequent retro-commissioning on all existing municipal buildings and facilities and inventory all fossil fuel-powered building equipment, identify zero carbon replacement technology, and develop a prioritized short- and long-term replacement schedule for equipment by 2025. As part of this analysis, identify opportunities to install solar PV on municipally owned land and buildings as well as funding sources.

Public Works 1 Feasibility
Study
Solar and
Energy
Storage Plan/
Clean Energy
Resolution
BLD-

4.2 Once the analysis is complete as part of Action BLD-4.1, maximize solar installations on municipally owned land and buildings based on the results of the analysis.

Public Works 1 Structural
Change
Solar and
Energy
Storage Plan/
Clean Energy
Resolution
BLD-

4.3 Continue to require the implementation of cool roofs in the construction of all new and upgraded City buildings (at the time of upgrade) to minimize absorption of solar energy and reduce building energy use.

Public Works 1 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
BLD-

4.4 Develop and adopt an electrification first policy for City-owned fossil fuel equipment (e.g., back-up generators and HVAC units) by 2025 that outlines a clear strategy for addressing cost impacts of future equipment purchases and supports a fiscally responsible equipment transition.

Public Works 1 Structural
Change
BLD-

4.5 Utilize demand management technology on all applicable systems to reduce demand.

Public Works,
Glendale Water
and Power
1 Structural
Change
119 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
26 Action
Lead
Department Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard
Consistency
BLD-

4.6 Implement a municipal standard for all non-essential electrical plug loads including computers, printers, and other equipment to be shut off during nights, weekends, and other City closures. Individual exceptions can be made, as appropriate.

Information
Technology
1 Structural
Change
BLD-

4.7 Conduct a building audit of all existing City buildings in moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones and implement retrofits to comply with California Building Code, Chapter 7A and Chapter 49 by 2030.

Public Works 2 Feasibility
Study
Wildfire CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
BLD-

4.8 Calculate energy savings from energy efficiency and electrification upgrades and reinvest the savings back into a municipal cool roof program that funds future projects.

Finance, Public
Works
2 Funding Extreme Heat
BLD-

4.9 Require a deconstruction or salvage assessment for all projects involving demolition of existing structures on City-owned property that includes a detailed analysis of structural components, materials, and potential salvageable items.

Public Works 2 Feasibility
BLD-

4.10 Establish and incorporate a low embodied carbon criteria into government procurement policies for public infrastructure projects.

Public Works 3 Structural
Change
BLD-

4.11 Conduct a comprehensive feasibility study to assess the cost, feasibility, and other relevant factors, such as energy efficiency, environmental impact, and long-term maintenance requirements, associated with transitioning the Glendale Civic Center to an electric-powered heating and cooling loop system.

Public Works 3 Feasibility Extreme Heat
BLD-

4.12 Add energy storage such as battery back-up to all critical municipal buildings (e.g., fire stations, police stations, centralized storage locations of critical records) by 2035.

Public Works,
Glendale Water
and Power
3 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat
and Wildfire
120 of 155

Mobility and Land Use Systems
27 4 Mobility and Land Use Systems

4.0 Measure MLS-1
Reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles by promoting increased residential densities along transit and commercial corridors, increasing mix of land uses and expanding the range of attainable housing choices.

Metrics
▪# of affordable housing units constructed by 2035 near transit hubs ▪# of transit-oriented development constructed by 2035 near transit hubs ▪% mode share shift from single occupancy vehicle to alternative transportation modes in census tracts with major transit hubs by 2035 Table 11 Measure MLS-1
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
MLS-

1.1 As part of the outreach associated with planning initiatives, continue to engage with members of the community, landowners, local businesses, and community organizations to gather input and address concerns related to increased density and mixed-use development.

Community
Development
1 Education CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
SCAG Connect
SoCal
MLS-

1.2 Partner with Glendale Housing Authority, private developers, non-profit organizations, and community-based organizations to create a network of information sharing to leverage resources and expertise related to affordable housing development by a diverse group of experts. The goal is to foster a dynamic exchange of knowledge, facilitate joint initiatives, and collectively address the challenges associated with creating accessible and affordable housing options.

Community
Development
1 Partnerships,
Equity
Housing
Element
Update 2021 –
2029, SCAG
Connect SoCal
MLS-

1.3 As part of the Land Use Element update, conduct a comprehensive zoning review to identify underutilized areas around major corridors and nodes, strategically rezoning them to allow for increased residential density and/or mixed-use developments, while implementing inclusionary zoning policies to prioritize the creation of affordable housing units within these projects.

Community
Development
1 Feasibility Community
Feedback,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
121 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
28 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
MLS-

1.4 Reach beyond the goals of AB 1317, which requires unbundling of parking costs from rental rates in new residential properties with 16 or more units, by updating the municipal code to separate residential parking costs from monthly rent in areas well served by high-quality transit.

Community
Development
1 Structural
Change
AB 1317
MLS-

1.5 Identify appropriate locations to increase density near transit hubs by identifying suitable locations and implementing zoning changes to promote mixed-use development, thereby enhancing accessibility.

Community
Development
1 – 3 Feasibility
MLS-

1.6 Review and, if necessary, update the current residential zoning districts to remove barriers to help accelerate production of missing ‘middle- housing,’ including townhouses, cottage housing, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Additionally, create Objective Design Standards for these housing types to facilitate quality design and construction.

Community
Development
2 Structural
Change
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
SCAG Connect
SoCal
MLS-

1.7 Require awnings and/or canopies that can encroach into required property setbacks to create shade for pedestrians as part of objective design standards for mixed use zoning districts, as well as first and last mile development standards that allow for shading pedestrians in mixed- use zones.

Community
Development
2 Structural
Change
Extreme heat CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
MLS-

1.8 Study the possible elimination of parking minimums and inclusion of parking maximums in zoning districts that are well-served by transit, in line with AB 2097 requirements.

Community
Development
2 Structural
Change
AB 2097
MLS-

1.9 Install a dynamic smart parking program in Downtown Glendale. Earmark proceeds from the program that is in excess of structure parking maintenance costs to install walking and biking infrastructure in high social sensitivity census tracts
Public Works 2 Equity, Funding SCAG Connect
SoCal
MLS-

1.10 Build on the success of surrounding programs and partnerships in the region, including the Southeast Los Angeles Cultural Center Development Advisory Panel to convene a residential-focused community stability working group with representatives from diverse interested parties to develop a community stability toolkit to be used in areas that have displacement risk. Track and monitor effectiveness of such strategies Community
Development
2 Equity,
Partnerships
SCAG Connect
SoCal
MLS-

1.11 Implement a dynamic promotional strategy for Open Streets events (e.g., CicLAvia) including cutting-edge digital marketing tools and strategic community partnerships to maximize participation and foster a vibrant, inclusive urban experience with an emphasis on including the high social sensitivity census tracts
Management
Services,
Community
Services and
Parks
2 Partnership
122 of 155

Mobility and Land Use Systems
29 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
MLS-

1.12 Conduct a study to determine the feasibility of implementing a congestion pricing plan for a specific area of the City with periods of heavy traffic to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and enhance opportunities for multi-modal mobility, by analyzing key factors such as suitable locations, associated costs, optimal timing, potential impacts on traffic patterns, and overall effectiveness in addressing congestion Public Works 3 Feasibility City Staff,
SCAG Connect
SoCal ,
Sustainability
Commission
MLS-

1.13 In support of the Innovation Ecosystem-related goals included in the Economic Development Strategic Plan, provide opportunities for affordable commercial development and redevelopment that supports small and locally owned businesses (e.g. fostering a business mentorship program, providing educational resources to commercial business owners, and facilitating access for incentives, etc.).

Community
Development
3 Structural
Change
Community
Feedback,
Economic
Development
Strategic Plan
123 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
30 4.1 Measure MLS-2
Increase active transportation mode share to 3% by 2030 and 10% by 2045 by increasing the safety and availability of the transportation system to support walking and biking for all members of the community.

Metrics
▪% mode shift to bike/ped
Table 12 Measure MLS-2
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
MLS-

2.1 Update the Glendale Municipal Code to require the incorporation of standard charging outlets in bike parking zones and designated parking spaces, fostering the widespread adoption of electric bicycles.

Community
Development
1 Structural
Change
City Staff, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback
MLS-

2.2 Review and amend the existing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance and require specific employers to include money-based incentives for employees to bike, walk, carpool, or take public transit to work, as well as those who work remotely.

Community
Development
1 Structural
Change
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback, City
Staff, SCAG
Connect SoCal
MLS-

2.3 Continue to partner with the Glendale Police Department and the Glendale Unified School District to provide a bicycle safety course for both bicycle riders and vehicle drivers to provide education related to safe, active transportation. Utilize this opportunity to provide opportunities to community members to test drive electric bicycles (e- bikes) from various manufacturers and learn more about how e-bikes operate. Prioritize outreach in communities with high social sensitivity.

Police
Department,
Glendale Water
and Power
1 Partnerships,
Education
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan, Be Street
Smart Glendale,
Glendale Safe
and Healthy
Streets Plan,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
Glendale Water
and Power
Electric Vehicle
Navigator
Program
MLS-

2.4 Identify locations throughout the City to install additional bike repair stations, including near parks along bicycle routes, and consider Community
Development
1 Structural
Change
Bicycle
Transportation
124 of 155

Mobility and Land Use Systems
31 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
partnering with a local bike shop to provide quarterly bicycle repair support for residents traveling along a main bike path or at a designated, central location. Additionally, develop a Maintenance Plan that outlines ongoing routine inspections and repairs to confirm the continued functionality, as well as a map showing all the repair stations.

Public Works Plan, Glendale
Safe and
Healthy Streets
Plan, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback
MLS-

2.5 Partner with an entity such as L.A. Metro, Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC), or Walk Bike Glendale to expand existing rebate programs to help families living on low- and fixed-incomes purchase alternative modes of transportation (e.g., bicycles, scooters, rollerblades, skates, skateboards) and appropriate safety gear
Public Works 1 Partnerships,
Funding, Equity
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan,
Community
Feedback, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback
MLS-

2.6 Continue to pursue funding from Caltrans’ Active Transportation Program or similar funding opportunities to implement improvements from the City’s long-range active transportation plans, including the Bicycle Transportation Plan, Circulation Element, Land Use Element Updates, and the Safe and Healthy Streets Plan.

Public Works 1 Funding Glendale Safe
and Healthy
Streets Plan,
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
MLS-

2.7 Re-evaluate the City’s Safe Routes to School Program to collect current data on access and use; evaluate physical safety; conduct feedback collection sessions from students, guardians, and staff; and provide updated information on pedestrian and bicycle safety programs as well as health benefits. Upon completion, take the updated plan to City Council for adoption.

Community
Development
1 Feasibility Glendale
Citywide
Pedestrian Plan,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
MLS-

2.8 Continue partnering with L.A. Metro to complete the Doran Street Grade Separation Project, which will include installation of an overpass to connect West San Fernando Road with the Fairmont Avenue Bridge, thereby replacing the at-grade crossing to increase pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle safety.

Public Works 1 Partnerships Metro – Better
Transit Project
MLS-

2.9 Build from the Wander the Wilderness Bus pilot program to formalize a transit to trails program drawing inspiration from successful models, incorporating community feedback, and establishing robust partnerships with public transit agencies, environmental organizations, and local communities to establish seamless and equitable access to natural spaces in the region. Deploy the program in high social sensitivity census Community
Services &
Parks, Public
Works
1 Partnerships,
Feasibility
125 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
32 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
tracts
MLS-

2.10 Complete and implement the Vision Zero Pedestrian Plan by 2030, which includes a holistic realignment of traffic safety priorities, protocol, and procedures aimed at eliminating fatal and serious collisions. Prioritize implementation in high social sensitivity census tracts.

Community
Development,
Public Works
1 – 3 Structural
Change
Glendale
Citywide
Pedestrian Plan,
Sustainability
Commission
MLS-

2.11 Leverage insights and best practices from successful initiatives in other jurisdictions (e.g., Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Metro), building on their experiences and lessons learned, to evaluate and if feasible design and implement a comprehensive Shared Bike program.

Public Works,
Community
Development
Community
Services &
Parks
1 – 3 Structural
Change
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
MLS-

2.12 Implement the Bicycle Transportation Plan by 2045. Prioritize implementation in high social sensitivity census tracts.

Public Works,
Community
Development
1 – 3 Structural
Change
Air Quality, Bicycle
Transportation
Plan
MLS-

2.13 Install XX public bike parking facilities that are safe, reliable, convenient, and accessible, enhancing the cycling infrastructure in the community with at least 75% of the new bike parking located in high social sensitivity census tracts. Promote the use of the bike parking facilities through awareness campaigns, multi-lingual convenient signage, and incentives to encourage sustainable transportation choices.

Public Works 1 – 3 Structural
Change
Bicycle
Transportation
Plan, Glendale
Safe and
Healthy Streets
Plan,
Community
Feedback, CAA
Focus Group
Feedback
MLS-

2.14 Increase the linear miles of roadside vegetation clearance by 15%, consistent with the annually updated City of Glendale Fire Department/Los Angeles County Unit Strategic Fire Plan, to reduce the risk of ignition along roadways
Fire
Department
2 Structural
Change
Wildfire City of Glendale
Fire
Department/Lo
s Angeles
County Unit
Strategic Fire
Plan, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback
MLS- Install thermometers and ground-based thermal sensing tools along City Manager’s 2 Funding, Extreme Heat North Brand 126 of 155

Mobility and Land Use Systems
33 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency

2.15 Brand near the cool pavement and tree planting pilot project at different heights ranging from the ground to the tops of the trees/surrounding buildings. Collect data regularly to analyze the benefits of the pilot program.

Office, Public
Works
Structural
Change
Boulevard
Complete
Streets
Demonstration
Project, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback, US
EPA Measuring
Heat Island
Impacts
Methodologies
MLS-

2.16 Review and update the Pavement Management Report to incorporate cool pavement technologies during City repaving projects.

Public Works 2 Structural
Change
MLS-

2.17 Create a Glendale Parklet and Community Greening program to identify and map opportunities to install parklets in the downtown and other commercial areas of the City. Engage with businesses to gain sponsorship for the parklets or greenspace. This will contribute to active transportation by converting curbside parking spaces into vibrant, pedestrian-friendly zones, providing additional room for walking, cycling, and other human-powered modes of travel. Additionally, work with private schools, utility right of ways, and Caltrans to identify and transition areas within their right of ways that could be transitioned into parklets and identify freeway airspace and vertical walls may also be used for planting or developed into mini gardens
Community
Development,
Public Works
2 Structural
Change
Community
Feedback, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback,
Sustainability
Commission
MLS-

2.18 Adopt the 2025 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) voluntary reach code for both residential and non-residential projects that establishes specific pavement options to reduce the heat island effect of sidewalks, patios, driveways, and parking lots by 2026.

Community
Development
2 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat CalGreen,
Community
Feedback
MLS-

2.19 Elevate street crosswalk components with artistic elements to enhance visibility and eliminate the need for pedestrians to navigate changes in height while crossing. Prioritize implementation in high social sensitivity census tracts.

Public Works,
Glendale
Library Arts &
Culture
2 Structural
Change
ADA Standards
for Accessible
Designs,
Glendale Urban
Art Program,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
127 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
34 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
MLS-

2.20 Partner with the Glendale Unified School District and private schools in the City to develop a plan to reduce the heat islands in the City’s schools and adjacent areas, including along walking routes, by removing impervious surfaces, planting trees, and increasing shade structures.

Prioritize schools that serve high social sensitivity census tracts. Develop a tree maintenance and monitoring program that details the additional resources required to protect and maintain the trees once planted.

Public Works 2 Partnerships,
Feasibility
Extreme Heat Mobility
Element,
Glendale Safe
and Healthy
Streets Plan,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
MLS-

2.21 Complete the traffic calming strategies along San Fernando Road, including bicycle lanes to access major employment centers (e.g., distribution warehouses) by 2030.

Public Works 2 Structural
Change
Circulation
Element,
Glendale
Citywide
Pedestrian Plan,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
MLS-

2.22 Complete the Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project (Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, Phase III), which will include a river crossing on the LA River near the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk that has specially designed lights to mitigate light pollution, multi-lingual signs, a bike repair station, and information about the region, such as cultural history of the land and people; native plants and animals; and how to protect our ecosystems.

Public Works 3 Structural
Change,
Education
Glendale
Narrows
Riverwalk
Master Plan,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
Community
Feedback
MLS-

2.23 Implement transportation improvements identified in the Safety Element to improve emergency evacuation by 2035.

Public Works 3 Structural
Change
Wildfire Safety Element
Update, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback, SCAG
Connect SoCal
MLS-

2.24 Adjust asphalt binder grade based on future temperature projections using American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guidelines and FHWA’s LTPPBind tool.

Public Works 3 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat American
Association of
State Highway
and
Transportation
Officials
guidelines
128 of 155

Mobility and Land Use Systems
35 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
MLS-

2.25 Implement fortified street crossings with heightened safety measures at high-traffic or traditionally dangerous intersections, incorporating advanced signaling systems, pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, and community-informed designs to enhance road safety.

Public Works 3 Structural
Change
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
129 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
36 4.2 Measure MLS-3
Enhance the transit system to be more resilient, accessible, and convenient to increase mode share to 5% by 2030 and 10% by 2045.

Metrics
▪% mode shift to transit
▪% of total transit stops in the City with shade features Table 13 Measure MLS-3 Actions
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
MLS-

3.1 Complete the current Bus Stop Improvement Program (BSIP) to survey all Beeline Metro, and Los Angeles Department of Transportation bus stops that Glendale is responsible and develop a “kit-of-parts” for each (approximately 467) bus stop which includes shelter and shade structures, and real-time bus information displays at key bus stops. As part of the analysis, identify the top priority locations for installation of shelters, shade structures, and bus stop amenities based on average use of the transit stop, location in high social sensitivity census tracts, and proximity to community parks.

Public Works 1 Feasibility,
Structural
Change
Extreme Heat Bus Stop
Improvement
Program – in
progress (as of
2/2024), SCAG
Connect SoCal,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
Sustainability
Commission
MLS-

3.2 As part of the ongoing Comprehensive Transit Operations Analysis, evaluate the existing Beeline route and coordinate with Metro, BurbankBus, La Canada Flintridge (LCF) Shuttle, Metrolink, and Amtrak, to increase convenient and safe access to the transit system. Work with L.A. Metro and Glendale Beeline to identify opportunities to increase transit options in Glendale and coordinate around issue areas. Prioritize implementation in high social sensitivity census tracts.

Public Works 1 Feasibility,
Partnership
SCAG Connect
SoCal, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback
MLS-

3.3 Partner with Metro to educate the community on available transit opportunities through informational workshops, highlighting the benefits and convenience of public transportation options, including the Guaranteed Ride Home program and Metro Micro.

Public Works 1 Structural
Change,
Partnerships
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
MLS- Continue to partner with Metro to provide qualifying low-income Public Works 1 Feasibility, Community 130 of 155

Mobility and Land Use Systems
37 3.4 residents of Los Angeles County with monthly free regional rides as part of the Low Income Fare is Easy program and identify opportunities to expand the partnership to include Metrolink, Amtrak, and potentially rideshare companies to create a centralized program that establishes a monthly ticket covering multiple transportation systems to incentivize travelers.

Funding,
Partnerships
Feedback, City
Staff, SCAG
Connect SoCal,
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
MLS-

3.5 As part of the Beeline Comprehensive Operations Analysis, continue to improve transit accessibility on the Beeline by actively engaging people with disabilities in the review and discussion of existing operations, and decision-making processes for future initiatives and upgrades.

Public Works 1 Equity SCAG Connect
SoCal, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback
MLS-

3.6 Utilize Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) grant and local transportation sales tax measure funds to install the prioritized shelter and shade structures, bus stop amenities as identified in MLS-3.1., contactless fare payment program, and climate mobility, technology upgrades (e.g., Wi-Fi on bus, real time information system, etc.).

Public Works 2 Funding Extreme Heat City Staff, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback
MLS-

3.7 Continue to partner with L.A. Metro and the Glendale Beeline to offer increased awareness of youth-targeted programs and continue to engage with Glendale Unified School District to offer membership in the GoPass program.

Public Works 2 Partnerships,
Funding, Equity
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback, SCAG
Connect SoCal
MLS-

3.8 Work with regional transit providers to implement a transit signal priority system that implements a smart and integrated street lighting system aimed at minimizing wait times at intersections by optimizing traffic flow and enhancing energy efficiency.

Public Works 2 Structural
Change
Community
Feedback, SCAG
Connect SoCal,
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
MLS-

3.9 Upon completion of the Comprehensive Transit Operations Analysis (Action MLS-3.2), develop a Beeline Service Plan that prioritizes high social sensitivity census tracts.

Public Works 3 Feasibility,
Equity
Comprehensive
Transit
Operations
Analysis, SCAG
Connect SoCal,
CAAP Focus
Group Feedback
MLS-

3.10 Continue to partner with Metro to complete the North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor project to connect the cities of Los Angeles (North Hollywood and Eagle Rock communities), Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena via Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), improving access to jobs, education, and other important destinations.

Public Works 3 Partnership Metro Better
Transit Projects,
SCAG Connect
SoCal, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback
131 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
38 4.3 Measure MLS-4
Increase passenger and commercial zero-emission vehicle use and adoption to 25% by 2030 and 90% by 2045, respectively.

Metrics
▪25% of total passenger vehicles that are zero-emission in the City ▪25% of total commercial vehicles are zero-emission in the City ▪# publicly accessible electric vehicle chargers in Glendale Table 14 Measure MLS-4
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
MLS-

4.1 Continue to leverage feasibility study information to evaluate opportunities for installation of electric vehicle charging stations at City-owned facilities and in the public right of way. The feasibility study will assess electrical capacity, electrical demand, financial constraints, and parking utilization to provide a prioritized list of locations to install new publicly accessible electric vehicle charging stations. In the feasibility study, include evaluation of opportunities and prioritization of locations to increase the equitable distribution of publicly available electric vehicle chargers to residents of multi-family homes in high social sensitivity tracts and residents living on low- and moderate-incomes, as well as consideration for optimizing daytime charging.

Glendale Water
and Power
1 Feasibility,
Equity
Community
Feedback,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
MLS-

4.2 Continue to implement the Glendale Electric Vehicle Reach Code and review every code cycle (three years) to align with best practices and guidelines for electric vehicle charging.

Community
Development
1 Structural
Change
Air Quality
MLS-

4.3 Continue to conduct at least two annual zero-emission vehicle education events for residents. Prioritize events for residents living on low- and moderate- incomes as well as residents living in multi-family buildings that would engage the community to evaluate the barriers to zero-emission vehicle adoption, promote information on the costs and benefits of owning zero-emission vehicles, and detail the steps on how to receive incentives for zero-emission vehicles.

Glendale Water
and Power,
Library Arts and
Culture
Department
1 Education CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
Sustainability
Commission
MLS-

4.4 Engage large employers and owners of parking structures in Glendale and provide technical support, such as design assistance, technical workshops, GWP Community
Development
1 Partnerships Community
Feedback
132 of 155

Mobility and Land Use Systems
39 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
coordination, and permit streamlining to install public, shared, and private, DC fast charging infrastructure
MLS-

4.5 Create a summary of commercial vehicle fleets in Glendale and identify employers to work with to accelerate zero-emission vehicle adoption through targeted education. Encourage commercial vehicle fleet operators to accelerate electrification by providing them educational material on the benefits of zero- emission vehicles (e.g., fuel cost savings through networked charging, and current availability of zero emission vehicles ahead of State mandates), the City’s streamlined permitting process, and compiling and distributing information on potential funding opportunities.

Glendale Water
and Power
1 Feasibility,
Education
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
MLS-

4.6 Develop outreach and education materials and distribute them to local businesses, property owners, and developers on the financial (e.g., new funding streams), environmental, health, and safety benefits of zero-emission vehicles.

Provide information on available funding opportunities and the City’s streamlined permitting process. Deploy the program in partnership with local community organizations and trusted community leaders.

Glendale Water
and Power ,
Library Arts and
Culture
Department
1 Education Community
Feedback,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
Sustainability
Commission
MLS-

4.7 Based on the prioritized list of locations developed through action MLS-4.1, install at least 25 level II chargers per year, through public-private partnerships and on City-owned properties.

Glendale Water
and Power
1 – 3 Structural
Change,
Partnerships
Air Quality Community
Feedback,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
MLS-

4.8 Incentivize residential electric vehicle charger installations and panel upgrades.

Promote the incentives through multi-lingual outreach material on GWP's website and at community events.

Glendale Water
and Power
2 Funding CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
MLS-

4.9 Continue to work with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to identify and provide funding for electric vehicles and charging infrastructure for disadvantaged business owners.

Glendale Water
and Power
2 Partnerships
, Funding
Community
Feedback,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
MLS-

4.10 Identify and create an equitable plan for a zero-carbon district in a high social sensitivity census tract to focus resources, support, and partnerships with local businesses, and engagement to develop a carbon free zone where all buildings and mobility options are carbon free. Avoid inequitable outcomes by engaging directly with high social sensitivity census tract households and businesses.

Community
Development
3 Structural
Change,
Partnerships
Focus Group
Feedback
133 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
40 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
MLS-

4.11 Conduct a comprehensive assessment of primary last-mile delivery routes, vehicle fleet composition, and energy infrastructure, exploring potential partnerships with electric vehicle manufacturers, charging station providers, and alternative solutions such as e-cargo bikes, AI-driven delivery systems, or other innovative approaches, as well as evaluating financial incentives and regulatory frameworks to formulate a well-informed strategy for the successful electrification of last-mile delivery.

Public Works,
Glendale Water
& Power
3 Feasibility City Staff,
SCAG Connect
SoCal
134 of 155

Mobility and Land Use Systems
41 4.4 Measure MLS-5
Electrify or otherwise decarbonize 30% of community-operated off-road equipment (e.g., lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and chainsaws) operations by 2030 and 100% by 2045.

Metrics
▪30% reduction in off-road equipment fuel use
Table 15 Measure MLS-5
Actions
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard
Consistency
MLS-

5.1 Investigate off-road equipment fleets in the City to identify fleets with the highest decarbonization potential, fleets owned by small and minority businesses that will need targeted support and incentives to decarbonize or electrify, and fleets that do not currently have zero-emission alternatives. Utilize these findings to develop the phased off-road ordinances (Action MLS-5.2).

Sustainability 1 Feasibility, Equity Community
Feedback
MLS-

5.2 Continue to develop and adopt a phased series of ordinances that align with or exceed AB 1346 to ban local operation of specific types of gasoline and diesel-powered off-road equipment (e.g., lawn and garden, construction). Update the ordinances based on a regular review of relevant state regulations, regional rules, and available technology.

Sustainability,
Community
Development
(Code
Enforcement)
1 Structural
Change
Poor Air
Quality
Ordinance No.
6008 – Gas
Powered Leaf
Blower, AB
1346, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback
MLS-

5.3 Promote the multi-lingual Off-road Equipment Replacement Outreach Campaign that provides information to contractors, residents, and fleet operators in the City. Information should include equivalent alternatives to fossil-fuel powered off-road equipment, public health, safety benefits of alternative equipment technology, and funding opportunities available (i.e., Clean Off-Road Equipment Voucher Incentive Program [CORE]).

Information from the educational program should be summarized into an infographic format and posted at parks, City-owned and operated buildings, and shared in the City’s newsletter to highlight the emissions reductions and overall health benefits in a way that is easily understood.

Sustainability 1 Education, Equity CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
MLS-

5.4 Require zero emission off-road equipment as a mitigation measure for projects deemed to have an environmental impact for new construction Community
Development
1 Structural
Change
Poor Air
Quality
135 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
42 Actions
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard
Consistency
as part of the CEQA process.

MLS-

5.5 Create an enforcement and implementation program to track the community's transition to electric off-road equipment and use of biofuels.

Sustainability,
Community
Development
(Code
Enforcement)
2 Structural
Change
MLS-

5.6 Partner to create a financially viable rebate program with surrounding jurisdictions and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), as appropriate, for upgrading off-road equipment and switching to electric or biofuels. Develop the program with a focus on procedural equity and prioritize funding distribution to vulnerable populations.

Sustainability,
Glendale
Water and
Power
2 Funding, Equity,
Partnerships
Air Quality CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
136 of 155

Mobility and Land Use Systems
43 4.5 Measure MLS-6
Transition to 75% zero-emission municipal fleet by 2030 and 100% by 2040.

Metrics
▪% of Municipal Fleet Vehicles that are zero-emission
▪% reduction in employee commute
Table 16 Measure MLS-6 Actions
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
MLS-

6.1 Review and update the Fleet Electrification Study every two years to consider changes in vehicle operations and requirements, changes in costs, as well as improvements in technology.

Public Works 1 Structural
Change
Fleet
Electrification
Study,
American
Green Zone
Alliance
Certified
Green Zones
Program
MLS-

6.2 Continue to highlight the City’s zero-emission vehicle fleet at community events such as Earth Day, Touch-A-Truck, and other events, to demonstrate how an electric vehicle fleet underscores Glendale's dedication to modernizing its infrastructure and aligning with evolving transportation trends and provide an opportunity to provide education about the benefits of electric vehicles, including lower air pollution, reduced noise levels, and the positive impact on public health.

Public Works 1 Education CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
MLS-

6.3 Develop an impact and risk assessment for power outages and use the information to develop risk mitigation strategies and a resilience plan that supports electric vehicle procurement.

Public Works 1 Feasibility Fleet
Electrification
Study
MLS-

6.4 Implement the Zero-Emission Transition Bus Rollout plan by 2035. Public Works 1 – 3 Structural Change
Air Quality City Staff
MLS-

6.4 Install battery backup combined with onsite solar and renewable diesel generator backups to provide resilience to the municipal fleet.

Public Works 2 Structural
Change
Air Quality,
Extreme Heat,
Wildfire
137 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
44 MLS-

6.5 Secure funding from State programs (such as the California Air Resources Board's Clean Vehicle Rebate Project and the Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Program, Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project) and Federal sources to increase procurement of zero- emission cars, trucks, buses, and other vehicles and installation of zero- emission vehicle charging/fueling infrastructure at municipal facilities.

Additionally, explore opportunities for Low Carbon Fuel Standard credit generation from use of low carbon fuels/electricity for fleet vehicles.

Public Works 2 Funding CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
MLS-

6.6 Meet or exceed the advanced clean fleets rules for medium and heavy- duty vehicles.

Public Works 3 Structural
Change
Air Quality
138 of 155

Urban Eco-Systems
45 5 Urban Eco-Systems

5.0 Measure-UE-1
Increase organics diversion through SB-1383 to divert 75% of organic material by 2025.

Metrics
▪% reduction in organic material sent to landfill compared to 2014 ▪Tons of organic material procured per year
▪% reduction of edible food waste
Table 17 Measure UE-1 Actions
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
UE-1.1 Support the implementation of data management systems for managing refuse, recyclables, organics and edible food to maximize diversion of waste streams.

Public Works 1 Feasibility Recycling
Center
Master Plan,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-1.2 Engage in edible food recovery capacity planning by completing the following actions:
▪Estimate the amount of edible food that will be disposed of by organics generators in Glendale.
▪Work regionally to establish a full list of food recovery organizations that can receive edible food from Glendale businesses.
▪Optimize edible food collection and distribution logistics in the City by implementing a streamlined route planning system, coordinating with local businesses for organic waste contributions, and leveraging technology for real-time monitoring, thereby enhancing efficiency and sustainability in compost management.

Public Works 1 Feasibility SB 1383, Zero
Waste Action
Plan, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback,
Sustainability
Commission
139 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
46 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
▪Continue to work with food recovery entities, such as ReCreate, to identify the minimum capacity required to recover 20% of edible food that is estimated to be disposed.
▪Provide education regarding the good Samaritan law and infrastructure needed to store and manage food.

If existing and planned capacity is insufficient based on the above process, develop and submit an implementation schedule highlighting the planning effort to provide new or expanded capacity for increasing edible food donations and identify proposed new or expanded facilities to be used for additional capacity.

UE-1.3 In tandem with the Free Composting Bin and Organics Recycling Pail Pick Up programs, establish and maintain an ongoing education program informing the community about compostable materials, including regularly updated guidelines on composting, especially paper, distributed bi-annually and made available at the City permit counter, grocery stores, as well as at farmers' markets and other community events.

Public Works 1 Education Sustainability
Commission,
Zero Waste
Action Plan,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-1.4 Implement an equitable inspection and compliance program for the edible food recovery program and organics procurement program with equitable and clearly defined enforcement mechanisms and penalties, as required by Article 16 in SB 1383. Maintain records, including an initial compliance report, annual report, and implementation record as required by Articles 3, 14, and 16 of SB 1383 for (1) the organic waste collection program and (2) the edible food recovery program. Additionally, develop an organics procurement tracking program.

Public Works 1 Structural
Change, Equity
SB 1383, Zero
Waste Action
Plan
UE-1.5 Work with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health to develop and pass an ordinance, with equitable enforcement mechanisms and technical and financial assistance for low-income entities, which requires organics diversion from businesses, including front-of-house (FOH) organics collection at most food service businesses. As part of the ordinance development process, identify local companies that provide composting support services and develop preliminary requirements for contracting.

Public Works 3 Feasibility,
Equity
UE-1.6 Continue working with waste haulers who can franchise in Glendale to provide clear and consistent composting education material to private and public schools and other community organizations to promote compost quality and avoid cross contamination with plastics and other trash.

Public Works 1 Education CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
140 of 155

Urban Eco-Systems
47 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
Zero Waste
Action Plan
UE-1.7 Identify opportunities to meet the procurement targets of SB 1383 to procure 16,000 tons of organics per year and identify opportunities to apply compost on City parks to improve water-holding capacity and filtration.

Public Works,
Parks
1 Feasibility,
Structural
Change
Drought
UE-1.8 Work with regional partners in LA County to create a compost application trading program to support the application of compost and other organic matter in farms and parks in the County.

Public Works 1 Partnership
UE-1.9 Continue to work with ReCREATE or similar entity to develop and manage a comprehensive edible food recovery program based on food insecurity in Glendale that identifies and assists Tier 1 and Tier 2 generators with SB 1383 implementation; identifies food recovery services and organizations within the City; determines the capacity of food recovery services and organizations within the City; evaluates the need for development of food recovery kitchen sites or repackaging locations; and tracks the needs of Glendale’s food insecure population.

Public Works, 1 Partnerships,
Structural
Change
Glendale
Edible Food
Recovery
Program,
ReCreate
Contract
UE-

1.10 Continue to identify and support school organizations (e.g., leadership, sustainability, and environmental groups or clubs) start “Go Organics” programs to initiate, educate, and implement robust organics collection programs in collaboration with public schools, Glendale Community College campuses, and private schools.

Public Works 1 Partnerships,
Education
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-

1.11 Develop community compost giveaway sites (e.g., at parks or other City owned and operated locations) to provide a constant resource to the community and education about how to reduce pests and potential odor and other relevant concerns.

Public Works 1 Structural
Change
Zero Waste
Action Plan,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-

1.12 Develop a multi-family outreach program that engages with large and medium sized multi-family buildings to discuss opportunities and barriers to composting. Engagement should include outreach to property management and tenants. Based on feedback, identify recommendations for developing a multi-family composting program.

Public Works 1 Education Community
Feedback.

CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-

1.13 Increase the City of Glendale construction waste diversion requirement to 75% during the next contract negotiation.

Community
Development
1 Education
141 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
48 5.1 Measure UE-2
Increase tree canopy to 25% by 2030 and 30% by 2045 by focusing on communities most vulnerable to extreme heat.

Metrics
▪# of (annually and total) trees planted in high social sensitivity census tracts ▪% survival rate of trees planted
Table 18 Measure UE-2 Actions
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
UE-2.1 Complete analysis on success rates for trees planted over the past three years (planted 2020 – 2023), encompassing factors such as species selection, soil conditions, and maintenance practices, to determine the survival rate, thereby informing future tree planting initiatives and fostering sustainable urban forestry practices.

Public Works,
Community
Services and
Parks,
1 Feasibility Extreme Heat City Staff
UE-2.2 Continue to implement and regularly update the Open Space Management Plan sustainable management practices for land included in the San Gabriel and Verdugo Mountains, and the San Rafael Hills, incorporating the planting of trees with locally adapted genetics in historically forested areas, aiming to enhance ecosystem health, mitigate erosion, and preserve biodiversity. Add multi-lingual signs and/or information kiosks detailing the history of specific trees, where known, benefits of native trees, and information on how they are maintained.

Public Works,
Community
Services and
Parks, , Fire
1 Structural
Change
City Staff.

CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-2.3 Prioritize planting of 200 trees annually in high social sensitivity census tracts with the lowest tree equity score, along safe routes to school and near bus stops, as detailed in the City’s Community Forest Management Plan.

Public Works 1 Structural
Change, Equity
Extreme Heat CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
Draft
Community
Forest
Management
Plan
UE-2.4 Implement and regularly review and update the Community Forest Management Plan using the best available data (e.g., tree canopy Public Works 1 Feasibility,
Funding
Extreme Heat
142 of 155

Urban Eco-Systems
49 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
tracking tools) to support the decision-making process and include parks and City open space.

UE-2.5 Re-evaluate the “Designated Street Tree List” for canopy potential and future climate conditions. Prioritize implementation of the City’s existing Urban Forest Reforestation Program in areas of high social sensitivity census tracts.

Public Works 1 Feasibility,
Structural
Change
Extreme Heat,
Drought
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-2.6 Conduct site assessments of parks located in areas with the greatest concentration of vulnerable populations. Evaluate thermal comfort, availability of shade, building and pavement materials, amenities, and landscape features. Survey park visitors to obtain input on park design and thermal comfort. Establish a schedule of capital expenditures to increase tree canopy, install shade structures (including those that cover picnic areas, general seating, walkways, play structures, and dog parks), misting stations, spray parks, and other cooling features, and change materials (e.g., paving, building) to those with low solar gain to increase comfort, safety, and promote prolonged outdoor activities by providing protection from the sun, ultimately fostering a more enjoyable and inclusive recreational environment for the community members and their pets that utilize the site(s). Focus investments and upgrades in areas of high social sensitivity first.

Public Works,
Community
Services & Parks
1 Feasibility,
Equity
Extreme Heat Community
Feedback,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-2.7 Review, enhance, update, and regularly maintain the City’s existing “Public Tree” webpage with relevant information, such as best practices for watering and fertilizing trees, guidelines for pruning and maintenance, information on local tree species, and resources for reporting tree damage or disease. Additionally, provide information on the benefits of a healthy tree canopy, including improved air and water quality, reduced urban heat island effects, and increased property values.

Public Works 1 Education Extreme Heat CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-2.8 Continue to pursue and obtain grant funding for tree planting and urban forest management. Identify and apply for Federal and State grants annually to meet the tree planting goal identified in Action UE-2.3 (e.g., USDA, California ReLeaf, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program, Cal Fire’s Urban and Community Forestry Program, and the California Natural Resources Agency’s Urban Greening Program).

Public Works 1 Funding Extreme Heat CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-2.9 Partner with a non-profit entity to enhance and promote the existing Tree Power Program to generate more donations, optimize the Earth Community
Services &
1 Partnerships,
Education
Extreme Heat Tree Power
Program, CAAP
143 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
50 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
Day/Arbor Day program, and generate more community support for the urban forest.

Parks, Public
Works
Focus Group
Feedback
UE-

2.10 Contract with local nurseries to grow indigenous species of trees with local genetics to be used for City planting.

Public Works,
Community
Services & Parks
1 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat
UE-

2.11 Update the municipal code shade tree requirement for new developments; greening of parking lots; planting replacement trees that offer a large mature tree canopy with low water requirements; and increase permeable surfaces in new developments.

Community
Development,
Public Works
2 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat,
Drought
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-

2.12 Adopt an ordinance that establishes strict guidelines and limits on the allowable extent of impervious surfaces in City-owned and operated parkways. The ordinance should include provisions for permeable pavement options, green infrastructure, and stormwater management practices that promote sustainable urban design and preserve ecological health.

Public Works 2 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-

2.13 Create a communitywide ban on rock mulch, plastic/landscape fabric, and artificial turf under trees citywide that includes an educational component for residents and business owners on the impacts of these materials on tree health and the ultimate impact on increased heat and poor air quality. Additionally, include information on the benefits of mulching with natural materials, highlighting their ability to enrich soil fertility, reduce erosion, and provide a habitat for beneficial organisms.

Community
Development
2 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat
and Poor Air
Quality
City Staff,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-

2.14 Prepare an Urban Forestry Map to identify and map vacant planting areas beyond public lands and rights-of-way that can be converted into greenspace with tree canopy, including on private property in parking lots and front and side-yard setbacks, and on City-owned vacant lands.

Public Works 2 Feasibility Extreme Heat CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-

2.15 In areas with low canopy coverage and small parkways (10’ or under) in high social sensitivity areas, complete analysis on the potential to remove parking lanes or change traffic flow to one-way to create space for an active transportation lane with potential for largest shade trees in the highest foot traffic. Establish a prioritized list of locations that could feasibly be transitioned. Complete this action as part of the Glendale Parklet and Community Greening program identified in Action MLS-2.17.

CDD 2 Feasibility,
Structural
Change
Extreme Heat,
Drought
City Staff,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE- Partner with local landscape architects or urban design experts to create Public Works, 2 Structural Sustainability 144 of 155

Urban Eco-Systems
51 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency

2.16 a set of sample landscape designs options with native, drought-tolerant, and edible plants, providing detailed specifications on what to buy (e.g., a kit of tools) and offering guidance to community members in planning their outdoor spaces. Create demonstration gardens on City-owned sites, including planting events tailored especially to schools and student groups
CSP,
Community
Development
Change,
Partnerships
Commission,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-

2.17 Develop an ordinance requiring tree maintenance of protected trees on private lots be performed by an arborist to increase tree health and long- term wellness to increase the urban forest canopy.

Public Works 2 Structural
Change
Extreme Heat City Staff
UE-

2.18 Reduce competition from invasive grasses and restore existing non- natives to native landscape on City property.

Public Works,
Parks
2 Structural
Change
Wildfire City Staff
UE-

2.19 Establish a Tree Trust or Tree Endowment where the interest on the principal can be used for purchasing and planting trees in prioritized areas pursuant to the Urban Forest Inventory and Management Plan, paying for tree maintenance in high social sensitivity census tracts in the City, supporting tree management in City-owned parks, or supporting staff resources for the Urban Forest Management Program.

Public Works 3 Funding, Equity Extreme Heat
UE-

2.20 Partner with local conservation groups such as the Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy and Glendale Environmental Coalition to acquire key parcels for conservation and perform restoration projects on existing parcels in Glendale’s open spaces and along the Wildland-Urban Interface which are vulnerable to development for wildfire mitigation.

Public Works,
Parks
3 Structural
Change,
Partnerships
State's 30x30
goals, City
Staff
145 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
52 5.2 Measure UE- 3
Reduce the potential for wildfire to spread in Glendale by actively managing 50-75 acres of land annually through prescribed burns, brush clearance, grazing, and building hardening.

Metrics
▪# of acres of brush clearance
▪# of acres of grazing land
▪# prescribed burn projects
▪# of participants in home hardening workshops
Table 19 Measure UE-3 Actions
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
UE-3.1 Conduct analysis to identify high risk and high fuel load areas within the Wildland Urban Interface by 2026.

Fire Department 1 Feasibility Wildfire
UE-3.2 Apply innovative and thoughtful vegetation management such as grazing or vegetation thinning and composting to reduce fuel loads and fire intensity in Wildland Urban Interface areas. Establish an implementation schedule to actively manage 50-75 acres annually. Using the Herbivory Intensity Class I or Class 2 categories, grazing would be predominantly achieved by either cattle and horses, or goats, respectively, to help reduce the fine fuels and, therefore, a potential fire’s rate of speed.

Monitor the native versus invasive species growth after each management technique is applied and adjust the process where appropriate to protect the native species, while also decreasing fire risk.

Fire Department 1 Structural Wildfire Vegetation
Management
and Brush
Abatement
Program, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback
UE-3.3 Seek funding to prepare a Community Wildfire Protection Plan consistent with the latest Healthy Forests Restoration Act standards.

Fire Department 1 Funding Landslide CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-3.4 In partnership with local Tribal groups, conduct a feasibility study to find the total acreage on lands suited for prescribed burning (i.e., based on fuel type, fuel density, proximity to sensitive resources and receptors, control points, and topography).

Fire Department 1 Feasibility,
Partnerships
Wildfire
UE-3.5 Identify and apply for grant opportunities to fund wildfire vegetation Fire Department 1 Funding Wildfire CAAP Focus 146 of 155

Urban Eco-Systems
53 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
management, including grants from CAL FIRE. Group
Feedback
UE-3.6 Continue to implement the Vegetation Management Program and conduct on-going workshops on defensible space, vegetation management, and home-hardening techniques based upon the most up to date Los Angeles County Fire Department and CAL FIRE management guidelines and policies for property owners in moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones. Connect vulnerable populations (e.g., single heads of households, individuals on fixed income/low-income, older adults, individuals living with a disability) to funding resources.

Track the number of current participants and establish a goal to increase the number of individuals who participate in the home hardening workshops or programs. Monitor progress towards the goal and adapt the program as necessary to increase community involvement.

Fire
Department,
Public Works
1 Education Wildfire Community
Feedback,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-3.7 Increase Tribal coordination efforts to manage lands and increase resilience based on traditional practices and historic vegetation through co-management agreements and Tribal-led projects.

Public Works 1 Equity,
Partnerships
Wildfire CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-3.8 Maintain multiple contracts with private contracting shepherds to increase the acres of land by 10% that are grazed to reduce wildfire risk.

Fire Department 2 Structural
Change
Wildfire CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-3.9 Sponsor at least one Community Chipper Event annually by providing free mobile onsite chipping at designated locations to reduce private burden for fuels reduction and to generate woodchips from brush while maintaining LA County Defensible Space Standards Zone 0 (0-5 feet ember resistant zone from structure).

Public Works,
Fire
Department,
Information
Technology
2 Structural
Change
Wildfire CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-

3.10 Establish a post-wildfire or extreme rain event inspection and mitigation program to evaluate and reduce the risk of landslides for areas near critical buildings and infrastructure. The inspection program should include assessment of:
▪Previous vegetation cover class and percent cover
▪Post fire vegetation cover percent
▪Slope percent
▪Soil type and erosivity
▪Proximity of the facility to the high-use area
▪Weather forecast
Fire
Department,
Public Works
3 Structural
Change
Landslide Citywide
Emergency
Plan, CAAP
Focus Group
Feedback
147 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
54 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
▪Features between the facility and area of damage
UE-

3.11 Install landslide monitoring equipment in landslide susceptibility areas that are adjacent to critical assets to monitor and detect any changes in local hillside hydrologic conditions using surface or subsurface data. Data collected and used could include rainfall, air temperature, relative humidity, soil-water content, soil suction, soil temperature, and groundwater pressure.

Public Works,
Information
Technology
3 Structural
Change
Landslide CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
148 of 155

Urban Eco-Systems
55 5.3 Measure UE-4
Increase access to affordable and fresh produce through partnerships and technical assistance.

Metrics
▪# of new community gardens in high social sensitivity census tracts Table 20 Measure UE-4 Actions
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar Climate Hazard Consistency
UE-4.1 Continue partnering with the Glendale Unified School District to create school community garden programs to educate students about gardening, farming, healthy food, and providing a source of fresh fruits and vegetables. Utilize City recognition forums, such as the Sustainable Stewardship Award, to highlight schools or clubs that collect and manage organic materials, maintain a school garden, and provide education to students on the life cycle of organics.

Public Works,
Library Arts
and Culture
Department
1 Partnership,
Education
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
Sustainability
Commission
UE-4.2 Expand existing community garden programs by revitalizing and expanding gardening sites in areas of high social sensitivity or with high food insecurity rates. Conduct a feasibility study of vacant sites, evaluate zoning constraints, and identify partnerships and funding opportunities.

Additionally, invest in a local food recovery distribution system (e.g., a food truck or other method of transportation) to transfer fresh, healthy food to those in greatest need to increase access.

Community
Service &
Parks, Public
Works
2 Feasibility,
Structural
Change, Equity,
Partnerships
Community
Feedback,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-4.3 Partner with an entity such as LA Compost to create small community garden programs at existing community centers. Provide training on gardening, food harvest, and food preparation, as well as the health and climate benefits of reducing meat consumption.

Public Works,
Community
Service &
Parks, Library
Arts and
Culture
Department
2 Structural
Change,
Education,
Partnership
Community
Feedback,
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
Sustainability
Commission
UE-4.4 Partner with local chefs or other non-profits to provide vegetarian cooking classes (on electric cooktops) at community centers or test kitchens within Glendale. Identify opportunities to offer longer-term classes and provide a demonstration garden to educate the community as well.

Sustainability
Community
Service &
Parks, Library
Arts and
2 Partnerships,
Education
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
Sustainability
Commission
149 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
56 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar Climate Hazard Consistency
Culture
Department
UE-4.5 Partner with local Tribes and/or Indigenous communities to create native gardens for community use and food to foster a collaborative and inclusive approach that respects and integrates traditional ecological knowledge, cultural practices, and community goals into the sustainable development of shared spaces.

Community
Service & Parks
2 Partnership CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-4.6 Establish a food business development center that provides start-up funds, such as low interest matching loans, and access to technical assistance tailored to starting entrepreneurs and cooperative food initiatives.

Economic
Development
3 Structural
Change
Community
Feedback
150 of 155

Urban Eco-Systems
57 5.4 Measure UE-5
Reduce per capita water use X% by 2030 and Y% by 2045 by enhancing water conservation and water quality and increase the Glendale water system's resilience to climate extremes by upgrading water and stormwater facilities.2
Metrics
▪% change in annual gallons of water consumed per capita Table 21 Measure UE-5 Actions
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
UE-5.1 Adopt an ordinance to ban the use of non-functional turf in new building design.

Community
Development
1 Structural
Change
AB 1572
UE-5.2 Upon the next update to the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)), review the historical record to identify the longest recorded drought and consider a similar drought length in the UWMP analysis.

Glendale Water
and Power
1 Feasibility Drought CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-5.3 As part of the COSA, conduct an energy/water nexus study to inform future water rate structure. Explore approaches to structure water rates more progressively. To avoid inequitable outcomes, engage directly with low-income households with high utility burdens during water rate structure changes.

Glendale Water
and Power
1 Feasibility,
Equity
Drought CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-5.4 Continue to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions to provide adequate water availability and peak load water supply for fire suppression efforts in alignment with CAL FIRE recommendations.

Glendale Water
and Power
1 Partnership Wildfire
UE-5.5 Partner with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to expand the rain barrel program by implementing community outreach campaigns. Collaborate with Metropolitan and/or other experts to provide educational workshops on rainwater harvesting and sustainable water management practices.

Glendale Water
and Power
1 Structural
Change,
Partnerships
Drought CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-5.6 Perform a study to understand the feasibility and potential potable water savings of adopting a Dual Plumbing Ordinance. The feasibility study will Community
Development,
2 Feasibility Drought Sustainability
Commission
2 The target usage beyond 2035 will depend on future updates to SB 606 and AB 1668. 151 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
58 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
help the City determine the size threshold for future development projects subject to the ordinance.

Glendale Water
and Power
UE-5.7 Evaluate the adequacy of the City’s stormwater infrastructure and promote best management practices (BMPs) based on future precipitation projections and confidence intervals using the Cal-Adapt tool and guidance from the Federal Highway Administration.

Public Works 2 Feasibility Extreme
Precipitation
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-5.8 Conduct an evaluation of impacts that future extreme precipitation events or extended drought conditions could have on the Glendale Water Treatment Plant by 2030 as part of the Recycled Water Master Plan.

Glendale Water
and Power
2 Feasibility Extreme
precipitation,
drought
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-5.9 Based on the results of the analysis included in the COSA, expand existing Glendale Water and Power programs to increase leakage detection systems and repairs; drought tolerant landscaping; low-flow fixtures, fittings, and appliances; greywater capture and reuse; leakage repairs; and/or financial and technical resources to subsidize costs to landlords and low-income households.

Glendale Water
and Power
2 Structural
Change
Drought CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-

5.10 As part of the Water Master Plan, conduct an assessment to identify opportunities to upgrade or add field instrumentation hardware including sensors, actuators, relays, control units, and samplers (e.g., for automatic leak detection) throughout the Glendale Water and Power water distribution system. Utilize artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to automate SCADA data collection and analysis to provide additional operational improvements and achieve energy efficiency.

Glendale Water
and Power
2 Feasibility Drought CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-

5.11 Based on the results of the Recycled Water Master Plan, expand recycled water lines throughout the City, with an emphasis on connecting to parks and open spaces.

Glendale Water
and Power
3 Structural
Change
Drought
152 of 155

Urban Eco-Systems
59 5.5 Measure UE-6
Showcase municipal leadership through increased landfill diversion rates, climate-smart food and purchasing behavior, and enhanced water efficiencies.

Metrics
▪# of Sq. ft. of non-functional turf remaining on City maintained lands annually ▪# of new bioswales constructed
▪% total reduction in municipal water use
Table 22 Measure UE-6 Actions
Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
UE-6.1 Evaluate the existing custodial contracts at City-owned and operated buildings and facilities to update contract terms if necessary to include collection and disposal of organics, recyclables, and landfilled solid waste.

As part of the evaluation, complete an audit of the existing external waste collection bins at each location and if necessary, work with the waste hauler(s) to acquire supplemental bins and collection services for organics, recyclables, and landfilled solid waste at each City-owned and operated facility by 2026. Adopt the City's administrative policy requiring all City staff to follow the source-separation requirement.

Sustainability,
Finance
1 Structural
Change
CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
UE-6.2 Complete an annual audit on current bin location and signage for landfill, recycle, and compost waste in municipal buildings and on municipal- owned land to confirm that bins have clear signage and are collocated together for appropriate disposal. Where necessary, establish a plan to improve signage that clearly outlines what is accepted in each receptacle.

Public Works 1 Structural
Change
Community
Feedback
UE-6.3 Provide free or reduced cost recycling bins and continue to provide free or reduced cost composting and/or vermiculture bins to residents to encourage community-wide participation as well as workshops to inform the community on the benefits of composting.

Public Works 1 Structural
Change
Community
Feedback
UE-6.4 Create a Buy Nothing group for City staff to exchange items from their offices or homes.

Sustainability,
HR
1 Structural
Change
Buy Nothing
Project
UE-6.5 Establish a City policy to provide vegetarian and other climate smart food Sustainability, 1 Structural 153 of 155

City of Glendale
Draft CAAP Actions
60 Action
Lead
Department(s) Phase Pillar
Climate
Hazard Consistency
options at all municipal events, along with information on health, environmental, and carbon benefits for City employees.

Change,
Education
UE-6.6 Complete a municipal water use analysis and implement recommendations resulting from the analysis to reduce total water use 25% by 2030.

Public Works 1 - 2 Feasibility Drought
UE-6.7 Identify and replace non-functional turf at City-owned and operated facilities and locations. Additionally, replace non-native vegetation with native and drought tolerant species throughout Glendale parks, medians, and other landscapes and create bioswales on City land and along roadway right-of-way to increase stormwater capture and groundwater recharge by 2027. Train City and contracted staff tasked to maintain landscaping on how to manage specific plants, including increased watering schedules for the first through third month after planting, with a decreased watering schedule following.

Public Works,
Community
Services &
Parks
2 Feasibility,
Structural
Change
Drought CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback,
Sustainability
Commission
UE-6.8 Implement the goals included in the Emergency Action Plan, including conducting hardening upgrades to water structures and facilities (i.e., reservoirs, pump structures, treatment facilities, and administrative offices) that are in or immediately adjacent to CAL FIRE High and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones by 2030. Install back-up power generators for all critical water facilities by 2027.

Glendale
Water and
Power
3 Structural
Change
Wildfire CAAP Focus
Group
Feedback
154 of 155

Urban Eco-Systems
61 155 of 155

Glendale City CouncilAugust 22, 2024

Glendale City Council
August 22, 2024