Agenda packet, special meeting — Glendale City Council, June 14, 2022 (part 2 of 9)

5.3 of this SCEA.
286 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-91 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-5

MM 4.2-2(h): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction equipment used for construction of projects meets or exceed Tier 2 standards use emulsified diesel fuels, and equip construction equipment with oxidation catalysts, particulate traps or other verified or certified retrofit technologies to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(h) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Electricity use during
construction
MM 4.2-2(i): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators be used during construction activities to the extent feasible.

Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(i) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Parking during
construction
MM 4.2-2(j): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction parking be configured to minimize traffic interference to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(j) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Temporary traffic controls MM 4.2-2(k): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that temporary traffic controls such as a flag person be provided during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(k) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Provision of dedicated
turn lanes
MM 4.2-2(l): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that dedicated turn lanes be provided and/or utilized for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site to the extent feasible.

Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(l) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Construction traffic MM 4.2-2(m): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system be scheduled to off-peak hours to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(m) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Construction traffic MM 4.2-2(n): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction trucks be routed away from congested streets or sensitive This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(n) as
287 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-92 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-5

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic Downtown Specific Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project receptor areas to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit. identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Construction traffic MM 4.2-2(o): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that traffic flow during construction be improved by signal synchronization to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(o) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Exposure to VOCs MM 4.2-2(p): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that high-pressure-low-volume (HPLV) paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50% or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency be utilized to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(p) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Exposure to VOCs MM 4.2-2(q): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that required coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under Rule 1113 be utilized to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(t) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Exposure to VOCs MM 4.2-2(r): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction materials that do not require painting be utilized to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(r) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Exposure to VOCs MM 4.2-2(s): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that pre-painted construction materials be utilized to the extent feasible.

Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(s) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Objectionable Odors MM 4.2-6: Trash receptacles within the Project area will be required to have lids that enable convenient collection and loading and will be emptied on a regular basis, in compliance with City of Glendale regulations for the collection of solid waste.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-6 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Cultural Resources
288 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-93 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-5

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic Downtown Specific Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Development on or around
a site with a known
historic resource
MM 4.4-4(c): In the event that a future development project within the Downtown Specific Plan Area is proposed on or immediately surrounding a site containing a known historic resource, environmental review of the development project shall consider the impacts to the known historic resource and, if needed, shall include a study conducted by a qualified historian or architectural historian to determine whether the proposed development project would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the known historic resource that conveys its historical significance. If the Project would demolish a historic resource or if it is determined that the development project would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historic significance, the City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact, unless the City, after having analyzed the significant impacts and proposed mitigation measures in an Environmental Impact Report, finds such mitigation measures are infeasible and adopts a statement of overriding considerations. Potential modifications to a sitespecific development project to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on historic resources include, but are not limited to:
(a) Site plan modifications that incorporate the historic resource into the proposed project, and if necessary, rehabilitation of the historic resource. Rehabilitation of architecturally or historically significant buildings shall meet the U.S. Secretary of the interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation;
(b) Design changes related to height density, upper story step-backs, architectural features, or materials; and
(c) Changes in the proposed development program to include compatible uses.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.4-4(c) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.5 of this SCEA.

Historical resource survey MM 4.4-4(d): In the event that a future development project within the Downtown Specific Plan Area is proposed on a site containing a potential historic property, the City shall require, as part of the environmental review of the Project, an intensive level survey to determine whether the property is a historic resource under CEQA. If the intensive level survey determines that the potential historic property is a historic resource, the City shall undertake the analysis and impose mitigation measures required under mitigation measures MM 4.4-4(a) through (c).

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.4-4(d) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.5 of this SCEA.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Violation of water quality
standards or waste
discharge requirements.

MM 4.7-1(a): Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for individual projects, the Project developer shall file a NOI with California to comply with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.7-1(a) as
289 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-94 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-5

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic Downtown Specific Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Elimination System General Construction Permit (Municipal Code Title VII, Chapter 8 7823(d)), including the Small LUP General Permit, if applicable.

This will include the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating BMPs for construction-related control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. The SWPPP may include, but would not necessarily be limited to, the following applicable measures:
(a) Minimum required pavement widths for residential streets needed to comply with all zoning and applicable ordinances
(b) Use permeable materials for private sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, or interior roadway surfaces
(c) Reduce the overall imperviousness associated with parking lots by using pervious materials in spillover parking areas.
(d) Direct rooftop runoff to pervious areas and avoid routing rooftop runoff to the roadway or the stormwater conveyance system.
(e) Biofilters including vegetated swales and strips
(f) Extended/dry detention basins
(g) Infiltration basin
(h) Infiltration trenches or vaults
(i) Catch basin inserts
(j) Continuous flow deflection/separation systems
(k) Storm drain inserts
(l) Media filtration
(m) Foundation planting
(n) Catch basin screens
(o) Normal flow storage/separation systems
(p) Clarifiers
(q) Filtration systems
(r) Primary wastewater treatment systems
(s) Dry Wells
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.10 of this SCEA.
290 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-95 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-5

MM 4.7-1(b): Individual project applicants shall prepare and implement a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) per the requirements of Chapter 13.42, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan of the Glendale Municipal Code to ensure that stormwater runoff is managed for water quality concerns through implementation of appropriate and applicable BMPs.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.7-1(b) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.10 of this SCEA.

Alteration of site
drainage, runoff
exceeding stormwater
drainage system capacity,
other degrading water
quality.

MM 4.7-3: Individual projects within the DSP area shall comply with the provision of the SUSMP to include drainage improvements, such as catch basins, surface parking drains, and other drainage improvements, as necessary. These improvements must be constructed as part of the proposed project in accordance with standard engineering practices and BMP.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.7.3 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.10 of this SCEA.

Noise
Expose people to noise in
excess of local standards.

Excessive groundborne
vibration or noise levels.

Substantial permanent
increase in noise level.

Substantial temporary
increase in noise levels.

MM 4.9-1(a): All construction activity within the City shall be conducted in accordance with Section 8.36.080 of the City of Glendale Municipal Code.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.9-1(a) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.13 of this SCEA.

Expose people to noise in
excess of local standards.

Substantial permanent
increase in noise level.

Substantial temporary
increase in noise levels.

MM 4.9-1(b): The Project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the following construction best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels:
(a) Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification must be provided to surrounding land uses within 1,000 feet of a Project site disclosing the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period
(b) Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and be in good working condition
(c) Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses, where feasible
(d) Schedule high noise-producing activities between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. to minimize disruption on sensitive uses
This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.9-1(b) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.13 of this SCEA.
291 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-96 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-5

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic Downtown Specific Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (e) Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible, which may include, but are not limited to, temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources
(f) Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible
(g) Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 30 minutes
(h) Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the City or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party. (i) Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Excessive groundborne
vibration or noise levels.

MM 4.9-1(c): The Project applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction staging areas along with the operation of earthmoving equipment within the DSP area would be located as far away from vibration and noise sensitive sites as possible. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.9-1(c) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.13 of this SCEA.

Haul Routes MM 4.9-1(d): The Project applicant shall require by contract specifications that heavily loaded trucks used during construction would be routed away from residential streets to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.9-1(d) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.13 of this SCEA.

Expose people to
excessive groundborne
vibration or noise.

MM 4.9-3(a): Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall establish a 50-foot buffer zone around identified historic structures and shall provide for temporary fencing and private security patrols to prevent human and vehicular/equipment access to the structures during construction of the proposed project.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.9-3(a) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.13 of this SCEA.

Source: City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
292 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-97 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-6

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic Downtown Specific Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Aesthetics
Light, glare, shade MM 4.1-4(a): Lighting fixtures constructed as part of new development shall be oriented and focused onto the specific on-site location intended for illumination (e.g., parking lots, driveways, and walkways) and shielded away from adjacent sensitive uses (e.g., schools, hospitals, senior housing, or other residential properties) and public rights-of-way to minimize light spillover onto off-site areas.

Light, glare, shade MM 4.1-4(b): Ensure that lighting spillover onto adjacent sensitive uses (e.g., schools, hospitals, senior housing, or other residential properties) is reduced by minimizing interior nighttime lighting of new development.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because PRC Section 21099, enacted by Senate
Bill 743, and the City’s Zoning Information (ZI) File
No. 2452, state that “aesthetic and parking
impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or
employment center project on an infill site within
a transit priority area shall not be considered
significant impacts on the environment.”
Furthermore, the City has determined, based on
the analysis of this topic in Section 5.1 of this
SCEA that the proposed Project’s impacts would
not result in adverse light, glare, or shade effects
Light, glare, shade MM 4.1-4(c): Where appropriate and feasible, incorporate project design features to shield light and/or glare from vehicles entering or exiting parking lots and structures that face sensitive uses (e.g., schools, hospitals, senior housing, or other residential properties) by providing barriers so that light from vehicle headlights would not illuminate off-site sensitive uses.

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-98 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-6

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic Downtown Specific Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Furthermore, the City has determined, based on
the analysis of this topic in Section 5.1 of this
SCEA that the proposed Project’s impacts would
not result in any significant impact related to
glare from headlights affecting any off-site
sensitive uses.

Light, glare, shade MM 4.1-4(d): Where appropriate and feasible, incorporate project design features to provide landscaping, physical barriers, screening, or other buffers to minimize project-generated illumination from entering off-site areas and to prevent glare or interference with vehicular traffic.

Light, glare, shade MM 4.1-4(e): To the extent feasible, locate and orient driveways into parking lots, parking structures, and subterranean garages in a manner that will not result in headlights from vehicles entering or exiting the parking areas directly lighting any off-site sensitive uses.

Light, glare, shade MM 4.1-4(f): To the extent practical, minimize the height of new lighting structures for surface parking areas, vehicular access ways, and walkways.

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-99 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-6

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic Downtown Specific Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project employment center project on an infill site within
a transit priority area shall not be considered
significant impacts on the environment.”
Furthermore, the City has determined, based on
the analysis of this topic in Section 5.1 of this
SCEA that the proposed Project would not result
in any significant impact related to glare from
new lighting structures on site.

Light, glare, shade MM 4.1-4(g): To the extent feasible, proposed new structures shall be designed to maximize the use of textured or other nonreflective exterior surfaces and nonreflective glass.

Biological Resources
Protected Avian Migratory
Species
MM 4.3-2(a): To ensure that avian species of concern, protected migratory species (e.g., MBTA), or raptors species are not injured or disturbed by construction in the vicinity of nesting habitat, the Project applicant shall implement the following measures:
a) When feasible, all tree removal shall occur between August 30 and February 15 to avoid the breeding season of any raptor species that could be using the area, and to discourage hawks from nesting in the vicinity of an upcoming construction area. This period may be modified with the authorization of the DFG; or if it is not feasible to remove trees outside this window then, prior to the beginning of mass grading, including grading for major infrastructure improvements, during the period between February 15 and August 30, all trees within 350 feet of any grading or earthmoving activity This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined that South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.3-1
identified below in Section 5.4 of this SCEA would
apply to the proposed Project and is equal to or
more effective than Downtown Specific Plan EIR
MM 4.3-2(a).

Additionally, the applicable regulatory
requirements include the MBTA (Title 33, United
States Code, Section 703 et seq., see also Title 50,
Code of Federal Regulation, Part 10) and Section
3503 of the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife Code, which regulates vegetation
295 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-100 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-6

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic Downtown Specific Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project shall be surveyed for active raptor nests by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days prior to disturbance. If active raptor nests are found, and the site is within 350 feet of potential construction activity, a fence shall be erected around the tree(s) at a distance of up to 350 feet, depending on the species, from the edge of the canopy to prevent construction disturbance and intrusions on the nest area. The appropriate buffer shall be determined by the City in consultation with CDFG.
b) No construction vehicles shall be permitted within restricted areas (i.e., raptor protection zones), unless directly related to the management or protection of the legally protected species. c) In the event that a nest is abandoned, despite efforts to minimize disturbance, and if the nestlings are still alive, the developer shall contact CDFG and subject to CDFG approval, fund the recovery and hacking (controlled release of captive reared young) of the nestling(s).
d) If a legally protected species nest is located in a tree designated for removal, the removal shall be deferred until after August 30th, or until the adults and young of the year are no longer dependent on the nest site as determined by a qualified biologist. removal during the nesting season (February 15 to
August 15) to ensure that significant impacts to
migratory birds would not occur. Compliance with
these existing regulations would ensure that any
potential impacts would be less than significant.

Local tree protection and
replacement
MM 4.3-2(b) Large trees identified as windrows shall be retained to the extent feasible. If removal is required, these trees shall be replaced within the DSP area at a 2:1 ratio by native trees that would be similar in height at maturity.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.4 of this SCEA, the Project site does not
include any windrows.

Cultural Resources
Historical resources,
archaeological resources
MM 4.4-1: In the event that archeological resources are unearthed during project subsurface activities, all earth disturbing work within a 200-meter radius must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined that the
mitigation measure South Glendale Community
Plan EIR MM 4.4-4 and project specific mitigation
measure MM CULT-1 identified below in Section

5.5 of this SCEA would apply to the proposed
Project and are equal to or more effective than
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.4-1.

South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-4
states the City shall evaluate the likelihood of the
Project site to contain archaeologist resources to
296 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-101 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-6

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic Downtown Specific Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project ensure future projects that require ground
disturbance are subject to a Phase I cultural
resource inventory on a project-specific basis
prior to approval of project plans. The study shall
be conducted by a qualified archaeologist
following the Secretary of Interior Standards.

Historical resources,
archaeological resources
MM 4.4-2: The City shall require a current historical survey by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History for future projects under review after the year 2022 that could impact buildings or structures 45 years old or older. Potential resources shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the national, state, or local registers prior to the City’s approval of project plans. The historic survey shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated as
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.5 of this SCEA, a Historic Resources
Technical Report was prepared for the proposed
Project (see Appendix F).

Paleontological resources,
unique geological features
MM 4.4-2: In the event that paleontological resources are unearthed during project, subsurface activities, all earth disturbing work within a 100-meter radius must be temporarily suspended or redirected until a paleontologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.5 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
potentially significant impact to paleontological
resources.

In addition, the Project would be consistent with
the Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code
which addresses the discovery and handling of
paleontological resources. In addition, the Project
would implement project specific mitigation
measure MM-PALEO-1 as identified in Section 5.7
page 5.0-61 of this SCEA.

Human remains MM 4.4-3: If human remains are unearthed during construction of any project under the DSP, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who will then serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains.

In addition, the proposed Project would be
consistent with the Section 5097.5 of the Public
Resources Code which addresses the discovery and
handling of human remains. The proposed Project
would comply with the State’s Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 should human remains be
discovered on the Project site.
297 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-102 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-6

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic Downtown Specific Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Historic Resources
Standards for
Rehabilitation
MM 4.4-4(a): To the extent feasible, the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, reconstruction, or adaptive reuse of known historic resources shall meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.

Any proposal to preserve, rehabilitate, restore, reconstruct, or adaptively reuse a known historic resource in accordance with the Interior Secretary’s Standards shall be deemed to not be a significant impact under CEQA and, in such cases, no additional mitigation measures will be required.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined that the
mitigation measure South Glendale Community
Plan EIR MM 4.4-1 from the identified in Section

5.5 of this SCEA would apply to the proposed
Project and are equal to or more effective than
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.4-(a).

Historic streetlamps MM 4.4-4(b): Historic streetlamps, if any, should be repaired and reused, and not replaced by contemporary fixtures, when maintenance or streetscape improvements occur, unless reuse or repair is demonstrated to be infeasible.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined that the
mitigation measure South Glendale Community
Plan EIR MM 4.4-1 from the identified in Section

5.5 of this SCEA would apply to the proposed
Project and are equal to or more effective than
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.4-4(b).

Hazards
Routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous
materials, reasonably
foreseeable upset,
accident. Hazardous
emissions near a school
MM 4.6-1(a): Prepare a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). When sites that are listed in the ERS initiate project development, the Project sponsor shall obtain a Phase I ESA for the proposed site. The Phase I ESA shall be prepared in accordance with ASTM E-1527-05 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” (November 1, 2005). The purpose of a Phase I ESA is to identify environmental conditions at a proposed Project site that may suggest environmental contamination. The Phase I ESA report shall be prepared by a Registered Environmental Assessor or similarly qualified individual prior to initiating any construction activities at the site.

If recommended in the Phase I ESA, the Project sponsor shall undertake (or require the responsible party to undertake) a Phase II ESA soil sampling plan; or if any environmental contamination is identified by the Phase I ESA, the Project sponsor shall implement (or require the responsible party to implement) the recommendations of the report to further investigate and to remove any soil contamination.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.9 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project is not located on a list
of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 669625.

Hazardous materials sites,
Government Code section
65962.5.

MM 4.6-1(b): In the event that previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction in the DSP area, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination shall cease immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Risk This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.9 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project is not located on a list
298 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-103 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-6

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic Downtown Specific Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and postdevelopment and (2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers, and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, postdevelopment maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified (e.g., City of Glendale Fire Department). If needed, a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area.
of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to
Government Code Section 669625.

Hazardous materials sites,
Government Code section
65962.5.

MM 4.6-3(a): Prior to issuance of building permits, the City shall, in consultation with the Planning Department, Public Works Department— Traffic and Transportation Division, Fire Department, and Police Department, develop an Emergency Evacuation/Management Plan for the Specific Plan Area. This Emergency Evacuation/Management Plan shall be integrated with the existing Emergency Evacuation/Management Plan for the downtown area and be consistent with the City of Glendale General Plan Safety Element goals and policies
This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.9 of this SCEA, it does not apply to
individual private development projects.

Physically interfere with
an adopted emergency
plan.

MM 4.6-3(b): The construction contractors for future projects within the DSP area shall notify the City of Glendale Police Department, Fire Department, Public Works Department—Traffic and Transportation Division, and the City Planning Department that project activities shall impede movement (such as road or lane closures) along roads within the DSP area in order to allow for these first emergency response teams to reroute traffic to an alternative route, if needed. Notification will occur at least three working days in advance allowing time for the appropriate City departments to act accordingly. Consultation with the City will dictate the amount of time necessary to give notice of such an event.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.9 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
potentially significant impact related to the
impairment or interference with an adopted
emergency plan. Furthermore, the proposed
Project does not involve changes to the existing
street network.

Physically interfere with
an adopted emergency
plan.

MM 4.6-3(c): The construction contractors for future projects within the DSP area shall keep at least one lane of traffic open at all times within the DSP area in order to allow for movement of emergency response teams to and through the Project site, if needed.

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-104 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-6

Noise
Expose people to
excessive groundborne
vibration or noise.

MM 4.9-3(b): Pile-driving shall be prohibited within 200 feet of identified fragile structures within and around the DSP area. Mitigation measures MM 4.9-1(a) through MM 4.9-1(d) also apply to this impact.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the proposed Project’s generation of
groundborne vibration would not have a
substantial adverse effect on the environment.

The proposed Project would be constructed
using typical construction techniques; no
blasting, impact pile driving, or jackhammers
would be required. Forecasted vibration levels
due to on-site construction activities would not
exceed the building damage significance
threshold of 0.12 peak particle velocity (ppv) as
discussed in Section 5.13 of this Draft SCEA.

Traffic and Transportation
Conflict with measures of
effectiveness for
performance of the
circulation system.

The following mitigation has been approved as part of the Town Center project, Commonwealth Office project, and the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP):
(a) Chevy Chase Drive at Brand Boulevard: Convert northbound throughright turn lane to through lane only; add northbound right-turn only lane (Town Center project).
(b) Colorado Street at Central Avenue: Install third westbound through lane and an exclusive right-turn only lane as well as convert existing eastbound right-turn only lane to a combination through right turn lane (Town Center project).
(c) Colorado Street at Brand Boulevard: Install northbound, southbound, and eastbound right-turn only lanes (Town Center project). (d) Colorado Street at Glendale Avenue: Convert existing northbound combination through-right turn lane to through only lane; add northbound right-turn only lane (Town Center project).
(e) Broadway at Central Avenue: Convert northbound and westbound combination through-right turn lanes to through only lanes; add This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.17 of this SCEA, it does not apply to
individual development projects and this measure
identifies specific improvements that will be
implemented by the Town Center project,
Commonwealth Office project and/or the City’s
CIP.
300 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-105 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-6

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic Downtown Specific Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project exclusive right-turn only lanes northbound and westbound (Town Center project).
(f) Broadway at Brand Boulevard: Add northbound right-turn only lane; add third southbound through lane (Town Center project).
(g) Broadway at Glendale Avenue: Add third northbound through lane during the p.m. peak hour only by prohibiting on-street parking along the east side of Glendale Avenue, south of Broadway; add southbound right turn only lane (Town Center Project)
(h) SR-134 Westbound On-Ramp/Goode Avenue at Central Avenue: Restripe to provide fourth lane (one left-turn lane, one combination through-left turn lane, one through lane and one right-turn lane) (Commonwealth Office project).
(i) SR-134 Westbound On-Ramp/Goode Avenue at Brand Boulevard: Restripe southbound Brand Boulevard north of Goode Avenue such that the inside (#1) southbound through lane is a “trap” lane aligning with the inside lane of the southbound dual left-turn lanes at Sanchez Drive; the #2 southbound lane north of Goode will align to become an optional leftturn or through lane (Commonwealth Office project). (j) SR-134 Eastbound Off-Ramp/Sanchez Drive: Widen to provide fourth lane (one combination through-left turn lane, one through lane, one combination through-right-turn lane, one right turn lane) (CIP). (k) Glendale Avenue at Monterey Road: Improve northbound Glendale Avenue approach to Monterey Road to provide dual left-turn lanes, one through lane and one combination through-right turn lane (CIP). (l) SR-134 Eastbound Ramps at Glendale Avenue: Realign the #1 northbound through lane on Glendale Avenue south of the eastbound off-ramp to be a trap lane to the dual northbound left-turn lanes at Monterey Road (CIP).

The remaining intersections were found to be unmitigatable.

Source: City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
301 of 2287
Lucia Park Project 4.0-1 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022

4.0 INITIAL STUDY

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed Project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.

I find that the Project is a qualified “transit priority project” that satisfies the requirements of Section 21155 and 21155.2 of the Public Resources Code (PRC), and/or a qualified “residential or mixed use residential project” that satisfies the requirements of Section 21159.28(d) of the PRC, and although the Project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case, because this Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) Initial Study identifies measures that either avoid or mitigate to a level of significance all potentially significant or significant effects of the Project.

Signature Date
302 of 2287

4.0 Initial Study
Lucia Park Project 4.0-2 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

4.2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question.

A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. "Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

6. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

7. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

8. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

9. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

10. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

11. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

12. The explanation of each issue should identify:

13. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

14. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 303 of 2287

4.0 Initial Study
Lucia Park Project 4.0-3 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Please note that each and every response in the initial study checklist is summarized from and based upon the environmental analysis contained in Section 5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis. Please refer to the response in Section 5.0 for a detailed discussion of checklist determinations.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

AESTHETICS
Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
State scenic highway?
c. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
304 of 2287

4.0 Initial Study
Lucia Park Project 4.0-4 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?

AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or State ambient air quality
standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
305 of 2287

4.0 Initial Study
Lucia Park Project 4.0-5 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan?

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
ENERGY
Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault,
caused in whole or in part by the project’s
exacerbation of the existing environmental
conditions? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
306 of 2287

4.0 Initial Study
Lucia Park Project 4.0-6 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iii. Seismic-related ground failure?
iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse, caused in whole or in
part by the project’s exacerbation of the
existing environmental conditions?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property caused in whole or in part by the
project’s exacerbation of the existing
environmental conditions?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site unique geologic
feature?

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
307 of 2287

4.0 Initial Study
Lucia Park Project 4.0-7 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment caused in whole or in
part from the project’s exacerbation of existing
environmental conditions?
e. For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
308 of 2287

4.0 Initial Study
Lucia Park Project 4.0-8 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on
or off-site?
ii Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater 20drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?

MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the State?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?
NOISE
Would the project:
309 of 2287

4.0 Initial Study
Lucia Park Project 4.0-9 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks?
e. Other public facilities?
310 of 2287

4.0 Initial Study
Lucia Park Project 4.0-10 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

RECREATION
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?

TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in PRC
section 5020.1(k), or
311 of 2287

4.0 Initial Study
Lucia Park Project 4.0-11 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water, drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonable foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple
dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?

WILDFIRE
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations form a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
312 of 2287

4.0 Initial Study
Lucia Park Project 4.0-12 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a. Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
313 of 2287
Lucia Park Project 5.0-1 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.0 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

5.1 AESTHETICS
Except as provided in PRC Section 21099, would the
project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
In 2013, the State of California adopted Senate Bill (SB) 743 (PRC Section 21099(d)) that sets forth guidelines for evaluating aesthetic impacts for an infill, transit-oriented project under CEQA. PRC Section 21099(d)(1) states, “Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area (TPA) shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” PRC Section 21099 defines a “transit priority area” as an area within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop that is “existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” PRC Section 21064.3 defines “major transit stop” as “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”
The proposed Project is located approximately 0.3 miles from the proposed Lexington Drive station, at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue, for the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridor Project as shown in Figure 3.0-1: North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Map1 in Section 3.0: Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria of this SCEA. The 1 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor Project, https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena-corridor/. Accessed November 2021. 314 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-2 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Project was approved by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) in May 2021.2 This North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line is scheduled to be operation by 2024 and qualifies Central Avenue as a planned high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2: SCAG 2045 Planned High Quality Transit Corridors.3,4 The existing Glendale Beeline 1 bus route also travels on Central Avenue with a stop at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue, as shown in Figure 3.0-3: Glendale Beeline Route 1, also located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the Project site.5 Glendale Beeline 1 is an existing major bus route as it provides service every 10 minutes between 7:05 AM and 8:40 AM in the morning and 3:44 PM and 7:08 PM in the evenings on weekdays with a stop located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the Project site.6 Therefore, because the proposed Project is within the 0.5 miles of this planned major bus stop, the intersection of the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT station identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and Glendale Beeline 1, the proposed Project is within a transit priority area (TPA).

Additionally, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Glendale TIA Guidelines) as shown in Figure 3.0-4: City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation: Future High Quality Transit Areas in Section 3.0 of this SCEA.7 Therefore, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per the Glendale TIA Guidelines.8 In addition, as discussed in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, one of the criteria to be considered a transit priority project is the project site must be located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan, such as the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.9 Central Avenue qualifies as both an existing and bus transit corridor and the Project site is located within 0.3 2 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, Metro Board Approves Proposed Project for North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project, May 27, 2021, https://www.metro.net/about/metro-boardapproves-proposed-project-for-north-hollywood-to-pasadena-bus-rapid-transit-corridor-project/, Accessed June 2022.
3 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
4 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 5 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
6 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
7 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 8 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 9 PRC, “California Legislative Information,”
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=21155, accessed September 2021.
315 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-3 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 miles of Central Avenue. The current service provided by Glendale Beeline Route 1, as discussed above, along Central Avenue qualifies Central Avenue as an existing high quality transit corridor.10,11 Central Avenue is also identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2: SCAG 2045 Planned High Quality Transit Corridors.12,13,14 Central Avenue is identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS because Central Avenue is included in the route for the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line. The North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Project was approved by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) in May 2021.15 This North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line is scheduled to be operation by 2024.

The proposed Project is located approximately 0.3 miles from the proposed Lexington Drive station, at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue, for the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit BRT Corridor Project as shown in Figure 3.0-1.16 For these reasons, the proposed Project is within

0.5 miles of a high quality transit corridor (see Section 3.0 of this SCEA).There are also numerous bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site as shown in Figure 3.0-5: Existing Transit Routes in Project Site Vicinity in Section 3.0. Therefore, as the proposed Project is considered within a TPA, the following information regarding aesthetics is provided for informational purposes only. a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less Than Significant Impact. A scenic vista generally provides focal views of objects, settings, or features of visual interest; or panoramic views of large geographic areas of scenic quality, primarily from a given vantage point. Scenic vistas are generally associated with public vantages. A significant impact may occur if the proposed Project introduces incompatible visual elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially alters a view of a scenic vista. 10 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
11 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
12 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 13 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
14 PRC, “California Legislative Information,”
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=21155, accessed September 2021.
15 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, Metro Board Approves Proposed Project for North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project, May 27, 2021, https://www.metro.net/about/metro-boardapproves-proposed-project-for-north-hollywood-to-pasadena-bus-rapid-transit-corridor-project/, Accessed June 2022.
16 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor Project, https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena-corridor/. Accessed November 2021. 316 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-4 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 As stated previously, SB 743 made changes to CEQA requirements that apply to infill projects located within transit priority areas (TPAs). Among other changes, SB 743 provides that the aesthetic impacts of a residential project, as defined, on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. As discussed above, the Project site is located within a TPA under SB 743. Nonetheless, the following analysis is provided for informational purposes only and not for a determination of environmental impact under CEQA.

The Project site is located on relatively flat land in an long-urbanized portion of Downtown Glendale.

The site is located directly south of the SR-134, approximately 1.51 miles east of the I-5, and approximately 1.73 miles west of SR-2.

The General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element does not define any scenic vistas within the City.17 However, the rugged ridges and canyons of the Verdugo Mountains, the San Rafael Hills and the San Gabriel Mountains are significant physiographical features within the City. Griffith Park, a 4,210-acre municipal park with urban wilderness areas, is located west of the City.

The partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan documents the relatively flat nature of the downtown area which reflects the urban and built character of the city. Aerial photos of South Glendale reflect the strong physical presence of the freeways, railroad and the flood control system for the Los Angeles River and its tributaries.18 The South Glendale Community Plan EIR defines the following viewsheds for the area: San Rafael Hills to the east, Adams Hill to the south, Griffith Park (Santa Monica Mountains) to the west, and Verdugo Mountains to the north.

The DSP EIR states existing scenic vistas from and through downtown Glendale are limited to the long range views of the Verdugo and San Gabriel Mountains. Long distance views of these mountains to the north and west of downtown Glendale are limited to the views available through major street corridors from within the DSP area; existing buildings block or obstruct the views from other locations within and around the downtown area.19
The views in the vicinity of the Project site are largely constrained by existing high rise buildings surrounding the site, including the six-story Chase Bank office building (620 N. Brand Boulevard; “Chase Building”) located on the Project site to the northwest and the commercial office building approximately 21 stories located to the south of the Project site. Additionally, the SR-134 is located directly north of the site and off-site immediately to the east is a two-story parking garage with three-story residential 17 Glendale General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/open-space-and-conservation-element. Accessed August 2021. 18 City of Glendale, South Glendale Community Plan EIR, Ch. 4.1 Aesthetics, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/45629/636651682910370000. Accessed August 2021.
19 City of Glendale, Glendale Downtown Specific Plan Program EIR, Ch. 4.1 Aesthetics, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/38596/636398816908230000, Accessed December 2021.
317 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-5 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 uses further east. Due to the existing built environment, views of the Verdugo Mountains to the north are partially obstructed and only visible when looking down the Brand Boulevard corridor. Griffith Park is not currently visible from the portion of downtown Glendale within which the Project site is located.

Photographs were taken showing the current views of the Project site, Verdugo Mountains, and Griffith Park as identified in Figure 5.1-1: Viewpoint Location Map. Figure 5.1-2: Viewpoints 1-3 shows the Project site and vicinity as viewed looking west at the southwest corner of the Louise Street and Maryland Place intersection, the Project site and vicinity as viewed looking northwest at the southeast corner of the Doran Street and Maryland Avenue intersection, and the Project site and vicinity as viewed looking north along south side of Doran Street. Figure 5.1-3: Viewpoints 4-6 shows the Project site and vicinity as viewed looking north along the east side of Brand Boulevard, Project site and vicinity as viewed looking northeast along the west side of Brand Boulevard, and the Project site and vicinity as viewed looking east along the south side of Sanchez Drive. Griffith Park, located west of the City, is not visible from Viewpoint 1, which was taken from the east looking west toward the Project site. Viewpoints 2, 3, 4, and 5 show that the Verdugo Mountains are partially obstructed by existing development in the vicinity of the Project site. The Verdugo Mountains are only clearly visible along Brand Boulevard as shown in the photograph from Viewpoint 5 which was taken on Brand Boulevard looking northeast toward the Project site.

The proposed Project would construct a new 24-story residential building along the west side of North Maryland Avenue directly south of the SR-134. The existing six-story commercial Chase Building on the northwestern portion of the Project site would remain. The proposed residential building would be a maximum of 265.5 feet in height. As described above, views of the Verdugo Mountains are limited by existing development and are only visible looking down Brand Boulevard corridor. As discussed above, and shown in Figures 5.1-2 and 5.1-3, Griffith Park is not currently visible from the portion of downtown Glendale where the Project site is located. The Verdugo Mountains are partially obstructed and only clearly visible along Brand Boulevard in the vicinity of the Project site. As there are no currently unobstructed views of the Verdugo Mountains or Griffith Park from the portion of downtown Glendale where the Project site is located, proposed Project development would not result in a substantial effect on any existing scenic vista.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no State Designated Scenic Highways within the vicinity of the Project site.20 The nearest designated State Scenic Highway is a portion of SR-2 at 2.7 miles north of 20 Caltrans, State Scenic Highway Map,
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa.

Accessed August 2021.
318 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-6 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Route 210 (La Canada)/(San Bernardino) SBD located approximately 6.14 miles northeast of the Project site.

Therefore, the Project site is not located near, or visible from any designated or eligible State scenic highway. The Project site does not contain scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, or other locally recognized scenic natural features visible from any State-designated scenic highway because the site as it is currently developed with a two-story office building, an existing sixstory commercial Chase Building, and an associated parking structure. As discussed in Section 5.5, below, the Chase Building is considered a historical resource as defined by CEQA. However, the important viewsheds from the Chase Building are north toward the 134 Freeway and west toward Brand Boulevard.

These viewsheds would not be affected by the proposed Project as the proposed new building is located to the east of the historic building. The setting of the Chase Building would not be diminished by the view of the proposed Project. The Chase Building was designed and oriented to be seen from Brand Boulevard and SR-134 to the west and north. As such, the east viewshed is less important in defining the character of the Chase Building than the viewsheds from west and north. In addition, there are already high-rise buildings in the other viewsheds. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not materially impact the Chase Building as a historic building and scenic resource. As such, the proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway and would not result in substantial adverse effects. In addition, consistent with State and local regulations, impacts to scenic resources or any other aesthetic impacts shall not be considered a significant impact for infill projects within a TPA pursuant to CEQA. c. In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in a long-urbanized area in both the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) and the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan area. The Project site is located within the Gateway District of the DSP. The DSP seeks to preserve and enhance the aspects which provide each district its unique character, while improving the attractiveness and livability of the Downtown area. The Gateway District area includes high-rise buildings and commercial development.

This area is also intended to mix commercial business and corporate headquarters with new hotels, mixed-use and residential buildings, and other complimentary uses. As stated in the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC), wherever the regulations of the specific plan contain provisions which establish regulations, including, but not limited to, heights, densities, uses, parking, signs, open space and landscaping requirements, which are different from the provisions contained in the GMC, the regulations of the specific plan shall prevail and supersede the applicable provisions of the GMC and those relevant 319 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-7 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 ordinances.21 As the specific plan does not replace the GMC in its entirety, both the DSP and the GMC must be used together. The DSP defines standards limiting the height, massing, and setbacks for buildings to ensure that new development is compatible with the existing character and scale of the area to avoid any substantial adverse effect on the scenic quality of the area. The consistency of the proposed Project with these standards is discussed below.

Height
The DSP limits building heights within the Gateway District to a maximum of 275 feet by right (up to 380 feet maximum for projects participating in the Community Benefits program (DSP Chapter 7). The DSP regulates taller buildings to be concentrated within the Gateway District of the downtown, with a second, lower high-rise “hill” to the west of the existing office high-rise as Brand and Broadway. At a proposed height of 265.5 feet, the height of the proposed Project does not conflict with the height standards established by the DSP. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in an adverse effect on the scenic quality of the area.

FAR
Each district within the DSP has its own floor area ratio (FAR) criteria. The maximum FAR permitted by the DSP for the Gateway District is 7.25 by right (up to 7.5 FAR maximum for projects participating in the Community Benefits program (DSP Chapter 7). The proposed FAR for the proposed Project is 7.25. The proposed FAR for the proposed Project does not conflict with the FAR standards established by the Specific Plan for the Gateway District and, for this reason, the proposed Project will not result in an adverse effect on the scenic quality of the area.

Because the Project site is an urbanized area and does not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, the proposed Project will not result in any adverse effects on the scenic quality of the Project site or the surrounding area.

Moreover, consistent with State and local regulations, aesthetic impacts shall not be considered a significant impact for infill projects within a TPA pursuant to CEQA. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. Substantial light or glare can result from the installation of high-intensity lighting fixtures or the use of highly reflective glass or other building materials. Headlights from vehicles can also create light or glare if sensitive uses are affected. Lighting used during construction would consist primarily of security lights, although lighting may be used for construction activities occurring 21 Glendale Municipal Code, Title 30, Ch. 30.10, Sec. 30.10.040. 320 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-8 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 during morning or evening hours, particularly in the winter. This lighting would be temporary in nature and would not result in any substantial long-term light or glare impacts.

Development of the proposed Project would establish new permanent sources of lighting that would increase the intensity of light levels on the site. The lighting proposed would be limited to the amount required to safely light the driveway and the open space, landscaped, pedestrian areas within the Project site. As required by GMC Section 30.30.040, the proposed Project will be designed with external lighting that will be directed onto the Project site, and which will be shielded to prevent light from spilling over onto neighboring properties. The exterior of the proposed residential building would consist of predominantly white and blue metal panels, blue and white metal louvers, limestone cladding, transparent glazing and glazing with operable windows aluminum frame. These materials would not create a new source of substantial daytime glare. Vehicular access to the Project site will be provided via two driveways along the west side of Maryland Avenue. The northern Maryland Avenue driveway would provide access to the two above-grade levels of the garage only. The southern Maryland Avenue driveway would provide access to the four subterranean levels of the parking garage. Based on the location of these driveways, headlights from vehicles entering and exiting the parking garage would be oriented toward the existing two-level parking structure east of the Project site across Maryland Avenue. Thus, the headlights would not be directed toward or impacting sensitive uses. Based on the required compliance with the GMC and the proposed Project architectural materials, fenestration and lighting plan, the proposed Project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare impacts.

Direct and indirect lighting would be used for signage placed on building frontages. Signage lighting would be focused onto sign surfaces and would generally be of low to medium brightness. All proposed signage and associated lighting would be subject to signage regulations included in the GMC. Therefore, lighting associated with signs would not result in substantial light or glare impacts.

Based on the discussion above, impacts to light and glare would be less than significant with implementation of the proposed Project.

Shade and Shadow Study
A shade and shadow study was prepared for the proposed Project in order to analyze the shade and shadow patterns of the proposed structure during operation and the effect it would have on surrounding sensitive uses. Within the City, new shade and shadow patterns would have a significant effect if the proposed Project would shade currently unshaded uses located off the site that are sensitive to shadow, such as residences, school playgrounds, parks, etc., for more than two continuous hours between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM during the winter, or 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM during the summer.

Shadow-sensitive receptors typically include residence (particularly yards), recreational facilities and parks, schools, and/or outdoor seating areas. The nearest shadow sensitive receptors are the residential uses along N. Maryland Avenue and N. Louise Street further east of the two-level parking structure to the east of the Project site across Maryland Avenue. A shadow is dependent on the height, size, and shape of 321 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-9 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 the building from which the shadow is cast and the angle of the sun. The angle of the sun varies with respect to the rotation of the earth and the earth’s elliptical orbit. The longest shadows are cast during winter months, and the shortest shadows are cast during the summer months. The shortest day of the year (i.e., the shortest day of the year and the longest night) is the winter solstice, which occurs in late December.

Simulations of the shadows that would be created by the proposed buildings are presented in Figure 5.1- 4: Proposed Project Building Shadows. Figure 5.1-5: Summer Solstice Shadows present the illustrative graphic findings of shade and shadow patterns cast by the proposed Project at 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM during the summer solstice. Figure 5.1-6: Winter Solstice Shadows present the illustrative graphic findings of shade and shadow patterns cast by the proposed Project from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM during the winter solstice. However, the following periods were analyzed per the City’s threshold as they represent the portion of the day during which maximum seasonal shading would occur:
• Summer Solstice (June 20) 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
• Winter Solstice (December 21) 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM
The computer model used for the simulations illustrates that some shadows fall around the existing Chase Building on site to the west, while east shadows would naturally fall around the two-level parking structure to the east of the Project site across Maryland Avenue, and the residential uses along N.

Maryland Avenue and N. Louise Street further east of the Project site. Shade impacts to these land uses would increase and/or decrease progressively as the Earth rotates. The modeling demonstrates that shadows cast on nearby sensitive properties to the east during the summer daytime periods would not extend beyond the two-hour standard because of the positioning of the sun during summer solstice.

Shade cast on land uses that are not considered sensitive uses (i.e., commercial or office buildings, parking structures) are not a part of this analysis because sunlight is not as important to the function of commercial and office uses. The shading of nearby residential properties by the proposed buildings would not exceed for the summer and winter solstices. As shown in Figures 5.1-5 and 5.1-6, shadows cast by the proposed Project would not have significant unavoidable impacts for the nearby residential uses to the east of the proposed Project site during the winter. The impact of shade and shadows cast by the proposed Project on sensitive land uses is considered less than significant.

Moreover, consistent with State and local regulations, aesthetic impacts shall not be considered a significant impact for infill projects within a TPA pursuant to CEQA.

Cumulative Impacts
The analysis of cumulative impacts is based on an assessment of reasonably foreseeable growth associated with a list of past, present, and anticipated future projects, as shown in Table 2.0-2: Related Projects List and Figure 2.0-22: Related Projects, development of the proposed Project in conjunction with related projects would result in an incremental intensification of land uses in an urbanized area of the City. Because of the area’s dense urban fabric, public scenic views are generally available only 322 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-10 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 through public street corridors (i.e., Brand Boulevard). The proposed Project and the related projects would be subject to the City’s development standards which require architectural design to comply with City aesthetic standards and compatibility with existing surrounding uses, and all projects (new construction, substantial rehabilitation, or any exterior remodel or change to a building) are required to go through design review. In addition, the proposed Project, and the related projects would include new landscaping and street-level redevelopment that would generally improve the overall visual character and quality of the downtown Glendale area. The proposed Project would comply with the City’s development standards and is located within the Gateway District of the DSP, which allows residential development. The proposed Project would not encroach upon public views through street corridors. Thus, the proposed Project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.

Moreover, consistent with State and local regulations, visual resources, aesthetic character, shade and shadow, light and glare, and scenic vistas or any other aesthetic impact shall not be considered a significant impact for infill projects within a TPA pursuant to CEQA.

Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No aesthetics mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
No aesthetics mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No aesthetics mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
No prior mitigation measures were identified, and no project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project.
323 of 2287
Viewpoint Location Map
FIGURE 5.1-1
184-003-21
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021
1 2
3 5
4 6

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
0 75 150 300
N
Legend
Project Site
# Viewpoint
324 of 2287
Viewpoint 1 - Looking west towards Project site
Viewpoint 2 - Looking northwest towards Project site
Viewpoint 3 - Looking north
towards Project site
184-003-21
Viewpoints 1-3
FIGURE 5.1-2
SOURCE: Meridian Consultants LLC – 2021
325 of 2287
Viewpoint 4 - Looking north towards Project site
Viewpoint 5 - Looking northeast towards Project site
Viewpoint 6 - Looking east towards Project site
184-003-21
Viewpoints 4-6
FIGURE 5.1-3
SOURCE: Meridian Consultants LLC – 2021
326 of 2287
Proposed Project Building Shadows
FIGURE 5.1-4
184-003-21
SOURCE: Meridan Consultants - 2021
Winter Solstice 12 PM
Sample
327 of 2287
FIGURE 5.1-5
Summer Solstice Shadows
184-003-21
SOURCE: Meridian Consultants - 2021
N Project Site
10 AM 11 AM
12 PM 1 PM 2 PM
3 PM 4 PM 5 PM
9 AM
328 of 2287
FIGURE 5.1-6
Winter Solstice Shadows
184-003-21
SOURCE: Meridian Consultants - 2021
N Project Site
10 AM 11 AM
12 PM 1 PM 2 PM
3 PM 4 PM
9 AM
329 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-17 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the conversion of Statedesignated agricultural land from agricultural use to another nonagricultural use. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Protection, lists Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance under the general category of “Important Farmland” in California.

The Project site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is located within the Gateway District in the DSP area. The Gateway District land use designation and zoning is characterized by high-rise development including numerous corporate headquarters and businesses with multi-storied towers.

According to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, the Project site is typified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” which defines locations that are occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel.22 22 Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed August 2021. 330 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-18 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Therefore, the proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if proposed Project construction were to result in the conversion of land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act Contract from agricultural use to nonagricultural use. As previously stated, the Project site is zoned and designated within the Gateway District of the DSP which includes a focus on promoting and locating corporate headquarters, new hotels, mixed-use and residential buildings, complementary/accessory service, and retail businesses at the street level, as well as the introduction of appropriate night-time entertainment uses.23 The Project site is not zoned for agricultural production, and no farmland activities exist on-site. Additionally, no Williamson Act Contracts exist on the Project site.24 As such, the proposed Project would have no impact with respect to land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act Contract. c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
No Impact. The Project site is zoned within the Gateway District of the DSP. This area focuses on the continued promotion of corporate headquarters, new hotels, mixed-use and residential buildings, complementary/accessory service, and retail businesses at the street level, as well as the introduction of appropriate night-time entertainment uses. The Project site is not zoned as forestland or timberland and there is no timberland production at the Project site. Therefore, no impact related to forest land or timberland would occur.
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. As previously discussed, the Project site is not zoned as forestland or timberland and there is no established timberland production at the Project site. As such, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of forestland or conservation of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact and would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
23 City of Glendale, Glendale Downtown Specific Plan, website https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/50230/636904148989570000, Accessed August 2021.
24 California Department of Conservation, State of California Williamson Act Contract Land, https://planning.lacity.org/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%20Study/Attachme nt%20B%20References/California%20Department%20of%20Conservation%20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf.

Accessed August 2021.
331 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-19 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project involves changes to the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to another nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The Project site is in an area of the City that is highly urbanized. Neither the proposed Project nor surrounding parcels are utilized for agricultural uses or forest land and such uses are not in proximity to the Project site. The Project site is not classified in any “Farmland” category designated by the State of California. According to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, the Project site, and the surrounding area are nots candidates for listing as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance.25 Therefore, the proposed Project has no impact related to conversion of farmland to a nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, and no impact would occur.

Cumulative Impacts
No Impact. Development of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects indicated in Table 2.9-1, would not significantly impact any agricultural or forestry resources as no such land occurs in the vicinity of the Project site or related projects due to the existing urban development. The Los Angeles County Important Farmland Map maintained by the California Division of Land Resource Protection indicates that the Project site, the surrounding area, and the related projects are not included in the Important Farmland category.

Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No agricultural and forestry resources mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
No agricultural and forestry resources mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No agricultural and forestry resources mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
No prior mitigation measures were identified, and no project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project.
25 Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed August 2021. 332 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-20 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or State ambient air quality standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted an updated air quality management plan (AQMP) in March 2017.26 The Final 2016 AQMP was prepared to comply with the federal and State Clean Air Acts and amendments; accommodate growth; reduce pollutants in the Basin; meet federal and State air quality standards; and minimize the fiscal impact of pollution control measures on the local economy. It builds on approaches in the previous AQMP to achieve attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard. These planning efforts have substantially decreased exposure to unhealthy levels of pollutants, even while substantial population growth has occurred within the Basin. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP.

Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumption used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily emissions thresholds.

SCAG has the responsibility for preparing and approving the portions of the AQMP relating to regional demographic projections and integrated regional land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies. With respect to the determination of consistency with AQMP growth assumptions, the projections in the AQMP for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions in SCAG’s 2016–2040 RTP/SCS regarding population, housing, and growth trends. With regard to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared and adopted the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS,27 which includes a Sustainable 26 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, March 2017. 27 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Connect SoCal: 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies Draft, “Chapter 1,” https://www.connectsocal.org/Pages/ConnectSoCal-Draft-Plan.aspx, Accessed on July 10, 2020. 333 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-21 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Communities Strategy that addresses regional development and growth forecasts. Determining whether or not a project exceeds SCAG’s growth forecasts involves the evaluation of the following: (1) consistency with applicable population, housing, and employment growth projections; (2) project mitigation measures; and (3) appropriate incorporation of AQMP land use planning strategies.

A project is consistent with the AQMP, in part, if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the AQMP. The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth. These growth forecasts are based on local plans and policies applicable to the specific area. As discussed in Section 5.14: Population and Housing, SCAG estimates the population of the City will increase to 214,100 residents, 82,300 dwelling units, and 125,900 employees by 2045, an increase of 12,900 residents, 7,800 dwelling units, and 8,900 employees from 2016 to 2045. This would be an increase of 10,266 residents and 5,496 dwelling units from 2021 to 2045. Based on an average of 2.6 residents per unit,28 the proposed Project would generate approximately 76529 new residents. The proposed Project would account for approximately 5.9 percent of the anticipated increase in residents from 2016 to 2045 and approximately 7.5 percent of the anticipated increase in residents from 2021 to 2045.30,31 Moreover, housing would increase in the City by approximately 1,109 dwelling units between 2021 to 2045, of which the proposed Project would account for approximately 26.5 percent of the anticipated increase in dwelling units.

Additionally, the Basin is currently designated as nonattainment at the federal level for ozone and PM2.5; and at the State level for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. SCAQMD developed regional emissions thresholds to determine whether a project would contribute to air pollutant violations. If a project exceeds the regional air pollutant thresholds, then it would significantly contribute to air quality violations in the Air Basin. As discussed further in Table 5.3-1 below, temporary emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for regional emissions. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air plan and would not contribute to air quality violations in the Air Basin. Impacts would be less than significant. 28 State of California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates (2021), https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. Accessed August 2021. 29 294 units * 2.6 (average persons per household) = 765. 30 765 Project residents / 12,900 (the increase in residents in Glendale between 201,200 [2016] and 214,100 [2045]) = 0.059.
31 765 Project residents / 10,266 (the increase in residents in Glendale between 203,834 [2021] and 214,100 [2045]) = 0.075.
334 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-22 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact could occur if the proposed Project would add a considerable cumulative contribution to Federal or State nonattainment pollutants.

The Basin is currently in State nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5.32 In regard to determining the significance of the proposed Project contribution, the SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of construction and/or operational emissions from multiple related projects, nor provides methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess the cumulative emissions generated by multiple cumulative projects. Instead, the SCAQMD recommends that a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts. Furthermore, SCAQMD states that “projects that do not exceed the project-specific thresholds are generally not considered to be cumulatively significant.”33 Therefore, if a project generates less than significant construction or operational emissions, then the project would not generate a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment.

Construction
With respect to the proposed Project’s construction-period air quality emissions and cumulative Basinwide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies (e.g., SCAQMD Rule 403) to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As such, the proposed Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements and implement all feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts related to particulate matter and fugitive dust. In addition, the proposed Project would comply with adopted AQMP emissions control measures as described below. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., SCAQMD Rule 403 compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects Basin-wide, where applicable.

According to the SCAQMD, individual construction projects that exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to create air quality impacts through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and 32 CARB, “Area Designation Maps/State and National,” http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. 33 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003), Appendix A. 335 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-23 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 through vehicle trips generated from construction workers to and from the Project site. In addition, fugitive dust emissions would result from demolition and construction activities. NOx emissions would result from the use of off-road construction equipment. Paving and the application of architectural coatings (e.g., paints) would potentially release VOCs.

Construction emissions were estimated according to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and construction emission factors contained in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) (See Appendix A). The emission calculations assume the use of standard construction practices, such as compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust, which requires all unpaved demolition and construction areas to be wetted at least three times a day during excavation and construction to minimize the generation of fugitive dust. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 1403 – Asbestos emissions from demolition/renovation activities, specifies work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities.

Maximum daily emissions of air pollutants during construction of the proposed Project were calculated using CalEEMod (See Appendix A). Construction of the proposed Project would begin in August 2022 and is expected to last until June 2025. Construction would occur over five phases: (1) demolition; (2) grading; (3) building construction; (4) paving; and (5) architectural coating. Each phase of construction would result in varying levels of intensity and a number of construction personnel. The construction workforce would consist of approximately 13 worker trips per day and 150 total hauling trips during demolition; 10 worker trips per day and 9,500 total hauling trips during grading; 296 worker trips per day and 64 vendor trip per day during building construction; 13 worker trip per day during paving; and 59 worker trips per day during architectural coating.

Construction activities involving grading and excavation would primarily generate PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. Approximately 76,000 cubic yards of soil would be exported for the subterranean parking garage. Mobile sources (such as diesel-fueled equipment on-site and vehicles traveling to and from the Project site) would primarily generate NOx emissions. The application of architectural coatings would primarily result in the release of VOC emissions. Table 5.3-1: Maximum Construction Emissions identifies daily emissions that are estimated for peak construction days for each construction year. It is important to note, emissions presented in Table 5.3-1 do not include regulatory compliance measures such as construction equipment controls (Tier 3 emissions standards with Level 3 DPF per CARB requirements) or control efficiency of PM10 (dust control measures per SCAQMD Rule 403) to provide a worst-case scenario analysis. Based on the modeling, construction of the proposed Project’s new residential building would not exceed regional VOC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 concentration thresholds. All criteria air pollutants would be below SCAQMD construction thresholds. Construction of 336 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-24 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 the proposed Project would not generate any significant environmental impacts associated with air quality compliance.

TABLE 5.3-1

MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Source
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds/day
2022 5 43 38 <1 13 6
2023 3 15 24 <1 4 2
2024 10 22 36 <1 5 2
2025 9 15 26 <1 5 2
Maximum 10 43 38 <1 13 6
SCAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod.

Notes:

CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile organic compounds.

Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study Operation
SCAQMD’s CalEEMod program was used to calculate regional area, energy, mobile source, and stationary emissions (See Appendix A). As discussed in Section 5.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would incorporate features designed primarily to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, that would also likely serve to reduce criteria air pollutants. These measures include achieving a high-performance building that would meet and exceed California Energy Code requirements by 15 percent. These include utilizing features such as Energy Star or more efficient appliances and water-conserving fixtures such as irrigation control, low-flow faucets and shower heads and any other combination of fixtures that demonstrate an aggregate savings of at least 20 percent when compared to non-water-conserving fixtures.

As discussed in Section 3.0 of this SCEA and Section 5.1, above, the Project site is located within onehalf mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA (refer to Section 3.0 for additional discussion on proposed Project Transit Priority Project designation).There are also numerous bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site as shown in Figure 3.0-5: Existing Transit Routes in Project Site Vicinity.

Operational activities associated with the proposed Project would result in long-term emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources. Area-source emissions are based on natural gas (building heating and water heaters), landscaping equipment, and consumer product (including paint) usage rates provided in CalEEMod. Natural gas usage factors in CalEEMod are based on the California Energy Commission (CEC)’s California Commercial End Use Survey data set, which provides energy demand by building type and 337 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-25 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 climate zone. Mobile source emissions are derived primarily from vehicle trips generated by the proposed Project.

The proposed Project would add up to 1,247 daily trips as shown in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix E).34 Vehicles traveling on paved roads would be a source of fugitive emissions due to the generation of road dust inclusive of tire wear particulates. The emission estimates for travel on paved roads were calculated using the CalEEMod model.

The results presented in Table 5.3-2: Maximum Operational Emissions are compared to the SCAQMDestablished operational significance thresholds. As shown in Table 5.3-2, operational emissions associated with the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s emission thresholds and would therefore not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. As such, operational impacts would be less than significant.

TABLE 5.3-2

MAXIMUM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM 2.5
pounds/day
Area 10 4 26 <1 <1 <1
Energy <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Mobile 4 4 38 <1 9 2
Total 14 9 64 <1 10 3
Existing <1 <1 2 <1 <1 <1
Net Total 13 9 62 <1 9 3
SCAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod.

Notes: Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations. Emissions do not include existing Chase Building to remain.

CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns; SOx = sulfur oxides; VOC = volatile organic compounds.

Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study 34 Proposed apartments would generate 1,313 trips including 66 transit trips, for a total of 1,247 driveway trips. 338 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-26 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. Sensitive receptors are identified near sources of air pollution to determine the potential for health hazards. Locations evaluated for exposure to air pollution include but are not limited to residences, schools, hospitals, and convalescent facilities.

The Project site is predominantly surrounded by a mix of high-rise commercial office buildings as well as high-rise and low-rise scale (one-, two- and three-story) residential buildings. Moreover, the Project site is bounded by the SR-134 Eastbound On-Ramp to the north, an existing commercial office building and an associated surface parking lot to the south, N. Brand Boulevard to the west, and N. Maryland Avenue to the east. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site include:
• Residential uses approximately 200 feet to the east (621 N. Louise Street and 263 E. Doran Street) • Residential uses approximately 400 feet to the north across the SR-134 Freeway (222 Monterey Road) • Residential uses approximately 600 feet to the south-west (531 N. Orange Street) The SCAQMD devised the Localized Significance Threshold (LST) methodology35 to assess the potential air quality impacts that would result in the near vicinity of the proposed Project. The LST methodology considers emissions generated from on-site sources and excludes emissions from off-site vehicular traffic.

The SCAQMD provides mass rate lookup tables as a screening tool to determine the likelihood of localized impacts from proposed Project construction and operation. Ambient conditions for East San Fernando Valley, as recorded in SRA 7 by the SCAQMD, were used for ambient conditions in determining appropriate threshold levels. Thresholds for each criteria pollutant for construction activity and proposed Project operation were derived for a 1.46-acre Project site. The LST mass rate look-up tables are applicable to NOx, CO, PM2.5 and PM10.

Construction
The result of the LST analysis are provided in Table 5.3-3: Localized Construction Emissions. These estimates assume the maximum area that would be disturbed during construction on any given day during proposed Project buildout. It is important to note, emissions presented in Table 5.3-3 do not include regulatory compliance measures such as construction equipment controls (Tier 3 emissions standards with Level 3 DPF per CARB requirements)36 or control efficiency of PM10 (dust control measures per 35 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Threshold Methodology, July 2008. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lstmethodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2 36 California Air Resources Board, Guide to Off-Road Vehicle & Equipment Regulations, website:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/offroadzone/pdfs/offroad_booklet.pdf, accessed August 2021. 339 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-27 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 SCAQMD Rule 403) to provide a worst-case scenario analysis. As shown in Table 5.3-3, emissions would not exceed the localized significance construction thresholds. As emissions would be below SCAQMD localized thresholds, impacts to the sensitive receptors identified above located near the Project site from localized emissions during construction would be less than significant.

TABLE 5.3-3

LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Source
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Emissions (pounds/day)
Total maximum emissions 30 22 8 5a
LST threshold 95 885 17 5
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:

Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.

CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxide; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns.
an Exact localized PM2.5 emissions would be approximately 4.7 pounds per day; thus, the threshold would not be exceeded.

Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study Proposed Project construction would result in short-term emissions of diesel particulate matter, which is a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). Diesel particulate matter poses a carcinogenic health risk that is generally measured using an exposure period of 30 years for sensitive residential receptors. Off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment would emit diesel particulate matter over the course of the construction period. Diesel particulate matter is a source of PM2.5 (diesel particles are typically 2.5 microns and smaller). As shown in Table 5.3-3 localized diesel particulate matter would be below localized thresholds and there would be no significant impacts to the sensitive receptors located around the Project site.

Operation
Local emissions from proposed Project operation would include area and energy sources. Area-source emissions are based on natural gas (building heating and water heaters), landscaping equipment, and consumer product (including paint) usage rates provided in CalEEMod. Natural gas usage factors in CalEEMod are based on the CEC’s California Commercial End Use Survey data set, which provides energy demand by building type and climate zone. The results of the operational LST analysis are provided in Table 5.3-4: Localized Operational Emissions.

TABLE 5.3-4

LOCALIZED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Emissions (pounds/day)
Project area/energy emissions 5 26 <1 <1
LST threshold 95 885 4 1
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:

Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.

CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = nitrogen oxide; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns.

Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study 340 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-28 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 As shown in Table 5.3-4, emissions would not exceed the localized significance thresholds for operation.

Therefore, localized operational impacts to sensitive receptors located around the Project site would be less than significant.

Mobile Health Risk Assessment
A health risk assessment (HRA) was prepared to assess the impact of pollutant on individuals residing at the Project site (Appendix B). The assessment and dispersion modeling methodologies used for the HRA were composed of all relevant and appropriate procedures presented by the USEPA, California Environmental Protection Agency and SCAQMD.

In order to assess the impact of emitted compounds on individuals who reside within and/or access common areas throughout the Project area, air quality modeling utilizing the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model AERMOD was performed to assess the downwind extent of mobile source emissions located within 1,000 feet of the Project site. AERMOD’s air dispersion algorithms are based upon a planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including the treatment of surface and elevated sources in simple and complex terrain.

The proposed Project HRA evaluated the potential for increased health risks to future residents of the proposed Project resulting from exposure to diesel exhaust emissions (a TAC) generated by vehicles on the SR-134 and the on-ramp from Brand Boulevard. Table 5.3-5: Estimated Inhalation Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazards shows the estimated range of excess cancer risk and chronic hazard indices for future residents of the proposed Project. The building façades facing towards SR-134 freeway and the on-ramp from Brand Boulevard would be nearest to traffic volumes and would be exposed to higher amounts of DPM emissions than those located further away from the road; the cancer risk and chronic hazard indices for the on-site receptors would gradually decrease as their distance from the freeway increases across the Project site. As shown in Table 5.3-5, the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR) is represented by the proposed use located closest from the nearest travel lane.

TABLE 5.3-5

ESTIMATED INHALATION CANCER RISK AND CHRONIC HAZARDS
Receptor Cancer Risk
Chronic Noncancer Hazard
Index
Resident MEIR 1.06E-06 0.01
Worker MEIR 7.55E-08 0.01
Refer to Appendix B: Health Risk Assessment.

As shown in Table 5.3-5, the maximum cancer risk at the Project site from DPM emissions generated by diesel-vehicle travel along SR-134 for residents and workers are 1.06 in one million and 7.55 in one hundred million, respectively. The cancer risk for residents at the site would not exceed SCAQMD’s suggested significance criteria of 10 per one million. Additionally, the maximum non-cancer hazard indices for the proposed Project’s residents and workers are 0.01 for the MEIR receptors, below the 341 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-29 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 significance criterion of 1. As such, operational impacts from mobile emissions would be less than significant.

As discussed in Section 3.3 of this SCEA, PRC Section 21155.2 requires that a Transit Priority Project incorporate all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria from prior applicable environmental impact reports (EIRs). For this reason, the proposed Project incorporates SCAG 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR PMM AQ-1; South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.2-1 and MM 4.2-3; and Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(a) through MM 4.2-2(s). d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to the SCAQMD, “while almost any source may emit objectionable odors, some land uses will be more likely to produce odors…because of their operation.”37 Land uses that are more likely to produce objectionable odors include agriculture, chemical plants, composting operations, dairies, fiberglass molding, landfills, refineries, rendering plants, rail yards, and wastewater treatment plants.

Construction
During construction, activities associated with the operation of construction equipment, the application of asphalt, and the application of architectural coatings and other interior and exterior finishes may produce discernible odors typical of most construction sites. Although these odors could be a source of nuisance to adjacent residences, they are temporary and intermittent in nature. As construction-related emissions dissipate, the odors associated with these emissions would also decrease, dilute, and become unnoticeable. As such, construction impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Operation of the proposed Project includes a multi-family residential development and would not contain any active manufacturing activities. Good housekeeping practices, such as the use of trash receptacles, would be sufficient to prevent nuisance odors. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant.

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-30 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Cumulative Impacts
The discussion above for response to Question 5.3 b. addresses the potential for cumulative impacts for criteria pollutants that are not in attainment with applicable federal or State standards.

As discussed above, the SCAQMD suggests that the emissions-based thresholds be used to determine if a project’s contribution to regional cumulative emissions is cumulatively considerable. Individual projects that exceed SCAQMD-recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would be considered to cause a cumulative considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. As discussed above in Table 5.3-1 above, construction impacts would less than significant for all criteria pollutants. As presented in Table 5.3-2 above, long-term emissions associated with operation would not exceed SCAQMD’s emission thresholds.

Additionally, as shown in Table 5.3-3 and Table 5.3-4, localized emissions from proposed Project construction and operation would also not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. As shown in Table 5.3-5, the maximum cancer risk at the Project site from DPM emissions generated by diesel-vehicle travel along SR134 for residents and workers would not exceed SCAQMD’s suggested significance criteria of 10 per one million. Moreover, the proposed Project would not result in significant impacts with regard to odors during construction and operation. Therefore, the contribution of these emissions to air quality within the Basin is not considered to be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
As discussed in Section 3.3 of this SCEA, PRC Section 21155.2 requires that a Transit Priority Project incorporate all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria from prior applicable environmental impact reports (EIRs).

The following mitigation measures from prior applicable EIRs incorporated into the proposed Project will further reduce the less than significant impacts of the proposed Project.

SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

PMM AQ-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to violating air quality standards.

Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Minimize land disturbance.
(b) Suspend grading and earth moving when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour unless the soil is wet enough to prevent dust plumes.
(c) Cover trucks when hauling dirt.
343 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-31 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 (d) Stabilize the surface of dirt piles if not removed immediately. (e) Limit vehicular paths on unpaved surfaces and stabilize any temporary roads. (f) Minimize unnecessary vehicular and machinery activities. (g) Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
(h) Revegetate disturbed land, including vehicular paths created during construction to avoid future off-road vehicular activities.
j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB approved fleet. Daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment should also be required.
k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained. l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements—saves fuel and reduces emissions.
m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts as a result of traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of through-traffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts.
p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the project work site, with the exception of on-road and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the state or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site.
q) Require projects to use Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp). In the event that construction equipment cannot meet to Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must 344 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-32 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by SCAG before using other technologies/strategies.

Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. All equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their contractor(s) should make available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. Project sponsors should also consider including ZE/ZNE technologies where appropriate and feasible.
(u) Projects should work with local cities and counties to install adequate signage that prohibits truck idling in certain locations (e.g., near schools and sensitive receptors).
(y) Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.
(z) Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters.
i) Disclose potential health impacts to prospective sensitive receptors from living in close proximity to freeways or other sources of air pollution and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration systems when windows are open or residents are outside.
ii) Identify the responsible implementing and enforcement agency to ensure that enhanced filtration units are installed on-site before a permit of occupancy is issued.
iii) Disclose the potential increase in energy costs for running the HVAC system to prospective residents.
iv) Provide information to residents on where MERV filters can be purchased. v) Provide recommended schedule (e.g., every year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration units.
vi) Identify the responsible entity such as future residents themselves, Homeowner’s Association, or property managers for ensuring enhanced filtration units are replaced on time.
vii) Identify, provide, and disclose ongoing cost-sharing strategies, if any, for replacing the enhanced filtration units.
345 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-33 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 viii)Set criteria for assessing progress in installing and replacing the enhanced filtration units; and
ix) Develop a process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units.
(bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
i. Diesel non-road vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%.
ii. Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%.
iii. Non-road diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. iv. Diesel non-road construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 non-road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB for use with nonroad engines to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85% for engines for 50 hp and greater and by a minimum of 20% for engines less than 50 hp. v. Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer. vi. Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less. vii. The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:

1. Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment.

2. Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of operation.

3. For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer, EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
viii. The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site. Such zones shall be located 346 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-34 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. ix. The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, non-road construction equipment, or generator on site, includes:

1. Hour-meter readings on arrival on-site, the first and last day of every month, and on off-site date.

2. Any problems with the equipment or emission controls.

3. Certified copies of fuel deliveries for the time period that identify:
a. Source of supply
b. Quantity of fuel
c. Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight) cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards (California Building Standards Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
i. Install programmable thermostat timers
ii. Obtain Third-party HVAC commissioning and verification of energy savings (to be grouped with exceedance of Title 24).
iii. Install energy efficient appliances (Typical reductions for energy-efficient appliances can be found in the Energy Star and Other Climate Protection Partnerships Annual Reports.)
iv. Install higher efficacy public street and area lighting v. Limit outdoor lighting requirements
vii. Establish on-site renewable or carbon neutral energy systems – generic, solar power and wind power
viii. Utilize a combined heat and power system
x. Locate project near bike path/bike lane
xi. Provide pedestrian network improvements, such as interconnected street network, narrower roadways and shorter block lengths, sidewalks, accessibility to transit and transit shelters, traffic calming measures, parks, and public spaces, minimize pedestrian barriers. xiv. Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi-unit residential projects xviii. Provide ride-sharing programs

1. Designate a certain percentage of parking spacing for ride sharing vehicles

2. Designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles
347 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-35 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

3. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
MM 4.2-1: The following policies shall be incorporated into the SGCP to reduce construction related emissions associated with future development projects implemented under the proposed SGCP.

Policy AQ-1: Require conditions of approval for construction projects near sensitive receptors and/or that would generate substantial levels of mass emission to implement emissions reduction strategies such as:
(a) Install PM or other exhaust reducing filters on generators; (b) Require construction contractors to use off-road equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification for off-road diesel engines or Best Available Control Technology (BACT);
(c) Use of electric-powered construction equipment;
(d) Phase construction activities;
(e) Provide grid or renewable electricity in place of generators; (f) Use alternative fuel such as high performance renewable diesel for construction equipment and vehicles;
(g) Ensure that construction equipment is maintained and tuned according to manufacturer specifications; and/or
(h) Require construction contractors to provide clear signage that posts the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2449 (d) (3) and 2485 requirement to reduce idling time to 5 minutes or less at construction sites.

Policy AQ-2: Require area businesses, residents, and partnering organizations to provide information about best management practices that can be implemented on a voluntary basis to reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs, which encourage voluntary reduction of construction exhaust emissions, as well as exposure to these emissions;
Policy AQ-3: The City shall continue to work with CARB and SCAQMD in order to protect residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution; and Policy AQ-4: The City shall review proposed development projects to ensure projects incorporate feasible measures that reduce construction emissions for VOC, NOX, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) through project design.

MM 4.2-2: The following policies shall be incorporated into the SGCP to reduce operational emissions associated with future development projects implemented under the proposed SGCP.
348 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-36 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Policy AQ-5: Create a more multi-modal transportation network of comprehensive, integrated, and connected network of transportation facilities and services for all modes of travel, which would lead to reduced VMT, thereby reducing operational emissions; Policy AQ-6: Provide a complete streets design that balances the diverse needs of users of the public right-of-way, which would reduce VMT, thereby reducing operational emissions;
Policy AQ-7: Provide and manage a balanced approach to parking that meets economic development and sustainability goals by reducing parking demand, managing parking supply, and requiring alternative fuel vehicle parking; Policy AQ-8: Implement traffic calming features such as sidewalks, protected bike lanes, reduced speed limits, narrow lane widths, lane reconfiguration, and roundabouts; Policy AQ-9: Facilitate transit-oriented land uses and pedestrian-oriented design to encourage transit ridership;
Policy AQ-10: Support high-density transit-oriented and compact development within the City to improve transit ridership and to reduce automobile use and traffic congestion; Policy AQ-11: The City shall review discretionary proposed development projects to ensure projects incorporate feasible measures that reduce operational emissions for VOC, NOX, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) through project design; and Policy AQ-12: Encourage the use of low or no VOC-emitting materials.

MM 4.2-3: The following policies shall be incorporated into the SGCP to reduce exposure of new sensitive receptors to pollution sources associated with future development projects implemented under the proposed SGCP.

Policy HRA-1: The City shall minimize exposure of new sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants (TACs) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), to the extent possible, and consider distance, orientation, and wind direction when siting sensitive land uses in proximity to TAC- and PM2.5-emitting sources in order to minimize exposure to health risk; and Policy HRA-2: At the time of discretionary approval of new sensitive land uses proposed in close proximity to existing TAC sources, the City shall require development projects to implement applicable best management practices, as necessary and feasible, that will reduce exposure to TACs and PM2.5. Available measures include, but are not limited to, barriers (e.g., vegetation, concrete walls) between the source and the receptor, high efficiency filtration with mechanical ventilation, and portable air filters. Specific reduction measures will be evaluated and determined depending on proposed land uses, proximity to TAC sources, and feasibility.

MM 4.2-4: The following policies shall be incorporated into the SGCP to reduce impacts associated with objectionable odors associated with future development projects implemented under the proposed SGCP.

Policy Odor-1: Land uses that have the potential to emit objectionable odorous emissions and conflict with SCAQMD Rule 402 (e.g., dry cleaning establishments, restaurants, and 349 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-37 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 gasoline stations) shall be located as far away as possible from existing and proposed sensitive receptors or downwind of nearby receptors; and Policy Odor-2: If an odor-emitting facility is to occupy space in commercial or retail areas, odor control devices shall be installed to mitigate the exposure of receptors to objectionable odorous emissions. The use of setbacks, site design considerations, and emission controls are typically sufficient to ensure that receptors located near commercial or retail uses would not be exposed to odorous emissions on a frequent basis
City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
MM 4.2-2(a): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that all diesel-powered equipment used be retrofitted with after-treatment products (e.g., engine catalysts) to the extent that they are readily available in the South Coast Air Basin. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(b): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that all heavy-duty dieselpowered equipment operating and refueling at the Project site use low-NOX diesel fuel to the extent that it is readily available and cost effective (up to 125 percent of the cost of California Air Resources Board diesel) in the South Coast Air Basin (this does not apply to diesel-powered trucks traveling to and from the Project site). Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(c): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) be utilized to the extent that the equipment is readily available and cost effective in the South Coast Air Basin. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(d): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that construction equipment engines be maintained in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer’s specification for the duration of construction. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(e): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that construction-related equipment, including trucks and heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(f): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines to the extent feasible. 350 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-38 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(g): As required by South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403—Fugitive Dust, all construction activities that are capable of generating fugitive dust are required to implement dust control measures during each phase of project development to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air. These measures include the following:
• Application of soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas • Quick replacement of ground cover in disturbed areas
• Watering of exposed surfaces three times daily
• Watering of all unpaved haul roads three times daily
• Covering all stockpiles with tarp
• Reduction of vehicle speed on unpaved roads
• Post signs on-site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less • Sweep streets adjacent to the Project site at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip • Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning onsite construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation. • Pave roads and road shoulders that have exposed soil
• Suspend all excavating and grading operations when winds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph
MM 4.2-2(h): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction equipment used for construction of projects meets or exceed Tier 2 standards use emulsified diesel fuels, and equip construction equipment with oxidation catalysts, particulate traps or other verified or certified retrofit technologies to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(i): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline power generators be used during construction activities to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.
351 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-39 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 MM 4.2-2(j): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction parking be configured to minimize traffic interference to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(k): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that temporary traffic controls such as a flag person be provided during all phases of construction to maintain smooth traffic flow. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(l): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that dedicated turn lanes be provided and/or utilized for movement of construction trucks and equipment on and off site to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(m): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system be scheduled to off-peak hours to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(n): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction trucks be routed away from congested streets or sensitive receptor areas to the extent feasible.

Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(o): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that traffic flow during construction be improved by signal synchronization to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(p): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that high-pressure-low-volume (HPLV) paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50% or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency be utilized to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(q): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that required coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under Rule 1113 be utilized to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-2(r): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that construction materials that do not require painting be utilized to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.
352 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-40 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 MM 4.2-2(s): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that pre-painted construction materials be utilized to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.2-6: Trash receptacles within the Project area will be required to have lids that enable convenient collection and loading and will be emptied on a regular basis, in compliance with City of Glendale regulations for the collection of solid waste.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
Prior mitigation measures were identified to further reduce the less than significant impacts of the proposed Project. No project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project. 353 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-41 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on State or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A project could have a significant impact on biological resources if it were to result in (a) the loss of individuals, or the reduction of existing habitat of a State- or federal-listed endangered, threatened, rare, protected, candidate, or sensitive species or a Species of Special Concern; (b) the loss of individuals or the reduction of existing habitat of a locally designated species or a reduction in a locally designated natural habitat or plant community; or (c) interference with habitat such that normal species’ behaviors are disturbed to a degree that may diminish the chances for long-term survival of a sensitive species. 354 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-42 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 The Project site is located in the Downtown area of the City, an area dominated by a mix of high-rise commercial office buildings as well as residential high-rise and low rise (one-, two- and three-story) buildings. Due to the urbanized and previously disturbed nature of the Project site and the surrounding areas, species likely to occur on site are limited to small terrestrial and avian species typically found in developed settings. Based on the lack of undisturbed wildlife habitat currently on the Project site, it is unlikely any special-status species listed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service would be present on site. A California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search was conducted to determine if sensitive species have been identified within the Project site.38 The search determined that the proposed Project is within one mile of the following species identified by the CNDDB which includes those listed as endangered, threatened, candidate, or special status species: Lasiurus xanthinus (Western Yellow Bat), Bombus crotchii (Crotch Bumble Bee), Anniella stebbinsi (Southern California Legless Lizard), Vireo bellii pusillus (Least Bell’s Vireo), Falco peregrinus anatum (American peregrine falcon), Eumops perotis californicus (Western Mastiff Bat), and Horkelia cuneata var. puberula (mesa horkelia). However, considering the urban location of the proposed Project, it is very unlikely that these species would occur within the proposed Project area. Impacts would be less than significant. As discussed in Section 3.3 of this SCEA, PRC Section 21155.2 requires that a Transit Priority Project incorporate all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria from prior applicable environmental impact reports (EIRs). For this reason, the proposed Project incorporates South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.3-1, which would require a Biological Monitor to survey the construction area and establish a buffer area for nesting activity or juvenile birds. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The Project site is within an urban, developed area. As identified in the City’s General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, the open space within the City includes five recognizable plant communities including chaparral, southern oak woodland, southern oak riparian woodland, coastal sage scrub, and alluvial scrub.39 These existing communities reside within the Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills, and the San Gabriel Mountains. The southern oak riparian woodland habitat has been mapped within the Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills, and the San Gabriel Mountains, but has not been identified within the urban environment of the City where the proposed Project is located. As such, the Project site is not within the vicinity of any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Implementation of 38 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, BIOS Viewer, https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/. Accessed August 2021.
39 City of Glendale General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/open-space-and-conservation-element. Accessed August 2021. 355 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-43 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 the proposed Project would not result in any adverse impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. A project could have a significant impact if it would result in the alteration of an existing wetland habitat.

The Project site is located within an urbanized and largely developed area where neither the site nor the surrounding areas contain any wetland or riparian habitat. The National Wetlands Inventory was accessed to determine if the Project site is within any blueline streams or riverine resources. The nearest wetland resources include the Verdugo Wash located approximately 0.18 miles north of the Project site and the Los Angeles River located approximately 1.42 miles west of the Project site.40 The Verdugo Wash is a tributary of the Los Angeles River and consists of an artificial channel to convey stormwater and the Los Angeles River is contained in a similar fashion. As such, these waterways would not intersect the Project site and implementation of the Project site would not impact any riparian or wetland habitats. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No Impact. A project could have a significant impact on biological resources if it would result in interference with wildlife movement/migration corridors that may diminish the chances for long-term survival of a sensitive species.

The Project site is located in an urbanized area of Glendale within the built downtown area. Due to the urbanized surroundings, there are no wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites on the Project site or in the Project site vicinity.41 Thus, the proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any residents or migratory fish or wildlife. As such, no impact would occur. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less Than Significant Impact. A project-related, significant adverse effect could occur if a project were to cause an impact that is inconsistent with local regulations pertaining to biological resources. 40 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Wetlands Inventory, https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/index.html. Accessed August 2021. 41 City of Glendale General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wide-plans.

Accessed August 2021.
356 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-44 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 The GMC, Chapter 12.44 Indigenous Trees, contains guidelines for the protection and removal of indigenous trees.42 These trees are defined as any Valley Oak, California Live Oak, Scrub Oak, Mesa Oak, California Bay and California Sycamore, which measure 6 inches or more in diameter breast height (DBH).

Furthermore, the GMC, Chapter 12.40 City Street Trees, contains guidelines for the preservation and protection of City street trees.43
There are no identified native trees within the Project site which would potentially be removed upon implementation of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would comply with the provisions of the GMC to preserve and protect City street trees. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance and potential impacts would be less than significant. f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. A significant impact would occur if the proposed Project would be inconsistent with mapping or policies in any conservation plans of the types cited. No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or similar plan applies to the Project site.44 Therefore, no impact would occur.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact upon biological resources with regulatory compliance and upon incorporation of South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.3-1 pursuant to PRC Section 21155.2. Development of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects, would not significantly impact wildlife corridors or habitat for any candidate, sensitive, or special status species identified in local plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS. No such habitat occurs in the vicinity of the Project site or related projects due to the existing urban development. The related projects near the Project site are on existing developed parcels with no valuable wildlife habitat, native or otherwise. However, development of any of the related projects would be subject to the GMC with regard to the protection and removal of indigenous trees and the preservation and protection of City street trees. There are currently no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans within the City.45 As such, no cumulative impacts regarding adopted habitat conservation plan would 42 City of Glendale Municipal Code, Ch. 12.44.
43 City of Glendale Municipal Code, Ch. 12.40.
44 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CFWS) BiosViewer, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed August 2021.
45 CFWS BiosViewer, Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan Boundaries, https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Accessed August 2021. 357 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-45 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 occur. Thus, cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than significant during construction or operation.

The following mitigation measures from prior applicable EIRs incorporated into the proposed Project will reduce impacts to less than significant levels of the proposed Project.

SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No biological resources mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
MM 4.3-1 If future projects implemented under the SGCP are constructed during the bird-nesting season (June 1-July 31) a Biological Monitor shall survey the construction area and establish a buffer area for nesting activity or juvenile birds. Surveys shall be conducted 5 days prior to any construction activity. If protected bird species are observed nesting within 100 feet for non-raptors and 300 feet for raptor species of the nearest work site, the biological monitor shall establish a buffer around the tree, and no construction activities shall be permitted within the restricted area, unless directly related to the management or protection of the protected species. If the tree is designated for removal, the removal shall be deferred until after August 30th, or until the adults and young have fledged or left the nest.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No biological resources mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
Prior mitigation measures were identified to reduce less than significant impacts of the proposed Project.

No project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project. 358 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-46 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
section15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to section15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.

Historic Resource Eligibility Requirements
Consistent with Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant impact on historic resources if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines defines a historic resource as a resource that is (1) listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); (2) included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC); or (3) identified as significant in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC). Additionally, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register.46 The California Register automatically includes all properties listed in or formally determined to be eligible for listing the National Register of Historic Places (National Register).

To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a property must be at least 50 years of age (unless the property is of “exceptional importance”) and possess significance in American history and culture, architecture, or archaeology. A property of potential significance must meet one or more of the following four established criteria:
46 CEQA Guidelines Section, 15064.5(a)(3).
359 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-47 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The California Register consists of properties that are listed automatically as well as those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:
• California properties listed in the National Register and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register;
• State Historical Landmarks from No. 0770 onward; and
• Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the State Office of Historic Preservation (SOHP) and have been recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for inclusion on the California Register.

For those properties not automatically listed, the criteria for eligibility of listing in the California Register are based upon National Register criteria, but are identified as 1-4 instead of A-D. To be eligible for listing in the California Register, a property generally must be at least 50 years of age and must possess significance at the local, State, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; Or

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important in the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

A property may be listed in the Glendale Register, if it meets one or more of the following four criteria:47 a. The resource is identified with important events in national, state, or city history, or exemplifies significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, tribal, or historic heritage of the nation, state, or city, and retains historic integrity; or b. The resource is associated with a person, persons, or groups who significantly contributed to the history of the nation, state, region, or city, and retains historic integrity; or 47 Glendale Municipal Code 15.20.050. Ordinance 5949, Section 6, May 19, 2020. 360 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-48 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 c. The resource embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represents a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possesses high artistic values, and retains historic integrity; or
d. The resource has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to archaeological pre-history or history of the nation, state, region, or city, and retains historic integrity.

Projects that may affect historical resources are considered to have a less than significant impact if they are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards).48 However, this is not the threshold for impacts. The threshold for impacts are described above per Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. The Standards were issued by the National Park Service and are accompanied by Guidelines for four types of treatments: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Though none of the four treatments as a whole applies specifically to new construction in the vicinity of a historical resource, Standard #9 of the Standards for Rehabilitation provides relevant guidance for such projects. Standard #9 states:

New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, massing, size, scale and proportion, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

In 2017, the City began a historic survey as part of the South Glendale Community Plan. The resultant 2019 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey assessed properties constructed prior to 1980 within the South Glendale Community Plan area, including the six-story Chase Building at 620 N. Brand Boulevard and the property at 625 N. Maryland Avenue. The Chase Building at 620 N. Brand Boulevard was identified as appearing to be individually eligible for local designation. The parking structure was not included in the description of the property and was not identified as a related feature. The property at 625 N.

Maryland Avenue, the two-story office building, was identified as ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or Glendale Register of Historic Resources.49 The property directly to the south of the Project Site at 600 N. Brand Boulevard was also identified as appearing to be individually eligible for local designation. The 1975 building was designed by Krisel and Shapiro and features a striking geometric façade clad with mirrored glass. The South Glendale Historic Resource Survey was submitted to the OHP for inclusion in the State Historic Resources 48 Title 14 California Code of Regulations § 15126.4 (b). 49 Historic Resources Group, City of Glendale South Glendale Historic Resources Survey, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/42070/636512649002070000. Accessed October 2021.
361 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-49 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Inventory and it meets the other requirements of Subdivision G. Therefore, properties evaluated as significant in this survey are presumed to be historical resources by the City of Glendale.

A Historic Resources Technical Report (Historic Report),prepared by Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation (TGHP) in June 2022, provides an intensive level survey of the subject property to evaluate the parking structure and which re-evaluated both the existing Chase Building and the office building to determine whether they qualify as historic resources as defined by CEQA. The Historic Report is available as Appendix F.

Historic Report Results
Chase Building
The Chase Building (former Home Savings office building) is located at 620 N. Brand Boulevard is associated with APN 5643018032; it includes Lots 24, 25, and 26 of Tract No. 93. The Chase Building is historically significant as an important commercial property type that represents the growth of downtown Glendale. Completed in 1969 by Home Savings and Loan Association (Home Savings), it was at the forefront of high-rise commercial development along SR-134 that followed in the 1970s. The physical characteristics that convey this significance are the building’s exterior features that date from the period of significance and are directly related to the commercial use. The character-defining features include the building’s proximity to the freeway and the setback from the west property line along Brand Boulevard.50 The immediate setting of the building remains intact from the period of significance, but the broad setting has been changed by the development of taller high-rise office buildings on Brand Boulevard. Though the Chase Building does not appear to be significant under Criterion A under the National Register requirements for an association with Home Savings specifically or the financial services industry generally, registration requirements for the Post-World War II Commercial Development theme address other aspects of commercial development. The Chase Building was the first high-rise building in the City to be oriented toward the freeway and drew commercial development north on Brand Boulevard.

The Chase Building was at the forefront of the trend in high-rise commercial development along SR-134 that followed in the 1970s and continues to this day. For these reasons, the Historic Report concluded that the Chase Building appears to be significant under Criterion A as an important commercial property type that represents the growth of downtown Glendale.

Since its construction in 1969, the Chase Building has been occupied by a financial institution. The founders of these institutions were not examined as historic persons as there is no evidence of a close association with the property. From 1969 to 1997, the Chase Building was occupied by Home Savings, which was founded by Howard F. Ahmanson, Sr. Ahmanson was an American businessman and philanthropist who played a significant role in financial services, insurance, and real estate industries. 50 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
362 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-50 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 However, he died in 1968, the year before the Chase Building was constructed, and therefore, he had no association with the property. As such, the Historic Report determined the Chase Building does not appear to be significant under Criterion B under the National Register requirements.

To be eligible for listing under Criterion C, a property must embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

There is no indication that the Chase Building was considered an important work during its time or in subsequent decades, nor did it involve any novel or noteworthy construction techniques. As such, the Historic Report determined the Chase Building does not appear to be significant for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a method of construction. It is an ordinary example of precast and poured concrete structures including concrete girders and floor slabs.

A master is a figure of generally recognized greatness in a field of design and construction such as architecture51 The Chase Building was designed by the architecture firm of Heusel, Homolka and Associates, consisting of Frank Homolka Jr. (1922-2008) and Francis J. Heusel (1906-1968). Homolka was responsible for the design of the Chase Building. His work is not distinguishable from other architects designing within established Modernist idioms. Furthermore, there are no scholarly sources on the architectural history of Southern California recognizing Homolka as a great architect. Therefore, he does not appear to meet the definition of master architect. The Historic Report concluded the Chase Building does not appear to be significant as a work of a master.

Under the high artistic value aspect of Criterion C, a building would need to possess ornamentation and detail to lend high artistic value. While the Chase Building exhibits the basic features of the New Formalism style, it does not include the craftsmanship or detailed handwork found in finer examples of the style such as painted or tiled murals or terrazzo, and does not meet the high artistic value aspect of Criterion C for this reason. Last, the Chase Building was not identified as contributing to a potential historic district in the 2018 Historic Resources Survey.52 Furthermore, the property in and of itself does not meet the basic definition of a historic district, which is a significant concentration of buildings united historically or aesthetically by plan or development.53 The last aspect of Criterion C, representing a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction, refers to historic districts. A district must be significant, as well as being an identifiable entity.30 The property was not identified in the South Glendale Historic Resource Survey as contributing to a potential historic district. 51 See Historic Report (Appendix F), 20.
52 Historic Resources Group, City of Glendale South Glendale Historic Resources Survey, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/42070/636512649002070000. Accessed October 2021.
53 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
363 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-51 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Therefore, it is being evaluated individually and this aspect of Criterion C does not apply. Furthermore, the property does not meet the basic definition of a historic district, which is a significant concentration of buildings united historically or aesthetically by plan or development.31 The district classification applies to properties with a number of buildings of equal importance or large acreage with a variety of features. The subject property with a main building, ancillary building, and surface parking lots is classified as a “building” for National Register purposes.54 For these reasons, the Historic Report concluded the Chase Building does not appear to be significant under Criterion C.

As discussed above, the Chase Building did not involve the use of any novel or noteworthy construction techniques. Research also did not indicate that the Chase Building has potential to yield information about human activity. As Criterion D applies to buildings, structures, and objects in instances where the building may contain important information about such topics as construction techniques or human activity, the Historic Report determined the property does not appear to be significant under Criterion D.

To be eligible for listing in the National Register, properties must retain their physical integrity from the period of significance. Of the seven aspects of integrity (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association), the Chase Building retains all aspects. The Chase Building retains its integrity of location, as the office building and parking structure have not been moved from the sites on which they were constructed.55 Regarding design, the integrity of design remains, as the architectural and structural as the shapes, fenestration patterns, and configuration of entrances are intact, reflecting the property’s original aesthetic and function. Signage has been altered but has the same placement as the original design. The original doors and windows at the south entryway have been replaced; however, the opening has not been resized and the other entryways remain unaltered. The ATM station diminishes the symmetry of the south façade; however, this alteration is not detrimental to the design of the property as a whole. The Chase Building retains integrity of setting as a whole, which is a highly urbanized area within downtown Glendale. The immediate setting is first and foremost the area within Lots 24, 25, and 26 of Tract No. 93, which is comprised of grass lawns with minimal landscaping on all four sides of the that create a buffer between the sidewalk on the west, freeway on-ramp on the north, driveway on the east, and surface parking on the south. The immediate setting also includes the parking structure.

The broad setting includes the 134 Freeway to the north, which remains the same from the period of significance. Otherwise, since the period of significance the broad setting has changed by the development of more and more high-rise office buildings. The building at 600 N. Brand Boulevard is located on the same block as the Project Site, south of the Chase Building. As discussed above, 600 N. 54 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
55 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
364 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-52 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Brand Boulevard was identified in the South Glendale Historic Resource Survey as appearing to be individually eligible for local designation.56
Constructed in 1975, it is currently occupied by U.S. Bank and replaced low-rise commercial buildings.

The building is six stories in height like the Chase Building. On the next block south of the Project site stands the office complex at 550 N. Brand Boulevard. The complex includes two 21-story buildings completed in 1987. Across Brand Boulevard are two more high-rise office buildings, 535 N. Brand Boulevard was constructed in 1973 and is 11 stories in height and 611 N. Brand Boulevard was constructed in 1973 and is 14 stories in height. Therefore, after the period of significance, the pattern of development along N. Brand Boulevard changed from low-rise commercial buildings to high-rise commercial buildings that are mostly taller than the Chase Building. With respect to materials, the integrity of materials is intact. The key exterior material is concrete; exposed aggregate precast concrete in the office building and poured concrete in the parking structure. The concrete remains throughout the property as well as the glass, stone, and metal used in the construction of the office building. The Chase Building retains integrity of workmanship as the office building and parking structure are substantially intact. However, the property was mostly constructed from materials that were prefabricated and there is little evidence of skilled workmanship or artisan’s labor. The integrity of feeling has been diminished by the ATM station and frameless glass doors and windows on the south façade, which are clearly contemporary. However, the Chase Building’s other physical components convey the sense of the late 1960s. Therefore, the Chase Building retains integrity of feeling as a whole. Lastly, the Chase Building conveys its role in the development of downtown Glendale because it continues to be a familiar visual feature from the 134 Freeway. The parking structure is secondary to Chase Building and did not contribute to the development of downtown Glendale and is not a prominent visual feature. Therefore, the Chase Building retains integrity of association as a whole. The Historic Report determined the character defining features of the Chase Building are significant in the context of postwar commercial development as a high-rise oriented toward the freeway.57
Based on the analysis performed, it was concluded that the Chase Building appears to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and Glendale Register of Historic Resources.58 The recommended Status Code, the classification system prescribed by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) for recording historical resources for use in classifying potential historical resources, for National Register is and California Register is 3S because the Chase Building appears to be eligible for listing in the National Register as an individual property through survey evaluation. Under the California Register the recommended Status Code is 3S because the Chase Building 56 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
57 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
58 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
365 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-53 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 appears to be eligible for listing in the National Register as an individual property through survey evaluation.

Under the California Register the recommended Status Code is 3CS, appears to be eligible for listing in the California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation. For the Glendale Register, the Chase Building was identified in the Historic Resources Survey in 2018 as appearing to be individually eligible for local designation, which corresponds to a Status Code of 5S3 under Criterion A because it meets the registration requirements for the Post-World War II Commercial Development theme. The Historic Report concluded it is ineligible for listing in the Glendale Register under Criterion C. The Chase Building is described as New Formalist in the South Glendale Historic Context. It was evaluated in the Historic Report and found ineligible because it does not exemplify New Formalism.

The office building was evaluated on the DPR 523 B form in the context of Corporate Modern architecture.

Yet the South Glendale Historic Context states Corporate Modernism drew from International Style and Miesian precedents, which included box-shaped forms; flat roofs; steel and concrete structural systems; and glass curtain walls comprising bands of flush-mounted metal windows and spandrel panels. Corporate Modern buildings often featured landscaped plazas or plantings to soften the somewhat rigid aesthetic.

The office building lacks most of the character-defining features of Corporate Modernism. The characterdefining features of the property were identified on the DPR 523 A form and did not include the parking structure or surface parking lots. Nor were the parking structure or surface parking lots identified as related features on the DPR 523 B form. Therefore, it does not meet the registration requirements because it does not embody the distinctive characteristic of Corporate Modernism. Thus, the six-story building is a historical resource as defined by CEQA.

Two-Story Office Building and Parking Structure
The two-story office building is located at 625 N. Maryland Avenue on APN 5643018031 and consists of Lot 20 of Tract No. 93. The two-story office building is a typical example of a small-scale office building, and did not meet any of the national, state, or local criteria for significance. The property does not have a specific association with the City’s efforts to revitalize downtown during the 1970’s. The property is not strongly associated with any particular business or industry significant in the history of Glendale.

Donald Licking was the original developer of the property. No information was found to suggest that he was significant within a historic context. The building does not exhibit quality of design through distinctive features that would make it a good example of a type, period, or method of construction.

Furthermore, the building does not possess craftsmanship, ornamentation, or detail to lend it high artistic value. The architects of the building are listed as Jones and Walton. The firm was based in Glendale and consisted of Raymond Jones (1907-1988) and Charles Walton (1932). No information was found to indicate that either Jones or Walton could be considered a master architect, which is defined by the National 366 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-54 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Register as a figure of generally recognized greatness.59 There is no evidence to suggest the property has the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history because it was constructed with common techniques and materials. It is a typical example of unreinforced masonry construction.

Therefore, under the requirements for listing by the National Register, California Register, and Glendale Register, the two-story office building does not meet the registration requirements for significance under Criterion A/1/A and is not significant under Criteria B/2/B, C/3/C, and D/4/D. The recommended Status Code for the building remains 6Z, found ineligible for National Register, California Register, and local designation through survey evaluation.

Constructed in 1970, the parking structure is located on Lot 5 of the McNutt Tract and Lots 21 and 22 of Tract No. 93. The surface parking lots on the Project site are located on Lots 23 and 19 of Tract No. 93.

The parking structure is not a unique or rare example of commercial development representing the growth of the City during the postwar period and, therefore, is not individually eligible for listing in national, state, and local registers and is not a character-defining feature of the Project site.60 The surface parking lots and parking structure do not contribute to the significance of the property because they do not represent the growth of downtown Glendale. While the office building was designed by the architecture firm of Heusel, Homolka and Associates, the parking structure was designed by the successor firm of Frank Homolka and Associates. No specific individuals associated with the parking structure who could be considered persons significant in Glendale’s past were found. The parking structure does not exhibit quality of design through distinctive features that would make it a good example of a type, period, or method of construction. The parking structure is even more basic in design than the office building and does not exhibit quality of design through distinctive features. It is an ordinary example of precast and poured concrete structures including concrete girders and floor slabs. Furthermore, it does not possess craftsmanship, ornamentation, or detail to lend it high artistic value. The architect, Frank Homolka, is not recognized as a master. There is no evidence to suggest the parking structure has the potential to yield information important in prehistory or history because it was constructed with common techniques and materials. It is an ordinary example of a reinforced concrete structure including floor slabs, piers, and exterior skeleton. The parking structure and surface parking lots are not characterdefining. The parking structure also postdates the period of significance for the Post-World War II Commercial Development theme within the Commercial Development context. It was not designed and constructed as the same time as the office building. Parking was provided as a matter of necessity because customers and tenants arrived by automobile, but neither the structure nor the surface lots are an integral part of the design. While the Chase Building is significant in the context of postwar commercial development as a high-rise oriented toward the freeway, neither the parking structure nor the surface parking lots contribute to this significance. The parking structure has some of the same visual 59 National Register Bulletin #15, 20.
60 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
367 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-55 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 qualities as the Chase Building but none of the historic associations.61 The parking structure does not possess any artistic features. Under the requirements for listing by the National Register, California Register, and Glendale Register, the parking structure does not meet the registration requirements for significance under Criterion A/1/A and is not significant under Criteria B/2/B, C/3/C, and D/4/D. Similar to the two-story office building, the recommended Status Code for the building remains 6Z, found ineligible for National Register, California Register, and local designation through survey evaluation.

Therefore, the two-story office building and parking structure are not historical resources as defined by CEQA.

Impact Analysis
The Project would have no direct impacts on historical resources: no historical resources would be demolished, destroyed, relocated, or altered as a result of the Project. The two existing buildings on the Project Site that would be demolished do not meet the definition of a historical resource according to CEQA. The Chase Building is the only historical resource located on the Project Site and it would be retained as part of the Project. The proposed residential building would be located east of the Chase Building and separated by an existing driveway. The distance between the new building and historic building is approximately 30 feet at the lower stories. None of the character-defining features of the historic building would be physically altered by the Project. As such, the Project would have no direct impacts on historical resources.

The Project would introduce a new visual element to the setting of the Chase Building. The immediate setting is comprised of grass lawns with minimal landscaping on all four sides of the building that create a buffer between the sidewalk on the west, SR-134 on-ramp on the north, driveway on the east, and surface parking on the south. The broad setting is comprised of the SR-134 to the north. Otherwise, the broad setting has changed since the period of significance by the development of high-rise office buildings on Brand Boulevard.

Although the parking structure and surface parking lots are part of the setting of the Chase Building, they are not character-defining. The parking structure postdates the period of significance for the property.

Furthermore, it was not designed and constructed as the same time as the building. There is no evidence of a larger plan for the property that included the parking structure. Even if there was, the parking structure does not contribute to the significance of the property. The Chase Building is significant in the context of postwar commercial development as a high-rise oriented toward the freeway. The parking structure has some of the same visual qualities as the building but none of the historic associations with high-rise development.
61 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
368 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-56 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 The physical characteristics that convey the significance of the Chase Building are principally the exterior features that date from the period of significance, directly related to the commercial use, are constructed or fabricated from historic materials, are highly visible, and retain integrity. The characterdefining features include the building’s six-story height, proximity to the SR-134, and the setback from the west property line along Brand Boulevard. The Project would preserve the buffer on all four sides of the Chase Building and would not alter the spatial relationship between the Chase Building and SR-134 or Brand Boulevard. The Project would continue the pattern of high-rise development that began with the Chase Building along Brand Boulevard and downtown Glendale. This pattern also includes another building on the same block as the Project site; the high-rise at 600 N. Brand Boulevard that was completed in 1975.62 Glendale Plaza at 655 N. Central Avenue, one block west of the Project site, is currently the tallest building in downtown Glendale at 333 feet in height. The maximum height of the proposed new building would be 275 feet. The two buildings comprising the office complex at 550 N. Brand Boulevard, south of the Project site, are also 275 feet. While the proposed building at 275 feet would be significantly taller than the Chase Building at 98 feet, it would be compatible with the scale of development in the area, which includes numerous other high-rise buildings. The introduction of a new visual feature in the vicinity of the historical resource would not diminish its significance in a meaningful way in the context of postwar commercial development because the Project site is a decidedly urbanized area within downtown Glendale that is characterized by high-rise buildings.63 The introduction of the 24-story proposed residential building would be consistent in height to the surrounding high-rise buildings.

The important viewsheds from the Chase Building are north toward the 134 Freeway and west toward Brand Boulevard. These viewsheds would not be affected by the proposed Project as the proposed new building is located to the east of the historic building. Furthermore, the existing surface parking lot to the south of the historic building would be reprogrammed, but remain open space, so the view north and south on Brand Boulevard would be unaffected.

The proposed Project would partially obscure views of the east façade of the Chase Building. However, obscuring this view of the Chase Building would not materially impair its eligibility as a historical resource because it is not pertinent to conveying its significance. Setting is not an essential factor of integrity for the historical resource according to the registration requirements.64 The setting of the Chase Building would not be diminished by the view of the proposed Project. The Chase Building was intended be seen and oriented toward Brand Boulevard and SR-134 to the west and north. As such, the east viewshed is not as character-defining as the west and north viewsheds and there are already high-rise buildings in the other viewsheds. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not affect the building’s integrity of 62 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
63 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
64 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
369 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-57 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The Chase Building would not be materially impaired by the proposed Project because it would retain all of its significant characterdefining features, continue to convey its historical significance, and remain eligible for listing in the National, California, and Glendale Registers. Therefore, the proposed Project would not indirectly impact on the Chase Building.

Introduction of the proposed residential building as a new visual feature in the vicinity of the Chase Building would not diminish its significance in the context of postwar commercial development. 65 While the proposed Project could be considered "related new construction" to the historical resource, the Standards for Rehabilitation are not directly applicable because they are not the threshold for impacts.

The threshold is whether the Project would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the historical resource that convey its significance. To that end Standard #9 is relevant but not determinative in analyzing indirect impacts of new construction on adjacent historic buildings.

The Standards are not prescriptive and are intended to manage change to protect the character of historic properties, not to prevent change. Standard #9 provides guidance on the design of new construction on historic properties.

The new building would not destroy the materials and features that characterize the historic building.

None of the character-defining features of the historic building would be physically altered by the proposed Project. Additionally, the new building would not alter the spatial relationship between the historic building and the 134 Freeway or Brand Boulevard. The historic building would remain a prominent visual feature of the intersection of the freeway and Brand Boulevard.

Differentiation between new and old is pertinent to new additions and exterior alterations of historic buildings. Here, the proposed Project neither adds to nor alters the historic building. Nevertheless, the new building is contemporary in design and does not mimic the historic building. The materials, features, massing, and proportions of the new building are not fundamentally different from the historic building in that both are part of the continuum of Modern architecture. Size and scale are only two of several ways of judging the compatibility of new construction. The new building is undoubtedly larger than the historic building, but the difference in size does not render the new building insensitive to the historic building. For example, at the ground level, the new building would be physically separated from the historic building by approximately 30 feet. The massing of the new building steps back from the east façade of the historic building beginning at the fourth and fifth stories until the building separation is increased to 47 feet. By comparison, the typical width of a residential street with two-way traffic and parking is 40 to 50 feet. Thus, the difference in size and scale as between the two buildings is diminished because the distance between them increases to 47 feet above the fourth story of the new building. The vertical bands along the podium of the new building also make subtle reference to the verticality of the 65 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
370 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-58 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 historic building created by the narrow bays.66 Thus, the proposed Project complies with Standard #9 to the extent it is applicable.

Due to the separation between the buildings of approximately 30 feet at the lower stories and 47 feet above the fourth story of the new building, the new building would not adversely affect the materials and features that characterize the Chase Building. None of the character-defining features of the Chase Building would be physically altered by the proposed Project. Additionally, the new building would not alter the spatial relationship between the Chase Building and SR-134 or Brand Boulevard. The Chase Building would remain a prominent visual feature of the intersection Brand Boulevard and SR-134 freeway. When viewed from the intersection, the new building would be visible behind the historic building. Additionally, as the distance between the new building and the Chase Building increases to 47 feet above the fourth story of the new building, the new building would be physically separated from the historical resource. The vertical bands along the podium of the new building also makes subtle reference to the verticality of the Chase Building created by the narrow bays.

Though the proposed Project would obscure views of the east façade of the Chase Building, however, obscuring this view would not materially impair its eligibility as a historical resource because it is not pertinent to conveying its significance. The important view sheds from the historical resource are northward toward the SR-134 and westward toward Brand Boulevard. Furthermore, as discussed above, setting is not an essential factor of integrity for the historical resource according to the applicable registration requirements.67 The essential factors of integrity for postwar commercial properties in the South Glendale Historic Context are location, design, workmanship, materials, and feeling.68 These factors of integrity would not be altered by the Project. Accordingly, the Chase Building would not be materially impaired by the Project because it would retain all of its significant character-defining features, continue possess sufficient integrity to convey its historical significance, and remain eligible for listing in the national, state, and local registers.69 Therefore, the proposed Project would have no direct or indirect impacts on the Chase Building.

The proposed Project incorporates mitigation measure from the South Glendale Community Plan EIR.

South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-1, requires that all properties listed on the National Register/California Register/Glendale Register and properties identified with status codes 1 through 5 in a survey or individual resource assessment will require further analysis under CEQA prior to the approval of any entitlements or issuance of permits. The proposed Project would also implement Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.4-4(c) and MM 4.4-4(d), which require a development project to consider the 66 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
67 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
68 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
69 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
371 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-59 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 impacts to the known historic resource and, if needed, include a study conducted by a qualified historian or architectural historian to determine whether the proposed development project would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the known historic resource that conveys its historical significance and an intensive level survey to determine whether the property is a historic resource under CEQA. The June 2022 Historic Resources Technical Report provides an intensive level survey of the subject property and concluded while the proposed Project is located on the same site as an eligible historic resource, the Chase Building would not be altered as a result of the proposed Project. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact could occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed Project would disturb unique archaeological resources that could exist within the Project site. A unique archaeological resource is defined as an artifact or object that meets any of the following criteria:

1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

The Gabrielino tribe of Native Americans were the original inhabitants of the area that is now known as the City of Glendale.70 With territory stretching from Topanga Canyon to Mount Wilson, to San Bernadino, and Aliso Creek as well as the Channel Islands, the Gabrielino occupied a majority of the fertile and productive lands in California. Many years later in 1784 after European introduction, a portion of the Gabrielino land including present day Glendale became what was known as Rancho San Rafael, which was the second largest land grant made in Alta California. At 36,000 acres, this land supported significant livestock, permanent homesteads, and agriculture for the community. By 1910 after the construction of an interurban railroad line connecting Glendale to Los Angeles, the City developed into one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the country.
70 City of Glendale General Plan, Historic Preservation Element, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/historic-preservation-element. Accessed August 2021. 372 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-60 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are not known to exist within the vicinity of the Project site.71 Most of the City consists of igneous and metamorphic rock, and the local area is not known to contain paleontological resources. Additionally, the Project site has been previously developed and contains alluvium surficial sediments which are not known to preserve prehistoric or historic artifacts. In addition, the Project site has already been subject to development and on-site improvements. Any archaeological resources that may have existed at one time on or beneath the site have likely been previously disturbed. The Project site has been disturbed and excavated in the past and is currently developed with an existing two-story office building, associated parking structure and surface parking lot, and a 6-story Chase Bank building. The proposed Project would remove only the existing office building, parking structure, and surface parking lot; the Chase Bank building would remain on-site.

However, the proposed Project includes excavation and grading for the four level subterranean parking garage at a depth of approximately 43 feet below grade. Therefore, there is the potential for discovery of archaeological resources during construction.

Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) establishes a formal consultation process for California Native American tribes to identify potential significant impacts to tribal cultural resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as part of CEQA. Pursuant to AB 52, the City provided notification to the following two tribes on October 14, 2021 - Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians deferred consultation for the proposed Project to the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe. The City provided notification to the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe on November 1, 2021 (See Appendix G: AB 52 Consultation Letters), requesting responses no later than 30 days after receipt of the letter. As of December 8, 2021, the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians and Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe have not responded to the notification for consultation. As such, consultation has been deemed complete.

The proposed Project would implement mitigation measures South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM

4.4-4 and MM 4.4-8. With implementation of South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-4, the City would evaluate the likelihood of archaeological resources within the Project site and determine if a qualified archaeologist would be necessary to conduct a study to determine if a Phase I cultural resources survey is necessary prior to the approval of project plans. Additionally, South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-8 states that should subsurface archaeological and tribal cultural resources be discovered during construction, all activity in the vicinity of the proposed Project shall stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find accordingly. Through 71 General Plan, Safety Element, Geologic Hazards,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/safety-element. Accessed August 2021. 373 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-61 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 implementation of the mitigation measures described above, potential proposed Project impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant adverse effect could occur if grading or excavation activities would disturb previously interred human remains, including those interned outside formal cemeteries.

The nearest cemetery to the Project site is the Grand View Memorial Park & Crematory Inc. approximately

1.75 miles northwest of the Project site. While the Project site has been previously disturbed due to grading for previous development and there are no known cemeteries located on-site, the grading and excavation needed to construct the proposed Project could result in a significant adverse effect due to potential disturbance of human remains. In accordance with the State’s Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains at the Project site, no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the Los Angeles County Coroner has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27491 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the PRC. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Through compliance with the regulatory standards described above, potential Project impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on cultural resources with incorporation of mitigation measures. With implementation of mitigation measures, development of the proposed Project in combination with the related projects would not significantly impact any cultural resources, as National Register of Historic Resources (NRHR), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or Glendale Register of Historic Resources listed or eligible properties are not on or within the vicinity of Project site. Additionally, cultural resources impacts are site specific. The related projects near the Project site are on existing developed sites and would be subject to the same regulatory measures 374 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-62 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 applicable to discoveries of cultural and archeological resources and human remains. The CEQA Guidelines define cumulative impacts as "two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts." 14 Cal Code Regs §15355. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or more than one project. 14 Cal Code Regs §15355(a). Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. 14 Cal Code Regs §15355(b).

A cumulative impact is an impact created by the combination of the project reviewed in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. 14 Cal Code Regs §15130(a)(1). Here, discoveries of cultural and archaeological resources and human remains on the related project sites or on the Project site would be localized to the respective sites and would not cumulatively impact potential cultural resources on other specific sites. As such, no significant cumulative impacts cultural resources would result from the proposed Project and related projects.

The following mitigation measures from prior applicable EIRs incorporated into the proposed Project will reduce impacts to the less than significant levels of the proposed Project.

SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No cultural resources mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
MM 4.4-1: All properties listed on the National Register/California Register/Glendale Register and properties identified with status codes 1 through 5 in a survey or individual resource assessment will require further analysis under CEQA prior to the approval of any entitlements or issuance of permits.

MM 4.4-4: To prevent impacts to cultural resources, the City shall evaluate the likelihood of the Project site to contain archaeologist resources to ensure future projects that require ground disturbance are subject to a Phase I cultural resource inventory on a projectspecific basis prior to approval of project plans. The study shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist following the Secretary of Interior Standards. (a) The City shall consult with the local Native American representatives for future development projects. Any cultural resources inventory shall include a cultural 375 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-63 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 resources records search to be conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center; scoping with the NAHC and with interested Native Americans identified by the NAHC; a pedestrian archaeological survey by the qualified archaeologist, (when appropriate); and formal recordation of all identified archaeological resources and significance evaluation of such resources presented in a technical report. The report shall also include full documentation of outreach to the Native American community. The Phase I survey shall be conducted prior to any CEQA review of development projects.
(b) If potentially significant archaeological resources are encountered during the survey, the City shall require the resources to be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist for eligibility of listing in the CRHR and for significance as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Recommendations shall be made for treatment of these resources if found to be significant, in consultation with the implementing agency and the appropriate Native American groups for prehistoric resources. Preservation shall be the preferred manner of mitigation to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project redesign, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. If resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery in consultation with the implementing agency, and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in cultural resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provision of Section 21083.2 of CEQA.

MM 4.4-8: Should subsurface archaeological and tribal cultural resources be discovered during construction of future projects under the SGCP, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find accordingly. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC, who will then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American. If tribal cultural resources are determined to be significant, the tribal monitor and archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City, appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources qualifying as historical resources. Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project redesign, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing. If it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), the tribal monitor and qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological 376 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-64 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Section 21083.2.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
MM 4.4-4(c): In the event that a future development project within the Downtown Specific Plan Area is proposed on or immediately surrounding a site containing a known historic resource, environmental review of the development project shall consider the impacts to the known historic resource and, if needed, shall include a study conducted by a qualified historian or architectural historian to determine whether the proposed development project would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the known historic resource that conveys its historical significance. If the Project would demolish a historic resource or if it is determined that the development project would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historic significance, the City shall impose any and all measures to avoid or substantially lessen the impact, unless the City, after having analyzed the significant impacts and proposed mitigation measures in an Environmental Impact Report, finds such mitigation measures are infeasible and adopts a statement of overriding considerations.

Potential modifications to a site-specific development project to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on historic resources include, but are not limited to:
a) Site plan modifications that incorporate the historic resource into the proposed project, and if necessary, rehabilitation of the historic resource. Rehabilitation of architecturally or historically significant buildings shall meet the U.S.

Secretary of the interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation; b) Design changes related to height density, upper story step-backs, architectural features, or materials; and
c) Changes in the proposed development program to include compatible uses.

MM 4.4-4(d) In the event that a future development project within the Downtown Specific Plan Area is proposed on a site containing a potential historic property, the City shall require, as part of the environmental review of the Project, an intensive level survey to determine whether the property is a historic resource under CEQA. If the intensive level survey determines that the potential historic property is a historic resource, the City shall undertake the analysis and impose mitigation measures required under mitigation measures MM 4.4-4(a) through (c).

Project Mitigation
No cultural resources mitigation measures were identified.

Impacts After Mitigation
The mitigation measures identified above will reduce impacts to less than significant. 377 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-65 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.6 ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts on energy resources, focusing on three energy resources: electricity, natural gas, and transportation-related energy (petroleum-based fuels).

This analysis addresses both construction and operational impacts associated with the consumption of energy resources. This section evaluates the demand for energy resources attributable to the proposed Project and determines whether the current and planned electrical, natural gas, and petroleum-based fuel supplies and distribution systems are adequate to meet the proposed Project’s forecasted energy consumption. The information presented herein is based, in part, on the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) outputs as calculated for Section 5.3: Air Quality, and Section 5.8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and on the calculations for this section as presented in Appendix C: Energy Calculations. a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less Than Significant Impact. The following analysis estimates the proposed Project’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel usage and evaluates whether the proposed Project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In accordance with Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis includes relevant information to address the energy implications of the proposed Project.

The proposed Project would comply with Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), also known as Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which regulates the design of building shells and building components. The Title 24 standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The CEC adopted the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2019 Building Standards), effective January 1, 2020.72 Moreover, the proposed Project would exceed California Energy Code standards by 15 percent per measures set forth in the Greener Glendale Plan and the City’s Building Codes.

In addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24), 72 CEC, 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/, accessed August 2021.
378 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-66 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 commonly referred to as CALGreen, establishes voluntary and mandatory standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. CALGreen is periodically amended; the most recent 2019 standards became effective on January 1, 2020 and would apply to the proposed Project.

Construction
During construction, energy would be directly consumed on a limited basis to power lights, and electronic equipment, and indirectly for the conveyance of water used for dust control during grading. As discussed below, construction activities, including the construction of new buildings, typically do not involve the consumption of natural gas. Construction would also consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with the use of off-road construction vehicles and equipment within the Project site, construction worker travel, haul trips, and delivery trips.

As shown in Table 5.6-1: Summary of Energy Use During Construction and additionally discussed below, a total of approximately 1,263 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, 212,653 gallons of diesel fuel, and 95,614 gallons of gasoline is estimated to be consumed during construction of the proposed Project.

TABLE 5.6-1

SUMMARY OF ENERGY USE DURING CONSTRUCTION
Fuel Type Quantity
Electricity
Water Conveyance 1,263 kWh
Diesel
Off-Road Construction Equipment 69,670 gallons
On-Road Motor Vehicles 142,983 gallons
Total 212,653 gallons
Gasoline
Off-Road Construction Equipment 0 gallons
On-Road Motor Vehicles 95,614 gallons
Total 95,614 gallons
Refer to Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6 in Appendix C: Energy Output Files
Electricity
During construction, electricity would be consumed to supply and convey water for dust control and, on a limited basis, may be used to power lighting, electronic equipment, and other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Electricity would be supplied to the Project site by Glendale Water and Power (GWP) distribution infrastructure and would be obtained from existing substations and electrical lines in and around the Project site.

As shown in Table 5.6-1 above, a total of approximately 1,263 kWh of electricity is anticipated to be consumed during construction. The electricity demand at any given time would vary throughout the 379 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-67 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 construction period based on the construction activities being performed and would cease upon completion of construction. When not in use, electric equipment would be powered off to avoid unnecessary energy consumption.

Due to the relatively short duration of the construction process, and the fact that the extent of electricity consumption is inherent to construction projects of this size and nature, electricity consumption impacts would not be considered excessive or substantial with respect to regional supplies. The energy demands during construction would be typical of construction projects of this size and construction of the proposed Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of electricity resources.

Accordingly, electricity demands during construction would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
Construction activities do not typically involve the consumption of natural gas as construction equipment and staging rely heavily on electricity and transportation fuels. Accordingly, natural gas would likely not be needed to support construction activities; thus, there would be little to no demand generated by construction. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of natural gas during construction. Accordingly, natural gas demands during construction would be less than significant.

Transportation Energy
Proposed Project construction would consume energy in the form of petroleum-based fuels associated with use of off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the Project site, construction worker travel to and from the Project site, and delivery and haul truck trips (e.g., for deliveries of construction supplies and materials).

The petroleum-based fuel use summary provided in Table 5.6-1 represents the amount of transportation energy that could potentially be consumed during construction based on a conservative set of assumptions. As shown, on- and off-road vehicles would consume an estimated 308,267 gallons of petroleum (212,653 gallons of diesel and 95,614 gallons of gasoline fuel) throughout the proposed Project’s construction period. For purposes of comparison, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts a national oil supply of 20.39 million barrels (mb) per day in 2022, which is the first year of construction for the proposed Project.73 This equates to approximately 7,472 mb per year or 312,579 million gallons (mg) per year. Construction of the proposed Project would account for less than 0.01 percent of the projected annual oil supply in 2022.

Due to the relatively short duration of the construction process, and the fact that the extent of fuel consumption is inherent to construction projects of this size and nature, fuel consumption impacts would 73 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2020: Table 11. Petroleum and Other Liquids Supply and Disposition, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=11- AEO2020&cases=ref2020&sourcekey=0, Accessed April 2021. 380 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-68 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 not be considered excessive or substantial with respect to regional fuel supplies. The energy demands during construction would be typical of construction projects of this size and would not necessitate additional energy facilities or distribution infrastructure. The proposed Project will also comply with Sections 2485 in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires the idling of all dieselfueled, commercial vehicles be limited to five minutes at any location. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of transportation resources during construction. Accordingly, transportation resource demands during construction would be less than significant.

Operation
During operation of the proposed Project, energy would be consumed for multiple purposes associated with the proposed uses, including, but not limited to, heating/ventilating/air conditioning (HVAC); refrigeration; lighting; and the use of electronics, equipment, and machinery. Energy would also be consumed during operation of the proposed Project in the form of water usage, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips, among others. As shown in Table 5.6-2: Summary of Annual Energy Use During Operation, the proposed Project’s net energy demand would be approximately 2,420,868 kWh of electricity per year, 3,108,161 kBTU of natural gas per year, and 178,582 gallons of transportation fuel per year.

TABLE 5.6-2

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL ENERGY USE DURING OPERATION
Source Units Quantity
Electricity
Apartments kWh/yr 1,132,050
Parking Garage kWh/yr 1,092,350
Water kWh/yr 383,588
Total Electricity kWh/yr 2,607,988
Existing Electricity to be removed kWh/yr 187,120
Net Total kWh/yr 2,420,868
Natural Gas
Apartments kBTU/yr 3,162,680
Total Natural gas kBTU/yr 3,162,680
Existing Natural Gas to be removed kBTU/yr 54,519
Net Total kBTU/yr 3,108,161
Transportation Energy
Diesel Gallons/yr 24,035
Gasoline Gallons/yr 160,216
Total Fuel Gallons/yr 184,251
Existing Fuel to be removed Gallons/yr 5,669
Net Total Gallons/yr 178,582
Notes: kWh/yr. = kilowatt-hours per year; kBtu/yr. = thousand British Thermal Units per year.

Electricity and Natural Gas for the Project is total yearly operational usage. Mobile gasoline and diesel usage were calculated using CalEEMod output data
Refer to Appendix C: Energy Output Files
381 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-69 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Solar photovoltaic arrays would be located on the roof of the proposed residential building. 242 solar panels are proposed, which would occupy 6,856 square feet in area. Each panel would produce 300 watts, equating to approximately 220,825 kilowatt-hours annually. In addition, the proposed Project would comply with CALGreen building standards by incorporating eco-friendly building materials, systems, and features wherever feasible, including Energy Star appliances, water saving/low flow fixtures, non-VOC paints/adhesives, drought tolerant planting, and high-performance building envelopment. The proposed Project would be designed and constructed to incorporate environmentally sustainable design features in compliance with the Greener Glendale Plan and the City’s Building Codes.

Electricity
As shown in Table 5.6-2, buildout of the proposed Project would result in a projected on-site net demand for electricity, totaling 2,420,868 kWh per year. Electricity would be supplied to the Project site by GWP distribution infrastructure and would be obtained from existing substations and electrical lines in and around the Project site. Moreover, GWP anticipates an energy load forecast of 1,298 gigawatt hours (GWh) or 1,298,000,000 kWh for the year 2025, which is the opening year for the proposed Project.74 The proposed Project’s electricity demand would account for approximately 0.2 percent of the 2025 electricity forecast. Accordingly, electricity demand during operation would be less than significant.

Natural Gas
On November 4, 2021, the Sustainability Commission of the City approved a motion (Motion 5a) to recommend the City Council hire a consultant to assist in the preparation of reach code(s) addressing, among other items, standards for building electrification.75 A reach code is a local code that “reaches” beyond the state minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction. The City has not yet prepared a draft reach code and no reach code has been adopted by the City that would be applicable to the proposed Project. For this reason, the proposed Project may include the use of natural gas and the potential natural gas demand from the Project is estimated below.

Natural gas service would be provided to the Project site by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas).

As shown in Table 5.6-2 above, buildout of the proposed Project is projected to generate an on-site net demand for natural gas totaling 730,577 kBTU or 0.7 million cubic feet (MMcf) per year. Based on the 2020 California Gas Report, the California Energy and Electric Utilities estimates natural gas supply within SoCalGas’ planning area will be approximately 1,253,775 million cubic feet (MMcf) per year in 2025.76 The proposed Project would account for less than 0.01 percent of the 2025 annual forecasted supply in SoCalGas’ planning area. Accordingly, natural gas demand during operation would be less than significant. 74 City of Glendale Water and Power, 2019 SB 350 Integrated Resource Plan for Glendale Water and Power, July 2019.
75 City of Glendale Sustainability Commission, November 4, 2021, https://gec.eco/commission-watchsustainability-november-4-2021/. Accessed December 2021. 76 California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2020 California Gas Report, October 2020. 382 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-70 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Transportation Energy
As shown in Table 5.6-2 above, buildout of the proposed Project is projected to generate a net demand of 178,582 gallons of transportation fuel. For purposes of comparison, the EIA forecasts a national oil supply of 17.84 mb per day in 2025, which is the opening year for the Project.77 This equates to approximately 6,512 mb per year or 273,504 mg per year. Operation of the proposed Project would account for less than 0.01 percent of the projected annual oil supply in 2025. The proposed Project would not result in inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources for transportation during operation and the impact of the proposed Project would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above, the Project would be designed and operated in accordance with the with applicable State Building Code Title 24 regulations. The proposed Project would also comply with the requirements in the Greener Glendale Plan, which impose energy conservation measures. Moreover, the proposed Project would exceed the California Energy Code requirements by 15 percent per measures set forth in the Greener Glendale Plan and Glendale Building Codes. As such, the Project would not conflict with energy efficiency plans. Impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
Buildout of the proposed Project, and related projects, would cumulatively increase the demand for energy. However, the proposed Project would be consistent with growth expectations for the region utilized by energy providers to manage power generation and other facilities. As the Project is consistent with these forecasts, it would not make a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on energy systems.

Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No energy mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
No energy mitigation measures were identified.
77 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2020: Table 11. Petroleum and Other Liquids Supply and Disposition, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=11- AEO2020&cases=ref2020&sourcekey=0, Accessed August 2021. 383 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-71 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No energy mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
No prior mitigation measures were identified, and no project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project.
384 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-72 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault, caused
in whole or in part by the project’s
exacerbation of the existing environmental
conditions? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking caused in whole
or in part by the project’s exacerbation of the
existing environmental conditions?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction, caused in whole or in part by the
project’s exacerbation of the existing
environmental conditions?
iv. Landslides, caused in whole or in part by the
project’s exacerbation of the existing
environmental conditions?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse, caused in whole or in
part by the project’s exacerbation of the existing
environmental conditions?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property caused in whole or in part by the
project’s exacerbation of the existing
environmental conditions?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site unique geologic
feature?
385 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-73 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if a project were located within a Statedesignated Alquist-Priolo Zone or other designated fault zone. The City is situated in the Transverse Ranges Province, which includes the following fault zones: Sierra Madre, Verdugo, Hollywood, Elysian Park, and Raymond.78 The Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Rupture Zone, as delineated by the California Geological Survey.79 However, the Project site is located in seismically active Southern California region, and could be subjected to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the many active Southern California faults. Although the proposed Project is not in close to an active fault, the proposed residential building would be required to meet 2019 California Building Code standards which include seismic design criteria. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture because of fault plane displacement is less than significant. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if a project were to represent an increased risk to public safety or destruction of property by exposing people, property, or infrastructure to seismically induced ground-shaking hazards that are greater than the average risk associated with other locations in Southern California. The Project site could be subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake originating along one of the faults listed as active or potentially active in the Southern California area. Considering the Project site’s proximity to multiple faults with the potential to cause damage, there is a possibility that it would experience strong seismic ground shaking. The proposed residential building would be required to meet 2019 California Building Code standards which include seismic design criteria.

In addition, construction of the subterranean parking garage may remove some but not all of the loose material within the upper layers of the subsurface. Loose sandy solids that are not excavated as part of the future development may be susceptible to seismically-induced settlement. However, the potential for seismic ground-shaking is common in Southern California and the effects of ground shaking can be lessened if the proposed structures are designed and constructed in conformance with current building 78 City of Glendale General Plan, Safety Element, Chapter 1: Seismic Hazards, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/safety-element. Accessed August 2021. 79 California Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zone Map, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/geologichazards/#dataviewer. Accessed August 2021. 386 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-74 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 codes and engineering practices. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking greater than what currently exists. Therefore, existing regulatory requirements will ensure that impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if a Project site were located within a liquefaction zone and thereby were to represent an increased risk to public safety or destruction of property by exposing people, property, or infrastructure. Liquefaction typically occurs within the upper 50 feet of the surface, when saturated, loose, fine- to medium-grained soils (sand and silt) are present.

Earthquake shaking suddenly increases pressure in the water that fills the pores between soil grains, causing the soil to lose strength and behave as a liquid.

According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element, the Project site is not located within an area that is susceptible to liquefaction.80 The proposed Project is also not located directly over any active faults, which reduces the significance of potential seismic activity. The Project site is also not listed within an area of liquefaction as delineated by the California Department of Conservation Geologic Hazards Map.81 Overall, the proposed Project would comply with the California Building Code to avoid potential impacts related to seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction. The existing Chase Building that would remain on site would not be altered as a result of the proposed Project. As a result, the proposed Project would not exacerbate existing environmental conditions related to seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction, or associated seismically induced settlement, which would result in substantial damage to structures or infrastructure, or expose people to substantial risk of injury. Impacts would be less than significant.
iv. Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides are movements of relatively large land masses, either as nearly intact bedrock blocks, or as jumbled mixes of bedrock blocks, fragments, debris, and soil. A projectrelated, significant adverse effect could occur if the project were located in a hillside area with soil conditions that would suggest a high potential for sliding. The topography of the Project site and the surrounding area is relatively flat and devoid of any distinctive landforms. The Project site is not located within an area consisting of known landslides.82 Additionally, the Safety Element illustrates that no known landslides have occurred near the Project site, nor is the Project site in the path of any known or potential landslides.83 Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. 80 General Plan, Safety Element, Summary of Hazards Map, Plate P-1. 81 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Hazards Map, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/. Accessed August 2021. 82 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Hazards Map, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/. Accessed August 2021. 83 City’s General Plan, Geologic Hazards, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/city-wide-plans/safety-element. Accessed August 2021. 387 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-75 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Erosion is the movement of rock fragments and soil from one place to another. Precipitation, running water, waves, and wind are all agents of erosion.

Significant erosion typically occurs on steep slopes where storm water and high winds can carry topsoil down hillsides. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project development may result in wind and water driven erosion of soils due to grading activities if soil is stockpiled or exposed during construction. Because the construction period is short-term in nature and the site would expose soil only during construction activities and would then be covered with the proposed building and related site improvements, the potential for erosion impacts is less than significant.

The applicant would be required to adhere to conditions under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).84 Additionally, since the Project site is more than 1 acre in size, it would be subject to the requirements under Section 13.42.060 of the GMC to prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would be administered throughout proposed Project construction. The SWPPP would incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that potential water quality impacts from water driven erosion during construction would be reduced to less than significant. Additionally, the proposed Project would implement SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR PMM GEO-1 which would require sitespecific geotechnical investigations conducted by a qualified geotechnical expert to be conducted. The proposed Project would comply with the recommendations identified in this geotechnical investigation.

Compliance with these standards and with SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR PMM GEO-1 would result in less than significant impacts.
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Strong ground shaking can cause settlement, lateral spreading, or subsidence by allowing sediment particles to become more tightly packed, thereby reducing pore space. The Project site is located within the Holocene Alluvium geologic unit which includes older floodplain deposits.85 This is the most extensive deposit in the area, underlying most of southern Glendale, the Verdugo Wash canyon, and the central and lower reaches of several of the tributaries to Verdugo Wash.
84 City’s Municipal Code, Ch. 13, Sec. 13.42.090.
85 General Plan, Safety Element, Geologic Hazards,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/safety-element. Accessed August 2021. 388 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-76 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 As previously discussed, the proposed Project is not located within a liquefaction zone.86 The relatively flat topography of the Project site precludes both stability problems and the potential for lurching, which is earth movement at right angles to a cliff or steep slope during ground shaking. As previously discussed, the potential for hazards such as landslides and liquefaction are considered low. Ground surface subsidence generally results from the extraction of fluids or gas from the subsurface, which can result in a gradual lowering of the ground level. No regional subsidence because of groundwater pumping has been reported in the Glendale area. Therefore, the potential for ground collapse and other adverse effects due to subsidence to occur on the Project site is considered low. To minimize damage due to geologic hazards, design, and construction, the proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable building codes. Additionally, the proposed Project would implement SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR PMM GEO-1 which would require site-specific geotechnical investigations conducted by a qualified geotechnical expert to be conducted. The proposed Project would comply with the recommendations identified in this geotechnical investigation. The existing Chase Building that would remain on site would not be altered as a result of the proposed Project. Compliance with these standards and with SCAG 2020– 2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR PMM GEO-1 would minimize impacts related to exposure to hazards including landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. Fine-grained soils, such as silts and clays, may contain variable amounts of expansive clay minerals. These minerals can undergo significant volumetric changes as a result of changes in moisture content. The upward pressures induced by the swelling of expansive soils can have significant harmful effects upon structures and other surface improvements. Most of the Glendale area is underlain by alluvial units that are composed primarily of granular soils (silty sand, sand, and gravel).

Such units are typically in the low to moderately low range for expansion potential.87 Potentially expansive layers, including clay zones along faults and fractures, may be exposed at the surface by erosion, or may be uncovered during grading, in cuts made for developments.

According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, the Project site consists primarily of Urban land-Tujunga-Typic Xerorthents, sandy substratum complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes with some Urban land-Palmview-Tujunga complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes.88 Soils within the Project site are generally sandy soils found within alluvial fans and flood plains. These soils are typically in the low to 86 California Department of Conservation, Geologic Hazards Map, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/. Accessed August 2021. 87 General Plan, Safety Element, Geologic Hazards,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/safety-element. Accessed August 2021. 88 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation, Web Soil Survey, https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed August 2021. 389 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-77 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 moderately low range for shrink-swell (e.g., expansion). Therefore, impacts related to expansive soil would be less than significant.
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. The Project site is located in an urbanized area, where wastewater infrastructure is currently in place. Proposed Project construction would connect to existing sewer lines that serve the Project site and would not use septic tanks or alternative waste disposal systems. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater and there would be no impacts.
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact could occur if grading or excavation activities associated with the proposed Project were to disturb unique paleontological resources or geologic features that presently exist within the Project site. Plant and animal fossils are typically found within sedimentary rock deposits. Most of the City consists of igneous and metamorphic rock, and the local area is not known to contain paleontological resources. The Project site contains alluvium surficial sediments including unconsolidated floodplain deposits of silt, sand, and gravel.89 In addition, the South Glendale Community Plan area is underlain by Holocene era sediments composed of fine-grained sands, silts, and clays. The Holocene deposits of Quaternary Alluvium rock types vary in the possibility of containing fossils. The discovery of a paleontological resource within Holocene Alluvium is unlikely; however, the discovery of a resource would likely be significant in scientific integrity. A small portion of the west central area of the proposed South Glendale Community Plan area is underlain by Monterey formation, which has high potential to produce paleontological resources, specifically vertebrate species.90
The Project site has already been subject to extensive disruption and development. Any superficial paleontological resources that may have existed at one time on the Project site have likely been previously unearthed by past development activities.

Nonetheless, as the proposed Project includes excavation and grading for the four () level subterranean parking garage at a depth of approximately 43 feet below grade, paleontological resources may possibly exist at deep levels and could be unearthed with implementation of the proposed Project.

As the proposed Project would include construction of a four-level, subterranean parking garage, there 89 General Plan, Safety Element, Geologic Hazards,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/safety-element. Accessed August 2021. 90 South Glendale Community Plan EIR, Population and Housing, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/communityplans/sgcp-eir. Accessed August 2021. 390 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-78 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 is a possibility that during earthmoving activities, a previously unknown paleontological resource could be identified and impacts would be potentially significant. The proposed Project would implement South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-5 and MM PALEO-1 to reduce impacts should a previously unknown paleontological resource be identified. South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-5 states that the City shall evaluate the sensitivity of the Project site for paleontological resources to determine if a qualified paleontologist would be necessary to evaluate the proposed Project and provide recommendations. Mitigation measure MM PALEO-1 requires a qualified paleontologist to observe grading activities in excavations and establish procedures for paleontological resources. With implementation of mitigation measures South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-5 and MM PALEO-1, impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
Geotechnical hazards are site specific and there is little, if any, cumulative geological relationship between the proposed Project and any of the related projects. Similar to the proposed Project, potential impacts related to geology and soils would be assessed on a case-by-case basis and, if necessary, the applicants of the related projects would be required to implement the appropriate mitigation measures.

Furthermore, the analysis of the proposed Project’s geology and soils impacts concluded that, through the implementation of the regulatory compliance measures recommended above and implementation of SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR PMM GEO-1 and project specific Mitigation Measure MM-PALEO1, proposed Project impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, the proposed Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any potential cumulative impacts, and cumulative geology, soil, and paleontological resources impacts would be less than significant.

The following mitigation measures from prior applicable EIRs incorporated into the proposed Project will reduce impacts of the proposed Project to less than significant.

SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

PMM GEO-1 In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to historical resources, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Consistent with the CBC and local regulatory agencies with oversight of development associated with the Plan, ensure that site-specific geotechnical investigations conducted by a qualified geotechnical expert are conducted to ascertain soil types prior to preparation of project designs. These investigations can and should identify 391 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-79 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 areas of potential failure and recommend remedial geotechnical measures to eliminate any problems.
b) Consistent with the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for projects over one acre in size, obtain coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (General Construction Permit) issued by the SWRCB and prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and submit the plan for review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). At a minimum, the SWPPP should include a description of construction materials, practices, and equipment storage and maintenance; a list of pollutants likely to contact stormwater; site-specific erosion and sedimentation control practices; a list of provisions to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to stormwater; best management practices (BMPs); and an inspection and monitoring program.
c) Consistent with the requirements of the SWRCB and local regulatory agencies with oversight of development associated with the Plan, ensure that project designs provide adequate slope drainage and appropriate landscaping to minimize the occurrence of slope instability and erosion. Design features should include measures to reduce erosion caused by storm water. Road cuts should be designed to maximize the potential for revegetation.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
MM 4.4-5 For future individual projects that require ground disturbance, the City shall evaluate the sensitivity of the Project site for paleontological resources. If deemed necessary, at the applicant’s expense the City shall retain a qualified paleontologist (following Secretary of Interior standards) to evaluate the project and provide recommendations regarding additional work, potentially including testing or construction monitoring throughout the length of ground disturbance in paleontologically sensitive areas.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No geology and soils mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
MM PALEO-1: A qualified paleontologist shall observe grading activities in excavations that may impact Holocene Alluvium or the Monterey Formation in order to salvage and catalogue fossils.

The Paleontologist shall establish procedures for paleontological resources surveillance and would establish, in cooperation with the contractor, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the fossils. If paleontological resources are found to be significant, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the contractor, that ensure proper exploration and/or salvage.

Impacts After Mitigation
The mitigation measures identified above will reduce impacts to less than significant. 392 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-80 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activity impacts are relatively short in duration, and they contribute a relatively small portion of the total lifetime GHG emissions of a project.

Due to the complex physical, chemical, and atmospheric mechanisms involved in global climate change, no basis exists for concluding that the proposed Project’s very small and essentially temporary (primarily from construction) increase in emissions could cause a measurable increase in global GHG emissions necessary to force global climate change. In addition, GHG emissions-reduction measures for construction equipment are relatively limited.91 Therefore, in its Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Thresholds,92 the SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30-year project lifetime so that GHG reduction measures will address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG reduction strategies. That method is used in this analysis.

GHG emissions were quantified from construction and operation of the proposed Project using SCAQMD’s CalEEMod model. CalEEMod is based on outputs from the CARB off-road emissions model (OFFROAD) and the CARB on-road vehicle emissions model (EMFAC), which are emissions estimation models developed by CARB and used to calculate emissions from construction activities, including on- and off-road vehicles (refer to Appendix A for construction equipment inventory list).

The forecasting of construction-related GHG emissions requires assumptions regarding the timing of construction as the emission factors for some of the proposed Project’s construction-related GHG emission sources decline over time. As shown in Table 5.8-1: Construction GHG Emissions, total construction emissions would be 2,266 MTCO2e. One-time, short-term emissions are converted to average annual emissions by amortizing them over the service life of a building. For buildings in general, it is 91 SCAQMD, Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, October 2008.
92 SCAQMD, Greenhouse Gases (GHG), Accessed June 2020, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rulescompliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/ghg-significance-thresholds/page/2. 393 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-81 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 reasonable to look at a 30-year time frame because this is a typical interval before a new building requires its first major renovation.93 As shown in Table 5.8-1, when amortized over an average 30-year Project lifetime, average annual construction emissions from the proposed Project would be 76 MTCO2e per year.

TABLE 5.8-1

CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Construction Phase MTCO2e/Year
2022 281
2023 738
2024 877
2025 370
Overall Total 2,266
30-Year Annual Amortized Rate 76
Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCO2e = metric tons of CO2 Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations
Operation
Emissions from mobile and area sources and indirect emissions from energy and water use, wastewater, as well as waste management would occur every year after full development of the uses allowed by the proposed Project. This section addresses operational GHG emissions.

Area Sources
The area source GHG emissions included in this analysis result primarily from natural gas fireplaces with additional emissions from landscaping-related fuel combustion sources, such as lawn mowers and leaf blowers. GHG emission due to natural gas combustion in buildings other than from fireplaces are excluded from area sources since they are included in the emissions associated with building energy use.

The GHG emissions for the proposed Project were calculated using CalEEMod. CalEEMod defaults were used for landscape maintenance emissions. Area source emissions are shown in Table 5.8-2: Area Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in Table 5.8-2, proposed Project emissions would result in approximately 65 MTCO2e per year from area sources.
93 International Energy Agency (IEA), Energy Efficiency Requirements in Building Codes, Energy Efficiency Policies for New Buildings, IEA Information Paper (2008).
394 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-82 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.8-2

AREA SOURCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Source
Unmitigated
MTCO2e per year
Hearth 60
Landscaping 5
Total 65
Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study Note: Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations Energy Sources
GHGs are emitted as a result of activities in buildings when electricity and natural gas are used as energy sources. Combustion of any type of fuel emits CO2 and other GHGs directly into the atmosphere; when this occurs in a building, it is a direct emission source associated with that building. GHGs are also emitted during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels. When electricity is used in a building, the electricity generation typically takes place off-site at the power plant; electricity use in a building generally causes emission in an indirect manner.

Estimated emissions from the combustion of natural gas and other fuels from the implementation of the proposed Project are calculated using the CalEEMod emissions inventory model, which multiplies an estimate of the energy usage by applicable emissions factors chosen by the utility company. GHG emissions from electricity use are directly dependent on the electricity utility provider. In this case, GHG intensity factors for GWP were selected in CalEEMod. Energy use in buildings is divided into energy consumed by the built environment and energy consumed by uses that are independent of the construction of the building, such as plug-in appliances. CalEEMod calculates energy use from systems covered by Title 24 (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC] system, water heating system, and lighting system); energy use from lighting; and energy use from office equipment, appliances, plugins, and other sources not covered by Title 24 or lighting.

Energy source emissions are shown in Table 5.8-3: Energy Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

TABLE 5.8-3

ENERGY SOURCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Land Use
Electricity Natural Gas
Unmitigated
MTCO2e per year
Unmitigated
MTCO2e per year
Apartments 488 170
Parking 471 0
Total 960 170
Total Energy Emissions 1,129
Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study Note: Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations 395 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-83 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 As shown in Table 5.8-3, the proposed Project would forecast to generate 960 MTCO2e per year from electricity consumption and 170 MTCO2e per year from natural gas consumption. Therefore, the total energy source emissions for the proposed Project would forecast to be 1,129 MTCO2e per year.

Mobile Sources Emissions
Vehicle trips generated by growth within the Project site vicinity would result in operational emissions through the combustion of fossil fuels. O2 emissions were determined based on the proposed Project’s daily trips. The vehicle miles travelled (VMT) takes into account internal and external trips. The proposed Project would add up to 1,247 daily trips as shown in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix E).94 As discussed in Section 3.0 of this SCEA and Section 5.1, above, the Project site is located within onehalf mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA (refer to Section 3.0 for additional discussion on proposed Project Transit Priority Project designation). There are also numerous bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site as shown in Figure 3.0-5: Existing Transit Routes in Project Site Vicinity.

As shown in Table 5.8-4: Mobile Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project’s mobile source emissions would result in 1,374 MTCO2e per year.

TABLE 5.8-4

MOBILE SOURCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Source
Unmitigated
MTCO2e per year
Mobile (trips) 1,374
Total 1,374
Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study Note: Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations Solid Waste Emissions
Solid waste generation and associated emissions are calculated based on the square footage of the proposed Project, using default data found in CalEEMod for the proposed land uses. Disposal of organic waste in landfills can lead to the generation of CH4, a potent GHG. By generating solid waste, the proposed Project would contribute to the emission of fugitive CH4 from landfills, as well as CO2 and N2O from the operation of trash collection vehicles. As shown in Table 5.8-5: Solid Waste Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions, GHG emissions resulting from solid waste would forecast to be 68 MTCO2e per year.

TABLE 5.8-5

SOLID WASTE SOURCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Land Use
Unmitigated
MTCO2e per year
Apartments 68
Total 68
Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study Note: Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations 94 Proposed apartments would generate 1,313 trips including 66 transit trips, for a total of 1,247 driveway trips. 396 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-84 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Water Consumption and Wastewater Emissions
California’s water conveyance system is energy intensive, with electricity used to pump and treat water.

The proposed Project will result in indirect GHG emissions due to water consumption and wastewater generation. Water consumption and wastewater generation, and their associated emissions, are calculated based on the square footage of the proposed Project, using CalEEMod data. As shown in Table

5.8-6: Water Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed Project’s water and wastewater GHG emissions would forecast to be 192 MTCO2e per year.

TABLE 5.8-6

WATER SOURCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Land Use
Unmitigated
MTCO2e per year
Apartments 192
Total 192
Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study Note: Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations Total Emissions
As shown in Table 5.8-7: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed Project is forecasted to generate a total of 2,773 MTCO2e per year. The proposed Project would incorporate energy and water efficiency design features to enhance efficiency in all aspects of the buildings’ life cycle based on the latest CALGreen and Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency standards, as amended by the City, for new residential construction.

TABLE 5.8-7

OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Source
Unmitigated
MTCO2e per year
Construction (amortized) 76
Area 65
Energy 1,129
Mobile 1,374
Waste 68
Water 192
Total 2,904
Existing 131
Net Total 2,773
Refer to Appendix A: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study Abbreviation: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

Note: Totals may not add up exactly due to rounding in the modeling calculations Emissions do not include existing Chase Building to remain.

In the absence of any adopted, numeric threshold, this analysis evaluates the significance of the proposed Project’s potential GHG emissions consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.4(b)(2). As such, a significant impact would occur if the proposed Project conflicted with the applicable policies and/or 397 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-85 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 regulations outlined in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the City’s Greener Glendale Plan, and the City’s South Glendale Community Plan EIR. As shown under response to Question 5.8(b), below, the proposed Project would not conflict with any of the applicable policies and/or regulations outlined in these plans. As such, impacts related to direct and indirect emissions of greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant.

There are no federal, State, or local quantitative adopted thresholds of significance for addressing a project’s GHG emissions. In the absence of any adopted, numeric threshold, this analysis evaluates the significance of a project by considering whether the proposed Project conflicts with applicable regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction of mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. The following analysis describes the extent the proposed Project complies with the regulations and policies outlined in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the City’s Greener Glendale Plan, and the City’s South Glendale Community Plan EIR.

Consistency with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS identifies strategies and investments to support expanded housing choices for all income levels in areas with a range of transportation choices. Conclusions within the document stated that a comprehensive approach is needed in order to identify housing opportunities within Priority Growth Areas (PGAs) such as job centers, TPAs, and HQTAs. These developments would offer alternative modes of transportation which would reduce VMT’s and GHG emissions associated with vehicles.

As discussed in Section 3.0 of this SCEA and Section 5.1, above, the Project site is located within onehalf mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA (refer to Section 3.0 for additional discussion on proposed Project Transit Priority Project designation). There are also numerous bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site as shown in Figure 3.0-5: Existing Transit Routes in Project Site Vicinity.

The Project site is within the Gateway District which includes mainly high-rise, commercial development with some residential uses and is focused on furthering the number of residential buildings in the area to enhance the character and provide more opportunities for close access to downtown via walking, bicycling, and public transportation. These features would offer alternative modes of transportation and would reduce VMT’s, thereby reducing GHG emissions.

For these reasons, the proposed Project would not conflict with SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. 398 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-86 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Consistency with Greener Glendale Plan
In March 2012, the City completed the Greener Glendale Plan,95 consisting of the Greener Glendale 2010 Report, the Greener Glendale Plan for Municipal Operations, and the Greener Glendale Plan for Community Activities. The Greener Glendale Plan incorporates twelve (12) measures in addition to the mandatory Green Building Standards for new construction projects. These measures went into effect on July 7, 2011. The twelve (12) measures and their applicability to the proposed Project are provided in Table 5.8-7: Project Consistency with Greener Glendale Plan. These measures would be imposed by condition(s) of approval (COA) upon approval of the proposed Project. By complying with the twelve (12) measures listed in Table 5.8-8, the proposed Project would be consistent with the Greener Glendale Plan.

TABLE 5.8-8

PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH GREENER GLENDALE PLAN
Measure Applicability

1. Expand applicability of green building
standards to residential buildings over
3-stories.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would include the
development of a 24-story multi-family residential building and would be required to comply with the green building standard.

2. Exceed California Energy Code
requirements by 15 percent.

No Conflict. The proposed Project’s new residential building would reduce consumption of electricity and natural gas by exceeding the California Energy Code requirements by 15 percent as required by Glendale’s building codes.

3. Reduce baseline water usage by 20
percent.

No Conflict. The proposed residential building would utilize water-conserving fixtures such as irrigation control, low-flow faucets and shower heads and any other combination of
fixtures that demonstrate an aggregate savings of at least 20 percent when compared to nonwater-conserving fixtures.

4. A radian roof barrier shall be installed. No Conflict. The proposed Project’s new residential building would install a radian roof barrier which reduces the amount of heat that enters through the building’s roof.

5. Gas fired tankless water heaters shall
have an energy factor of at least 0.80.

No Conflict. The proposed residential building would install high efficiency water heaters with an identified “energy factor” of at least 0.80. Less natural gas would be consumed to heat water for showers, washing dishes, laundry, etc.

6. Gas-fired storage-tank type water
heaters shall have an energy factor of
at 0.61.

No Conflict. The proposed Project’s new residential building would install high efficiency storage-type water heater that would consume less natural gas.

7. Buildings shall be “solar ready”. No Conflict. The proposed Project would include photovoltaic arrays on the roof (6,856 square feet in area) of the new residential building. 242 solar panels at 300 watts each would be installed, producing approximately 220,825 kilowatt-hours annually.

8. At least 20 percent of certain paved
areas in residential projects shall be
permeable.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would integrate bricks, paving stones, or other permeable material into the pavement design to achieve at the minimum 20 percent permeability of areas not covered by buildings. A total of approximately 2,721 95 City of Glendale, Greener Glendale, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/managementservices/office-of-sustainability/greener-glendale, accessed August 2021. 399 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-87 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.8-8

PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH GREENER GLENDALE PLAN
Measure Applicability
square feet of landscaping (1,595 square feet of publicly accessible landscape area and 1,126 square feet of residential common landscape area) would be provided on Level 1.

9. Residential gas-fired heating
equipment shall be high efficiency
units.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would install high efficiency gas fired heating equipment with a minimum annual fuel
utilization ration (AFUE) of 0.90 or higher within the new residential building.96

10. Residential air conditioning equipment
shall be high-efficiency units.

No Conflict. The proposed Project’s new residential building would install air conditioning equipment that has a seasonal energy efficiency ratio higher than 13.0 and energy efficiency ratio of at least 11.5, which would reduce cooling costs by 30 percent.97

11. Natural light ventilation in residential
habitable room shall be increased.

No Conflict. The new residential building would be designed to incorporate natural light equal to at least 10 percent of the floor area and would incorporate ventilation equal to at least 5 percent of the floor area in each habitable room. This would be achieved by enlarged windows and doors to increase the available natural light and ventilation.

12. New single-family dwellings with floor
area greater than 5,000 square feet
shall be required to meet CALGreen
Tier 1.

No Conflict. The proposed Project includes a multi-family residential development and this measure does not apply.

Source: City of Glendale, Greener Glendale, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/managementservices/office-of-sustainability/greener-glendale, accessed August 2021.

Consistency with South Glendale Community Plan EIR
Policy GHG-3 of the South Glendale Community Plan EIR requires the City to reduce GHG emissions from new development by discouraging auto-dependent sprawl and dependence on the private automobile; promoting water conservation and recycling; promoting development that is compact, mixed use, pedestrian friendly, and transit oriented; and promoting energy-efficient building design and site planning. As mentioned previously and in further detail in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the proposed Project is located within a high-quality transit corridor and is within a TPA. Furthermore, the proposed Project is committed to meeting the requirements of the CALGreen Code by incorporating strategies such as lowflow toilets, low-flow faucets and other energy and resource conservation measures. The proposed 96 On November 4, 2021, the Sustainability Commission of the City approved a motion (Motion 5a) to recommend the City Council hire a consultant to assist in the preparation of reach code(s) that include building electrification. No reach codes have been adopted as of this SCEA that would be applicable to the proposed Project. For this reason, the proposed Project would install high efficiency gas fired heating equipment consistent with the Greener Glendale Plan.
97 It is understood GWP has signed a four-year contract to deploy a smart thermostat demand response program for both residential and commercial GWP electric customers. Participation in this program is voluntary with customers having the option to receive a rebate on a smart thermostat and participate in “demand response.” Demand response means responding to high energy demands through customer reductions in energy usage.

Should the proposed Project or its future residents volunteer for this program, the proposed Project would continue to be consistent with the Greener Glendale Plan as the air conditioning equipment proposed would reduce cooling costs by 30 percent.
400 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-88 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Project would comply with applicable energy, water, and waste efficiency measures specified in the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the policies mentioned in the South Glendale Community Plan EIR.

For the reasons described above, the proposed Project would be consistent with State-applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, impacts would not be considered significant.

Cumulative Impacts
To achieve Statewide goals, CARB is in the process of establishing and implementing regulations to reduce Statewide GHG emissions. Currently, there is no generally accepted methodology that exists to determine whether GHG emissions associated with a specific project represent new emissions or existing and/or displaced emissions. Therefore, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064h(3), this analysis has determined that the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emission and global climate change would be less than significant if the proposed Project is consistent with the applicable regulatory plans and polices to reduce GHG emissions. Accordingly, the analysis above considered the potential for the proposed Project to contribute to the cumulative impact of global climate change. As stated above, with compliance of regulatory measures and implementation of CALGreen Building Standards, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable plans including SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the City’s Greener Glendale Plan, and the City’s South Glendale Community Plan EIR. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant during construction and operation.

The following mitigation measures from prior applicable EIRs incorporated into the proposed Project will further reduce the less than significant impacts of the proposed Project.

SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No GHG mitigation measures were identified.
401 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-89 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
The following policies shall be incorporated into the SGCP to reduce GHG emissions associated with future development projects implemented under the proposed SGCP:

Policy GHG-2 The City shall require any new development proposals within the SGCP to demonstrate consistency with an applicable adopted Climate Action Plan, or other applicable thresholds that demonstrate how the development would not conflict with the City of Glendale’s GHG reduction targets. Specific GHG reduction requirements for individual development applications shall be determined at the time of discretionary approval and in accordance with all applicable local (e.g., City, SCAMQD) and State GHG emissions targets.

Policy GHG-3 The City shall reduce GHG emissions from new development by discouraging autodependent sprawl and dependence on the private automobile; promoting water conservation and recycling; promoting development that is compact, mixed use, pedestrian friendly, and transit oriented; promoting energy-efficient building design and site planning; improving the jobs/housing ratio in each community; and other methods of reducing emissions.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No GHG mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-90 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment caused in whole or in
part from the project’s exacerbation of existing
environmental conditions?
e. For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the Project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would involve the use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations or would have the potential to generate toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions that could adversely affect sensitive receptors. The State of California defines hazardous materials as substances that are toxic, ignitable, or flammable, reactive, and/or corrosive. The State also defines an extremely hazardous material as a substance that shows high 403 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-91 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 acute or chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity (causes cancer), bio accumulative properties (accumulates in the body’s tissues), persistence in the environment, or water reactivity.98 Construction
The proposed Project includes the demolition of the existing two-story office building at 5,297 square feet of floor area and the associated parking structure on the eastern portion as well as the surface parking lot on the southwestern portion of the Project site to construct a new 24-story residential building with four levels of subterranean parking and two levels of above ground parking. The existing Chase Building would remain on site and not be altered as a result of the proposed Project. Construction of the proposed Project would involve the routine handling of small quantities of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and other petroleum-based products used to operate and maintain construction equipment and vehicles on the Project site. This handling of hazardous materials would be a temporary activity and coincide with the short-term construction phase of the proposed Project. The transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during the construction and operation of the proposed Project would be conducted in accordance with applicable State and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22.

Through compliance with these regulatory requirements, no significant hazards to the public or environment would result in connection with the construction of the proposed Project.

Operation
The proposed Project involves operation of a new 24-story residential building with 294 units, four (4) levels of subterranean parking and two (2) levels of above ground parking. The types and amounts of hazardous materials that would be used during operation of the proposed Project would be typical of those in a residential project (e.g., cleaning solvents, pesticides for landscaping, painting supplies). In other words, the proposed Project generally would not produce significant amounts of hazardous waste, use or transport hazardous waste beyond those materials typically used in a residential development. All potentially hazardous materials would be used and stored in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and handled in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations, including but not limited to those set forth by the Federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Acts.

Additionally, the Glendale Fire Department (GFD) and Los Angeles County have the authority to perform inspections and enforce State and federal laws governing the storage, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. As such, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant.
98 California Code of Regulations, Title 22.
404 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-92 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would involve the use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations or would have the potential to generate toxic or otherwise hazardous emissions that could adversely affect sensitive receptors.

As discussed above, compliance with federal, State, and local laws and regulations relating to transport, storage, disposal, and sale of hazardous materials would minimize any potential for accidental release or upset of hazardous materials. The proposed Project would require demolition of the existing two-story office building and the associated parking structure on the eastern portion as well as the surface parking lot on the southwestern portion of the Project site. The existing Chase Building would remain on site and not be altered as a result of the proposed Project. Grading and excavation for the four level subterranean parking garage at a depth of approximately 43 feet below grade would be required as well as the export of approximately 76,000 cubic yards of soil. The soil on-site is not contaminated and would not pose a risk of releasing hazardous materials into the environment.99 Additionally, there are no identified underground storage tanks (UST) listed at the Project site.100 Additionally, if any building materials containing asbestos or lead paint are present in the existing buildings, these will be removed or otherwise disturbed during the demolition of these buildings as part of the proposed Project. These materials will be removed and disposed of in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 – Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities.101 This rule provides specific work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing material (ACM). The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste materials. Therefore, any potential hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials would have a less than significant impact during proposed Project implementation.

During the operation of the proposed Project, no hazardous materials other than modest amounts of typical cleaning supplies and solvents used for housekeeping and janitorial purposes would routinely be transported to the Project site. However, it is expected that all potentially hazardous materials would 99 California Department of Toxic Substance Control, EnviroStor, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

Accessed August 2021.
100 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Underground Storage Tank (UST) Finder, https://www.epa.gov/ust/ust-finder. Accessed August 2021. 101 SCAQMD Rule 1403. Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xiv/rule-1403.pdf. Accessed August 2021. 405 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-93 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and handled in compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant. c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest school to the Project site is the Incarnation Parish School located approximately 0.27 miles north of the Project site. The proposed Project would not include a use that would handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. As discussed in Section 5.3: Air Quality, and shown in Table 5.3-4, emissions would not exceed the localized significance thresholds for operation. Localized operational impacts to sensitive receptors located around the Project site would be less than significant. As the proposed Project would not emit or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste, within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, impacts would be less than significant.
d. Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would exacerbate the current environmental conditions so as to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a Project site is included on any Statewide list and poses an environmental hazard to surrounding sensitive uses. California Government Code Section 66962.5 requires various State agencies including but not limited to, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), to compile list of hazardous waste disposal facilities, unauthorized releases from underground storage tanks, contaminated drinking water wells and solid waste facilities where there is known migration of hazardous waste and submit such information to the Secretary for Environmental Protection on at least an annual basis.102 A geographical search for hazardous materials sites, as defined in Government Code Section 66962.5, was conducted based on a review of these databases. The Project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5.103,104 According to Envirostor, there is only one 102 These lists include, but are not limited to the ‘EnviroStor’ database (https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/) and Geotracker list (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/)mainatained by DTSC and SWRCB respectively. 103 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, EnviroStor, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

Accessed August 2021.
104 State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed August 2021.
406 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-94 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 site (Palace Cleaner’s Glendale) listed as “Active” within one mile of the Project site located at 201 South Glendale Avenue, approximately 0.84 miles southeast of the Project site. This site has been in remediation since 2014 and as of 2018 is still continuing such remediation measures. As such, the Project site is not located in an area with current significant hazardous materials sites and therefore would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Impacts would be less than significant. e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area? No Impact. A significant project-related impact may occur if the proposed Project were placed within a public airport land use plan area, or within two miles of a public airport, and subject to a safety hazard.

The nearest public or private airport/airstrip to the Project site is Hollywood Burbank Airport located approximately 6.0 miles northwest of the Project site. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan.105 As such, the Project site is not located within an airport hazard area. The existing Chase Building would remain on site and not be altered as a result of the proposed Project. In addition, given that the Project site is not with two (2) miles of a public airport or public use airport, construction of the proposed Project would not have the potential to result in a safety hazard or excessive noise.

Therefore, no impact would occur.
f. Would the project impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The City’s General Plan Safety Element addresses the disaster mitigation plan for the City, including appropriate hazard management, effective emergency preparedness and response, and education to the public about hazards in their area.

Construction
The Project site is located north of Doran Street on the east side of Brand Boulevard, immediately south of SR-134. According to the Safety Element, Brand Boulevard is a designated City Disaster Response Route which is located adjacent to the Project site to the west.106 However, the proposed Project does not involve changes to the existing street network or to existing emergency response plans, so the City’s emergency access plan would not be altered. During construction, the construction contractor is required 105 County of Los Angeles, L.A. County’s Airport Land Use Commission, https://lacounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=acf2e87194a54af9b266bf07547f240a.

Accessed August 2021.
106 City of Glendale General Plan, Safety Element, Plate P-3, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/safety-element. Accessed August 2021. 407 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-95 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 to notify the GPD and GFD of construction activities that would impede movement (such as movement of equipment and temporary lane closures) along adjacent streets to allow for these first emergency response teams to reroute traffic to an alternative route, if needed.107 Further, during construction, the Applicant would be required to obtain any necessary street use permits from the City of Glendale Public Works Department for all work occurring within the public right-of-way. Implementation of these requirements would be incorporated as a typical condition of approval.

Operation
Upon operation of the proposed Project, vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways along the west side of Maryland Avenue. The Northerly Maryland Avenue driveways on-site would provide access to the two above-grade levels of the on-site parking garage only. The Southerly Maryland Avenue driveway on-site would provide access to the four subterranean levels of the on-site parking garage. The proposed Project driveways are proposed to accommodate full vehicular access (i.e., left-turn and right-turn ingress and egress turning movements). Operation of the proposed Project would not impair or interfere with Brand Boulevard.

With these requirements, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
No Impact. The Project site is not located in a designated wildland area that may contain substantial forest fire risks or hazards. As delineated on the State Responsibility Area Map, the proposed Project is also not located in a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).108 The City’s General Plan Safety Element also indicates that the Project site is not located within an area of High Fire Hazard.109 As such, no impacts would occur with respect to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires as a result of the proposed Project.

Cumulative Impacts
The Project and related projects would be subject to the same regulatory requirements. As stated previously, the Project site does not contain any recognized environmental conditions and the Project 107 City Municipal Code, Ch. 12.12, Sec. 12.12.040.
108 California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, State Responsibility Area Viewer, https://bof.fire.ca.gov/projects-and-programs/state-responsibility-area-viewer. Accessed August 2021. 109 City General Plan, Safety Element, Ch. 4, Plate 4-2. 408 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-96 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 would not result in any significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. As such, the Project would not have a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts.

Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No hazards and hazardous materials mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
No hazards and hazardous materials mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No hazards and hazardous materials mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
No prior mitigation measures were identified, and no project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project.
409 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-97 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or
off-site?
ii Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. For the purpose of this specific threshold, a significant impact may occur if the project would discharge water that does not meet the quality standards of local agencies that regulate surface water quality and water discharge into stormwater drainage systems. Significant impacts would also occur if a project does not comply with all applicable regulations with regard to surface water quality as governed by the SWRCB through its nine Regional Boards. The Project site lies within the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB).

Applicable regulations include compliance with NPDES permitting system and the low impact 410 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-98 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 development requirements, which reduces potential water quality impacts during the construction and operation of a project.

Construction
Grading activities associated with construction may temporarily increase the number of suspended solids from surface water flows from the Project site during a concurrent storm event due to sheet erosion of exposed soil. As stated in the GMC, construction projects resulting in the disturbance of one acre or more requires a NPDES General Construction permit.110 The applicant is required to satisfy all applicable requirements of Chapter 13.29, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) of the GMC, at the time of construction to the satisfaction of the City of Glendale Public Works Department. These requirements include preparation of a SWPPP containing structural treatment and source control measures appropriate and applicable to the proposed Project. The SWPPP will incorporate best management practices (BMPs) by requiring controls of pollutant discharges that utilize best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) to reduce pollutants. Examples of BAT/BCT that may be implemented during site grading and construction of the proposed Project could include straw hay bales, straw bale inlet filters, filter barriers, and silt fences. Preparation of the SWPPP would be incorporated as a condition of approval. Implementation of BMPs such as fences, sandbag barriers, and/or stabilization of the construction entrance/exit would ensure that Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) water quality standards are met during construction activities of the proposed Project. As such, with implementation of BMPs, impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, with implementation of SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR PMM GEO-1, no significant impact during construction would occur.

Operation
The proposed Project would increase the intensity of activities on the site and would likely result in an increase in typical urban pollutants generated by motor vehicle use on roadways and parking areas adjacent to the Project site, and the maintenance and operation of landscaped areas. Stormwater quality is generally affected by the length of time since the last rainfall, rainfall intensity, urban uses of the area and quantity of transported sediment. Typical urban water quality pollutants usually result from motor vehicle operations; oil and grease residues; fertilizer/pesticide uses; human/animal littering; careless 110 City’s Municipal Code, Ch. 13, Sec. 13.42.090.
411 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-99 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 material storage; and poor handling and property management. The majority of pollutant loads are usually washed away during the first flush of the storm occurring after the dry-season period.

The proposed Project would meet the City’s requirements for Low Impact Development (LID) standards.

Under Title 13 Chapter 13.43 of the GMC, the City outlines the LID standards for designated development projects, of which the proposed Project qualifies as a “Redevelopment Project” as it is a land disturbing activity that results in the replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area on an already developed site. The City’s LID standards consist of the following: (1) Minimize the percentage of impervious surfaces by minimizing soil compaction during construction, designing projects to minimize the amount of impervious area, and employing LID design principles to mimic hydrology through infiltration, evapotranspiration and rainfall harvest and use; (2) Prevent pollutants from leeching into stormwater; and (3) Minimize impacts to existing hydrologic systems.111 To meet these standards, development projects such as the proposed Project that have been designated applicable under the Municipal Code, shall retain one hundred (100) percent of the stormwater quality design volume (“SWQDv”) on-site, through infiltration, evapotranspiration, rainfall harvest and use, or a combination thereof. If any of these methods are seen to be infeasible for the operation of the proposed Project, the LID standards require alternatives be used to capture as much of the runoff as possible.

The potential increase in pollutant loads generated by the proposed Project would have the potential to degrade water quality. Therefore, the proposed Project would be required to obtain a NPDES permit under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Waste discharges include discharges of stormwater and construction surface water runoff from a project. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to submit an SUSMP to mitigate urban stormwater runoff. The LID standards as described above would be implemented into the proposed Project’s design to capture and filter pollutants from the proposed Project during operation. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would comply with water quality standards or waste discharge requirements creating a less than significant effect. b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A project could have a significant impact on groundwater level if it would change potable water levels sufficiently to (a) reduce the ability of a water utility to use the groundwater basin for public water supplies, conjunctive use purposes, storage of imported water, summer/winter peaking, or respond to emergencies and drought; (b) reduce yields of adjacent wells or well fields (public or private); (c) adversely change the rate or direction of flow of groundwater; or (d) result in demonstrable and sustained reduction in groundwater recharge capacity. 111 GMC, Title 13, Ch. 13.43, Sec. 13.43.040.
412 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-100 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 The Project site does not serve as a primary area of groundwater recharge within the San Fernando or Verdugo Basin, which are both located within the City. The Project site is generally impervious with the exception of some portions of landscaping along the public rights-of-way (ROW). As such, surface water runoff from the Project site is directed to adjacent existing storm drains and generally does not percolate into the groundwater table beneath the Project site. During construction, excavation and grading for the four level subterranean parking garage would be conducted at a depth of approximately 43 feet below grade, which could interfere with groundwater. The proposed Project would implement SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR PMM GEO-1 which would require site-specific geotechnical investigations conducted by a qualified geotechnical expert are conducted. The proposed Project would comply with the recommendations provided in the geotechnical investigation related to groundwater. Therefore, with implementation of SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR PMM GEO-1, no significant impact during construction would occur.

Implementation of the proposed Project would result in additional development that could indirectly require an increased use of groundwater through the provision of potable water by GWP. Pervious surfaces on the Project site would be the total of approximately 2,721 square feet of landscape area (1,595 square feet of publicly accessible landscape area and 1,126 square feet of residential common landscape area) provided on Level 1. As discussed in Section 5.19: Utilities and Services Systems, below, the proposed Project’s water demand is within water projections. Groundwater to be consumed by the proposed Project would be utilized according to current plans and projections of the GWP groundwater supplies. As such, operation of the proposed Project would not significantly interfere with the recharge of local groundwater or deplete the groundwater supplies. Consequently, impacts related to groundwater extraction and recharge will be less than significant.
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if the proposed Project substantially altered the drainage pattern of the site or an existing stream or river, so that substantial erosion or siltation would result on-or off-site.

The Project site is located in an urbanized area of the City, and no streams or river courses are located on or within the proposed Project vicinity that could be affected by the construction or operation of the proposed Project in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. During construction, the proposed Project would be required to implement a SWPPP, in accordance with the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity and Land 413 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-101 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Disturbance Activities. The SWPPP would include BMPs and erosion control measures. The SWPPP would be subject to review and approval by the City for compliance with the City’s LID BMPs.112 In addition, the GMC Chapter 30.31.010, includes requirements for projects that would be subject to the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). The MWELO was created by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) as a model for local agencies to enforce minimum standards in landscape design, construction, and management.113 It achieves this through specific requirements related to soil, plants, irrigation, stormwater, and non-potable water supplies. It sets an upper limit for the water budgets of landscape projects, thereby driving water-efficiency through the thoughtful selection of climate-appropriate plants, organic soil amendments, water-saving irrigation devices, and the use of alternative water supplies. The DWR requires a Landscape Design Plan and an Irrigation Design Plan to be developed for residential landscape projects in order to ensure that the applicant and/or designer(s) understand the intent of the MWELO and the sustainable principles included therein. With preparation of the required Landscape Design Plan and Irrigation Design Plan, implementation of the proposed Project would therefore not alter the existing drainage pattern so as to result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site.
ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project results in increased runoff volumes during construction or operation of the project that would result in flooding conditions affecting the Project site or nearby properties.

Construction
Consistent with the GMC stating that all new developments involving one acre or greater of disturbed area and adding more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, the proposed Project shall implement the LID requirements per Code. These requirements include infiltration and drainage techniques to reduce the amount of runoff during construction.114 The implementation of the required SWPPP, as discussed above, including BMPs designed to control erosion during construction would also control storm runoff generated during construction. Construction of the proposed Project would not, therefore, result in flooding on or off the site.
112 City’s Municipal Code, Ch. 13.43, Sec. 13.43.040.
113 California State Department of Water Resources, Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO), https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Urban-Water-Use-Efficiency/Model-WaterEfficient-Landscape-Ordinance. Accessed August 2021. 114 City Municipal Code, Ch. 13.43, Sec. 13.43.040.
414 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-102 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Operation
The LID standards as described above would be implemented into the proposed Project’s design to capture and filter pollutants from the proposed Project during operation. The proposed Project would also be required to prepare a SWPPP containing structural treatment and source control measures appropriate and applicable to the proposed Project. A NPDES permit under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act would also be obtained for the proposed Project. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to submit an SUSMP to mitigate urban stormwater runoff. The Project site is served by an existing storm water collection and conveyance system. All runoff with implementation of the proposed Project would continue to be conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations around the Project site. As a result, the proposed Project would not require any substantial changes to the existing drainage pattern of the site or the area. Consequently, impacts would be less than significant. iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if the proposed Project would increase the volume of stormwater runoff to a level that exceeds the capacity of the storm drain system serving the Project site, or if the proposed Project would introduce substantial new sources of polluted runoff.

Construction activities such as earth moving, maintenance of construction equipment, handling of construction materials, and dewatering can contribute to pollutant loading in stormwater runoff.

However, as previously discussed, the proposed Project applicant would prepare and implement the required SWPPP including BMPs that would include but not be limited to erosion control, sediment control, non-stormwater management, and materials management BMPs. With implementation of the site-specific BMPs, this would reduce or eliminate the discharge of potential pollutants from stormwater runoff. In addition, the proposed Project applicant would be required to comply with City grading permit regulations and inspections to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Consequently, construction of the proposed Project would not result in discharge that would cause: (1) pollution which would alter the quality of the water of the State (i.e. local water sources) to a degree which unreasonably affects beneficial uses of the waters; (2) contamination of the quality of the water of the State by waste to a degree which creates a hazard to the public health through poisoning or through the spread of diseases; or (3) nuisance that would be injurious to health; affect an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons; and occurs during or as a result of the treatment or disposal of wastes.

Furthermore, construction of the proposed Project would not result in discharges that would cause regulatory standards to be violated.

Pervious surfaces on the Project site would be the total of approximately 2,721 square feet of landscape area (1,595 square feet of publicly accessible landscape area and 1,126 square feet of residential common landscape area) provided on Level 1. All runoff with implementation of the proposed Project would continue to be conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations around the Project site. 415 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-103 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to execute LID standards described in the GMC and would be subject to NPDES under the California General Permit since the proposed Project would result in the disturbance of one acre or more of soil.115 The NPDES permit would allow discharges of stormwater and construction-related discharges to “waters of the nation” including reservoirs, lakes and their tributary waters. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is also required by the construction general permit in order to effectively control stormwater pollution from such construction activities and operations. Any such stormwater pollution plan shall be subject to review and approval by the director of public works. In addition to an approved SWPP, the proposed Project would be required to develop best management practices (BMPs) based on the Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook as published by California Stormwater Quality Association.

Operation of the proposed Project would introduce sources of potential stormwater pollutants that are typical of residential uses (e.g., cleaning solvents, pesticides for landscaping, and petroleum products associated with circulation areas). Stormwater runoff from precipitation events could potentially carry urban pollutants into municipal storm drains. All runoff with implementation of the proposed Project would continue to be conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations around the Project site.

Furthermore, any pollutants generated due to proposed Project operation, for example from the parking areas or due to property maintenance, would be subject to the requirements and regulations of the NPDES. The proposed Project can be adequately served by existing drainage facilities and construction of new off-site drainage facilities or expansion would not be required. Thus, water runoff entering the public storm drain system would not affect the existing capacity of the public storm drains. Accordingly, impacts during operation would be less than significant. iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if the Project site was located within a 100-year flood zone, which would impede or redirect flood flows.

The Project site is located in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated flood Zone X, meaning that it is in an area of minimal flood hazard and the Project site is not located within a 100- year flood zone.116 The Project site is approximately 0.18 miles south of the Verdugo Wash. This Channel was designed for a 100-year capital storm to carry the storm water run-off from the hillsides at the northern portion of the City (La Crescenta), and outlets into the Los Angeles River.117 Other tributaries of the Verdugo Wash include: Halls Canyon Channel, Pickens Canyon Channel, Eagle Shields Canyon Channel, Cooks Canyon Channel and the Dunsmuir Canyon Channel. A debris basin was also constructed across the Verdugo Wash Channel downstream from all the tributary channels to filter debris that could 115 FEMA, National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL), https://msc.fema.gov/. Accessed August 2021. 116 FEMA, National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL), https://msc.fema.gov/. Accessed August 2021. 117 City of Glendale General Plan, Safety Elements, Flooding Hazards, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/safety-element. Accessed August 2021. 416 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-104 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 potentially clog the channel and reduce its capacity. These storm drain facilities provide the City with adequate protection from a major storm except some isolated minor localized inundation.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area or result in structures being constructed that would impede or redirect flood flows. The proposed Project would not be subject to flooding and impacts would be less than significant. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if the Project site were sufficiently close to the ocean or other water body to potentially be at risk of seismically induced tidal phenomena (e.g., seiche and tsunami), or was within a flood zone, and if the Project site utilized, stored, or otherwise contained pollutants that would be at risk of release if inundated.

The Project site is not located in a coastal area; therefore, tsunamis are not considered a hazard at the site. Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. The Project site is not located near major water-retaining structures immediately up gradient from the Project site. Therefore, flooding from a seismically induced seiche is considered unlikely. Earthquakeinduced flooding is inundation caused by failure of dams or other water-retaining structures due to earthquakes. Because the Project site is located outside of the 100-year flood zone, the Project site would not place people or structures at risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. As such, the proposed Project would not create a significant risk as it is not within flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Impacts would be less than significant.
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. Under the California Water Code, the State of California is divided into nine regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs), which govern the implementation and enforcement of the California Water Code and the Clean Water Act. As discussed above, the Project site is within the LARWQCB. The LARWQCB Water Quality Control Plan: Los Angeles Region Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan), September 11, 2014, is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional waters. Specifically, the Basin Plan (i) designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters, (ii) sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the State's antidegradation policy, and (iii) describes implementation programs to protect all waters in the Region. In addition, the Basin Plan incorporates all applicable State and Regional Board plans and policies and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations.

Under the NPDES permit enforced by the LARWQCB, all existing and future municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters within the City of Glendale are subject to applicable local, State and/or 417 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-105 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 federal regulations. The proposed Project must comply with all provisions of the NPDES program and other applicable waste discharge requirements (WDRs), as enforced by the LARWQCB.

The proposed Project would comply with the NPDES program and other applicable WDRs described above, and with the LARWQCB’s Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Groundwater from Construction and Project Dewatering to Surface Waters in Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.

This NPDES permit specifies groundwater discharge prohibitions, receiving water limitations, monitoring, and reporting program requirements, and general compliance determination criteria for groundwater discharges. The proposed Project would comply with applicable NPDES and City requirements, which would include the use of BMPs during construction of the proposed Project as detailed in a SWPPP and in the City’s LID ordinance. The proposed Project construction would occur in accordance with City Building Code, which requires necessary permits, plans, plan checks, and inspections to avoid or reduce the effects of sedimentation and erosion. In addition, the proposed Project would require approval of a SWPPP in accordance with the NPDES permit. The SWPPP incorporates BMPs in accordance with the City’s BMPs to control erosion including grading and dust control measures.

Therefore, proposed Project construction would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts from construction would be less than significant.

After construction, the operation of the proposed Project would also be required to comply with applicable NPDES and City requirements, which would include BMPs as detailed in the SWPP and in the LID ordinance. With the incorporation of these BMPs into the proposed Project, the proposed Project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts from operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project is located in an urbanized area. The existing storm drainage system serving this area has been designed to accommodate run off from an urban built-out environment. New construction does not lead to substantial additional runoff, since new development are required to comply with the City Ordinance and incorporate appropriate stormwater pollution control measures into the proposed Project’s LID design plans to ensure that water quality impacts are minimized. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts.

The following mitigation measures from prior applicable EIRs incorporated into the proposed Project will reduce impacts of the proposed Project to less than significant. 418 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-106 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

See SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR PMM GEO-1 in Section 5.7: Geology and Soils, above.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
No hydrology and water quality mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
MM 4.7-1(a) Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for individual projects, the project developer shall file a NOI with California to comply with the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (Municipal Code Title VII, Chapter 8 7823(d)), including the Small LUP General Permit, if applicable. This will include the preparation of a SWPPP incorporating BMPs for construction-related control of erosion and sedimentation contained in stormwater runoff. The SWPPP may include, but would not necessarily be limited to, the following applicable measures:
a) Minimum required pavement widths for residential streets needed to comply with all zoning and applicable ordinances
b) Use permeable materials for private sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, or interior roadway surfaces
c) Reduce the overall imperviousness associated with parking lots by using pervious materials in spillover parking areas.
d) Direct rooftop runoff to pervious areas and avoid routing rooftop runoff to the roadway or the stormwater conveyance system.
e) Biofilters including vegetated swales and strips
f) Extended/dry detention basins
g) Infiltration basin
h) Infiltration trenches or vaults
i) Catch basin inserts
j) Continuous flow deflection/separation systems
k) Storm drain inserts
l) Media filtration
m) Foundation planting
n) Catch basin screens
o) Normal flow storage/separation systems
p) Clarifiers
q) Filtration systems
r) Primary wastewater treatment systems
s) Dry Wells
t) Cistern
419 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-107 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 MM 4.7-1(b): Individual project applicants shall prepare and implement a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) per the requirements of Chapter 13.42, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan of the Glendale Municipal Code to ensure that stormwater runoff is managed for water quality concerns through implementation of appropriate and applicable BMPs.

MM 4.7-3: Individual projects within the DSP area shall comply with the provision of the SUSMP to include drainage improvements, such as catch basins, surface parking drains, and other drainage improvements, as necessary. These improvements must be constructed as part of the proposed Project in accordance with standard engineering practices and BMP.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
The mitigation measures identified above will reduce impacts to less than significant. 420 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-108 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? No Impact. A significant impact could occur if the proposed Project were configured in such a way as to create a physical barrier within an established community. The proposed Project involves demolition of the existing two-story office building, parking structure, and associated surface parking lot, and the construction of a 24-story residential building with associated four levels of subterranean parking and two levels of above ground parking. The existing six-story Chase Building would remain on-site with parking for this building to be supplied in the two levels of above ground parking in the proposed residential building.

SR-134 Eastbound On-Ramp is directly adjacent to the north of the Project site. Maryland Avenue is located adjacent to the Project site to the east. Across Maryland Avenue is a two-level parking structure, which is on the eastern border of the Gateway District and the DSP boundary. Further east are several three-story multiple-family buildings on sites zoned R 1250 (High Density Residential) with a land use designation of High Density. An existing commercial office building and associated surface parking lot is located to the south of the Project site. Further south across Doran Street is a high-rise commercial building with a four-level parking podium. This property is also located within the Gateway District of the DSP. Directly adjacent to the Project site to the west is Brand Boulevard. A surface parking lot, 14- story commercial office building, and a one-story commercial office building are located across Brand Boulevard to the east. These uses are also located within the Gateway District of the DSP. The proposed Project is surrounded by Gateway designated and zoned land with high density residential designation and zoning to the east past Louise Street. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with by-right zoning and no operational or structural changes are proposed that would divide the surrounding land uses, nor are any linear features, new roads or other barriers to movement proposed.

Vehicular access to the Project site would be provided via two driveways along the west side of Maryland Avenue. The Northerly Maryland Avenue driveway on-site would provide access to the two above-grade levels of the on-site parking garage. The Southerly Maryland Avenue Project driveway would provide access to the four subterranean levels of the on-site parking garage. The Project driveways are proposed to accommodate full vehicular access (i.e., left-turn and right-turn ingress and egress turning movements). No operational or structural changes are proposed that would divide the surrounding land uses, nor are any linear features, new roads or other barriers to movement proposed. Therefore, the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community and no impact would occur. 421 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-109 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if a project is inconsistent with planning or zoning designations currently applicable to the Project site adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
The Project site is located within the six-county region that comprises the SCAG planning area. SCAG prepared the 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan (2008 RCP) in response to SCAG Regional Council directive in its 2002 Strategic Plan to define solutions to interrelated housing, traffic, water, air quality, and other regional challenges. The 2008 RCP is an advisory document that describes future conditions if current trends continue, defines a vision for a healthier region, and recommends an Action Plan with a target year of 2035. The 2008 RCP may be voluntarily used by local jurisdictions in developing local plans and addressing local issues of regional significance. The plan includes nine chapters addressing land use and housing, transportation, air quality, energy, open space, water, solid waste, economy, and security and emergency preparedness. The action plans contained therein provide a series of recommended nearterm policies that developers and key stakeholders should consider for implementation, as well as potential policies for consideration by local jurisdictions and agencies when conducting project review.

The 2008 RCP replaced the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) for use in SCAG’s Intergovernmental Review (IGR) process. SCAG’s Community, Economic and Human Development Committee and the Regional Council took action to accept the 2008 RCP, which now serves as an advisory document for local governments in the SCAG region for their information and voluntary use in developing local plans and addressing local issues of regional significance. However, as indicated by SCAG, because of its advisory nature, the 2008 RCP is not used in SCAG’s IGR process. Rather, SCAG reviews new projects based on consistency with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. As the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS encompasses and builds upon the previous 2016–2040 RTP/SCS, many of the goals and strategies from the previous plan are incorporated and have been updated or expanded upon. The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS aims to maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region, ensure travel safety and reliability, preserve, and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system, protect the environment, encourage energy efficiency, and facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation.

Based on the analysis presented in Table 5.11-1: Consistency Analysis 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, the proposed Project would not be in conflict and would be consistent with applicable 2020-2045 RTP/SCS goals to maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region, ensure travel safety and reliability, preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system, protect the environment, encourage energy efficiency and facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation.

The Project site is served by mass transit with frequency of service intervals of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods (see Section 3.0 of this SCEA for further discussion on the location of the Project site in a Transit Priority Area served by high frequency mass transit service.) The proposed Project would provide residents with convenient access to mass transit and opportunities for walking and biking. The 422 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-110 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 location of the proposed Project encourages a variety of transportation options and access. The proposed Project would include bicycle parking facilities within the parking levels and at the ground level between the existing Chase Building located on the Project site, the proposed residential building, and surrounding buildings, and would create a pedestrian-friendly environment by providing landscaped areas and open space on-site throughout the proposed Project. In addition to the available mass transit service, the Project site is located adjacent to a mature network of streets that include vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Development of an infill residential transit-oriented development project within this established community would promote a variety of travel choices and would create new housing opportunities in the area.

The proposed Project would be consistent with policies set forth in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS because it would redevelop an underdeveloped site within an existing urban setting. The proposed Project would include 294 residential units and would be located in an urban area well-served by mass transit.

Furthermore, the proposed Project would place residents in proximity to corridors well-served by mass transit. The integration of a residential use on the Project site surrounded by corridors of mass transit would allow for multimodal travel options to and from the Project site to nearby commercial centers, which would help reduce single occupancy vehicles. This would enable the region to accommodate growth and meet the goals of the RTP/SCS that minimize per capita GHG emissions and would therefore not conflict with the goals of the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact as it would not conflict with the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS.

Land Use Tools
The SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS outlines various land use tools to assist agencies in implementing sustainable community strategies.

Center Focused Placemaking
The goal of center focused placemaking is to create connected built environments that support multimodal mobility, reduced reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, and reduced GHG emissions. Center focused placemaking is prioritized in urban and suburban infill sites in the SCAG region. As discussed in Section 3.0 of this SCEA and Section 5.1, above, the proposed Project is located 0.3 northeast of a planned major bus stop, the intersection of the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT station identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the existing Glendale Beeline 1 stop at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue. 118,119 Additionally, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per the Glendale TIA Guidelines as shown in Figure 3.0-4.120 Therefore, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743. The proposed Project qualifies as a transit priority 118 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor Project, https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena-corridor/. Accessed November 2021. 119 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
120 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 423 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-111 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 project because Central Avenue qualifies as both an existing and bus transit corridor and the Project site is located within 0.3 miles of Central Avenue. As discussed above, the current service provided by Glendale Beeline Route 1 along Central Avenue qualifies Central Avenue as an existing high quality transit corridor based on this service.121,122 Central Avenue is also identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2. Central Avenue is identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the RTP because Central Avenue is included in the route for the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line (refer to Section 3.0 for additional discussion on proposed Project Transit Priority Project designation).123,124 There are also numerous bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site as shown in Figure 3.0-5: Existing Transit Routes in Project Site Vicinity. The Project site’s location near mass transit and proximity to commercial uses and employment opportunities promotes a pedestrian-friendly environment and the use of a variety of transportation options, including walking, biking, and public transportation. In addition, the proposed Project would comply with CALGreen building standards by incorporating eco-friendly building materials, systems, and features wherever feasible, including Energy Star appliances, water saving/low flow fixtures, non-VOC paints/adhesives, drought tolerant planting, and high-performance building envelopment. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the principle of center focused placemaking.

Priority Growth Areas
Currently only four percent of the SCAG region’s total land area account for Priority Growth Areas (PGAs); however, implementation of SCAG’s recommended growth strategies will help increase both household growth and employment growth in these areas. Development in PGAs reduces travel distances, increases mobility options, and improves access to workplaces as a compact form of regional development. As discussed above, the proposed Project is an infill development within one-half mile of a planned highquality transit corridor and within a TPA (see Section 3.0 of this SCEA and Section 5.1, above, for further discussion). The location of the proposed Project promotes the use of a variety of transportation options, which includes walking, biking, and the use of public transportation. The proposed Project site is within a PGA and is consistent with the SCAG growth strategy for PGAs.

Job Centers
Job Centers are areas with denser employment than their surroundings, representing areas with local employment peaks rather than places with the most jobs. When growth is concentrated in Job Centers, the length of vehicle trips for residents can be reduced. The area surrounding the Project site would be considered a Job Center. As discussed in Section 3.0 of this SCEA and in Section 5.1, above, the Project site is located in Downtown Glendale within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a 121 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
122 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
123 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 124 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
424 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-112 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TPA as defined by CEQA. Additionally, the proposed Project would develop a new residential use within walking distance to numerous employment opportunities, including the six-story office building on-site.

Additionally, the Project site is located adjacent to the SR-134 with convenient freeway access. The location of the proposed Project encourages a variety of transportation options, such as walking and biking. Thus, the proposed Project would reduce VMT and promote alternatives to driving. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the growth concentrated in Job Centers across the SCAG region.

Transit Priority Areas
TPAs are Priority Growth Areas that are within one-half mile of existing or planned ‘major’ transit stops in the region. A ‘major’ transit stop is defined as a site containing an existing or planned rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. As discussed in Section 3.0 of this SCEA and Section 5.1, above, the proposed Project is located approximately 0.3 miles from the proposed Lexington Drive station, at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue, for the North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Project as shown in Figure 3.0-1.125 The North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Project was approved by the Metro in May 2021.126 This North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line is scheduled to be operation by 2024 and qualifies Central Avenue as a planned high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2.127,128 The existing Glendale Beeline 1 bus route also travels on Central Avenue with a stop at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue, as shown in Figure 3.0-3, also located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the Project site.129 Glendale Beeline 1 is an existing major bus route as it provides service every 10 minutes between 7:05 AM and 8:40 AM in the morning and 3:44 PM and 7:08 PM in the evenings on weekdays with a stop located approximately

0.3 miles southwest of the Project site.130 Therefore, because the proposed Project is within the 0.5 miles of this planned major bus stop, the intersection of the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT station identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and Glendale Beeline 1, the proposed Project is within a transit priority area (TPA). Additionally, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 125 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor Project, https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena-corridor/. Accessed November 2021. 126 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, Metro Board Approves Proposed Project for North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project, May 27, 2021, https://www.metro.net/about/metro-boardapproves-proposed-project-for-north-hollywood-to-pasadena-bus-rapid-transit-corridor-project/, Accessed June 2022.
127 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
128 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 129 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
130 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
425 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-113 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 per the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Glendale TIA Guidelines) as shown in Figure

3.0-4.131 Therefore, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per the Glendale TIA Guidelines.132 There are also numerous bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site as shown in Figure 3.0-5. The location of the proposed Project encourages a variety of mobility options, such as walking, biking and the use of public transportation since the proposed Project is located within an urban center and nearby multiple mass transit stops. These multimodal travel options for future residents of the proposed Project would reduce the need for use of single occupancy vehicles. Thus, the proposed Project would reduce VMT and promote alternatives to driving. As such, the proposed Project’s location in a TPA would be consistent with SCAG’s strategy to focus infill development in established communities with access to high-quality transportation.

High Quality Transit Area
HQTAs are corridor-focused Priority Growth Areas within one-half mile of an existing or planned fixed guideway transit stop or a bus transit corridor where buses pick up passengers at a frequency of every 15 minutes or less during peak commuting hours. As discussed above and in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is located within a TPA as defined by CEQA. Central Avenue qualifies as both an existing and bus transit corridor and the Project site is located within 0.3 miles of Central Avenue. The Glendale Beeline Route 1 currently provides service every 10 minutes between 7:05 AM and 8:40 AM in the morning and 3:44 PM and 7:08 PM in the evenings on weekdays along Central Avenue and Central Avenue qualifies as an existing high quality transit corridor based on this service.133,134 Central Avenue is also identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2 (see discussion in Section 3.0 of this SCEA for additional discussion on transit priority project designation for the proposed Project).135,136,137 Central Avenue is identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the RTP because Central Avenue is included in the route for the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line. Therefore, the proposed Project is within a HQTA. The proposed Project would also develop a new residential use within walking distance to numerous services, retail, and employment opportunities.

The location of the proposed Project encourages a variety of transportation options, such as walking and 131 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 132 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 133 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
134 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
135 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 136 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
137 PRC, “California Legislative
Information,”https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum= 21155, accessed September 2021.
426 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-114 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 biking (see Section 5.1 and 3.0 of this SCEA for more discussion on the North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Project and bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site). Thus, the proposed Project would reduce VMT, promote alternatives to driving, and aim to improve air quality. Furthermore, the proposed Project would also provide approximately 115 bicycle parking spaces (96 long term and 19 short term).

As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with SCAG’s HQTA strategy.

Neighborhood Mobility Areas
Neighborhood mobility area (NMAs) focus on creating, improving, restoring, and enhancing safe and convenient connections to surrounding community land uses. NMAs are Priority Growth Areas with residential to non-residential land use connections, high roadway intersection densities and low-tomoderate traffic speeds. NMAs can encourage safer, multimodal, short trips in existing and planned neighborhoods and reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles. NMAs support the principles of center focused placemaking. The area surrounding the proposed Project would be considered an NMA. As discussed above and in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the proposed Project is located 0.3 northeast of a planned major bus stop, the intersection of the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT station identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the existing Glendale Beeline 1 stop at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue.138,139 Additionally, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per the Glendale TIA Guidelines as shown in Figure 3.0-4.140 Therefore, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743. The proposed Project qualifies as a transit priority project because Central Avenue qualifies as both an existing and bus transit corridor and the Project site is located within 0.3 miles of Central Avenue. As discussed above, the current service provided by Glendale Beeline Route 1 along Central Avenue qualifies Central Avenue as an existing high quality transit corridor based on this service.141,142 Central Avenue is also identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2. Central Avenue is identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the RTP because Central Avenue is included in the route for the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line (see discussion in Section 3.0 of this SCEA for additional discussion on transit priority project designation for the proposed Project).143,144 The proposed Project 138 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor Project, https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena-corridor/. Accessed November 2021. 139 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
140 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 141 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
142 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
143 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 144 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
427 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-115 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 is also located within one-half mile of numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5. The Project site’s location near mass transit, walking distance to services, employment opportunities, and the availability of bike parking located on the Project site would promote a variety of transportation options, allowing residents to connect to surrounding destinations. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the strategy of Neighborhood Mobility Areas by creating more walkability within the Project site and surrounding area.

Livable Corridors
The Livable Corridor strategy encourages local jurisdictions to plan and zone for increased density at nodes along key corridors, and to “redevelop” single-story under-performing retail with well-designed, higher density housing and employment centers. The Livable Corridors strategy aims to encourage density through transit improvements, active transportation improvements, and land use policies such as mixeduse zoning. The area surrounding the Project site would be considered a Livable Corridor. As discussed in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the proposed Project’s location encourages the use of alternative transportation, including walking and bicycling opportunities. As discussed above and in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the proposed Project is located 0.3 northeast of a planned major bus stop, the intersection of the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT station identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and Glendale Beeline 1 at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue.145,146 Additionally, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per the Glendale TIA Guidelines as shown in Figure 3.0-4.147 Therefore, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743. The proposed Project qualifies as a transit priority project because Central Avenue qualifies as both an existing and bus transit corridor and the Project site is located within 0.3 miles of Central Avenue. The current service provided by Glendale Beeline Route 1, as discussed above, along Central Avenue qualifies Central Avenue as an existing high quality transit corridor. Central Avenue is also identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2. Central Avenue is identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the RTP because Central Avenue is included in the route for the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line (see discussion in Section 3.0 of this SCEA for additional discussion on transit priority project designation for the proposed Project).148,149 The Project site is also located within one-half mile of numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5. The Project site is located in the DSP area of the City surrounded by numerous commercial uses and would promote the use of alternative 145 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor Project, https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena-corridor/. Accessed November 2021. 146 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
147 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 148 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 149 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
428 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-116 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 transportation or future employment within walking or biking distance from residential uses. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the strategy of Livable Corridors.

Spheres of Influence
A Sphere of Influence (SOI) is a planning boundary outside of a local agency’s legal boundary, such as the city limit line, which designates the agency’s future boundary and service area. The intent of an SOI is to promote the efficient, effective, and equitable delivery of local and regional services for existing and future residents and to encourage a collaborative process between agencies. SOIs discourages urban sprawl and promotes growth in an efficient manner that limits sprawl and leapfrog development.

This strategy is directed toward SCAG and the City. However, the proposed Project is an infill development that would add 294 new residential units as well as open space and other amenities. The proposed Project would increase the utilization of the site within the City, which is currently used as an office building and associated surface and structure parking. As such, this strategy related to SOIs is applicable to the proposed Project.

As shown in Table 5.11-1, the proposed Project would not be in conflict and would be consistent with the 2020–2045 goals to maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region, ensure travel safety and reliability, preserve, and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system, protect the environment, encourage energy efficiency, and facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation.

TABLE 5.11-1
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Goal 1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness
No Conflict. This Goal is directed towards SCAG and
the City and would not apply to the proposed
Project.

Goal 2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and travel safety for people and goods.

No Conflict. As discussed in Section 3.0 of this SCEA
and above, Project site is located within one-half
mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a
TPA. The Project site is also located within one-half
mile of numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-

5. The proposed Project would develop 294
residential units. The Project site is served by mass
transit with frequency of service intervals of 15
minutes or less during peak commute periods. The
proposed Project would provide residents with
convenient access to mass transit and opportunities
for walking and biking. The location of the proposed
Project encourages a variety of transportation
options and access.

Goal 3: Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system.

No Conflict. While not necessarily applicable on a
project-specific basis, the proposed Project would
support this goal by improving the viability of
alternative forms of transportation through placing
higher density residential development within onehalf mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA near existing commercial
development. As discussed above and in Section 3.0
of this SCEA, the Project site is located within onehalf mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA (refer to Section 3.0 for additional
429 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-117 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-1
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
discussion on proposed Project Transit Priority
Project designation). The Project site is also located
within one-half mile of numerous bus routes as
shown in Figure 3.0-5. A robust variety of
transportation options helps to ensure the mobility
need of residents and visitors are met. Additionally,
as discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis
(Appendix E), the proposed Project would not
result in significant transportation impacts.

Goal 4: Increase person and goods movement and travel
choices within the transportation system.

No Conflict. While not necessarily applicable on a
project-specific basis, the proposed Project would
support this goal by improving local access to
alternative forms of transportation, with
appropriate design considerations to account for
future population growth and multimodal choices
such as access to multiple mass transit operators,
with networks connecting different communities
within and outside of City boundaries.

Goal 5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.

No Conflict. As discussed in Section 3.0 and above,
the proposed Project would place new residential
units within one-half mile of a high-quality transit
corridor and within a TPA. The Project site is also
located within one-half mile of numerous bus routes
as shown in Figure 3.0-5.The Project site’s location
near mass transit and proximity to commercial uses
and employment opportunities promotes a
pedestrian-friendly environment. The location of
the proposed Project promotes the use of a variety
of transportation options, which includes walking,
biking and the use of public transportation.

Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable communities. No Conflict. The proposed Project would place new residential units within one-half mile of a highquality transit corridor and within a TPA. As discussed above and in Section 3.0 of this SCEA and
above, the Project site is located within one-half
mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a
TPA (refer to Section 3.0 for additional discussion
on proposed Project Transit Priority Project
designation). The Project site is also located within
one-half mile of numerous bus routes as shown in
Figure 3.0-5. The Project site’s location near mass
transit and proximity to commercial uses and
employment opportunities promotes a pedestrianfriendly environment. The location of the proposed Project promotes the use of a variety of
transportation options, which includes walking,
biking and the use of public transportation.

Goal 7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an
integrated regional development pattern in transportation network.

No Conflict. This policy is directed towards SCAG to
support regional development pattern areas.

However, the proposed Project is an infill
development within one-half mile of a high-quality
transit corridor and within a TPA (see above and
Section 3.0 of this SCEA for the transit priority
project designation for the proposed Project) which
is consistent with this policy. In regard to
adaptation to a changing climate, the proposed
Project would comply with CALGreen and the City’s
Greener Glendale Plan, and would incorporate ecofriendly building materials, systems, and features wherever feasible, including Energy Star
appliances, water saving/low flow fixtures, non430 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-118 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-1
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
VOC paints/adhesives, drought tolerant planting,
and high-performance building envelopment.

Goal 8: Leverage new transportation technologies and
data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel.

No Conflict. This policy is directed towards SCAG to
leverage the use of new transportation technologies
using data-driven solutions. However, as stated in
Section 3.0 of this SCEA and above, the proposed
Project is an infill development within one-half mile
of a high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA
which both offer highly-efficient travel
opportunities, which is consistent with this policy.

The Project site is also located within one-half mile
of numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5.

The proposed Project would provide residents with
convenient access to mass transit and opportunities
for walking and biking as well as 502 vehicle parking
spaces, consisting of 373 spaces for the proposed
apartments and 129 replacement spaces for the
existing Chase Building which will remain on site.

Goal 9: Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation
options.

No Conflict. As discussed above and in Section 3.0
of this SCEA, the Project site is located within onehalf mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA. The Project site is also located within
one-half mile of numerous bus routes as shown in
Figure 3.0-5. The proposed Project would provide
294 residential units including 247 one-bedroom,
and 47 two-bedroom units. The Project site is
served by mass transit with approximately six bus
lines serving the proposed Project area. The
proposed Project would provide residents and
visitors with convenient access to mass transit and
opportunities for walking and biking as well as 502
vehicle parking spaces, consisting of 373 spaces for
the proposed apartments and 129 replacement
spaces for the existing Chase Building which will
remain on site.

Goal 10: Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats.

No Conflict. This policy is directed towards SCAG
and does not directly apply to the proposed Project.

Development of the proposed Project would not
remove any areas that have significant value as
wildlife habitats or agricultural lands given the
entirely asphalted nature of the Project site.

Guiding Principle 1: Base transportation investments on adopted regional performance indicators and MAP-21/FAST Act regional targets.

No Conflict. This policy is directed towards SCAG in
allocating transportation investments rather than
individual development projects.

Guiding Principle 2: Place high priority for transportation funding in the region on projects and programs that
improve mobility, accessibility, reliability and safety, and that preserve the existing transportation system.

No Conflict. This policy is directed towards SCAG in
allocating transportation system funding. However,
the proposed Project would contribute to a safe,
well maintained and efficient multimodal
transportation system. As discussed in the
Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix E), the
proposed Project would not result in significant
transportation impacts.

Guiding Principle 3: Assure that land use and growth
strategies recognize local input, promote sustainable
transportation options, and support equitable and
adaptable communities.

No Conflict. This Goal is directed towards SCAG and
the City and does not apply it to individual
development projects. However, the proposed
Project advances the local smart growth initiatives
of the County by locating residential uses near
commercial uses designed to facilitate multiple
modes of transportation and the availability of jobs
in close proximity to the Project.
431 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-119 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-1
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Guiding Principle 4: Encourage RTP/SCS investments in
strategies that collectively result in reduced non-recurrent congestion and demand for single occupancy vehicle use, by leveraging new transportation technologies and
expanding travel choices.

No Conflict. This policy relates to SCAG goals in
supporting investments and strategies to reduce
congestion and the use of single occupancy
vehicles. However, as discussed above and in
Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is
located within one-half mile of a high-quality
transit corridor and within a TPA. The Project site
is also located within one-half mile of numerous
bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5.

Guiding Principle 5: Encourage transportation investments that will result in improved air quality in public health, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

No Conflict. This policy is directed towards SCAG
and governmental agencies to encourage and
support transportation investments.

Guiding Principle 6: Monitor progress on all aspects of the plan, including the timely implementation of projects,
programs, and strategies.

No Conflict. This policy directed towards SCAG and
the City and not does apply to the proposed Project.

Guiding Principle 7: Regionally, transportation investments should reflect best known science regarding climate change vulnerability, in order to design for long term resilience.

No Conflict. This policy is directed towards SCAG
and governmental agencies to encourage and
support transportation investments.

Core Vision Topic 1: Sustainable Development
Through our continuing efforts to better align
transportation investments and land use decisions, we
strive to improve mobility and reduce greenhouse gases by bringing housing, jobs and transit closer together.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would comply
with CALGreen with the inclusion of eco-friendly
building materials, systems, and features wherever
feasible, including Energy Star appliances, water
saving/low flow fixtures, non-VOC
paints/adhesives, drought tolerant planting, and
high-performance building envelopment.

Additionally, the proposed Project would be
designed and constructed to incorporate
environmentally sustainable design features
consistent with the Greener Glendale Plan.

The proposed Project includes the development of
a high density infill residential project, which would
place residents in close proximity to employment,
shopping and dining opportunities. Further, the
proposed Project is within walking distance of
existing commercial (retail, personal service,
restaurant, etc.) uses and employment
opportunities. In addition, the proposed Project is
located approximately 0.3 miles from the proposed
Lexington Drive station for the North Hollywood to
Pasadena BRT Corridor Project as shown in Figure

3.0-1. The Project site is also located within onehalf mile of numerous bus routes as shown in Figure

3.0-5.

Core Vision Topic 2: System Preservation and Resilience “Fix it First” has been a guiding principle for prioritizing transportation funding in the RTP for the last decade. The cost of rebuilding roadways is eight times more than
preventative maintenance. Preservation of the
transportation system can extend the pavement life in a cost effective manner and can also improve safety.

No Conflict. This core vision topic is directed
towards SCAG to ensure the safety and security of
the regional transportation system and to guide,
encourage, and support transportation
investments.

Core Vision Topic 3: Demand and System Management
Better managing the existing transportation system through demand management strategies and Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) yields significant mobility benefits in a cost-effective manner.

No Conflict. This core vision topic is directed
towards public transportation investments and is
not directly applicable to individual residential
development projects. However, the proposed
Project design would promote active transportation
modes, including pedestrian and bicycle uses and
the use of mass transit.
432 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-120 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-1
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Core Vision Topic 4: Transit Backbone
Expanding the transit network and fostering development in transit-oriented communities is central to the region’s plan for meeting mobility and sustainability goals while continuing to grow the regional economy.

No Conflict. This core vision topic is directed
towards SCAG goals for the region and is not directly
applicable to individual residential development
projects. As discussed above and in Section 3.0 of
this SCEA, the Project site is located within one-half
mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a
TPA. The Project site is also located within one-half
mile of numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-

5. The Project site’s location near mass transit and
proximity to commercial uses and employment
opportunities promotes the use of a variety of
transportation options, including walking, biking
and the use of public transportation which supports
this core vision topic.

Core Vision Topic 5: Complete Streets
Creating “complete streets” that are safe and inviting to all roadway users is critical to increasing mobility choices, reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries and meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets.

No Conflict. This core vision topic is directed
toward SCAG and is not specifically applicable to
the proposed Project. Nonetheless, the Project
site’s location near mass transit, proximity to
existing commercial uses and employment
opportunities and the availability of bicycle parking
located on the Project site would promote a variety
of transportation options.

Core Vision Topic 6: Goods Movement
The efficient movement of goods is critical to a strong economy and improves quality of life in the SCAG region by providing jobs and access to markets through trade.

However, increased volumes of goods moving across the
transportation system contribute to greater congestion, safety concerns and harmful emissions. It is critical to integrate land use decisions and technological
advancements to minimize environmental and health
impacts while fostering continued growth in trade and
commerce.

Sustainable Community Strategy 1: Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options Sustainable Community Strategy 1a: Emphasize land use
patterns that facilitate multimodal access to work,
educational and other destinations.

No Conflict. The proposed Project’s design and
location would encourage the use of alternative
transportation, including walking and bicycling
opportunities. As discussed above and in Section

3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is located within
one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor and
within a TPA. The Project site is also located
within one-half mile of numerous bus routes as
shown in Figure 3.0-5.

Sustainable Community Strategy 1b: Focus on a regional
jobs/housing balance to reduce commute times and
distances and expand job opportunities near transit and along center-focused main streets
No Conflict. This strategy is directed toward SCAG
and is not specifically applicable to the proposed
Project. Nonetheless, the proposed Project
includes the development of a residential project,
which would place residents in close proximity to
employment, shopping, and dinning opportunities.

As discussed above and in Section 3.0 of this
SCEA, the Project site is located within one-half
mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a
TPA. The Project site is also located within onehalf mile of numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5.

Sustainable Community Strategy 1c: Plan for growth near transit investments and support implementation of
first/last mile strategies
No Conflict. This strategy is directed toward SCAG
and is not specifically applicable to the proposed
Project. Nonetheless, as discussed above and in
Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the proposed Project
would provide 294 units of varying size within one433 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-121 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-1
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
half mile of a high-quality transit corridor and
within a TPA. The Project site is also located within
one-half mile of numerous bus routes as shown in
Figure 3.0-5. The proposed Project would aid in
accommodating projected population and
employment growth by accommodating
approximately 765 residents, as further detailed in
Section 5.14: Population and Housing of this SCEA.

Sustainable Community Strategy 1d: Promote the
redevelopment of underperforming retail developments
and other outmoded nonresidential uses.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed toward SCAG
and is not specifically applicable to the proposed
Project. Nonetheless, the proposed Project is an
infill residential development that would add
housing as well as increase the utilization of the
Project site, which is currently developed with
office buildings and associated parking structure
and surface parking lot.

Sustainable Community Strategy 1e: Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized land to accommodate new
growth, increase amenities and connectivity in existing neighborhoods.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and the City and does not apply to individual
development projects. However, the proposed
Project advances the local smart growth initiatives
of the County by locating residential uses near
commercial uses designed to facilitate multiple
modes of transportation.

Sustainable Community Strategy 1f: Encourage design and transportation options that reduce the reliance on number of solo car trips (this could include mixed uses or locating and orienting close to existing destinations).

Sustainable Community Strategy 1g: Identify ways to
“right size” parking requirements and promote alternative parking strategies (e.g., shared parking or smart parking).

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects.

Sustainable Community Strategy 2: Promote Diverse Housing Choices Sustainable Community Strategy 2a: Preserve and
rehabilitate affordable housing and prevent displacement.

No Conflict. Strategy 2a is directed towards SCAG
regionally and does not apply to individual projects.

As such, this strategy not does apply to the
proposed Project. There are no existing housing
units on-site that would be demolished as part of
the Project. The City requires construction of
affordable housing or payment of an In-Lieu fee.

The proposed Project would be required to meet
the City’s affordable housing requirements. The
Applicant is requesting approval of a Development
Agreement, which includes the option to pay an InLieu fee for affordable housing. The proposed Project will provide a variety of dwelling units sizes
including one-bedroom units and two-bedroom
units.

Sustainable Community Strategy 2b: Identify funding
opportunities for new workforce and affordable housing
development.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
in identifying funding opportunities for affordable
housing development. The proposed Project would
be required to meet the City’s inclusionary housing
requirements. The Applicant is requesting approval
of a Development Agreement, with the option to
pay an In-Lieu fee for affordable housing.
434 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-122 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-1
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Sustainable Community Strategy 2c: Create incentives and reduce regulatory barriers for building context sensitive accessory dwelling units to increase housing supply.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects.

Sustainable Community Strategy 2d: Provide support to
local jurisdictions to streamline and lessen barriers to housing development that supports reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects. Nonetheless, as discussed above and in
Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the proposed Project is an
infill development within a one-half mile of a highquality transit corridor and within a TPA. The Project site is also located within one-half mile of
numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5. The
location of the proposed Project promotes the use
of a variety of transportation options, which
includes walking, biking and the use of public
transportation. As discussed in Section 5.3: Air
Quality and Section 5.8: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, operational emissions and greenhouse
gas emissions generated by the proposed Project’s
construction and operational activities would not
exceed the regional thresholds of significance set
by the SCAQMD and therefore, the proposed Project
would be consistent with this strategy.

Sustainable Community Strategy 3: Leverage Technology Innovations Sustainable Community Strategy 3a: Promote low emission technologies such as neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by providing supportive and safe infrastructure such as
dedicated lanes, charging and parking /drop off space.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects. Nonetheless, the proposed Project would
provide 502 parking spaces on site. As discussed
above and in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project
site is located within one-half mile of a high-quality
transit corridor and within a TPA. the Project site is
located within one-half mile of numerous bus routes
as shown in Figure 3.0-5. The location of the
proposed Project encourages a variety of
transportation options, such as walking, biking and
the use of mass transit modes within the vicinity of
the Project site.

Sustainable Community Strategy 3b: Improve access to
services through technology such as telework and
telemedicine as well as other incentives such as a “mobility wallet”, an app-based system for storing transit and other multi modal payments.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects.

Sustainable Community Strategy 3c: Identify ways to
incorporate “micro-power grids” in communities, for
example solar energy, hydrogen fuel cell power storage and power generation.

No Conflict. No Conflict. This strategy is directed
towards SCAG and does not apply to individual
development projects. Nonetheless, the proposed
Project would comply with CALGreen with the
inclusion of eco-friendly building materials,
systems, and features wherever feasible, including
Energy Star appliances, water saving/low flow
fixtures, non-VOC paints/adhesives, drought
tolerant planting, and high-performance building
envelopment. Additionally, the proposed Project
would comply with the Greener Glendale Plan.

Sustainable Community Strategy 4: Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies Sustainable Community Strategy 4a: Pursue funding
opportunities to support local sustainable development
No Conflict. This policy is directed towards SCAG in
pursuit of funding opportunities for projects that
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, as
435 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-123 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-1
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
implementation projects that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
discussed above and in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the
Project site is located within one-half mile of a
high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA. The
Project site is also located within one-half mile of
numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5. The
location of the proposed Project promotes the use
of a variety of transportation options, which
includes walking, biking, and the use of public
transportation. As discussed in Section 5.3, Air
Quality and Section 5.8: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, operational emissions and greenhouse
gas emissions generated by the proposed Project’s
construction and operational activities would not
exceed the regional thresholds of significance set
by the SCAQMD and therefore, the proposed Project
would be consistent with this strategy.

Sustainable Community Strategy 4b: Support statewide
legislation that reduces barriers to new construction and that incentivizes development new transit corridors and stations.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects.

Sustainable Community Strategy 4c: Support local
jurisdictions in the establishment of Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFDs), Community
Revitalization and Investment Authorities (CRIAs), or other tax increment or value capture tools to finance sustainable infrastructure and development projects, including parks and open space.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects.

Sustainable Community Strategy 4d: Work with local
jurisdictions/communities to identify opportunities and assess barriers to implement sustainability strategies.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects.

Sustainable Community Strategy 4e: Enhance partnerships with other planning organizations to promote resources and best practices in the SCAG region.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects.

Sustainable Community Strategy 4f: Continue to support
long range planning efforts by local jurisdictions.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects.

Sustainable Community Strategy 4g: Provide educational
opportunities to local decisionmakers and staff on new
tools, best practices and policies relating to implementing the Sustainable Communities Strategy.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects.

Sustainable Community Strategy 5: Promote a Green Region Sustainable Community Strategy 5a: Support development
of local climate adaptation and hazard mitigation plans, as well as project implementation that improves community
resiliency to climate change and natural hazards.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects.

Sustainable Community Strategy 5b: Support local policies for renewable energy production, reduction of urban heat islands and carbon sequestration.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects. Nonetheless, the proposed Project would
provide new outdoor private and public open space
including outdoor and private terraces, rooftop
terraces and a substantial, at-grade plaza area
which is consistent with the reduction of urban heat
islands.

Sustainable Community Strategy 5c: Integrate local food production into the regional landscape.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects.
436 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-124 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-1
CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 2020–2045 RTP/SCS
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Sustainable Community Strategy 5d: Promote more
resource efficient development focus on conservation,
recycling and reclamation.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects. Nonetheless, the proposed Project would
comply with CALGreen with the inclusion of ecofriendly building materials, systems, and features wherever feasible, including Energy Star
appliances, water saving/low flow fixtures, nonVOC paints/adhesives, drought tolerant planting, and high-performance building envelopment.

Additionally, the proposed Project would be
designed and constructed to incorporate
environmentally sustainable design features in
compliance with the Greener Glendale Plan. As
such, the proposed Project would be consistent with
promotion of efficient development and a focus on
conservation.

Sustainable Community Strategy 5e: Preserve, enhance
and restore regional wildlife connectivity.

No Conflict. This policy is directed towards SCAG
and does not directly apply to the proposed Project.

As discussed above, development of the proposed
Project would not remove any areas that have
significant value as wildlife habitats given that the
Project site is entirely paved or covered with
buildings and structures.

Sustainable Community Strategy 5f: Reduce consumption
of resource areas, including agricultural land.

No Conflict. This policy is directed towards SCAG
and does not directly apply to the proposed Project.

Nonetheless, development of the proposed Project
would not remove any areas that have significant
value as agricultural lands given that the Project
site is entirely paved or covered with buildings and
structures.

Sustainable Community Strategy 5g: Identify ways to
improve access to public park space.

No Conflict. This strategy is directed towards SCAG
and does not apply to individual development
projects. However, the proposed Project would
include open space available to the public.

Approximately 6,994 square feet of the Project site
would be publicly accessible open space. This space
includes landscaping, a water feature, and benches
on Level 1.

Source: SCAG, Connect SoCal, 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, September 2020.

Notes: Not Applicable—Actions/strategies are those that are not identified for implementation of local jurisdictions. The Project’s consistency with any actions/strategies identified for implementation by the local jurisdictions is assessed above.

City of Glendale General Plan
The proposed Project would conform to the goals and objectives identified in the City of Glendale General Plan (General Plan). The General Plan is a comprehensive, long-range declaration of purposes, policies, and programs for the development of the City. The General Plan is a dynamic document consisting of eight elements: Circulation, Historic Preservation, Housing, Land Use, Noise, Open Space and Conservation, Recreation, and Safety.

The elements that would be most applicable to the proposed Project are the Land Use Element, Housing Element, Circulation Element, Noise Element, and Historic Preservation Element. The City’s Open Space and Conservation Element, Recreation Element, and Safety Element present goals and objectives that apply to the City, but not specifically to individual projects. The consistency of the proposed Project with 437 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-125 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 applicable objectives and policies in the General Plan is summarized below and further analyzed in Table

5.11-2: Applicable General Plan Consistency.

Land Use Element
The Land Use Designation for the site is Downtown Specific Plan – Gateway District. Based on the analysis in Table 5.11-2: Applicable General Plan Consistency, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable goals in the Land Use Element below.

General:
• Goal 3: Form an urban environment which will provide for residential diversity and opportunity. • Goal 5: Promote development and improvement within the community capitalizing on the location of, and access to, Glendale as adjacent to the regional core.

Residential:
• Goal 3: Safeguard residential neighborhoods from intrusion of incompatible and disruptive uses • Goal 4: Support the creation of higher density residential development and alternative forms of medium and high density housing in those areas best suited from the standpoint of accessibility, current development, community organization, transportation and circulation facilities and economic feasibility.

Circulation:
• Goal 4: Develop clusters of uses which will facilitate the development of public transportation networks, decreasing dependence on the automobile.

The proposed Project would provide 294 new residential units that would support the needs of the City’s existing and future residents, businesses, and visitors by providing additional residential uses in close proximity to existing commercial uses, including general commercial, restaurant, retail, and office uses, in Downtown Glendale. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not conflict with Land Use Element General Goal 3. The Project site is located within the DSP and has access to a variety of commercial businesses and restaurants, as well as along Brand Boulevard which is the primary signature street that runs through the center of the City. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with Land Use Element General Goal 5. The proposed Project would also create a balanced connection between residential uses on North Louise Street and the commercial uses adjacent to North Brand Boulevard. This would enhance the uses within the downtown area and create a more accessible environment (Land Use Element Residential Goal 3). In addition, development of the proposed Project in an area with convenient access to mass transit and opportunities for walking and biking would promote an improved quality of life by facilitating a reduction of vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and air pollution while supporting the City’s objective to support the creation of higher density residential development and alternative forms of medium and high density housing in those areas best suited from the standpoint of accessibility, 438 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-126 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 current development, community organization, transportation and circulation facilities and economic feasibility (Land Use Element Residential Goal 4). The proposed Project would develop a high-density residential use adjacent to commercial uses in the downtown area. The Project site is within one-half mile of numerous bus stops which would facilitate the use of public transportation within the development (see Section 3.0 and Figure 3.0-5 of this SCEA for further discussion). Bicycle parking and enhanced pedestrian streetscapes would also promote the use of multimodal access and use. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with Land Use Element Circulation Goal 4. 439 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-127 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Housing Element
Based on the analysis in Table 5.11-2, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and policies within the Housing Element below.
• Policy 1.5: Encourage the development of residential units in the downtown area and along appropriate commercial corridors.
• Policy 2.9: Ensure the variety and visual appeal of residential development in Glendale through the Design Review process.
• Policy 6.5: Require residential projects to preserve major ridgelines, secondary ridgelines, blue line streams, indigenous trees, and other significant environmental features. • Policy 6.9: Continue promoting energy and resource efficiency by implementing the City’s residential recycling, bulk item collection, household hazardous waste, horse accounts, backyard composting, chopper rebates, Christmas Tree Recycling, electronics recycling, recycling drop-off and worm composting services/programs.
• Policy 6.11: Provide opportunities for residential locations and design that encourage transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and other mobility options.

The proposed Project would add 294 new residential units that would add to the citywide housing supply.

The City requires that in all new multi-family rental developments of eight units of greater, a minimum of 15% in the otherwise market-rate rental project be made available of lower income households, provide the required number of inclusionary housing units off site within a one mile radius, or pay an InLieu fee. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Development Agreement, which includes payment of the In-Lieu fee. In addition, as discussed above and in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is located within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA within the downtown area along Brand Boulevard. There are also numerous bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site as shown in Figure 3.0-5: Existing Transit Routes in Project Site Vicinity. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with Housing Element Policy 1.5 or 6.11.

The proposed Project would retain the quality and prominent characteristics of existing neighborhoods nearby through the use of similar colored building materials and architectural style while improving those in need of change through redeveloping the existing office building to create a residential use for the area. The proposed Project is subject to Design Review approval pursuant to GMC Chapter 30.47 to assure the proposed Project is consistent with the character of the surrounding structures within the Downtown context. The Maryland streetscape of the proposed Project has been designed to be compatible with the pedestrian-oriented residential neighborhood to the east along Maryland Avenue, which would not conflict with Housing Element Policy 2.9. As the Project site is not located within a scenic corridor, or primary/secondary ridgeline, and does not feature blue line streams or indigenous trees on site, the proposed Project would not conflict with Housing Element Policy 6.5.

The proposed Project would promote energy and resource efficiency with compliance with CALGreen with the inclusion of eco-friendly building materials, systems, and features wherever feasible, including 440 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-128 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Energy Star appliances, water saving/low flow fixtures, non-VOC paints/adhesives, drought tolerant planting, and high-performance building envelopment. Additionally, as discussed in Section 5.8, above, the proposed Project would comply with the requirements in the Greener Glendale Plan, which impose energy conservation measures. The City is also considering adoption of reach codes, which are local code that “reach” beyond the State minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction. On November 4, 2021, the Sustainability Commission of the City approved a motion (Motion 5a) to recommend the City Council hire a consultant to assist in the preparation of reach code(s) including standards requiring buildings to only use electricity. No reach codes have been adopted by the City that are applicable to the proposed Project. Nevertheless, the proposed Project would adhere to all policies and codes listed within the GMC that require recycling facilities on-site as well as other requirements for energy and resource saving, which would not conflict with Housing Element Policy 6.9.

In addition, the amount of open space provided by the proposed Project (15,844 square feet provided on Level 1, including 6,994 square feet of publicly accessible open space as well as 41,625 square feet of residential development open space within the proposed residential building) is more than the required amount of open space (12,752 square feet of open space, 6,376 square feet of publicly accessible open space, and 41,160 square feet of residential development open space required) in order to meet the needs of new residents.

Circulation Element
The Project site is bordered by Brand Boulevard on the east and Maryland Avenue on the west; Brand Boulevard is classified as a “Major Arterial” with a “Signature Street Overlay” in the Circulation Element and Maryland Avenue is designated as a local street. Based on the analysis in Table 5.11-2, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable goals and objectives stated in the Circulation Element below.

Goal 1:
• Develop acceptable thresholds of traffic volume in residential zones based on environmental capacity Goal 2:
• Increase/support public and high occupancy vehicle transportation system improvements through mitigation of traffic impacts from new development
• Develop parking policies which support reduced automobile travel in the most congested areas of Glendale
• Construct the complete bikeway system for Glendale as identified in the Bikeway Master Plan and continue to consider additions or adjustments to the planned system Goal 3:
• Encourage growth in areas and in patterns which are of can be well served by public transportation • Encourage housing around and in commercial centers
441 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-129 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 • Ensure transportation connections to regional systems by a variety of modes • Meet special transportation needs of the physically challenged Goal 4:
• Provide and maintain high quality streetscape and pedestrian amenities (i.e., bus shelters, street trees, street furniture, wide sidewalks, etc.)
Goal 5:
• Balance land use/zoning with roadway capacity by establishing congestion thresholds and avoiding unacceptable levels of congestion from future development The proposed Project would result in a net increase of 81 AM total peak hour volumes, 95 PM total peak hour volumes, and 1,198 total daily trip ends volumes. Traffic resulting from the operation of the proposed Project would not exceed operations criteria of the City at the six study intersections analyzed in the Transportation Impact Analysis for the proposed Project (see Appendix E). The proposed Project’s home-based VMT per capita is 6.67 VMT per capita, which is below the threshold of 7.39 VMT per capita per the City’s online mapping tool (see Appendix A of Appendix E of this SCEA). The proposed Project would not conflict with Circulation Element Goal 1. The proposed Project is located within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA (see Section 3.0) where access to public transit is ample. As analyzed in Section 5.17 of this SCEA, traffic impacts would be less than significant and no project-specific mitigation measures would be required. Additionally, the Project would provide 341 residential parking space with an additional 30 for guests and 129 spaces specifically for the existing Chase Bank which would remain on-site. 47 of the residential parking spaces would be tandem parking spaces for the 47 two-bedroom units, which is allowed per the GMC. The amount of parking proposed by the Project would be sufficient according to the DSP and the GMC. The proposed Project is located along Brand Boulevard and Maryland Avenue, which provides access and connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle networks within the vicinity of the proposed Project vicinity. According to the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, a Class III Bike Lane is proposed to the east of the Project site along Louise Street.150 While no bicycle infrastructure is provided on Brand Boulevard or Maryland Avenue, the proposed Project will not preclude the City from installing bicycle infrastructure in the future. The proposed Project would provide a total of 115 bicycle parking spaces (96 long term and 19 short term). The proposed Project would be consistent with Goal 2 of the Circulation Element.

The proposed Project would support the City’s objective to support and enhance existing neighborhood commercial centers to continue to serve the needs of nearby residents by redeveloping the existing twostory office building, parking structure and surface parking on-site in order to serve both commercial and residential uses efficiently. As discussed above and in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is located 150 City of Glendale, Bicycle Transportation Plan,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/plans-formobility/bike, Accessed December 2021. 442 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-130 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA. There are also numerous bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site as shown in Figure 3.0-5: Existing Transit Routes in Project Site Vicinity. By including residential uses within the mixed-use area of downtown and providing needed housing to an area adequately served by mass transit, many errands could be accomplished without the need of a single-passenger vehicle, thus reducing VMT. For these reasons, the proposed Project would meet Goal 3 of the Circulation Element.

In addition, the proposed Project would provide enhancements to ensure quality pedestrian environment along North Maryland Avenue and North Brand Boulevard with landscaping elements such as grass areas and trees along the public ROW and updated sidewalks as well as 6,994 square feet of publicly accessible open space on Level 1. The proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s policy to provide safe and convenient bicycle facilities by providing 115 on-site short-term and long-term bicycle spaces. With these pedestrian amenities and bicycle facilities proposed, the proposed Project would meet the criteria of Goal 4 of the Circulation Element. Additionally, the Project site is located within one-half mile qualifies as a transit priority project because the Central Avenue qualifies as both an existing and bus transit corridor and the Project site is located within 0.3 miles of Central Avenue. As discussed above, the current service provided by Glendale Beeline Route 1 along Central Avenue qualifies Central Avenue as an existing high quality transit corridor based on this service.151,152 Central Avenue is also identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2. Central Avenue is identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the RTP because Central Avenue is included in the route for the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line (refer to Section 3.0 for additional discussion on proposed Project Transit Priority Project designation).153,154 The Project site is also located within one-half mile of numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5. As such, public transportation would be available nearby the Project site and pedestrian access to these resources would be provided through connected pathways and ROWs.

As discussed above, the proposed Project would not exceed operations criteria of the City at the six study intersections analyzed in the Transportation Impact Analysis for the proposed Project and would be below the threshold of 7.39 VMT per capita per the City’s online mapping tool. As such, the proposed Project would avoiding unacceptable levels of congestion from future development and be consistent with Goal 5 of the Circulation Element. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the applicable 151 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
152 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
153 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 154 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
443 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-131 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 goals that support the goals set forth in the Circulation Element and impacts would be less than significant.

Noise Element
Based on the analysis in Table 5.11-2: Applicable General Plan Consistency, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable goals in the Noise Element found below. • Program 3.1: New land uses in a 60 CNEL or higher noise contour, may be subject to potentially significant environmental impacts that must be addressed by a noise study. The noise study, prepared by a qualified consultant (to the satisfaction of the City), shall address the noise environment and propose appropriate conditions of approval or mitigation measures to comply with the interior and exterior noise standards. Interior tenant improvements, signs, and exterior remodeling will not normally be subject to review under this Program.
• Program 3.2: Continue to enforce the State of California Building Code that specifies that the indoor noise levels for residential living spaces not exceed 45 dB CNEL due to the combined effect of all noise sources.

The proposed Project would introduce a residential use within existing commercial and retail uses within the DSP area. The existing site is also located adjacent to the 134 freeway. As analyzed in Section 5.13, the construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in a significant noise level increase at sensitive receptors. The proposed Project would not conflict with Noise Element Program 3.1.

With regard to combined noise effects, as stated in Section 5.13, proposed Project related noise would not exceed thresholds. The proposed Project would not result in a permanent increase in noise levels above ambient levels in the vicinity of the Project site and, thus, would not conflict with Noise Element Program 3.2. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the applicable programs that support the goals set forth in the Noise Element and impacts would be less than significant.

Historic Preservation Element
Based on the analysis in Table 5.11-2: Applicable General Plan Consistency, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable goals in the Historic Preservation Element found below. • Policy 1-8: Encourage the preservation of individual historic resources and historic thematic and historic geographic districts.

According to the City’s Historic Preservation Element, there are no National Register of Historic Resources (NRHR), California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or Glendale Register of Historic Resources listed or eligible properties on or within the vicinity of proposed Project.155 As discussed in Section 5.5, above, the City conducted a Historic Resources Survey in 2018 which identified the existing Chase Building located on the Project site as appearing to be individually eligible for local designation. The parking 155 City of Glendale General Plan, Historic Preservation Element, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wideplans/historic-preservation-element. Accessed August 2021. 444 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-132 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 structure was not included in the description of the property and was not identified as a related feature.

The property at 625 N. Maryland Avenue, the two-story office building, was identified as ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or Glendale Register of Historic Resources.156 The property directly to the south of the Project Site at 600 N. Brand Boulevard was also identified as appearing to be individually eligible for local designation. A Historic Resource Report was conducted in June 2022 to provide an intensive level survey to evaluate the parking structure and re-evaluated both the existing Chase Building and the two-story office building to determine if they qualify as historic resources defined by CEQA (see Appendix F).The Historic Report concluded the Chase Building is a historical resource as defined by CEQA and appears to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and Glendale Register of Historic Resources.157 The Historic Report determined the two-story office building and parking structure are not historical resources as defined by CEQA or eligible for listing. As discussed in the Historic Report and in Section 5.5, above, the proposed Project would introduce a new visual element to the setting of the Chase Building, a historical resource; however, it would not cause the demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the Chase Building would be materially impaired, resulting in a substantial adverse change. The proposed Project incorporates mitigation measure South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM

4.4-1, which requires that all properties listed on the National Register/California Register/Glendale Register and properties identified with status codes 1 through 5 in a survey or individual resource assessment will require further analysis under CEQA prior to the approval of any entitlements or issuance of permits. The proposed Project would also implement Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.4-4(c) and MM 4.4-4(d), which require a development project to consider the impacts to the known historic resource and, if needed, include a study conducted by a qualified historian or architectural historian to determine whether the proposed development project would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the known historic resource that conveys its historical significance and an intensive level survey to determine whether the property is a historic resource under CEQA. The June 2022 Historic Resources Technical Report provides an intensive level survey of the subject property and concluded while the proposed Project is located on the same site as an eligible historic resource, the Chase Building would not be altered as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the applicable policy that support the goals set forth in the Historic Resources Element and impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed above and shown in Table 5.11-2, the proposed Project would not be in conflict and would be consistent with the General Plan.
156 Historic Resources Group, City of Glendale South Glendale Historic Resources Survey, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/42070/636512649002070000. Accessed October 2021.
157 See Historic Report (Appendix F).
445 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-133 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-2

CITY OF GLENDALE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Land Use Element
General
Goal 3: Form an urban environment which will provide for residential diversity and opportunity.

No Conflict. The proposed Project is a
residential development project that would
add 294 new units within a mixed-use
designated area and provide a new
opportunity for a residential use within an
existing downtown area.

Goal 5: Promote development and improvement within the
community capitalizing on the location of, and access to, Glendale as adjacent to the regional core.

No Conflict. The Project site is located within
the DSP and has access to a variety of
commercial businesses and restaurants, as
well as along Brand Boulevard which is the
primary signature street that runs through the
center of the City.

Residential
Goal 3: Safeguard residential neighborhoods from intrusion of incompatible and disruptive uses.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
create a balanced connection between
residential uses on North Louise Street and
the commercial uses adjacent to North Brand
Boulevard. This would enhance the uses
within the downtown area and create a more
accessible environment.

Goal 4: Support the creation of higher density residential development and alternative forms of medium and high
density housing in those areas best suited from the
standpoint of accessibility, current development, community organization, transportation and circulation facilities and economic feasibility.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
construct 294 residential units within the
downtown area. As discussed above and in
Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is
located within one-half mile of a high-quality
transit corridor and within a TPA. The Project
site is also located within one-half mile of
numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-

5. Bicycle parking is also included in the
development of the proposed Project.

Circulation
Goal 4: Develop clusters of uses which will facilitate the development of public transportation networks, decreasing dependence on the automobile.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
develop a high-density residential use
adjacent to commercial uses in the downtown
area. As discussed above and in Section 3.0
of this SCEA, the Project site is located within
one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor
and within a TPA. The Project site is also
located within one-half mile of numerous bus
routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5. Bicycle
parking and enhanced pedestrian
streetscapes would also promote the use of
multimodal access and use.

Housing Element
Policy 1.5: Encourage the development of residential units in the downtown area and along appropriate commercial corridors.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
develop a residential use located within the
downtown area. As discussed above and in
Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is
located within one-half mile of a high-quality
transit corridor and within a TPA. The Project
site is also located within one-half mile of
numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-

5. As such, would be able to sufficiently serve
446 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-134 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-2

CITY OF GLENDALE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES Goals and Policies Project Consistency
the development using a number of
multimodal opportunities.

Policy 2.9: Ensure the variety and visual appeal of residential development in Glendale through the Design Review process.

No Conflict. The proposed Project Applicant
requires Design Review approval pursuant to
GMC Chapter 30.47 to assure the proposed
Project aligns with the character of the
surrounding structures within the Downtown
context. The Maryland streetscape of the
proposed Project has been designed to be
compatible with the pedestrian-oriented
residential neighborhood to the east along
Maryland Avenue.

Policy 6.5: Require residential projects to preserve major ridgelines, secondary ridgelines, blue line streams,
indigenous trees, and other significant environmental
features.

No Conflict. The Project site is not located
within a scenic corridor, or primary/secondary
ridgeline, and does not feature blue line
streams or indigenous trees on site.

Policy 6.9: Continue promoting energy and resource efficiency by implementing the City’s residential recycling, bulk item collection, household hazardous waste, horse accounts,
backyard composting, chopper rebates, Christmas Tree
Recycling, electronics recycling, recycling drop-off and worm composting services/programs.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
adhere to all policies and codes listed within
the GMC that require recycling facilities onsite as well as other requirements for energy and resource saving.

Policy 6.11: Provide opportunities for residential locations and design that encourage transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and other mobility options.

No Conflict. As discussed above and in
Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is
located within one-half mile of a high-quality
transit corridor and within a TPA. The Project
site is also located within one-half mile of
numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-

5. Circulation Element
Goal 1
Develop acceptable thresholds of traffic volume in residential zones based on environmental capacity
No Conflict. The proposed Project would
result in a net increase of 81 AM total peak
hour volumes, 95 PM total peak hour volumes,
and 1,198 total daily trip ends volumes.

Traffic resulting from the operation of the
proposed Project would not exceed
operations criteria of the City at the six study
intersections analyzed in the Transportation
Impact Analysis for the proposed Project (see
Appendix E). Additionally, the City’s online
VMT mapping tool states that the threshold
(i.e., 15% below the existing Citywide
average) home-based VMT per capita average
for residential projects is 7.39 VMT per
capita. Per the City’s online mapping tool,
(see Appendix A of Appendix E of this SCEA),
the proposed Project’s home-based VMT per
capita is 6.67 VMT per capita, which is below
the threshold of 7.39 VMT per capita.

Goal 2
Increase/support public and high occupancy vehicle
transportation system improvements through mitigation of traffic impacts from new development
No Conflict. As discussed above and in
Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is
located within one-half mile of a high-quality
transit corridor and within a TPA. The Project
site is also located within one-half mile of
447 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-135 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-2

CITY OF GLENDALE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES Goals and Policies Project Consistency
numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-

5. As analyzed in Section 5.17 of the SCEA,
traffic impacts would be less than significant
and no project-specific mitigation measures
would be required.

Develop parking policies which support reduced automobile travel in the most congested areas of Glendale
No Conflict. The proposed Project is located
within a TPA, and proposes 341 residential
parking spaces with an additional 30 for
guests and 129 spaces specifically for
commercial parking spaces for the existing
Chase Building that would remain. 47 of the
residential parking spaces would be tandem
parking spaces for the 47 two-bedroom units,
which is allowed per the GMC. The amount of
parking supplied for the proposed Project
would be consistent with the DSP and the GMC
standards related to parking.

Construct the complete bikeway system for Glendale as identified in the Bikeway Master Plan and continue to consider
additions or adjustments to the planned system
No Conflict. The proposed Project is located
along Brand Boulevard and Maryland Avenue,
which provides access and connectivity to
pedestrian and bicycle networks within the
vicinity of the proposed Project vicinity.

According to the City’s Bicycle Transportation
Plan, a Class III Bike Lane is proposed to the
east of the Project site along Louise Street.

While no bicycle infrastructure is provided on
Brand Boulevard or Maryland Avenue, the
proposed Project will not preclude the City
from installing bicycle infrastructure in the
future. The proposed Project would provide a
total of 115 bicycle parking spaces (96 long
term and 19 short term).

Goal 3
Encourage growth in areas and in patterns which are of can be well served by public transportation
No Conflict. As discussed above and in
Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is
located within one-half mile of a high-quality
transit corridor and within a TPA. The Project
site is also located within one-half mile of
numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-

5. Encourage housing around and in commercial centers No Conflict. The proposed Project is located within an area that is mainly commercial and
would promote the objective of the DSP by
including more residential uses on the same
site as an existing Chase Bank office building
to further a better balance between
commercial and residential uses.

Ensure transportation connections to regional systems by a variety of modes
No Conflict. There are no transit stops
currently provided along the Project site’s
frontage on Brand Boulevard or Maryland
Avenue, but there are stops provided on
adjacent streets. As discussed above and in
Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is
located within one-half mile of a high-quality
transit corridor and within a TPA. The Project
site is also located within one-half mile of
448 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-136 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-2

CITY OF GLENDALE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES Goals and Policies Project Consistency
numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-

5. Meet special transportation needs of the physically challenged No Conflict. The proposed Project will provide approximately nine accessible
parking spaces for those requiring ADA
compliant spaces. Additionally, As discussed
above and in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the
Project site is located within one-half mile of
a high-quality transit corridor and within a
TPA. The Project site is also located within
one-half mile of numerous bus routes as
shown in Figure 3.0-5 (see Section 3.0).

Goal 4
Provide and maintain high quality streetscape and pedestrian amenities (i.e., bus shelters, street trees, street furniture, wide sidewalks, etc.)
No Conflict. The proposed Project’s
driveways are located along Maryland Avenue,
which is designated as a Local Street north of
Doran Street. The driveway placement along
Maryland Avenue will allow for vehicular
access to the Project site with limited
potential for conflicts with pedestrians and
bicyclists. The proposed Project would also
provide landscaping and public open space
along pedestrian walkways to maintain high
quality streetscape and amenities.

Goal 5
Balance land use/zoning with roadway capacity by establishing congestion thresholds and avoiding unacceptable levels of congestion from future development
No Conflict. In accordance with Glendale
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
Guidelines, a significant VMT impact will
occur if the Project generates a home-based
VMT per capita exceeding a level of 15% below
the existing Citywide average. As such, the
proposed Project has been evaluated for this
level of VMT (see response to Checklist
Question b in Section 5.17, below, and
Appendix E) and would not result in a
significant impact on congestion.

Additionally, the proposed Project would not
exceed operations criteria of the City at the
six study intersections (see Appendix E).

Furthermore, the proposed Project’s homebased VMT per capita is 6.67 VMT per capita, which is below the threshold of 7.39 VMT per
capita. As such, the proposed Project would
not exceed the VMT threshold.

Noise Element
Program 3.1: New land uses in a 60 CNEL or higher noise contour, may be subject to potentially significant environmental impacts that must be addressed by a noise study. The noise study, prepared by a qualified consultant (to the satisfaction of the City), shall address the noise environment and propose appropriate conditions of approval or mitigation measures to comply with the interior and exterior noise standards.

Interior tenant improvements, signs, and exterior
remodeling will not normally be subject to review under this Program.

No Conflict. The proposed Project site is
located within an area designated as a
downtown center with commercial uses and
the existing 134 freeway to the immediate
north. As discussed in Section 5.13, the
construction and operation of the proposed
Project would not result in significant noise
level increases at sensitive receptors.

Program 3.2: Continue to enforce the State of California Building Code that specifies that the indoor noise levels for
No Conflict. As stated in Section 5.13,
Project related noise would not exceed
thresholds. Thus, the proposed Project would
449 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-137 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-2

CITY OF GLENDALE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES Goals and Policies Project Consistency
residential living spaces not exceed 45 dB CNEL due to the combined effect of all noise sources.
not result in a permanent increase in noise
levels above ambient levels in the vicinity of
the Project site.

Historic Preservation Element
Policy 1-8: Encourage the preservation of individual historic resources and historic thematic and historic geographic districts.

No Conflict. As discussed in Section 5.5, the
City conducted a Historic Resources Survey in
2018 which identified the existing Chase
Building located on the Project site as an
eligible historic property for listing in the
local register. A Historic Resource Report was
prepared in June 2022 to provide an intensive
level survey to evaluate the parking structure
and re-evaluated both the existing Chase
Building and the two-story office building to
determine if they qualify as historic resources
defined by CEQA (see Appendix F). As
discussed in Section 5.5, above, the Historic
Report concluded the Chase Building is a
historical resources as defined by CEQA and
appears to be eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places, California
Register of Historical Resources, and Glendale
Register of Historic Resources. The Historic
Report determined the two-story office
building and parking structure are not
historical resources as defined by CEQA or
eligible for listing. As discussed in the Historic
Report and Section 5.5, above, the proposed
Project would introduce a new visual element
to the setting of the Chase Building, a
historical resource; however, it would not
cause the demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration of a historical
resource or its immediate surroundings such
that the significance of the Chase Building
would be materially impaired, resulting in a
substantial adverse change. The proposed
Project would not conflict with the Historic
Resources policy as the identified historic
resource would not be altered with
implementation of the proposed Project. The
Chase building would be preserved and
mitigation measures would be included in
construction and operation of the Project in
order to protect this resource. The proposed
Project incorporates mitigation measure
South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-
1, which requires that all properties listed on
the National Register/California
Register/Glendale Register and properties
identified with status codes 1 through 5 in a
survey or individual resource assessment will
require further analysis under CEQA prior to
the approval of any entitlements or issuance
of permits. The proposed Project would also
implement Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM

4.4-4(c) and MM 4.4-4(d), which require a
development project to consider the impacts
to the known historic resource and, if needed,
include a study conducted by a qualified
historian or architectural historian to
determine whether the proposed
450 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-138 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-2

CITY OF GLENDALE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE POLICIES Goals and Policies Project Consistency
development project would materially alter
in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of the known historic resource
that conveys its historical significance and an
intensive level survey to determine whether
the property is a historic resource under
CEQA. The June 2022 Historic Resources
Technical Report provides an intensive level
survey of the subject property and concluded
while the proposed Project is located on the
same site as an eligible historic resource, the
Chase Building would not be altered as a
result of the proposed Project.

Source: City of Glendale, City-Wide Plans, General Plan Elements, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wide-plans, Accessed December 2021.

Partially Adopted South Glendale Community Plan
Based on the analysis presented in Table 5.11-3 Partially Adopted South Glendale Community Plan Consistency, the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan Chapter 4: Places states the DSP is a mixed-use development district which guides the development of Glendale’s city center.158 This area of the City includes various uses such as retail, service, office, entertainment, as well as very high density urban housing and mixed-use developments. Depending on the location within the DSP area, residential density can vary with high-rise buildings within dense office centers and retail areas or low to mid-rise buildings in less denser parts of the DSP area. The DSP area currently consists of an Urban Center and other major shopping center; paseos, open space, and other recreational park spaces; high-density residential and mixed-uses; office towers; and historic buildings. Based on the analysis presented in Table

5.11-3 Partially Adopted South Glendale Community Plan Consistency, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable objectives and policies in the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan as proposed to the City Council on July 31, 2018. The Project site is located within an urbanized portion of the South Glendale Community Plan. The vision of the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan includes goals building upon past plans and envisions the maintenance, enhancement, or transformation of South Glendale’s various neighborhoods, centers, and corridors over the next quarter century. The partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan identifies the proposed Project site within the Downtown center. The partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan attributes of the Downtown area consisting of an urban development with high rise buildings in areas dominated with office towers.

The future of this area is envisioned as low to mid-rise buildings depending on location and including a multitude of balanced uses such as commercial, residential, retail, and others.

The proposed Project would provide a high-density residential use along Maryland Avenue and Brand Boulevard, which is the primary signature street that runs through the Downtown area. The proposed Project would connect pedestrian activity on Brand Boulevard while providing residential units in close 158 City of Glendale, Partially Adopted South Glendale Community Plan, Ch. 4: Places, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/communityplans/south-glendale-community-plan. Accessed November 2021. 451 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-139 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 proximity to mass transit. The scale of the proposed Project would be consistent with the surrounding environment and character of the neighboring buildings in the Downtown. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the applicable policies in the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan.

Downtown Specific Plan
Downtown Glendale is located at the southern base of the Verdugo Mountains, in a valley “bowl” also bounded on the west by the Los Angeles River and Griffith Park and to the east by the San Rafael Hills.

The DSP area consists of approximately 220 acres located in the center of the City.159 The area is generally bounded to the north by Glenoaks Avenue, to the west by Central and Columbus Avenues, to the east along Maryland and Glendale Avenues and to the south by Colorado and Elk Streets.

TABLE 5.11-3

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS PARTIALLY ADOPTED SOUTH GLENDALE COMMUNITY PLAN Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Manage Growth
Create and enhance vibrant commercial areas to meet the wide range of economic needs of residents, businesses, and the City; provide employment opportunities; and take advantage of Glendale’s proximity and connections to surrounding areas.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
introduce 294 new residential units to the
downtown area. The downtown which includes
businesses and restaurants as well as numerous
bus stops that would support multimodal transit
accompanied by bicycle parking and walking.

Housing
Provide a balanced mix of housing opportunities and services available and affordable to all current and future residents, including those with special needs.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
introduce 294 residential units within the
downtown area which would serve existing
residents and provide a new opportunity for living
near the commercial area. As discussed above and
in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is
located within one-half mile of a high-quality
transit corridor and within a TPA. The Project site
is also located within one-half mile of numerous
bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5. As such, the
proposed Project would be able to sufficiently
serve the development using a number of
multimodal opportunities.

Urban Design and Land Use
Provide a policy framework that recognizes the capacity of existing and proposed infrastructure, promotes vital and attractive commercial areas, preserves the character of existing
residential neighborhoods, and encourages a healthy lifestyle for the community.

No Conflict. This strategy addresses the City’s
planning policies and does not apply to individual
development projects. Nevertheless, the
proposed residential building would have a
maximum height of 265.5 feet within an area that
has a maximum building height of 275 feet. The
proposed FAR for the proposed Project is 7.25,
which is the maximum FAR allowed within the
Gateway District of the DSP. The design of the
proposed Project would also blend with the
surrounding high-rise commercial buildings within
the area. As discussed above and in Section 3.0 of
this SCEA, the Project site is located within one159 Downtown Specific Plan, Introduction, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/50230/636904148989570000. Accessed December 2021.
452 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-140 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-3

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS PARTIALLY ADOPTED SOUTH GLENDALE COMMUNITY PLAN Goals and Policies Project Consistency
half mile of a high-quality transit corridor and
within a TPA (refer to Section 3.0 for additional
discussion on proposed Project Transit Priority
Project designation). The Project site is also
located within one-half mile of numerous bus
routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5. The inclusion of
bicycle parking and proximity to the downtown
area would also promote transportation that is not
dependent on automobiles.

Mobility
Foster a well-planned, comprehensive and safe transportation system that enhances mobility through infrastructure,
technology, design and multi-modal options.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would provide
a total of 129 commercial parking spaces would be
provided for the existing Chase Building that
would remain on site and 373 residential parking
spaces. Additionally, as discussed above and in
Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is
located within one-half mile of a high-quality
transit corridor and within a TPA (refer to Section

3.0 for additional discussion on proposed Project
Transit Priority Project designation). The Project
site is also located within one-half mile of
numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5.

The proposed Project would also include
enhanced streetscape surrounding the site for
safe and cohesive pedestrian access. As such, the
proposed Project would promote active
transportation modes within the vicinity of the
Project site.

Source: City of Glendale, Partially Adopted South Glendale Community Plan (SGCP), https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/community-plans/south-glendalecommunity-plan, Accessed December 2021.

The DSP is designed to function as a manual for residents, business owners, property owners, developers, designers, City staff and appointed and elected officials involved in review of proposed development projects.

Based on the analysis presented in Table 5.11-4 Downtown Specific Plan Consistency, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable objectives and policies in the DSP. The DSP is divided into 11 different districts: Alex Theatre, Broadway Center, Civic Centers, Downtown “Art & Entertainment”, East Broadway, Galleria, Gateway, Mid-Orange, Town Center, and Transitional. The Project site is located within the Gateway District which is characterized by high-rise development and home to numerous corporate headquarters and businesses whose multi-storied towers are visible from the various viewpoints throughout the City and SR-134. The focus of the area is the continued promotion and location of corporate headquarters, new hotels, mixed-use and residential buildings, complementary/accessory service, and retail businesses at the street level, as well as the introduction of appropriate night-time entertainment uses. In order to regulate the use of property as provided in the DSP, the DSP is divided into the following four chapters which define design and development standards:

Land Use, Urban Design, Open Space, and Mobility. The Design and Development Standards build upon existing characteristics and promote new development that contributes to the desired uses, scale, image, and pedestrian-friendliness of Downtown. DSP Chapter 4 provides the height and FAR requirements within 453 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-141 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 the DSP, which range from 2 stories and 2.00 FAR to 25 stories and 7.50 FAR with incentives). DSP Chapter 7 limits DSP building heights within the Gateway District to a maximum of 275 feet by right (up to 380 feet maximum for projects participating in the Community Benefits program). Chapter 7 also requires the maximum FAR permitted by the DSP for the Gateway District to be 7.25 by right (up to 7.5 FAR maximum for projects participating in the Community Benefits program).160 Land Uses
The Project site is located within the Gateway District of the DSP and would include a residential use that would enhance the attractiveness and convenience of the primary downtown land uses such as offices and other commercial uses. Additionally, the proposed Project would support ground floor pedestrian-oriented environment including enhanced landscaping and publicly accessible open space to contribute to the creation of primary and secondary pedestrian activity streets. Per Chapter 3 of the DSP, residential development is permitted in the Gateway District.161 Providing residential development within the Gateway District would contribute to the City’s community benefit goals to enhance the livability, contribute to the beautification of the City, and provide opportunity and accessibility for those that live, visit and work in the Downtown.

Urban Design
The proposed Project would further the goal of providing new development to the Downtown that is compatible with the pattern of uses, height, scale, and density envisioned by the DSP by introducing new residential uses within a site that is surrounded by commercial uses and currently has commercial office buildings on site. The proposed Project would comply with the allowable building heights and FAR in the Gateway District and would stay in character with the surrounding neighborhood and commercial environment. It would also comply with the urban design requirements including Massing & Scale, Façade Design, and Architectural Elements criteria for Tall Buildings outlined in Chapter 4 of the DSP.162 The scale of the proposed Project would also not conflict with existing neighborhood character and identity. 160 City of Glendale, Downtown Specific Plan,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/plans-fordowntown-glendale/downtown-specific-plan, Accessed December 2021. 161 City of Glendale, Downtown Specific Plan,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/plans-fordowntown-glendale/downtown-specific-plan, Accessed December 2021. 162 City of Glendale, Downtown Specific Plan,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/plans-fordowntown-glendale/downtown-specific-plan, Accessed December 2021. 454 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-142 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Open Space
The proposed Project would comply with open space policies discussed in Chapter 5 of the DSP by contributing open space available to both residents and publicly available open space within walking distance of Downtown as well as designing open space with surrounding character in mind to incorporate a comprehensive open space for residents and the public.163 The proposed Project would provide 15,844 square feet of open space and 6,994 square feet of public accessible open space on Level 1 and 41,625 square feet of residential development open space throughout the residential building. The proposed Project would also promote the inclusion of smaller open spaces within the Downtown area with the proposed development. Specifically, the proposed Project would supplement the larger public open spaces, provide local focus points, and diversify the built environment by including private as well as public open space.

Mobility
The proposed Project would promote the policy to develop street typology based on functional and urban design considerations, emphasizing connectivity and linkages, pedestrian and cyclist safety and comfort, increasing transit movement and reducing total person delay, and compatibility with adjacent land uses.

Specifically, the proposed Project would provide access and connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle networks in the direct proposed Project vicinity with sidewalks provided on all streets within the immediate vicinity. The proposed Project would also provide the required bicycle parking. As discussed above and in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is located within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA. The Project site is also located within one-half mile of numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5. The proposed Project would cluster housing around shared parking and major transit corridors and transfer nodes, connected by pedestrian streets. The proposed Project includes development that would emphasize diversifying modal choices, increasing number of downtown trips by transit, bicycle, and on foot, and improving pedestrian comfort and safety.

The proposed Project would comply with the DSP and Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) standards. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable policies in the DSP and impacts would be less than significant.
163 City of Glendale, Downtown Specific Plan,
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/plans-fordowntown-glendale/downtown-specific-plan, Accessed December 2021. 455 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-143 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-4

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Land Use

3.1.1: Include many land use options to encourage healthy urban districts with opportunities for interaction between uses. Direct certain land uses to specific areas to reduce potential land use conflicts such as noise or parking demand, while encouraging those land uses which enhance the attractiveness and
convenience of the primary downtown land uses such as offices and residential use.

No Conflict. The location of the Project site
would be consistent with the DSP goal to reduce
conflicts between land uses. The proposed
Project would introduce 294 new residential
units to the Gateway District within the City.

The Project site is located within the DSP and
has access to a variety of commercial businesses
and restaurants as well as along Brand
Boulevard which is a major street that runs
through the center of the City. The surrounding
land uses would not conflict with the proposed
Project and would instead develop a cohesive
flow of residential mixed with commercial uses.

The proposed Project design includes
predominantly white and blue metal panels,
blue and white metal louvers, limestone
cladding, transparent glazing and glazing with
operable windows aluminum frame. Design of
the proposed Project would match the character
of the surrounding area and include attractive
design that would be compatible the character
of neighboring buildings. Scale and massing for
the proposed Project would also be consistent
with the DSP Streetscape Standards.

3.1.3: Provide ground floor uses where appropriate in order to support a pedestrian-oriented environment in Downtown.

Strategically encourage ground floor uses that will contribute to creation of primary and secondary pedestrian activity streets.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
provide enhanced landscaping with new
sidewalks, row trees planted along the public
ROW, as well as publicly accessible open space
to contribute to the creation of primary and
secondary pedestrian activity streets.

3.1.4: Provide mixed-use commercial and residential
development in designated areas of Downtown. In addition to market rate housing, encourage affordable and senior housing in Downtown as part of the Community Benefit program.

No Conflict. As previously stated, the proposed
Project is within the DSP and would create a new
residential use within the Gateway District on a
site that is surrounded by commercial uses and
currently has commercial office buildings on site
to create a more balanced neighborhood. The
proposed Project would be required to meet the
City’s inclusionary housing ordinance. The
Applicant is requesting approval of a
Development Agreement, with the option to pay
an In-Lieu fee for affordable housing.
456 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-144 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-4

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Goals and Policies Project Consistency
Urban Design

4.0.1: New development shall enhance the overall image of the Downtown as an enticing destination for visitors and Glendale residents. Development should reflect the pattern of uses, height, and density envisioned by the DSP
No Conflict. The proposed Project would
comply with the land use requirements of the
DSP and the GMC. The proposed residential
building would have a maximum height of 265.5
feet within the Gateway District that has a
maximum building height of 275 feet. The
proposed FAR for the proposed Project is 7.25,
which is the maximum FAR allowed within the
Gateway District of the DSP. The design of the
proposed Project would also blend with the
surrounding high-rise buildings within the area.

The exterior of the proposed residential building
would consist of predominantly white and blue
metal panels, blue and white metal louvers,
limestone cladding, transparent glazing and
glazing with operable windows aluminum
frame. This is similar to the color and style of
the surrounding commercial buildings. The scale
and massing for the proposed Project would also
comply with the DSP Streetscape Standards.

4.0.2: New development shall be sensitive to existing patterns and character in Downtown. Where strong existing patterns of height, scale or use are established, new development should reinforce these patterns.

No Conflict. The proposed Project design would
be consistent with other developments in the
DSP Gateway District through the adherence to
DSP Streetscape Standards and comply with the
land use requirements of the DSP and the GMC,
including the design requirements in the DSP
Chapter 7 - Urban Design for massing, scale,
building materials, setbacks, and terraces.

4.0.4: Protect and enhance significant public views of the Verdugo Mountains, public streets, spaces, and significant architecture, including the Alex Theater and other distinctive buildings.

No Conflict. Brand Boulevard runs west
adjacent to the Project site and provides partial
views of the Verdugo Mountains. Since the
proposed Project would not be developed along
this street, there would not be any visual
resources obscured. Additionally, the Project
site is within the Gateway District that includes
high-rise buildings and no visual resources would
be obscured with development (see Section

5.1, above, for visual resources analysis).

4.0.9: New development shall enhance pedestrian activity by improving the physical attractiveness of the street and providing places for relaxation, shopping, living, and dining. The pedestrian experience is enhanced through the pedestrian framework of streets and open spaces (e.g., parks, plazas, paseos, and courtyards) that shape the pedestrian experience in Downtown and reinforce the distinct street typology.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
provide landscaping and new pavement along
Brand Boulevard to maintain high quality
streetscape and amenities to the City’s primary
signature street in the Downtown. Public open
space would also be available on the Project site
including a courtyard with landscaping, a water
feature, and benches on Level 1.

Open Space

5.1.2: Provide public open space within walking distance of all Downtown residents and employees.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
contribute open space available to both
residents and the public within walking distance
of Downtown as well as designing open space
457 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-145 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-4

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Goals and Policies Project Consistency
with surrounding character in mind to
incorporate a comprehensive open space for
residents and the public.

5.1.4: Make the new public parks, plazas and courtyards harmonious, inspirational, and sources of community pride and identity through design excellence.

No Conflict. As previously stated, the proposed
Project would enhance and provide publicly
accessible open space that is designed with the
character of the neighborhood in mind. The
proposed Project would provide landscaping and
new pavement along Brand Boulevard to
maintain high quality streetscape and amenities
to the City’s primary signature street in the
Downtown. A courtyard would be included on
the Project site with landscaping, a water
feature, and benches on Level 1.

5.1.6: Pursue opportunities to enhance existing and create new smaller open spaces. These smaller spaces can include public plazas, courtyards, and pocket parks, on portions of blocks throughout Downtown to supplement the larger public open spaces, provide local focus points, and diversify the built environment.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
include a total of 15,844 SF of open space with
6,994 SF being publicly accessible open space on
the ground floor (Level 1) of the Project site.

This would supplement the larger public open
spaces within the City, provide local focus
points, and diversify the built environment by
including private as well as public open space.

5.1.7: Focus on excellent urban design to improve Downtown streets as an essential element of the open space system as treelined open spaces and continuous recreational paths.

No Conflict. The Level 1 plan would include an
improved landscaping, and parking garage
access, which would contain storage, a valet
staging area, and bicycle parking. The proposed
Project complies with the DSP’s Streetscape
Typologies’s criteria, established to enhance
and regulate the streetscapes and pedestrian
experience through the use of setbacks,
sidewalk widths, and landscaping. All design
would conform to standards and requirements
of the DSP and GMC and would be similar to the
existing surrounding area.

5.1.8: Require private common open space as part of all large new residential and mixed-use developments.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
include 8,867 SF of private common open space
including ground floor open space, outdoor
terraces, community spaces, and a pool for
residents.

Mobility
Policy 6.1.1 (a) Maintain acceptable levels of local circulation in the DSP area and adjacent neighborhoods and good connections with the regional circulation network for both transit and personal/commercial vehicles. (b) Develop street typology based on functional and urban design considerations, emphasizing connectivity and linkages, pedestrian and cyclist safety and comfort, increasing transit movement and reducing total person delay, and compatibility with adjacent land uses. (c) Maintain, re-establish, and enhance the street grid, to promote flexibility of movement through greater street connectivity, capture natural views, and retain the historic relationships between various streets. (d) Maintain, re-establish, and enhance the multi-modal use of Downtown alleys as an integral part of the Downtown No Conflict. The proposed Project would
encourage improved access and mobility by
adding residential use on a site with an existing
commercial office building that would remain
and adjacent to commercial uses. The proposed
Project is also located within one-half mile of a
high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA
(see above and Section 3.0 of this SCEA). The
proposed Project would also provide
approximately 96 long-term and 19 short-term
bicycle parking spaces as well as cohesive
pedestrian walkways. Sidewalks are provided on
all streets within the immediate Project vicinity,
458 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-146 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-4

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Goals and Policies Project Consistency
transportation system. (e) Continue the Citywide Safe Routes to School (SRTS) safety improvements to increase the number of students who walk and bike to school. (f) Sustain ongoing SRTS education program to educate and encourage students to walk and bike to school safety.
and the proposed Project would not alter
existing pedestrian infrastructure. Additionally,
the proposed Project will close the existing
driveways along Brand Boulevard, which will
further enhance the pedestrian experience
along the Project site’s Brand Boulevard
frontage. As stated previously, a Class III Bike
Lane is proposed to the east of the Project site
along Louise Street as part of the City’s Bicycle
Transportation Plan. While no bicycle
infrastructure is provided on Brand Boulevard or
Maryland Avenue, the proposed Project will not
preclude the City from installing bicycle
infrastructure in the future per the City’s
Bicycle Transportation Plan, which guides the
City in planning, development, design, and
maintenance for new and upgraded bicycle
facilities. Though the proposed Project is not
along an existing or proposed bikeway according
to the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, the
bicycle facilities proposed on the Project site
would encourage bicycle connectivity from the
bikeways to the Project site. The proposed
Project would not alter or prohibit the use of
the street grid, the Downtown alleys, the
Citywide Safe Routes to School (SRTS), or the
ongoing SRTS education program.

Policy 6.1.2 (a) Link land use and transit development policies to maximize transit use and convenience in Downtown. (b) Cluster housing and employment around shared parking and major transit corridors and transfer nodes, connected by pedestrian streets. (c) Make street and transit stop improvements to facilitate the safety, attractiveness and convenience of transit use. This might include transit improvements to designated transit-priority streets to keep buses moving, upgrades to transit stops to include amenities such as weather protection, and real time trip information, and other improvements.

No Conflict. The proposed Project’s location
within the DSP would further the goals to
incorporate more residential uses within the
commercial area and enhance pedestrian
activity within City hubs such as downtown.

Additionally, the proposed Project would
provide parking for the existing Chase Building
that would remain on site, ensuring access for
both commercial and residential uses. A total of
502 vehicle parking spaces would be provided in
the four subterranean levels and two above
ground levels. A total of 373 residential parking
spaces would be provided in the four
subterranean levels of the proposed residential
building, including 30 guest parking spaces and
47 of the residential parking spaces would be
tandem parking spaces for the 47 two-bedroom
units, which is allowed per the GMC. The
commercial Chase Building on site would be
allocated 129 vehicle parking spaces to be
provided in the two above ground levels. The
proposed residential building would also provide
a total of 115 bicycle parking spaces (96 long
term and 19 short term), in compliance with
code. As the proposed Project will close the
existing driveways along the Project site’s Brand
Boulevard frontage, transit stops could be
moved along the Project site’s frontage without
any potential conflicts with vehicles entering
and exiting the Project site. As such, the
459 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-147 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-4

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Goals and Policies Project Consistency
proposed Project would ensure future public
transportation opportunities within the area.

Policy 6.1.3 (a) Increase transportation choices by providing viable alternatives to exclusive reliance on the auto for Downtown residents and visitors. (b) Through sound land use and transportation planning, emphasize diversifying modal choices, increasing number of downtown trips by transit, bicycle, and on foot, and improving pedestrian comfort and safety. (c) Consider the development of mobility devices including bicycle, electronic bicycle and electronic scooters as a mode of transportation.

No Conflict. As discussed above and in Section

3.0, the proposed Project would place new
residential units within one-half mile of a highquality transit corridor and within a TPA. The proposed Project is also located approximately

0.3 miles from the proposed Lexington Drive
station for the North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT
Corridor Project as shown in Figure 3.0-1.164
Bicycle parking is also proposed for the
proposed Project consistent with the GMC.

Additionally, a cohesive pedestrian walkway
would be provided. Sidewalks are provided on
all streets within the immediate Project vicinity,
and the proposed Project would not alter
existing pedestrian infrastructure. Additionally,
the proposed Project would close the existing
driveways along Brand Boulevard, which will
further enhance the pedestrian experience
along the Project site’s Brand Boulevard
frontage.

Policy 6.1.4 (a) Provide designated bicycle routes with lane markings and signage within and to and from major downtown destinations. (b) Include bicycle parking, showers, and lockers to promote bicycle commuting in new development. (c) Include bicycle parking in streetscape improvements. (d) Promote increased bicycling for downtown residents and visitors with expanded marketing, promotional/informational events, and financial incentives.

No Conflict. The Project site is located along
Brand Boulevard and Maryland Avenue, which
provide existing access and connectivity to
pedestrian and bicycle networks in the direct
Project vicinity. The proposed Project would
provide approximately 96 long-term and 19
short-term bicycle parking spaces. The proposed
Project will not preclude the City from installing
bicycle infrastructure along Louise Street in the
future. Also, the addition of bicycle parking and
the location of the Project site would promote
increased bike use throughout the downtown
area by situating residents within a
commercially developed area of the City.

Policy 6.1.5 (a) Provide a high level of pedestrian amenities throughout the downtown area. Minimize interruptions, such as areas for loading and trash collection, and parking garage entries, in sidewalks designated for pedestrian priority. (b) Provide pedestrian crosswalks at all intersections and consider additional improvements to promote safety in key locations with high potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. (c) Consider the special mobility requirements of the young, the elderly, and wheelchair or mobility impaired users of the sidewalk network. (d) Promote increased walking for downtown residents and visitors with expanded marketing, promotional/informational events, and financial incentives.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would close
the existing driveways along Brand Boulevard,
which will further enhance the pedestrian
experience along the Project site’s Brand
Boulevard frontage. This will increase access to
the areas surrounding the Project site and
support connectivity. The driveway placement
along Maryland Avenue will allow for vehicular
access to the Project site with limited potential
for conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. The
proposed Project would provide cohesive
pedestrian walkways.

Policy 6.1.6 (a) Maximize the efficiency of existing and future parking facilities. (b) Create a Transportation Management District to manage parking supply and revenue policies. The No Conflict. The proposed Project would
provide replacement vehicular parking for the
existing Chase Building that would remain on
164 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor Project, https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena-corridor/. Accessed November 2021. 460 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-148 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.11-4

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
Goals and Policies Project Consistency
District can facilitate coordination of parking pricing to promote efficient use of parking resources, policies which provide incentives for transit use for employees, and other downtown transportation programs and incentives. (c) Use shared parking where possible and establish operations guidelines and standards to minimize parking activity impacts, particularly spillover parking impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods. (d) Require a certain portion of on-site parking for motorcycle, bicycle, and carpool/carshare vehicle parking in addition to automobile spaces. (e) Maximize the efficiency of parking by managing prices to correspond with activity and demand
patterns. (f) Where an existing parking structure can be shown through parking studies to provide more parking than required for an existing facility, excess parking may be converted to other uses or parking should be made available for shared use. At off-peak times where parking is not in use by a facility, parking should be made available for shared use. (g) Reform preferential parking permit program to protect downtown adjacent neighborhoods from spillover parking problems.
site as well as residential parking. Total
residential parking required by GMC Title 30
Chapter 30.32, would be 341 spaces. 29 guest
parking spaces for the residential units and 94
commercial parking spaces would also be
required per the GMC. A total of 129 commercial
parking spaces would be provided for
commercial use and 373 residential parking
spaces would be proposed on the site, including
30 guest parking spaces. 47 of the residential
parking spaces would be tandem parking spaces
for the 47 two-bedroom units, which is allowed
per the GMC. Additionally, the proposed Project
would provide approximately 96 long-term and
19 short-term bicycle parking spaces. The
amount of parking supplied for the proposed
Project would be consistent with the City’s
Municipal Code for parking.

Policy 6.1.7 Through a strategic hierarchy of pedestrian-oriented and transit and vehicular-oriented streets in Downtown, parking management, Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
incentives, transportation systems management (TSM), and key infrastructure improvements, work to minimize traffic and parking spillover into downtown-adjacent neighborhoods. These strategies, combined with a 1st/last mile improvements, will promote active transportation modes and reduce vehicle miles traveled in the DSP area.

No Conflict. The proposed Project would
provide a total of 129 commercial spaces for the
existing Chase Building that would remain on
site and 373 residential parking spaces would be
provided on the site. The amount of parking
provided on site would not result in overflow
parking into the downtown-adjacent
neighborhoods during the operation of the
proposed Project. The proposed Project would
comply with GMC 30.32.171 and develop a TDM
plan, pay dues to a designated transportation
management association, and include bicycle
facilities on-site. As discussed above and in
Section 3.0 of this SCEA, the Project site is
located within one-half mile of a high-quality
transit corridor and within a TPA. The Project
site is also located within one-half mile of
numerous bus routes as shown in Figure 3.0-5.

As such, the Project site is located within onehalf mile of a well-serviced transit stop or transit corridor with 15-minute or less service
frequency during peak commute hours. The
Project would also provide more than the
required amount of parking spaces as required
by the GMC to reduce spillover into adjacent
neighborhoods. As such, the proposed Project
would promote active transportation modes
within the vicinity of the Project site and be
consistent with this policy.

Source: City of Glendale, Downtown Specific Plan, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/plans-for-downtown-glendale/downtown-specific-plan, Accessed December 2021.

Cumulative Impacts
Development of the proposed Project in conjunction with related projects would result in an intensification of existing prevailing land uses in an already urbanized area of Glendale. With regard to 461 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-149 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 land use plans, regional and citywide projects under consideration would implement and support important local and regional planning goals and policies. Like the proposed Project, each related project—listed in Section 2.0—would be subject to a discretionary land use approval process, including CEQA review, and would incorporate any mitigation measures necessary to reduce potential land use impacts such that no significant impacts with regard to adopted land use plans would occur. Also, upon approval of the requested actions, development of the proposed Project together with future forecasted growth, would not conflict with the intent of the General Plan, the partially adopted South Glendale Community Plan, the DSP, or with other applicable land use plans. Therefore, development of the proposed Project together with the related projects would not be expected to result in cumulatively considerable impacts with respect to incorporated applicable land use plans and regulations.

With regard to physical land use, it should be noted that all of the related projects are subject to local zoning and land use designations for each of the related Project sites. These requirements would regulate future land uses and provide development standards for such land uses that would further preclude potential land use compatibility impacts.

As the proposed Project would not combine with the related projects to change the existing relationship substantially or adversely with off-site communities, the proposed Project would not result in cumulatively considerable physical land impacts.

Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No land use and planning mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
No land use and planning mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No land use and planning mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
No prior mitigation measures were identified, and no project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project.
462 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-150 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and
the residents of the State?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan?
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State?
No Impact. A significant impact could occur if the Project site were located in an area used or available for extraction of a regionally important mineral resource, if project development would convert an existing or future regionally important mineral extraction use to another use, or if project development would affect access to a site used or potentially available for regionally important mineral resource extraction. A mineral resource is defined as any naturally occurring chemical element or compound, or groups of elements and compounds, formed in inorganic processes and organic substances, including but not limited to, coal, peat and bituminous rock, but excluding geothermal resources, natural gas and petroleum.

The proposed Project site is not within an oil drilling district, State-designated oil field, or surface mining district.165 Additionally, the Project site is not located in a Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) indicating an area where known mineral resources occur. No mineral resources are known to exist beneath the Project site. As such, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State and no impacts would result.
165 City of Glendale General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wide-plans.

Accessed August 2021.
463 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-151 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
No Impact. The Project site is not located within a Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) Area. The Project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Thus, there would be no impacts from construction or operation of the proposed Project to the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan and no impacts would result.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project would have no impact on mineral resources. As such, the proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to mineral resources.

Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

No mineral resources mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
No mineral resources mitigation measures were identified.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
No mineral resources mitigation measures were identified.

Project Mitigation
No additional project-specific mitigation measures are necessary.

Impacts After Mitigation
No prior mitigation measures were identified, and no project specific mitigations are proposed for the proposed Project.
464 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-152 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5.13 NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or
working in the Project area to excessive noise
levels?
a. Would the project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The City has adopted local guidelines based in part on the community noise compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types with a range of noise levels. These guidelines are set forth in the City of Glendale General Plan Noise Element in terms of the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). CNEL guidelines for specific land uses are classified into four categories:
(1) normally acceptable; (2) conditionally acceptable; (3) normally unacceptable; and (4) clearly unacceptable.

Noise standards for specific land uses are identified in the City of Glendale’s Noise Ordinance, which is located in Chapter 8.36, Section 8.36.040 of the GMC. Under Section 8.36.040 of the Noise Ordinance, exterior and interior noise is regulated by reference to “presumed noise standards,” which are presented in Table 5.13-1: Interior and Exterior Presumed Noise Standards. Under Section 8.36.050 of the Noise Ordinance, where noise levels are below the presumed noise standards, the actual ambient noise level controls, and any noise more than 5 dBA above the actual ambient noise level is considered a violation of the Noise Ordinance. Where the actual ambient noise level exceeds the presumed noise standard, the actual ambient noise level is used, and any noise more than 5 dBA above the actual ambient noise level is considered a violation of the Noise Ordinance. However, under the Noise Ordinance, the actual ambient noise levels are not allowed to exceed the presumed noise level by more than 5 dBA. 465 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-153 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 The City does not have regulations that establish maximum construction noise levels. However, Section

8.36.080 of the GMC states that it is unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures, or projects within the City between the hours of 7:00 PM on one day and 7:00 AM of the next day, or from 7:00 PM on Saturday to 7:00 AM on Monday, or from 7:00 PM preceding a holiday. Moreover, Section 8.36.290(K) of the GMC provides an exemption from the Noise Ordinance for any activity, operation, or noise, which cannot be brought into compliance (with the Noise Ordinance) because it is technically infeasible to do so. “Technical infeasibility” for the purpose of this section means that noise limitations cannot be complied with despite the use of mufflers, shields, sound barriers, and/or any other noise reduction devices or techniques during the operation of the equipment.

TABLE 5.13-1

INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR PRESUMED NOISE STANDARDS
Land Use Category Noise Standards
Category Uses Interior CNEL Exterior CNEL
Residential
Single Family 451 652
Multifamily 451 653
Residential within Mixed Use 451 -
Commercial Hotel, Motel, Transient, Lodging 451 -
Institutional Hospital, School, Church, Library 45 -
Open Space Parks4 - 651
Source: City of Glendale General Plan Noise Element, 2007. 1 Applies to the indoor environment excluding bathrooms, toilets, closets, and corridors 2 Applies to the outdoor environment limited to the private yard of single family residences (normally the rear yard). 3 Applies to the patio area where there is an expectation of privacy (i.e., not a patio area which also serves as, or is adjacent to, the primary entrance to the unit). 4 Only applies to parks where peace and quiet are determined to be of prime importance, such as hillside open space areas to the public. Generally, would not apply to urban parks or active-use parks.

Short-term sound monitoring was conducted at four (4) locations to measure the ambient sound environment in the proposed Project vicinity. Measurements were taken over 10-minute intervals on August 16, 2021 and are presented in Table 5.13-2: Ambient Noise Measurements. As shown in Table

5.13-2, ambient noise levels ranged from a low of 63.9 dBA (Leq-10minute) at the southeast corner of Doran Street and Maryland Avenue (Site 3) to a high of 71.6 dBA (Leq-10minute) west of the Project site along Sanchez Drive between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard (Site 4). Ambient noise levels currently exceed the presumed noise standard for multi-family residential uses west of the Project site along Sanchez Drive between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard. The segment along Sanchez Drive includes a one-way eastbound roadway that connect the SR-134 Freeways ramps in the eastbound direction between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard.

The Project site is predominantly surrounded by a mix of high-rise commercial office buildings as well as high-rise and low-rise (one-, two- and three-story) residential buildings. As mentioned previously, the 466 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-154 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Project site is bounded by the SR-134 Eastbound On-Ramp to the north, an existing commercial office building and an associated surface parking lot to the south, N. Brand Boulevard to the west, and N.

Maryland Avenue to the east. Residential uses are located to the east of the Project site along N. Maryland Avenue and N. Louise Street, to the west along N. Doran Street, and to the north along Monterey Road.

TABLE 5.13-2

AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Monitoring Site
Number/Description Time Period Noise Source Presumed Noise Standard, dBA CNEL dBA
Leq-10minute
1 Southwest corner of the
Project site along Brand
Boulevard between Sanchez
Drive and Doran Street
1:06 PM–1:16 PM
Vehicle traffic
along N. Brand
Boulevard
N/A1 71.4
2 Northeast corner of the
Project site along Maryland
Avenue and Maryland Place
1:18 PM–1:28 PM Vehicle traffic
along SR-134 N/A1 69.5
3 Southeast corner of Doran
Street and Maryland Avenue 1:30 PM–1:40 PM
Vehicle traffic
along E. Doran
Street and N.

Maryland Avenue
652 63.9
4 West of the Project site along
Sanchez Drive between
Central Avenue and Brand
Boulevard.
1:48 PM–1:58 PM
Vehicle traffic
along SR-134 and
Sanchez Drive
652 71.6
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = average equivalent sound level. 1 There are no presumed noise standards for the commercial use. 2 Presumed Noise Standard for multi-family residential uses.

Refer to Appendix D: Noise Study
An overview of the surrounding land uses relative to the noise monitoring locations provided in Table

5.13-2 above is provided:
• Site 1: Located at the southwest corner of the Project site along N. Brand Boulevard. There are no sensitive receptors within the vicinity of this noise monitoring location. • Site 2: Located at the northeast corner of the Project site along N. Maryland Avenue and Maryland Place. Sensitive receptors include residential uses along Maryland Place. • Site 3: Located at the southeast corner of E. Doran Street and N. Maryland Avenue. Sensitive receptors include residential uses along E. Doran Street and N. Maryland Avenue. • Site 4: Located west of the Project site along Sanchez Drive. Sensitive receptors include residential uses along Sanchez Drive.

The City’s General Plan and Municipal Code do not establish numeric maximum acceptable source noise levels or noise level increases at potentially affected receivers. Chapter 8.36 of the GMC prohibits construction activities within 500 feet of a residential zone between the hours of 7:00 PM on one date and 7:00 AM of the next day or from 7:00 PM on Saturday to 7:00 AM on Monday or from 7:00 PM preceding a holiday.
467 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-155 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual166 provides a general noise assessment guideline to assess potential noise impacts construction of transit projects. A general noise assessment is suitable and appropriate given the current stage of planning and evaluation for this Project. The FTA’s General Assessment Construction Noise Criteria identifies daytime and nighttime thresholds for residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, which are considered reasonable criteria for use in assessing the potential for adverse community reaction to noise generated by construction activities.

The construction noise criteria threshold for residential uses is 90 dBA (Leq-1hour) during the daytime and 80 dBA (Leq-1hour) during the nighttime period. Additionally, construction noise thresholds for commercial and industrial uses are 100 dBA (Leq-1hour) during both the daytime and nighttime periods.

Since the construction-related noise level threshold represents the energy average of the noise source over a given time, they are expressed as Leq noise levels.

For operation, the City’s General Plan Noise Element is used to establish satisfactory noise levels of significance for land uses within the City. The exterior noise level criteria for normally acceptable multifamily residential uses range between 50 to 65 dBA CNEL. Additionally, exterior noise level criteria for normally acceptable office buildings, business commercial and professional uses range between 50 to 70 dBA CNEL.

There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or of the corresponding human reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment (ambient) to which one has adapted.

In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged. As such, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that take into account the ambient noise level. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average-daily noise level (i.e., CNEL). FICON identifies a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded.

According to the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance. 166 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, accessed September 2021, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf 468 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-156 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Construction
Separate forecasts of construction noise levels from on-site construction at each of the noise monitoring sites within the immediate vicinity were completed. The forecast noise levels at the nearest sensitive uses to the Project site from construction activity are shown in Table 5.13-3: Project Construction Noise Estimates. As shown, construction noise levels would range between 62.8 dBA (Leq-1hour) at the multifamily residential uses on the corner of Sanchez Drive and Central Avenue (Site 4) to a high of 98.9 dBA (Leq-1hour) at commercial use adjacent to the Project site. Noise levels due to construction would not exceed the daytime 90 dBA Leq threshold for residential uses or the 100 dBA Leq threshold for commercial uses. Additionally, the Project would be required to adhere to Section 8.36.290(K) of the GMC, which requires noise limitations to be implemented during construction to the extent feasible. Noise limitations include the use of mufflers, shields, sound barriers and/or any other noise reduction device or techniques during the operation of the equipment. More specifically, using optimal muffler systems on all equipment would reduce construction noise levels by 10 dBA or more.167 Temporary abatement techniques such as the use of a noise barrier can achieve a 5-dBA noise level reduction when it is tall enough to break the line-of-sight to the receiver. Modifications such as dampening of metal surfaces or the redesign of a particular piece of equipment can achieve noise reduction of up to 5 dBA.168 Moving stationary equipment away from sensitive receptors will reduce noise levels at the receptor as every doubling of distance will reduce noise by 4 to 6 dBA. As such, adherence to the GMC would further reduce construction noise levels at all of the Sites to below significance thresholds.

Moreover, the proposed Project would comply with the GMC as it relates to construction equipment by ensuring that the operation of noise generating construction equipment would not occur between the hours of 7:00 PM on one day and 7:00 AM of the next day, or from 7:00 PM on Saturday to 7:00 AM on Monday, or from 7:00 PM preceding a holiday. Compliance with the above practices would ensure construction noise levels are reduced to the maximum extent feasible; thus, construction noise levels would not be considered significant. As discussed in Section 3.3 of this SCEA, PRC Section 21155.2 requires that a Transit Priority Project incorporate all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria from prior applicable environmental impact reports (EIRs). For this reason, the proposed Project incorporates SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR PMM NOISE-1; South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.11-1, MM 4.11-2, and MM 4.11-5; and Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.9- 1(a) through MM 4.9-1(d) and MM 4.9-3(a).
167 FHWA, Special Report—Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation, updated June 2017, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn04.cfm, Accessed January 2021.
168 FHWA, Special Report—Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation, updated June 2017, accessed July 2019, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn04.cfm. 469 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-157 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.13-3

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOISE ESTIMATES
Noise
Monitoring
Site
Nearest
Off-Site Building
Structures
Distance
from
Project
Site
(feet)
Max dBA
(Leq1hour)
Significance
Threshold
(dBA) Exceeds FTA Threshold?
Site 1
Commercial use
adjacent to the Project
site
10 98.9 100.0 No
Site 2
Multi-family residential
uses along Maryland
Place and Louise Street
205 73.7 90.0 No
Site 3
Multi-family residential
uses along Doran Street
and Maryland Avenue
195 74.2 90.0 No
Site 4
Multi-family residential
uses on the corner of
Sanchez Drive and
Central Avenue
720 62.8 90.0 No
Source: FHWA, RCNM, version. 1.1.

Refer to Appendix D: Noise Study
Operation
Off-Site Operational Roadway Noise
Traffic noise levels were modeled using the FHWA Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). This model calculates the average noise level in dB(A) CNEL along a given roadway segment based on traffic volumes, vehicle mix, posted speed limits, roadway geometry, and site conditions. The model calculates noise associated with a specific line source and the results characterize noise generated by motor vehicle traffic along the specific roadway segment. According to data collected by Caltrans, California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dB(A) louder than national levels, while medium and heavy truck noise is

0.3 to 3.0 dB(A) quieter than national levels.169
Table 5.13-4: Off-Site Roadway Noise Levels—Existing Plus Project illustrates the change in AM and PM peak hour noise levels from existing traffic volumes and from traffic generated by the proposed Project.

The difference in traffic noise between existing conditions and existing plus Project conditions represents the increase in noise attributable to Project-related traffic. As shown in Table 5.13-4, the maximum noise level increases along the analyzed roadways would range from negligible changes at various roadway segments to a high of 1.1 dBA CNEL along Maryland Avenue north of Doran Street (Intersection 4). Project-related traffic would not cause noise levels along the analyzed roadways to increase by more than 3.0 dBA. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in a permanent increase in noise levels above ambient levels in the vicinity of the Project site in excess of the City’s Noise Element. As such, roadway noise under this scenario would not result in a significant noise level increase at sensitive receptors. 169 Rudolf W. Hendriks, California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels, NTIS, FHWA/CA/TL-87/03 (1987). 470 of 2287
Lucia Park Project 5.0-158 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.13-4
OFF-SITE ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS – EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
Intersection Roadway Segment Adjacent Land Use
Existing
(dBA CNEL)
Existing
plus
Project
(dBA
CNEL) Difference
Significant
Impact?
Brand Boulevard
1 North of
Goode
Avenue
(SR-134 WB
Off-Ramp)
Commercial 53.1 53.1 0.0 No
South of
Goode
Avenue
(SR-134 WB
Off-Ramp)
Commercial 53.2 53.2 0.0 No
2 North of
Sanchez
Drive
(SR-134 EB
On-Ramp)
Commercial 53.1 53.1 0.0 No
South of
Sanchez
Drive
(SR-134 EB
On-Ramp)
Commercial 54.2 54.2 0.0 No
3 North of
Doran
Street
Commercial 54.3 54.3 0.0 No
South of
Doran
Street
Commercial 53.7 53.7 0.0 No
471 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-159 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.13-4
OFF-SITE ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS – EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
Intersection Roadway Segment Adjacent Land Use
Existing
(dBA CNEL)
Existing
plus
Project
(dBA
CNEL) Difference
Significant
Impact?
Goode Avenue (SR-134 WB Off-Ramp)
1 East of
Brand
Boulevard
Commercial 57.8 57.8 0.0 No
West of
Brand
Boulevard
Commercial 52.3 52.3 0.0 No
Sanchez Drive (SR-134 EB On-Ramp)
2 East of
Brand
Boulevard
Commercial/Residential
(Multi-family) 63.3 63.3 0.0 No
West of
Brand
Boulevard
Commercial 60.5 60.5 0.0 No
Doran Street
3 East of
Brand
Boulevard
Commercial/Residential 53.2 53.6 +0.4 No
West of
Brand
Boulevard
Commercial/Residential 63.0 63.1 +0.1 No
4 East of
Maryland
Avenue
Residential (Multi-family) 61.3 61.3 0.0 No
West of
Maryland
Avenue
Commercial 56.7 57.1 +0.4 No
472 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-160 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.13-4
OFF-SITE ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS – EXISTING PLUS PROJECT
Intersection Roadway Segment Adjacent Land Use
Existing
(dBA CNEL)
Existing
plus
Project
(dBA
CNEL) Difference
Significant
Impact?
6 East of
Louise
Street
Residential (Multi-family) 61.0 61.0 0.0 No
West of
Louise
Street
Residential (Multi-family) 61.2 61.3 +0.1 No
Maryland Avenue
4 North of
Doran
Street
Commercial 50.0 51.1 +1.1 No
South of
Doran
Street
Commercial/Residential
(Multi-family) 60.5 60.6 +0.1 No
Maryland Place
5 East of
Louise
Street
N/A N/A N/A N/A No
West of
Louise
Street
Residential/Commercial 51.7 51.9 +0.2 No
Louise Street
5 North of Maryland Place Residential (Multi-Family) 54.9 54.9 0.0 No South of Maryland Place Residential (Multi-Family) 61.0 61.0 0.0 No 6 North of Doran Street Residential (Multi-Family) 61.2 61.2 0.0 No South of Doran Street Residential (Multi-Family) 60.3 60.3 0.0 No Source: Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, Transportation Impact Analysis for the 606 N. Maryland Avenue Residential Project, June 22, 2021.

Refer to Appendix D: Noise Study
473 of 2287
Lucia Park Project 5.0-161 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 On-Site Operational Noise
The proposed Project would introduce various stationary noise sources, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, which would be located either on the roof, the side of a structure, or on the ground. All Project mechanical equipment would be required to be designed with appropriate noisecontrol devices—such as sound attenuators, acoustics louvers, or sound screens/parapet walls—to comply with noise compatibility requirements provided in the GMC. The stationary equipment would be required to comply with GMC Section 30.34.070, which establishes low-sound intensities from mechanical equipment. Therefore, operation of mechanical equipment on the proposed Project building would not exceed the City’s threshold of significance.

As discussed in Section 3.3 of this SCEA, PRC Section 21155.2 requires that a Transit Priority Project incorporate all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria from prior applicable environmental impact reports (EIRs). For this reason, the proposed Project incorporates SCAG 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR PMM NOISE-1; South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.11-1, MM 4.11- 2, and MM 4.11-5; and Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.9-1(a) through MM 4.9-1(d) and MM 4.9-3(a). b. Would the project result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Section 8.36.210 of the GMC provides that vibration created by the operation of any device would be a violation of City standards if such vibration were above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of a source on private property. For sources on a public space or public right-of-way, a violation would occur if the vibration perception threshold of an individual were exceeded at a distance of 150 feet from the source.

A numerical threshold to identify the point at which a vibration impact is deemed perceptible is not identified in the GMC.

Thus, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual170 is used as a screening tool to assess the potential for adverse vibration effects related to structural damage. Impacts related to vibration would be considered significant if it exceeds the following standards:
• Project construction activities cause ground-borne vibration levels to exceed 0.5 PPV at the nearest off-site reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber building. • Project construction activities cause ground-borne vibration levels to exceed 0.3 PPV at the nearest off-site engineered concrete and masonry building.
• Project construction activities cause ground-borne vibration levels to exceed 0.2 PPV at the nearest off-site nonengineered timber and masonry building.
• Project construction activities cause ground-borne vibration levels to exceed 0.12 PPV at buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage, such as historic buildings. 170 Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (September 2018), accessed August 2021, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_FINAL.pdf. 474 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-162 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Construction machinery and operations can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures and the construction equipment used. The operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of a construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receptor buildings. The results from vibration impacts can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at its highest levels.

Ground-borne vibration from construction activities rarely reaches the levels that damage structures.

As discussed previously, the existing Chase Building would remain on site as part of the Project. The Chase Building is a historical resource as defined by CEQA and appears to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and Glendale Register of Historic Resources.171 As such, the Chase Building was included in the analysis below using the Caltrans vibration threshold of 0.12 PPV for historic buildings.

Table 5.13-5: On-Site Construction Vibration Impacts–Building Damage presents the construction vibration impacts associated with on-site construction in terms of building damage. It is important to note pile driving would not be required during construction. As shown in Table 5.13-5, the forecasted vibration levels due to on-site construction activities would not exceed the building damage significance threshold at the nearby residential receptors. However, vibration levels would exceed the building damage significance threshold at the on-site historical Chase Building for vibratory rollers, large bulldozers, caisson drilling, and loaded trucks. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2 would require the Applicant to retain a vibration monitor to ensure construction-inducted vibration levels do not expose the existing Chase Building to vibration levels of 0.12 ppv in/sec or greater.

Adherence to these measures would include a monitoring plan consisting of measures to reduce vibration levels, such as but not limited to utilizing quiet pile driving technology (auger displacement installation) to reduce friction thus making penetration for a large range of soils less vibration intensive. As such, impacts related to building damage from on-site construction vibration would not be considered significant with mitigation.

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-163 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.13-5
ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS—BUILDING DAMAGE
Site
Building
Structures
Estimated Vibration Velocity Levels at the Nearest Building Structures from the Project Construction Equipment
Significance
Threshold
(PPV ips)
Vibratory
Roller
Large
Bulldozer
Caisson
Drilling
Loaded
Trucks Jackhammer
Small
bulldozer
FTA Reference Vibration Levels at 25 feet

0.210 0.089 0.089 0.076 0.035 0.003
1 Chase
Building
(15 Feet)

0.452 0.191 0.191 0.164 0.075 0.006 0.12
2 Residential
uses along
Maryland
Place
(205 Feet)

0.009 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.2
3 Residential
uses E. Doran
Street and N.

Maryland
Avenue
(195 Feet)

0.010 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.000 0.2
4 Residential
uses along
Sanchez
Drive
(2720 Feet)

0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.2
Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Transportation Authority, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Note: Refer to Attachment C for construction vibration worksheets. 476 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-164 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Operation
Operation of the proposed Project would include typical commercial-grade stationary mechanical and electrical equipment, such as air handling units, condenser units, and exhaust fans, which could produce vibration. Ground-borne vibration generated by each of the above-mentioned activities would generate approximately up to 0.005 inches per second PPV adjacent to the Project site.172 As such, vibration levels at other sensitive receptors would result in vibration levels below perceptible levels of human annoyance.

As a result, the proposed Project’s operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed in Section 3.3 of this SCEA, PRC Section 21155.2 requires that a Transit Priority Project incorporate all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria from prior applicable environmental impact reports (EIRs). For this reason, the proposed Project incorporates SCAG 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR PMM NOISE-1; South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.11-1, MM 4.11- 2, and MM 4.11-5; and Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.9-1(a) through MM 4.9-1(d) and MM 4.9-3(a). c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact.

Cumulative Impacts
For purposes of this analysis, development of any related projects will be considered to contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Noise, by definition, is a localized phenomenon and drastically reduces as distance from the source increases. As a result, only related projects, and growth in the general area of the Project site (within 500 feet) would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Cumulative constructionnoise impacts have the potential to occur when multiple construction projects in the local area generate noise within the same time frame and contribute to the local ambient noise environment. It is expected that, as with the proposed Project, any related projects would adhere to Section 8.36.290(K) of the GMC and implement noise reduction techniques such as mufflers, shields, sound barriers, which would minimize any noise-related nuisances during construction. In addition, distance attenuation and 172 FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, Accessed January 2020. 173 County of Los Angeles, L.A. County’s Airport Land Use Commission, https://lacounty.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=acf2e87194a54af9b266bf07547f240a.

Accessed August 2021.
477 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-165 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 intervening structures would further reduce construction noise levels and not result in noticeable increases. Therefore, the combined construction-noise impacts of related projects within a 0.5-mile radius and the proposed Project’s contribution would not cause a significant cumulative impact.

Table 5.13-6: Off-Site Roadway Traffic Noise Levels—Cumulative Plus Project illustrates the change in noise levels from cumulative conditions without the proposed Project-related vehicular traffic to cumulative conditions with the proposed Project. The cumulative scenario represents ambient traffic growth, related project traffic growth, and the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to cumulative traffic within the City. As shown in Table 5.13-6, the maximum noise level increases along the analyzed roadways would range from negligible changes at various roadway segments to a high of 1.0 dBA CNEL along Maryland Avenue north of Doran Street (Intersection 4). Project-related traffic would not cause noise levels along the analyzed roadways to increase by more than 3.0 dBA. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in a permanent increase in noise levels above ambient levels in the vicinity of the Project Site in excess of the City’s Noise Element. As such, roadway noise under this scenario would not result in a significant noise level increase at sensitive receptors.

With regard to ground-borne vibration, cumulative significant vibration impacts could result if construction were occurring on the Project site and nearby related project sites concurrently. As shown in Table 5.13-5 above, the forecasted vibration levels due to on-site construction activities would not exceed the building damage significance threshold of 0.20 PPV. However, vibration levels would exceed the historical building threshold and the building damage threshold of 0.12 ppv in/sec for the on-site Chase Building prior to mitigation. Mitigation Measure MM NOI-1 and MM NOI-2 would reduce vibration impacts to the Chase Building to less than significant. In addition, distance attenuation and intervening structures would further reduce construction vibration levels and not result in noticeable increases. It is expected that, as with the Project, related projects would implement best management practices, which would minimize any ground-borne vibration during construction.

With regard to stationary sources, cumulative significant noise impacts may result from cumulative development. Stationary sources of noise that could be introduced in the area by cumulative projects could include mechanical equipment, loading docks, and parking lots. Noise levels within the proposed parking levels would fluctuate with the amount of automobile and human activity. It is anticipated that parking related noise would be similar to existing levels as the Project site currently includes surface parking. As such, the parking levels within the residential building would not introduce a new source of noise in the Project vicinity. Given that these related projects would be required to adhere to the City’s noise standards, all stationary sources would be required to have shielding or other noise-abatement measures so as not to cause a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Moreover, due to distance, it is unlikely that noise from multiple cumulative projects would interact to create a significant combined noise impact. As such, it is not anticipated that a significant cumulative increase in permanent ambient noise levels would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

Therefore, the combined construction vibration impacts of the related projects and the Project’s contribution would be less than significant.
478 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-166 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.13-6
OFF-SITE ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS – CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT Intersection Roadway Segment Adjacent Land Use
Cumulative
(dBA CNEL)
Cumulative plus Project
(dBA CNEL) Difference
Significant
Impact?
Brand Boulevard
1 North of Goode Avenue (SR-134
WB Off-Ramp) Commercial 53.8 53.8 0.0 No
South of Goode Avenue (SR-134
WB Off-Ramp) Commercial 53.9 54.0 +0.1 No
2 North of Sanchez Drive (SR-134
EB On-Ramp) Commercial 53.9 53.9 0.0 No
South of Sanchez Drive (SR-134
EB On-Ramp) Commercial 54.9 55.0 +0.1 No
3 North of Doran Street Commercial 55.0 55.1 +0.1 No
South of Doran Street Commercial 54.5 54.5 0.0 No
Goode Avenue (SR-134 WB Off-Ramp)
1 East of Brand Boulevard Commercial 58.5 58.6 +0.1 No
West of Brand Boulevard Commercial 52.9 52.9 0.0 No
Sanchez Drive (SR-134 EB On-Ramp)
2 East of Brand Boulevard Commercial/Residential (Multifamily) 63.9 63.9 0.0 No West of Brand Boulevard Commercial 61.1 61.1 0.0 No
Doran Street
3 East of Brand Boulevard Commercial/Residential 53.7 54.0 +0.3 No West of Brand Boulevard Commercial/Residential 64.3 64.4 +0.1 No 4 East of Maryland Avenue Residential (Multi-family) 61.8 61.8 0.0 No West of Maryland Avenue Commercial 57.2 57.5 +0.3 No
6 East of Louise Street Residential (Multi-family) 61.5 61.5 0.0 No West of Louise Street Residential (Multi-family) 61.7 61.8 +0.1 No Maryland Avenue
4 North of Doran Street Commercial 50.4 51.4 +1.0 No
479 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-167 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 5.13-6
OFF-SITE ROADWAY NOISE LEVELS – CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT Intersection Roadway Segment Adjacent Land Use
Cumulative
(dBA CNEL)
Cumulative plus Project
(dBA CNEL) Difference
Significant
Impact?
South of Doran Street Commercial/Residential (Multifamily) 60.9 60.9 0.0 No Maryland Place
5 East of Louise Street N/A N/A N/A N/A No
West of Louise Street Residential/Commercial 52.0 52.2 +0.2 No Louise Street
5 North of Maryland Place Residential (Multi-Family) 55.3 55.3 0.0 No South of Maryland Place Residential (Multi-Family) 61.4 61.4 0.0 No 6 North of Doran Street Residential (Multi-Family) 61.6 61.6 0.0 No South of Doran Street Residential (Multi-Family) 60.7 60.7 0.0 No Source: Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, Transportation Impact Analysis for the 606 N. Maryland Avenue Residential Project, June 22, 2021.

N/A = no data available.

Source: Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, Transportation Impact Analysis for the 606 N. Maryland Avenue Residential Project, June 22, 2021.

Roadway noise model results are provided in Attachment D. 480 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-168 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Mitigation Measures
Incorporation of Prior Mitigation
As discussed in Section 3.3 of this SCEA, PRC Section 21155.2 requires that a Transit Priority Project incorporate all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria from prior applicable environmental impact reports (EIRs).

The following mitigation measures from prior applicable EIRs incorporated into the proposed Project will further reduce the less than significant impacts of the proposed Project.

SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR:

PMM NOISE-1: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects that physically divide a community, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Install temporary noise barriers during construction. b) Include permanent noise barriers and sound-attenuating features as part of the project design. Barriers could be in the form of outdoor barriers, sound walls, buildings, or earth berms to attenuate noise at adjacent sensitive uses. c) Schedule construction activities consistent with the allowable hours pursuant to applicable general plan noise element or noise ordinance d) Post procedures and phone numbers at the construction site for notifying the Lead Agency staff, local Police Department, and construction contractor (during regular construction hours and off-hours), along with permitted construction days and hours, complaint procedures, and who to notify in the event of a problem. e) Notify neighbors and occupants within 300 feet of the project construction area at least 30 days in advance of anticipated times when noise levels are expected to exceed limits established in the noise element of the general plan or noise ordinance.
f) Designate an on-site construction complaint and enforcement manager for the project.
g) Ensure that construction equipment are properly maintained per manufacturers’ specifications and fitted with the best available noise suppression devices (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds silencers, wraps). All intake and exhaust ports on power equipment shall be muffled or shielded. h) Use hydraulically or electrically powered tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) for project construction to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust should be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves should be used, if such jackets are commercially available, and this could achieve a further reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures should be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever such procedures are available and consistent with construction procedures. 481 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-169 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 i) Where feasible, design projects so that they are depressed below the grade of the existing noise-sensitive receptor, creating an effective barrier between the roadway and sensitive receptors.
j) Where feasible, improve the acoustical insulation of dwelling units where setbacks and sound barriers do not provide sufficient noise reduction. k) Using rubberized asphalt or “quiet pavement” to reduce road noise for new roadway segments, roadways in which widening or other modifications require re-pavement, or normal reconstruction of roadways where re-pavement is planned l) Projects that require pile driving or other construction noise above 90 dBA in proximity to sensitive receptors, should reduce potential pier drilling, pile driving and/or other extreme noise generating construction impacts greater than 90 dBA; a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures should be completed under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant.
m) Use land use planning measures, such as zoning, restrictions on development, site design, and buffers to ensure that future development is compatible with adjacent transportation facilities and land uses;
n) Monitor the effectiveness of noise reduction measures by taking noise measurements and installing adaptive mitigation measures to achieve the standards for ambient noise levels established by the noise element of the general plan or noise ordinance.
o) Use equipment and trucks with the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible) for project construction.
p) Stationary noise sources can and should be located as far from adjacent sensitive receptors as possible and they should be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or use other measures as determined by the Lead Agency (or other appropriate government agency) to provide equivalent noise reduction.
q) Use of portable barriers in the vicinity of sensitive receptors during construction. r) Implement noise control at the receivers by temporarily improving the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings (for instance by the use of sound blankets), and implement if such measures are feasible and would noticeably reduce noise impacts.
s) Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.
t) Maximize the distance between noise-sensitive land uses and new roadway lanes, roadways, rail lines, transit centers, park-and-ride lots, and other new noisegenerating facilities. u) Construct sound reducing barriers between noise sources and noise-sensitive land uses.
v) Stationary noise sources can and should be located as far from adjacent sensitive receptors as possible and they should be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or use other measures as determined by the Lead Agency (or other appropriate government agency) to provide equivalent noise reduction.
482 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-170 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 w) Use techniques such as grade separation, buffer zones, landscaped berms, dense plantings, sound walls, reduced-noise paving materials, and traffic calming measures.
x) Locate transit-related passenger stations, central maintenance facilities, decentralized maintenance facilities, and electric substations away from sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible.
y) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities.

City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR
MM 4.11-1: Future projects implemented under the SGCP that result in the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the Glendale General Plan, Noise Ordinance, or other applicable standards shall be required to implement measures, such as but not limited to; increase setbacks of dwelling units from area roadways or rail lines, use of developer-installed noise walls to protect exterior use area, and/or use of upgraded acoustical doors and windows in dwelling units to reduce interior noise.

MM 4.11-2: Future projects implemented under the SGCP that result in the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the Glendale General Plan Noise Ordinance, or other applicable standards, shall implement measures, such as but not limited to, the use of parking areas or garage structures to act as acoustical buffers or barriers against highway or rail noise shall be implemented.

MM 4.11-5: Future projects implemented under the SGCP that result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels shall be required to implement measures, such as but not limited to, the installation of temporary noise wall or curtains, use of quieter equipment and/or construction procedures, and restrictions on nighttime construction.

City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR
MM 4.9-1(a) All construction activity within the City shall be conducted in accordance with Section

8.36.080 of the City of Glendale Municipal Code.

MM 4.9-1(b) The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that the following construction best management practices (BMPs) be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels:
a) Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification must be provided to surrounding land uses within 1,000 feet of a Project site disclosing the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period b) Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and be in good working condition
c) Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses, where feasible
d) Schedule high noise-producing activities between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. to minimize disruption on sensitive uses
e) Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible, which may include, but are not limited to, temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources
f) Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, where feasible
483 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-171 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 g) Construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for more than 30 minutes
h) Construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent. If the City or the job superintendent receives a complaint, the superintendent shall investigate, take appropriate corrective action, and report the action taken to the reporting party.
i) Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed Project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.9-1(c) The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction staging areas along with the operation of earthmoving equipment within the DSP area would be located as far away from vibration and noise sensitive sites as possible. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed Project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.9-1(d) The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that heavily loaded trucks used during construction would be routed away from residential streets to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed Project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.

MM 4.9-3(a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall establish a 50-foot buffer zone around identified historic structures, and shall provide for temporary fencing and private security patrols to prevent human and vehicular/equipment access to the structures during construction of the proposed Project.

Project Mitigation
MM NOI-1: Prior to approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of demolition, grading and building permits, and to the satisfaction of the City of Glendale, the applicant shall retain a Professional Structural Engineer with experience in structural vibration analysis and monitoring for historic buildings and a Project Historical Architect as a team to ensure project construction-induced vibration levels do not expose the existing Chase Building to vibration levels of 0.12 ppv in/sec or greater. The Structural Engineer/Project Historical Architect team shall perform the following tasks:
• Survey the Project Site and the existing Chase Building and prepare a report that includes but not limited to the following:
o Description of existing conditions at the existing Chase Building; o Vibration level limits based on building conditions, soil conditions, and planned demolition and construction methods to ensure vibration levels would be below 0.12 ppv in/sec, the potential for damage to the existing Chase Building;
o Specific measures to be taken during construction to ensure the specified vibration level limits are not exceeded; and
484 of 2287

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis
Lucia Park Project 5.0-172 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 o A monitoring plan to be implemented during demolition and construction that includes post-construction and post-demolition surveys of the existing Chase Building. The plan should include, but not limited to, monitoring instrument specifications, instrument calibration certificates, list of exact monitoring locations, data collection protocol, alarming and alerting protocol, reporting protocol, and maintenance and service outage protocol. Any of the measures can be removed when no longer necessary to achieve the 0.12 ppv in/sec threshold of structure damage at the existing Chase Building.
• Examples of measures that may be specified for implementation during demolition or construction include, but are not limited to:
o Prohibition of certain types of impact equipment;
o Requirement for lighter tracked or wheeled equipment; o Specifying demolition by non-impact methods, such as sawing concrete; o Phasing operations to avoid simultaneous vibration sources; and o Installation of vibration measuring devices to guide decision making for subsequent activities. Monitoring shall be conducted, at minimum, during all ground-disturbing significant impact construction activities (i.e., demolition, shoring, excavation, and foundation work). Warning thresholds, as specified in the monitoring plan, shall be below the specified vibration limits to allow the Contractor to take the necessary steps to reduce vibration, including but not limited to halting/staggering concurrent activities, utilizing quieter or lower-vibratory techniques, or reducing the speed or intensity of equipment. A monitoring record that documents all alarms and includes information regarding compliance with these vibration measures shall be provided to the City upon request.

MM NOI-2: To the satisfaction of the City, in the unanticipated event of discovery of vibration-caused damage, the Structural Engineer and the Project Historical Architect shall document any damage to the existing Chase Building caused by construction of the project and shall recommend necessary repairs. Until the conclusion of vibration causing activities, a report from the Structural Engineer or Project Historical Architect shall be submitted monthly to the City of Glendale documenting the presence or absence of damage, and, if needed, the status of any required repairs. The project applicant shall be responsible for any repairs associated with vibration‐caused damage as a result of construction of the project. Any such repairs shall be undertaken and completed as required to conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 Code of Federal Regulations 68), and shall apply the California Historical Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 8) and other applicable codes.

Glendale City CouncilJune 14, 2022

Glendale City Council
June 14, 2022