Glendale City Council
June 14, 2022

*Recorded by: F. Smith *Date: January 10, 2022 Continuation Sheet *B12. References: (Continued from page 7)
“Off-Street Parking Program Considered: Glendale Council Agrees To Spend $11,400 For Central District Survey” Los Angeles Times. September 29 1967.

Rotenstein, David. “Blacktop History: the Case for Preserving Parking Lots” National Council on Public History June 2014. https://ncph.org/history-at-work/blacktop-history/
Snyder, Don. “Mini Wall Street Springing Up on North Brand Bl.” Los Angeles Times. 8 August 1971. 4-15
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2120 of 2287
P.O. Box 4173 Glendale CA 91202
www.GlendaleHistorical.org
The Glendale Historical Society (TGHS) advocates for the preservation of important Glendale landmarks, supports maintaining the historic character of Glendale’s neighborhoods, educates the public about and engages the community in celebrating and preserving Glendale’s history and architectural heritage, and operates the Doctors House Museum. TGHS is a tax-exempt, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, and donations to TGHS are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.

January 20, 2020
Mayor Ara Najarian and Members of the Glendale City Council 613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
Re: 620 N. Brand Boulevard and 625 N. Maryland Avenue — Stage I Design Review (Case No. PDR 1729008)
Dear Honorable Mayor Najarian and council members:

Regarding the subject project, The Glendale Historical Society is disappointed to learn that the Stage I Design Review of this significant building has been scheduled by Council for 3pm on a Tuesday afternoon, with little notification, and at a time when most of the public are unavailable to attend. The importance of the initial review cannot be overstated: this proposed development at 620 N. Brand Boulevard will alter Glendale’s appearance and skyline, and would impact the City for years to come. During Stage 1 review Council gives the developer direction about what it thinks will meet with final approval. It is that much harder for the public to have an impact at a second hearing, because to some degree, the die has been cast.

The Staff Report fails to acknowledge that the property in question is a historic resource. Section

4.1.1 Historic Preservation / Adaptive Reuse states “not applicable.” But the Historic Resources Survey undertaken as part of the South Glendale Community Plan indicates that the building at 620 N. Brand Boulevard is in fact a historic resource with a preliminary status code of 5S3 (appears to be individually eligible for local listing of designation through survey evaluation).

Even though CEQA review is not part of this initial process, it is a mistake to discount the fact that this property is a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as part of the review. The property’s status should be corrected in the Staff Report.

Further, and due to its recognized historic significance, the building along with the entire property should be evaluated for historic resources impacts according to the requirements in CEQA. We note that under the Secretary’s Standards and preservation practice, setting is essential to a historic property’s significance, and that incompatible new construction on a site may diminish a historic property’s ability to convey its historic significance. As such, we note ATTACHMENT 2
4-16
4-17
4-18
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2121 of 2287

the following points are applicable from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, Standard 9 in particular and National Park Service guidance regarding New Construction Within the Boundaries of Historic Properties assert:
• New construction needs to be built in a manner that protects the integrity of the historic building(s) and the property’s setting.
• The massing, size, scale, and architectural features of new construction on the site of a historic building must be compatible with those of the historic building. When visible and in close proximity to historic buildings, the new construction must be subordinate to these buildings.

The current design of the proposed project shows minimal, if any deference to the design and setting of the 1969 Home Savings and Loan Building (currently the Chase Bank Building).

Clearly the proposed project would overwhelm the historic building, rather than it being subordinate as directed in the Standards, but, understandably, a project of this scale will to some degree dominate the much smaller adjacent building. We would suggest that opportunities be explored which might include additional step backs at the 6-story building and further articulation at areas near that building. This building, with its prominent location at the freeway, will become a part of Glendale’s identity for years to come. Taking cues from the directness, simplicity and symmetrical Corporate Modern design of the Home Savings Building should enhance the compatibility of the new building with its historic property.

Because the South Glendale Survey did not include the preparation of survey forms, we do not know if the 2-story parking garage on the property, detailed to match the larger building, contributes to the historic significance of the property. If it does, and the proposed project required its demolition, we assume that the City will require preparation of an environmental review document to analyze the effects to the historic property. Our brief attached review of the project demonstrates that this project would affect the integrity of the property, which must be considered in a more robust CEQA evaluation of historical resource impacts.

Sincerely,
Steve Hunt
Steve Hunt
President, The Glendale Historical Society
cc: Ardy Kassakhian, City Clerk
Yasmin Beers, City Manager
Jay Platt, Senior Urban Designer
4-18
4-19
4-20
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2122 of 2287

ATTACHMENT
Integrity Analysis
National Register guidance, which is the only available direction on this subject defines integrity as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.” It asserts “To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance (National Park Service “How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation” https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf).

The defined aspects of integrity are listed in the table below with brief analyses on whether or not the proposed project would retain those aspects of integrity.

Aspect Definition (as defined by the National Park Service) Analysis Retained Location Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened.

The proposed project is not expected to affect the location of the historic resource Home Savings Building at 620 N Brand Ave.

YES
Design Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale,
technology, ornamentation, and materials. A property's design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of
fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape.

It also applies to the way in which buildings, sites, or structures are related: for example, spatial relationships between major features; visual rhythms in a streetscape or landscape plantings; the layout and materials of walkways and roads; and the relationship of other features...

The design of the proposed project would not directly affect the design of the Home Savings Building, but the proposed
project’s enormous proportions, strangely grouped scale and proposed treatment at inside corners, the ornamentation and use of materials demonstrate no respect for the historic building or to the larger property. The proposed project’s fenestration pattern; the smooth [surfaces] and proposed colors of [those] surface materials; the type, amount, and style of that ornamental detailing bear no resemblance to the extremely symmetrical, vertically oriented historic building or its [Parking G]arage. None of the historic materials would be used i proposed building, other than glass, which is a given.

Corporate Modernism is generally defined by large expanses of glass, with strong horizontal and in this case, masonry vertical divisions. Its character-defining features include its box-shaped form, the exterior masonry (including the Carrera marble accents), its flat continuous roof, the lack of applied ornament, articulated ground story, the integral parking garage, and the landscaped plaza at the ground floor.

The proposed site planning, arrangement and type of plantings in the extant landscape are not paid any homage in the
proposed complex or its site planning. The extant two-story parking garage building would be demolished, obliterating the spatial relationship between the Home Savings Building and NO
4-21
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2123 of 2287
Aspect Definition (as defined by the National Park Service) Analysis Retained its related parking garage-office building, which was
completed in 1969, according to the County Assessor.

The proposed round-framed, horizontally oriented design would not be subordinate to the historic property, if anything, the new design would be what is considered “intentional opposition,” deliberately dissimilar to the Corporate Modern Home Savings Building and its property.

Setting Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.

Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space.

The proposed project would destroy the related parking
garage-office building (completed in 1969) and thus directly impair the connection between the two resources. Its wraparound plan would negate the Home Savings Building’s orientation from all sides except the west, change its setting and most of its general environment. The extant related parking garage-office building, which may very well be a contributing building, is compatible with the extant design.

The new asymmetrical, 20-story-high, building’s rounded design horizontal orientation and proposed placement are not compatible with the property's significance and would require destroying the historic resource setting.

The landscaped surface parking of the Home Saving Building would be demolished and replaced by a wide fire lane and a linear water feature for the proposed project. Thus its character-defining parking lot and landscaping would be lost, as well as the connection to those planting and the convenience of surface parking.

NO
Materials Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

The new complex would not reflect, echo or mirror the any of Home Saving Building’s unique materials. While the building would remain, as currently proposed the proposed project would necessitate demolition, or material impairment as defined in CEQA of the extant, related 1969 parking garage building,
NO
Workmanship Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site.

Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing.

While the workmanship of the Home Saving Tower would
remain, nothing in the proposed project design would
demonstrate any design, massing or planning subservience to the Corporate Modern style historic resource.

YES
4-21
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2124 of 2287
Aspect Definition (as defined by the National Park Service) Analysis Retained Feeling Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character.

With the proposed removal of the parking garage and the proposed placement of a 20-story building enveloping the Home Savings Building, a large percentage of the physical features, which taken together, convey the property's historic character would be lost. The Home Savings Building would be shoe-horned into a much larger project, which would take visual precedence, and hence contravene the feeling of the small, prim 6-story building.

NO
Association Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character.

The proposed demolition of the parking garage and the
proposed placement of a 20-story building wrapping around the Home Savings Building, the presence of the remaining physical features that convey the property's historic character would be lost.

NO
The historic resource would not retain integrity if the proposed project were built as currently proposed. 4-21
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2125 of 2287
Attachment 3
1 of 4
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Francesca Smith <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Paula Devine <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Vartan Gharpetian <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Ardashes Kassakhian <[email protected]>
Cc: Philip Lanzafame <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020, 12:17:50 PM PST
Subject: 620 N. Brand Boulevard and 625 N. Maryland Avenue, Glendale — Stage I Design Review (Case No. PDR 172900)
Dear Hon Mayor Najarian and councilpersons,
Please vote to deny approval of the Stage I Design Submission and direct a redesign of the project. The City seriously erred in not considering the historic status of the 620 N. Brand Ave. property. In the South Glendale Survey, the findings of which were adopted by City Council in 2018, the property at 620 N Brand Ave. was found eligible for listing in the local register (See Appendix B, page 8 “Individually Eligible Properties”
at https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=42130).

In the proposed project Staff Report, page 3 under 4.1.1. Historic Preservation/Adaptive Reuse, it curiously states "Not Applicable." This is a confounding assertion, because the entire property, not just the main building should be considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA and otherwise. There is no mention of any future CEQA review in the Staff Report, when as proposed, the expected historical resources impacts should trigger preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. No mitigation measures are proposed to reduce those expected impacts, thus far.

The proposed project would demolish the 2-story parking garage (completed in 1969, according the County Assessor) on the property, as well as the landscaped surface parking lot. The parking garage is detailed to match the Corporate Modern style building and like the landscaped parking lot, should be considered contributing features to the historical resource. The property was found to be locally significant in the City's survey for the main building’s design. The historic resource is the property, not merely the main building. See Figure 1 [on the following page] below.

Figure 1: Excerpt from County Assessor Property
Portal. Aerial photograph of 620 N. Brand Bl. property with the historic property boundaries in yellow. North is toward top of page, no scale.
[Contributing Parking Garage is in red, dashed outline.] 4-22
4-23
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2126 of 2287
Attachment 2
2 of 4
No impacts are identified in the Staff Report that would be associated with the proposed demolitions, or caused by the far too-large, too tall, incompatibly designed proposed project.

The National Park Service provides guidance on "New Construction within the Boundaries of Historic Properties" (https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successfulrehab/new-construction.htm). [Absent more specific local guidelines There are no equivalent local or state guidelines to address this common issue. The Park Service asserts “It is possible to add new construction within the boundaries of historic properties if site conditions allow and if the design, density, and placement of the new construction respect the overall character of the site (emphasis added).” As proposed, the project under review necessitates demolition of at least two contributing features, which are not considered in the Staff Review. In addition, the proposed design is intentionally opposed to the historically significant Corporate Modern style, rather than respecting the character of the property or its established design. At 20 stories in height, the proposed project would be approximately three times larger than the historical resource, its only nod toward deference would be the floor heights (which are reasonably standard) and the curiously rounded band proposed to align with the mid-rise, rectilinear historic building.

According to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation – Standard 9 in particular – and the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, new construction needs to be built in a manner that protects the integrity of the historic building(s) and the property’s setting. No evidence of protection of the integrity of the main building or of the character of the setting of the property is provided in the proposed design.

The Park Service directs that the following points must be considered (indented and quoted below):
“Related new construction – including buildings, driveways, parking lots, landscape improvements and other new features – must not alter the historic character of a property.

A property’s historic function must be evident even if there is a change of use.” The proposed project would crowd, and overhang the main building, demolish the parking garage and landscaped parking lot, altering the historic character of the property. “The location of new construction should be considered carefully in order to follow the setbacks of historic buildings and to avoid blocking their primary elevations. New construction should be placed away from or at the side or rear of historic buildings and must avoid obscuring, damaging, or destroying character-defining features of these buildings or the site” (emphasis added).

The historic tower would only be visible from the west as currently designed. The proposed project as designed is too close, and would loom over the main building (see Figure 2). 4-23
4-24
4-25
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2127 of 2287
Attachment 2
3 of 4
Figure 2: Excerpt from north elevation of [previously] proposed project. Annotation shows historic resource in yellow, with less than a window bay’s width separating the over-scaled new tower, and its 9-11th floors overhanging the historic property at the red arrow.

Protecting the historic setting and context of a property, including the degree of open space and building density, must always be considered when planning new construction on an historic site. This entails identifying the formal or informal arrangements of buildings on the site, and whether they have a distinctive urban, suburban, or rural character. For example, a historic building traditionally surrounded by open space must not be crowded with dense development.

The proposed project demonstrates no evidence of such considerations. It uses nearly every square inch of land, and would demolish the existing open space, including the landscaped surface parking lot, replacing them with a fire lane and a linear water feature, where none historically existed.
“In properties with multiple historic buildings, the historic relationship between buildings must also be protected. Contributing buildings must not be isolated from one another by the insertion of new construction.”
The proposed project would obliterate the relationship between the parking garage and the main historic building. The contributing structure would not be protected, nor would its relationship to the mid-rise historic building.
4-25
4-26
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2128 of 2287
Attachment 2
4 of 4
“As with new additions, the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of new construction on the site of a historic building must be compatible with those of the historic building. When visible and in close proximity to historic buildings, the new construction must be subordinate to these buildings. New construction should also be distinct from the old and must not attempt to replicate historic buildings elsewhere on site and to avoid creating a false sense of historic development.” As proposed, neither the massing, the giant size, inordinate scale nor architectural features of the new construction proposed on the property could be considered compatible with those of the historic building. The proposed project is too large, too tall, and its rounded, framed briefly trendy faux mid-Century design is not compatible with the low-rise, rectilinear Corporate Modern historic building. The proposed design intentionally opposes the established design: it would not honor its tenets, materials, scale or features in any perceptible way. “The limitations on the size, scale, and design of new construction may be less critical the farther it is located from historic buildings.”
Because the proposed project would be so close to the historic mid-rise building, and would overhang it from the north as described above, limitations on giant size, lack of scale and intentionally opposed design of the new construction are essential. It is part of the purpose of environmental review of historic resource impacts, which seem not to have been addressed in this case.

Please vote to deny this case based on these reasons. Ask staff for clarification on the property’s historic status as well as future environmental review for this case. I apologize for not attending this meeting. Its scheduled time, during working hours ensures little, if any attendance, by working professionals. I recommend that future special meetings of this type be held after 5 PM to allow and ensure public participation.

Thank you for your time and for your service to our city.

Sincerely,
Francesca Smith
Brockmont Park Historic District, Glendale
4-27
4-28
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2129 of 2287
Public
P.O. Box 4173 Glendale CA 91202
www.GlendaleHistorical.org
The Glendale Historical Society (TGHS) advocates for the preservation of important Glendale landmarks, supports maintaining the historic character of Glendale’s neighborhoods, educates the public about and engages the community in celebrating and preserving Glendale’s history and architectural heritage, and operates the Doctors House Museum. TGHS is a tax-exempt, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, and donations to TGHS are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.

January 17, 2022
Chair Chris Cragnotti
Historic Preservation Commission
City of Glendale
613 East Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
Re: Item 8. A. 620 N. Brand Boulevard and 625 N. Maryland Avenue — Advisory Design Review (Case No. PDR 2119308) Dear Chair Cragnotti and Commissioners:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment again on this important project. We submitted a slightly different version of these ideas to the Design Review Board a few days ago. We have not yet had time to closely review the technical report, which only appeared on the City’s website on Friday, but we do note that the consultant finds the subject property eligible for listing in the National, California, and Glendale registers.

TGHS and its members have previously commented on this project to City Council. Two letters are attached that contain the organization’s and a member’s comments on the first iteration of the proposed project, many of which still apply. See Attachment 1, TGHS Letter to City Council, January 20, 2021 and Attachment 2, Francesca Smith Letter to City Council, January 21, 2021.

We are pleased to see the Staff Report now correctly identifies the adjacent Fidelity Savings Building at 600 North Brand Boulevard as a historic resource (it was not previously mentioned), but we observe with disappointment that the 620 North Brand Boulevard Parking Garage (Parking Garage), which is an original component of the larger Home Savings & Loan property (Home Savings), and is both functionally related to the main building and was designed specifically by the architects to reflect features of the larger commercial building and to serve the office building, is proposed for demolition as part of the project without any mention or recognition of historic resource impacts.

The main issues are: ignoring that the Home Savings Parking Garage is a character-defining feature of the 620 N. Brand Boulevard historic resource, the proposed project’s lack of conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the fact that it is not consistent 4-29
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2130 of 2287
Public
with the current requirements in the Downtown Specific Plan, and the use of a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA), of which not even a draft has been completed.

Parking Garage
The proposed project would destroy the setting of the property and importantly demolish the functionally related, matching Parking Garage at 620 North Brand, which must be considered a contributing feature of the Home Savings property.

TGHS believes that the Parking Garage is “functionally related” to the main Home Savings Building. The National Park Service directs “Buildings may be functionally related historically if they “…were located on the same property historically (thus, lack of individual lot lines historically could indicate a relationship); were designed as an overall composition around a common landscape feature and are reasonably proximate” (Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, Functionally Related Structures – General Criteria 2007). The Parking Garage meets each of these stated general criteria.

TGHS notes that the City of Glendale, to date, has not considered the Parking Garage a contributor to or a significant part of the historical resource. However, the Home Savings Parking Garage is part of, and contributes to, the significance of the historical resource. This assertion is based on facts (e.g. the date of the Parking Garage construction and as the project architect’s design), reasonable assumption predicated on facts (if the main building is significant under the themes Commercial Development, Post‐World War II Commercial Development, Architecture & Design: Post‐ World War II Modernism (1919-2000), Post‐World War II Commercial Development (1945‐ 1969), then so is its matching, functionally-related Parking Garage) and expert opinion supported by facts. The evaluation was made by Francesca Smith, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in History and Architectural History and has a substantial design review record. Demolition of the Parking Garage at 620 North Brand Boulevard is expected to cause substantial adverse change to the significance of the National Register-eligible historical resource. Substantial adverse change includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired (California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(q)). The Parking Garage was specifically designed to correspond to the design of the main building, which since its completion has relied on the Parking Garage for the retail and office uses. Its low-scale concrete-finished exterior reflects the filleted exterior design of the larger building. Both have cornices, and the Parking Garage exterior even corresponds to the effect of the vertical exterior window arrangement.
4-29
4-30
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2131 of 2287
Public
Figure 1: Parking Garage at 620 North Brand Boulevard, view east. Note the simple base, filleted shaft separated by screens and the bracketed, wide upper frieze. The stepped out, framed entry portal on the right-hand side further echoes the Corporate Modern design style of the main building it was constructed to serve. Photograph January 2022.

We note the close correspondence in the Character Defining Features section, Overall Visual Character and Exterior Materials and Craftsmanship between the Home Savings Building and its Parking Garage using the consultant-prepared Historical Resource Technical Report (January 2022, p. 32).

In the table below, review of the Overall Visual Character of the Home Savings Building and the Parking Garage reveals that the Parking Garage shares the main building’s most important characteristics and materials. “Yes” in the tables below means that a concept applies to the Parking Garage as well:

Overall Visual Character
Home Savings Building Home Savings Building Parking Garage • Proximity to freeway YES
• Setback from west property line that
continues around the office building
Not applicable (NA), but consistent setbacks on east and west sides
• Six story height NA two-story height, executed in proportion • Rectangular form YES
• Vertical orientation YES despite its low height
• Symmetrical composition of each façade
YES on Maryland side, one of two primary facades
• Flat roof with parapet YES flat top deck with flat parapet 4-31
4-32
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2132 of 2287
Public
• Wide frieze YES
• Narrow window bays YES narrow openings with screens
• Centrally located entrances NO but symmetrical entrances on Maryland side Exterior Materials and Craftsmanship
Home Savings Building Home Savings Building Parking Garage • Precast exposed concrete aggregate
piers and paving
YES precast exposed concrete piers and vertical fillets Concrete paving is normally poured-in-place
• Metal framed doors and windows NA
• Two-toned window and spandrel glass NA
The consultant states the garage is not part of the resource because it was built outside the period of significance, which is 1969, the year the Homes Savings Building was completed. Let us leave aside the unjustifiably narrow period of significance that excludes a functionally related and moreover matching structure. The Parking Garage was built in 1970, and was designed Homolka and Associates, who were associated with the construction of the main building, which was designed by Heusel, Homolka and Associates. The senior partner, Francis J. Heusel died in 1968.

The Home Savings Building itself was not completed until 1970. The Inspection Record establishes final inspection completed by a Glendale City Building Inspector bearing the initials “AUR” on March 10, 1970 (Building Permit No. 40497, Inspection Record). It makes even less sense to consider the functionally related Parking Garage that was completed in 1970 not historically significant on the grounds it was completed after the main building, which was completed the same year. The consultant further erred in evaluating the Parking Garage separately, as though it were not an integral part of and moreover a contributor to the larger Home Savings property.

Based on these facts and our evaluation prepared by a qualified architectural historian, the Parking Garage is part of, and contributes to, the significance of the historic resource. Because of the proposed Parking Garage demolition and the setting impacts, the proposed project is expected to cause a significant effect on the environment, which should have been the conclusion by the Lead Agency. Substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is considered a significant impact on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b).). Substantial adverse changes means demolition, destruction, relocation or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings resulting in the significance of the resource being materially impaired. Significance of a resource materially impaired when the physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its designation as a historical resource are demolished or materially altered in an adverse manner.
4-32
4-33
4-34
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2133 of 2287
Public
The Lead Agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report when substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.

Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation TGHS was dismayed to note that the consultant and the Staff reports prepared for the project applied only one of ten of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards) to the proposed project, which is a serious oversight, a procedural omission and is absolutely necessary for any proposed project that would be built on the property of and abutting other historic resources. The cursory reference in the consultant’s report to Standard 9, with the puzzling equivocation that “the project could be considered ‘related new construction’” (p. 45, emphasis added), as though that were not precisely what a 24-story building would be, is simply not adequate and does not make sense (p. 41).

Nor does the assertion that the Standards “are not directly applicable because they are not the threshold for impacts” (p. 41). The Standards are codified both in the Glendale Municipal Code under definitions (Chapter 15.20 Historic Preservation, Section 15.20.020) as well as in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Indeed, rehabilitation projects that meet the Standards are generally, but not always considered categorically exempt from CEQA review. The Standards are nationally recognized and used as the best measurement to gauge potential impacts of a project, are always applicable for a project involving a historic resource under CEQA. Whether or not the Standards are the “threshold for impacts” is irrelevant. This project does not meet the Standards because it would result in substantial adverse impacts to a historic resource, not the other way around.

We note that nothing in the Staff Report addresses either historical resources’ setting or the massive changes proposed to those settings.

Absent a local or state definition for setting, it is a term of art specifically defined in National Register guidance as:
the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to surrounding features and open space.

Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. In addition, the way in which a property is positioned in its environment can reflect the designer’s concept of nature and aesthetic preferences.

The physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, including such elements as…vegetation; simple manmade features (paths or fences); and relationships between buildings and other features or open space. These features and their relationships should be examined not only within the exact boundaries of the property, but also between the property and its surroundings (National Park Service “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” 1990, revised 1995, emphasis added).

The current proposed project would permanently destroy the character of the property, including but not limited to its relationship to surrounding contributing features and its integral internal open space.
4-34
4-35
4-36
4-37
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2134 of 2287
Public
While each of the Standards applies to the proposed project, Standards 1, 2, 4, 5, 9 and 10 are particularly germane and, as demonstrated below, would not be met or followed in the proposed project:

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to the distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. The Home Savings Building and its property include the landscaped surface parking lot and its functionally related, original, and matching Parking Garage (Parking Garage). Elements of the Home Savings Building’s property (Assessor’s Parcel No. 5643-018-032) and its distinctive matching contributing garage would be subject to demolition, which would clearly alter not only the Parking Garage itself, but the spaces between buildings, landscaping, parking lot and spatial relationships associated with the property. Each of those characteristics would be permanently lost by the construction of the out-of-scale new project.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

Likewise, the currently proposed project would demolish both the extant open space and its original, functionally related, coordinated Parking Garage which clearly cannot be understood as retaining or preserving those contributing and character-defining features.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

Despite the consultant’s suggestions to the contrary, the Parking Garage is an original feature of the Home Savings property. While there is no clear known record of the landscaping in the related parking lot, its current planting plan and arrangements of lawn, foundation planting and trees with low, stepped stacked Roman blocks or bricks should be considered the historic baseline.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property will be preserved.

The Parking Garage’s distinctive features, as well as the concrete exterior features and finishes, including the board-formed concrete mushroom interior columns’ construction techniques, the stack bond concrete masonry unit end walls as well as other examples of that craftsmanship which characterize the Home Savings Parking Garage would be permanently lost. 4-38
4-39
4-40
4-41
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2135 of 2287
Public
Figure 2: Parking Garage interior view north. Note the fitted screens in the exterior openings (left) archaic stack bond endwalls (center and right), and square, full height support columns at center and right with yellow bases.

Photograph January 2022.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The proposed more than 460,000 square-foot (SF) new “addition” would certainly be related new construction. It would demolish, thereby destroying, the historic materials that characterize the property including the landscaped parking lot and the functionally-related Parking Garage.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. 4-42
4-43
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2136 of 2287
Public
The latest design for the proposed nearly half-a million SF “new addition,” which is both adjacent and undeniably related new construction, would require that all of Home Savings integral parking be destroyed. If the more than 460,000 SF addition was removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the Home Saving Building property and its environment would be more than impaired; they would have more than four-story below-grade pits. The Home Savings Building would have no parking whatsoever, and worse, its related setting including the Parking Garage would be forever lost.

Another important historic resource impact we see has not been addressed is the very real potential for vibration-related damage to both historic properties (including differential settlement) during and in the immediate years following construction. Protection from other construction-related activities, such as equipment and vehicles striking buildings, over-spray of various materials, overexcavation of the soil and pile driving depths and methods will present a serious threat to the historic properties. Without a complete study by a qualified structural engineer who has a demonstrated specialty in the protection of historic buildings before and during construction directed by clear, concise mitigation measures that would ensure structural investigations, pre-construction surveys, continuous vibration monitoring with related stop-work orders that would trigger less vibration-intense equipment or methods, we can only assume that damage may well occur to the historic resources, which would be extremely close to the proposed project, its subterranean garage and whatever types of pilings will be proposed. This concern was voiced by Design Review Board Caro Minas, CE, GE, a geotechnical engineer, in the DRB meeting on January 13.

For these reasons, we believe this project as currently proposed does not comply with even the most basic principles in the Standards for Rehabilitation. This analysis was thoroughly reviewed for adequacy and accuracy by former Board of Directors and former Design Review Board member Francesca Smith, who meets and exceeds the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards.

Downtown Specific Plan Compliance
The Glendale Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) contains Standards that direct:

B. The bulk of buildings shall be reduced through the articulation of building massing and building facades.

Articulation emphasizes the different visible aspects of the various parts of a building. Sometimes the effect completely obscures the sense of the whole, breaking it down into too many pieces, but in most cases, articulation creates a balance between the two. Articulation can also be expressed in recessed bays, which require giving up small amounts of valuable real estate. The modest articulation in the following figures emphasize the proposed building's nearly indefinable parts (Figure 1).

There are three basic components, the base, equal and repetitive “grid” bay types on the left and right sides and the off-center, top and far left bays proposed as “dark gray spandrel glass.” The only visible proposed enunciation of components, other than the obvious differences in materials, is in the difference in heights at the top floors of the proposed project, see Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6.

We also note that the proposed differences in color on the exterior of a high-rise, which is generally a difficult long-term maintenance choice, does not provide the necessary articulation. The proposed busy color scheme would provide some animation at an unnecessary long-term cost, but not the necessary articulation of massing required. Note that the differences in color are nearly lost at the scale depicted in the figures below.
4-43
4-44
4-45
4-46
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2137 of 2287
Public
Figure 3: Excerpt from East Elevation, page 57. Note
the parsimonious difference in heights on the left and
right three bays. Source: Lucia Park 625 Maryland
Ave, Glendale CA Stage II Design Review by John
Freidman Alice Kimm Architects, 2019, not for publication (Lucia Park).

Figure 4: Excerpt from South Elevation, page 58. Note
the limited heights on the left and right bases (one or two bays). There is no recognition of the Home Savings
Building’s frieze or of its termination in lower middle section of the addition. The Fidelity Savings Building at 600 North Brand Boulevard, a historic resource which is six stories high is not depicted. Source: Lucia Park.

D. High-rise facades (as defined in Chapter 30.33 of the Zoning Code) shall provide a substantial modulation or change of materials every 150 feet in length.

The material presented does not clearly show 150 foot intervals nor does it provide adequate scale to determine those measurements. Based on our 150 foot estimates used in review of elevations, the proposed design does not comply with the standard for the required substantial modulation in continuous walls or the requisite differences in materials.

G. To improve the consistency of scale on the streets, new buildings shall respond to the scale and placement of design features of earlier buildings adjacent to them. Such design features include but are not limited to cornice lines, colonnades, fenestration, and materials. Review of the full design packet as well as Exhibit 1 and Figures 3, 4 and 5 reveals that that the project, as currently proposed, does not respond to the modest scale of the existing historic resources. The Home Savings Building has, among other character-defining features:
 a prominent cornice line,
 a raised, continuous exterior podium with low open, wide stairs, 4-47
4-48
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2138 of 2287
Public
 deep, full height exterior fins,
 a Parking Garage designed as a miniature interpretation of the main building, and  an existing open parking lot.

Although the proposed design does incorporate some features of the Home Savings Building, there are opportunities to strengthen the connection with additional modifications.

K. Projects built adjacent to historic structures that are smaller in scale shall step down at the street wall to align with the existing cornice.

We see inadequate evidence in the proposed 24-story building design of any such response to the existing, established low-rise scale on the subject property block. To that end, little human scale is expressed in the proposed design.

Because the proposed cornice lines would not align with the historic buildings on either side, the proposed window bay rhythm and fenestration bear no relation to the existing, elegantly modulated Home Savings Building.

The proposed building at 24 stories would not “step down” as described to align with the existing cornices (see Figure 6). A string course or “a horizontal band… in a building forming a part of the design” is not a step, except on three bays at the slim north side which notably faces the freeway (Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stringcourse. Accessed 9 Jan. 2022). In the section entitled “Building Design: Massing and Scale,” the Downtown Specific Plan directs in a diagram that “High rise massing should be divided to reduce overall bulk and step graciously down towards lower adjacent structures” (page 4- 11). We see little stepping and no demonstrated evidence of design courtesy or deference toward the existing, low-rise historic resources.

Figure 6: Annotated excerpt from page 8 of Exhibit 1,
Stage II Final Design Review Packet. Proposed project
string course is highlighted in a dashed red, the historic buildings at 600 and 620 North Brand in green. Note
that the building immediately south of the proposed project (top right) has stepped volumes at beginning at the base which diminish in size sequentially from the wide
base to the top floors, thus allowing the much taller,
larger building to fit into the existing low-rise context.

Source: “high aerial from northwest- looking south on
Brand Blvd” Lucia Park 625 Maryland Ave, Clendale
CA Stage II Design Review by John Freidman Alice
Kimm Architects, 2019, not for publication.
4-48
4-49
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2139 of 2287
Public
The project Staff Report asserts “The project effectively utilizes off-set building forms, step-backs, façade modulations and floor plate reductions to lessen the appearance of its mass. The end volumes also step down at their outside corners in order to break down their overall massing, similar to several taller commercial buildings just to the south on the same side of Brand Boulevard (400- 550 N. Brand, [Figure 7]).” The project provides the absolute minimum step-backs and doesn’t compare to those in the block to the immediate south.

Figure 7: Rendering of 550 N Brand Boulevard, a 21-
story building designed by HOK, Inc. and completed in
1989. It is located on the block immediately south of
the proposed project. Note the five generous major
steps in the design, as well as the different window
rhythms, shapes and sizes of openings, the inverted entrance and corners that reduce the perceived mass of the Post-Modernist style building. Not for publication.

Additional details of the proposed “step” in the proposed project In Figures 8 and 9, and on pages 53, 56 and 57 of Exhibit 1, Stage II Final Design Review Packet reveal that the step it is no more than a difference in materials, applied at the same depths, embellished by a horizontal band. The proposed step is more window dressing than a demonstrable difference in dimension. 4-49
4-49
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2140 of 2287
Public
Figure 8: Excerpted annotated section from page 53,
“step” between the proposed 5th and 6th levels is circled in red (East-West Section 1). Home Savings Building is depicted at left. The wider volume below is the 1st-3rd floor base that is approximately 15 feet larger, shown as a red arrow.

Figure 9: Excerpted, annotated section from page
54, “step” between the proposed 5th and 6th levels is
circled in red (East-West Section 2). Note it bears
no relation to the Home Savings Building, which is
depicted at left. The wider volume below is the 1st- 3
rd floor base that is approximately 15 feet wider,
shown as a red arrow.

What review of the design packet reveals is that the proposed project steps “away” from the Home Savings Building by fewer than 15 feet, which is less than the length of standard parking spaces (red arrows, Figures 8 and 9). What the proposed project would actually “step back” from are the low-rise buildings on the east side of Maryland Avenue, by 20 feet (just 2 feet longer than a standard parking space).

Is the Proposed Project Eligible for a SCEA?
TGHS cannot determine whether the proposed project is being considered a Transit Priority Project under Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) and that would be the reason the Lead Agency is preparing a SCEA instead of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). SB 375 provides several CEQA reform provisions, including streamlined review and analysis of residential or mixed-use projects consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS); modified review and analysis, through an expedited SCEA for Transit Priority Projects (TPPs) that are consistent with the SCS; and a complete CEQA exemption for TPPs that are consistent with the SCS and meet a specific list of other requirements. A project does not qualify for the CEQA streamlining exemption if it can be expected to cause impacts to historic resources, as is the case here.

Conclusion
We are grateful for the opportunity to comment. We at TGHS are not opposed to this new development as the city desperately needs new housing options for its residents. We do believe that the 4-49
4-50
4-51
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2141 of 2287
Public
current proposal is detrimental to current historical resources, including but not limited to demolishing the Home Savings garage that was developed and designed as part of the bank building.

The Staff Report indicates that the role of the Commission is “to manage change, not to prevent it.” By recommending against approval of the proposed project as Historic Preservation Commission members you would not be obstructing change but rather working toward making change successful. The project needs to respect the historic fabric surrounding it. As currently proposed, it would not.

Sincerely,
John Schwab-Sims
Vice President, Advocacy
The Glendale Historical Society
cc: Aram Adjemian, City Clerk
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Jay Platt, Senior Urban Designer
Kasey Conley, Associate Planner
Steve Hunt, President - The Glendale Historical Society Attachments (2) see Attachments 2 and 3 to SCEA comment letter 4-51
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2142 of 2287
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Sonnier Francisco <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 02:54:18 PM PST
Subject: Historic Preservation Commission Meeting 1/20/22, Item 8. A. 620 N. Brand Boulevard and 625 N. Maryland Avenue - Advisory Design Review (Case No. PDR 2119308)
To the honorable Historic Preservation Chair and commissioners, Kindly advise the Glendale City Council not to
approve the latest design for the
above-referenced project at 620 N Brand Blvd and 625
N Maryland Ave. I am dismayed to learn that the
proposed project would demolish Home Savings &
Loan's parking garage, a resource that clearly
contributes to the historic significance of the
subject historic property. The parking garage was
designed by the successor firm of the main tower
building, and was completed in 1970, in the same
year as the tower (per the Final Inspection Record
for 620 N Brand tower) and was uniquely designed as
a small addition of the tower that fits the period
of significance, design, and style of the Home
Savings and Loan property.

ATTACHMENT 5
Contents
E-mail to Historic Preservation Commission from Sonnier Francisco, E-mail to Historic Preservation Commission from Daniel Paul with attached letter.

Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2143 of 2287
Please ensure that this e-mail becomes part of the
Admin Record.

I am qualified under the Secretary of the Interior's
(SOI) Professional Qualification Standards as an
Architectural Historian and as an Historian, and
have over 12 years of professional experience
providing architectural history services throughout
the United States, and throughout the State of
California, including projects in Glendale, CA. I
would like to take this time to point out some of
the oversight in the evaluation of the Parking
Garage, which has not adequately considered the
following aspects that substantiate its historical
significance. The parking garage structure should
not have been only evaluated on an individual basis.

It should also have been evaluated for its context
with respect to the Home Savings Building as it was
designed as part of and contributes to a larger
ensemble of Home Savings buildings with a MidCentury landscaped setting. Furthermore, the integrity of the location, setting, design,
workmanship, materials, and feeling remain intact.

The tower could not function without the parking
garage, nor would the parking garage have a reason
to be there without the tower for which it was
built. The period of significance for the property
is 1969, when the Home Savings overall project
commenced and ends in 1998 when the commissioning
business entity, Home Savings & Loan ceased to
exist. The parking garage must be considered part of
the larger historic resource and property.

As an SOI-professionally qualified Architectural Historian, I am disheartened to see staff support for a project that does not comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. I have reviewed a letter by The Glendale Historical Society (TGHS) commenting on the above referenced project. I agree with TGHS' letter to your commission, as their assessment is correct. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines
for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring &
Reconstruction Historic Buildings are specific
regarding Rehabilitation in Building Sites:

Recommended- Identifying, retaining, and preserving
features of the building that are important in
defining its overall historic character. Site
features may include walls, fences, or steps;
circulation systems, such as walks, paths or
roads; vegetation, such as trees, shrubs, grass…
which are also important to the site.

Not Recommended- Removing or substantially changing buildings and their features or site features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the property so that, as a result, the character is diminished (137)
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2144 of 2287
RecommendedRetaining the historic relationship between buildings and the landscape.

Not Recommended- Removing... buildings or landscape features, thereby destroying the historic relationship between buildings and the landscape. Removing... buildings on a site or in a complex of related historic structures (such as a mill complex or farm), thereby diminishing the historic character of the site or complex (138).

In Alterations and Additions for a New Use, the
guidance is also unambiguous:

Recommended- Designing new exterior additions to
historic buildings or adjacent new construction
that are compatible with the historic
character of the site and preserves the historic
relationship between the building or buildings
and the landscape.

Not Recommended- Introducing new construction on
the building site which is visually incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, material, or color, which destroys historic relationships on the site, or which damages or destroys important landscape features... (142)
The proposed project, as presented, does not comply
with or remotely follow the Standards for
Rehabilitation or any of the quoted direction for
retaining and protecting historic settings and
building sites, for compatible size and design, or
for proposed additions.

My review of the Downtown Specific Plan shows that
the project does not comply with your
adopted Standards A, B, F, G or K in 4.2 Building
Design, 4.2.1 Massing & Scale: Tall Buildings.

The Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
for the project has not been made public for review,
which is a serious problem at this stage of
development when you are being asked to make
recommendations to City Council.

Finally, I see that projects that are expected to
impact historic resources are not eligible for
SCEAs; they require CEQA review, and this project
thus far has unmitigable impacts to the parking
garage, by the inappropriately massive size of the
project and its insensitive design and disruption of
the existing property setting. From the beginning,
the project architects should have included a
creditable, qualified Historic Architect as a part
of their team.

It is for these clearly stated reasons that I ask
each of you to vote in your advisory review not to
approve the current design for the proposed project.

Thank you for your attention to my serious concerns
on the above proposed project, and of the prepared
findings of the subject property historical
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2145 of 2287
evaluation.

Sincerely,
Sonnier F. Francisco, EIT, M.Arch, LEED AP
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2146 of 2287
From: Francesca Smith
To: Smith, Francesca@DOT
Subject: Fw: Agenda Item 8.A, Historic Preservation Commission meeting 012022 (Home Savings and Lucia Park) Date: Thursday, 10 March, 2022 3:34:09 PM
Attachments: Home Savings Lucia Park Agenda Item 8A 012022.docx EXTERNAL EMAIL. Links/attachments may not be safe.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Daniel Paul <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022, 09:51:16 AM PST
Subject: Agenda Item 8.A, Historic Preservation Commission meeting 012022 (Home Savings and Lucia Park)
Please see the attached letter, which I respectfully ask be entered into the administrative record for the agenda item mentioned in the subject line.

Thank You,
Daniel
Daniel D. Paul, Architectural Historian
3938 Vista Court
Glendale - La Crescenta, CA
91214
+1 213 215 4161
[email protected]
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2147 of 2287
1 DANIEL D. PAUL, ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN
3938 VISTA COURT GLENDALE- LA CRESCENTA, CA 91214
January 20, 2022
Historic Preservation Commission, City of Glendale, CA
via email: [email protected] SUBJECT: 620 N. Brand Boulevard, and 625 N. Maryland Avenue. (Historic Preservation Committee Meeting January 20, 2022, Item 8.A)
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Daniel Paul, and I am a 36 CFR Part 61 federally qualified architectural historian, with over 25 years’ experience in historic preservation. I am a Glendale resident, Crescenta Highlands neighborhood, address: 3938 Vista Court. The following comments pertain to case PDR# 2119308.

Regarding the Lucia Park Project Historical Resource Technical Report, it is awkward that the Home Savings parking structure was evaluated as a separate property apart from Home Savings office building, which the technical report determined National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible. Provided a National Register of Historic Places nomination is completed for Home Savings office building, knowing its parking structure is present, and of such strong integrity and design symbiosis with the tower, I can’t imagine that the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP): the NRHP nomination’s reviewers, would not want it counted as a contributing building to the eligible property. A garage is a “related feature” to larger property according to the California Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (OHP, 1995: 3, 11).

According to federal guidance, “Classify a property having a main resource and a small number of secondary resources by the main resource,” in which case, this eligible property is a building that includes a garage (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997: 14).

Our professional qualification as architectural historians affords us the opportunity, through our expert judgment, to define what constitutes the property being evaluated. I’m sure neither the City’s historic preservation staff nor your consultant- who is knowledgeable and experiencedwould evaluate a standalone garage separate from a single-family residence, even if the subject garage was completed one year later or on a separate but adjacent parcel. I’m not clear why that methodology changes on account of scale, building type, or property value. Clearly the parking garage is an element of the larger historic property. To not analyze these two resources as one property is a contortion. Regarding the identification of the historic boundary, “Select boundaries that encompass the entire resource, with historic and contemporary additions.

Include any surrounding land historically associated with the resource that retains its historic Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2148 of 2287
2 integrity and contributes to the property's historic significance” (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997: 56).

The Home Savings Office Building is National Register of Historic Places eligible for the reasons your consultant has strongly justified. I respectfully ask that it’s parking structure be afforded the same status, since both are one property.

Thank You for your time.

Daniel Paul
SOURCES:

California Office of Historic Preservation. “Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.” Sacramento, CA: Office of Historic Preservation, 1995.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources. “How to Complete the National Register Registration Form” (Bulletin 16A), 1997.

Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
June 2022
2149 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 51 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 COMMENT LETTER NO. 4:

Francesca Smith
March 10, 2022
Response to Comment 4-1
This comment provides information on the comments previously submitted by TGHS and requests that the three attachments included with the comment letter (Attachment 2, Attachment 3, and Attachment 4) be carefully considered as they apply to the SCEA. The comments in Attachments 2, 3, and 4 are responded to below (Responses to Comments 4-8 through 4--57).

Response to Comment 4-2
This comment presents the qualifications of the author and identifies two primary comments: 1) the parking garage was not identified as a character-defining feature of the Chase Building as a historical resource and 2) the use of a SCEA.

As a threshold matter, the lead agency determines whether a building, garage, etc. is or is not a historical resource. In making its determination the City considers whether any of buildings on the project site are mandatory, presumptive, and/or discretionary historical resources.60 Whether any of the buildings qualify as mandatory historical resources is based on whether the building has been determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.61 The mandatory eligibility determination rests solely with the State Historical Resources Commission pursuant to its authority under PRC §5024.1. The commenter provides no evidence or argument that the parking garage is a historical resource, either listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources by the State Historical Resources Commission.

Next, the lead agency also considers whether any of the buildings are presumptive historical resources – included in a local register of historical resources -- as defined in PRC section 5020.1(k).62 Here, there is no evidence that the parking garage (or surface parking lot) are included in a local register of historical resources. Further, the parking garage could be considered a presumptive historical resource if deemed significant pursuant to PRC §5024.1(g), which requires the building to be identified as significant in a historical resource survey, as long as a survey older than five years has been updated. PRC section 21084.1 specifies that a survey five or more years old at the time of a survey’s nomination for inclusion in the 60 Public Resources Code (PRC) §21084.1. 61 CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a)(1); PRC §21084.1. 62 See also, PRC §21084.1. 2150 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 52 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 California Register should be updated. Here, the Chase Building was identified in the 2017-18 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey intensive-level survey, but not the parking garage.

A building that does not meet the mandatory or presumptive status as a historical resource can nevertheless be deemed a historical resource at the discretion of the lead agency but only if supported by substantial evidence.63 There is no requirement the lead agency must deem a building as significant or determine it is a character-defining feature of a historical resource, where the evidence indicates it is not.

In fact, a lead agency's voluntary and discretionary determination to consider a resource to be historical must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Guidelines §15064.5(a)(3); PRC § 1084.1; see also Friends of Willow Glen Trestle v City of San Jose (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5th 457, 468 (holding lead agency discretion under final sentence of PRC §21084.1 imposes no presumption and sets no standard for the lead agency’s decision). Accordingly, the City as the lead agency has the legal discretion to determine whether the parking garage is a character defining feature of the Chase Building or a historical resource in and of itself, and such determination will be upheld so long as it is supported by substantial evidence, even where there is a difference of opinion. As previously noted in these Responses to Comments SCEAs, like EIRs, are based on the substantial evidence standard, not the fair argument standard. Pub Res C §21155.2(b); standards. See National Parks & Conserv. Ass'n v County of Riverside (1999) 71 CA4th 1341, 1364 (EIR's methodology for analyzing environmental impact must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in record even though difference of opinion among experts exists).

As discussed in Responses to Comments 3-1 through 3-4, the SCEA, and the Historic Report, the parking garage is not a character-defining feature of the Chase Building as a historical resource. As discussed in Responses to Comments 3-1 and 3-21, above, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts, including no potentially significant impact to historical resources. Therefore, review through the preparation of a SCEA is consistent with CEQA.

Response to Comment 4-3
This comment asserts that the parking garage is a contributing building to a larger historical resource on the Project site (the Chase Building) and that this opinion is supported by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). An email is referenced and attached to the comment letter.

OHP has no jurisdiction with regard to the proposed Project. It is the responsibility of the City as the lead agency to ensure compliance with CEQA, identify historical resources on the Project site, and analyze impacts on any identified historical resources.
63 PRC §21084.1; Guidelines §15064.5(a)(3-4).
2151 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 53 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 The email from to OHP misrepresented the facts associated with the Project site. This comment states in the email to OHP (Attachment 1): “The property was found in a recent reconnaissance survey to be locally eligible, but the preparers did not notice the functionally related Parking Garage that was completed the same year as the building.”
In fact, the 2017-18 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey was an hybrid-level survey and not a reconnaissance survey, meaning, properties were researched, evaluated, and recorded on inventory forms. The City stated in the Historic Preservation Commission hearing on January 20, 2020, prior to the date of this email, that the preparers of the 2017-18 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey considered the parking garage and determined it was not a character-defining feature of the Chase Building as a historical resource. In other words, the parking garage was fully considered in a qualified survey. Finally, and as previously indicated (see Response to Comment 3-1), the parking garage was not completed in the same year as the Chase Building. The construction history of the Project site is documented by the building permit and County Assessor records; the Chase Building construction began in 1968, was completed in 1969, and Certificate of Occupancy issued in 1970, while the parking garage construction began in 1970 and was completed in 1971. Copies of these permits are provided in Appendix H to the SCEA, Appendix C to this Responses to Comments, and also provided on the pages 33 to 43 of these responses.

Regardless of the email from OHP, which is not an individualized analysis of the Project, based on incorrect information, and only intended to address a question about a potential California Register nomination, a “property” would be defined in a California Register nomination using the same guidelines that apply to a National Register nomination, which are contained in National Register Bulletin 16A. 64 The Bulletin
states the reasons for selecting the boundary “should be based upon the property’s historic significance and integrity.”65 The Bulletin also provides guidelines for selecting boundaries. For all properties, the nomination should “carefully select boundaries to encompass, but not exceed, the full extent of the significant resources and land area making up the property.”66 “The area to be registered should be large enough to include all historic features of the property but should not include ‘buffer zones’ or acreage not directly contributing to the significance of the property.”67 Features used in the delineation of boundaries in urban areas may include legally recorded boundary lines, natural topographical features, and manmade features. For buildings, boundaries should encompass the entire resource including any land historically 64 Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation. Lucia Park Project, Glendale California, Historical Resources Technical Report. January 2022. Appendix F. Pg. 29. Available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65601/637781192094970000. Accessed March 2022. 65 National Regsiter Bulletin 16A, 55. 66 Ibid, 56. 67 Ibid. 2152 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 54 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 associated with the resources that contributes to the property’s historic significance. In urban areas, legal recorded parcel numbers or lot lines are recommended as boundaries.

Based upon these guidelines in the Bulletin the “property” would include Lots 24, 25, and 26 of Tract No. 93, which would be the legal lots occupied by the Chase Building and the setbacks from Brand Boulevard on the west, the freeway on the north, the internal driveway on the east, and the surface parking lot on the south. The fact that legal lots are sometimes tied together for property tax purposes does not mean extraneous lots should be included with the boundary of a property when listed in the National Register.

As discussed in the SCEA and Historic Report, the Chase Building is significant as an important commercial property type that represents the growth of downtown Glendale. While the parking garage has some of the same visual qualities as the Chase Building, it does not have the historic association with high-rise construction along the freeway or the growth of downtown Glendale. 68,69 Furthermore, the parking
garage, unlike the Chase Building, was not at the forefront of high-rise development oriented toward the freeway. Since the parking garage is secondary and ancillary to the Chase Building and does not contribute to the significance of the “property” there would be no requirement to include it in a California or National Register nomination. There would be no justification for the nomination of APN 5643-018-032, which contains the parking garage, which would exceed the extent of the land area associated with the significant historical resource.

Response to Comment 4-4
This comment notes previously provided opinions asserting that the parking garage is a character-defining feature of the Chase Building as a historical resource. As discussed in Response to Comment 4-3, the parking garage does not contribute to the significance of the “property”. Additionally, as discussed in Response to Comment 3-2, the SCEA and the Historic Report provided facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts and Ms. Grimes’ expert opinion supported by facts that the conclude the parking garage is not a contributor to or a significant part of the Chase Building as a historical resource defined by CEQA.

As discussed above and in Responses to Comments 3-1 through 3-21, TGHS and Francesca Smith’s conclusions are not supported by facts and reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts that would constitute substantial evidence under CEQA. Smith states that “the Lead Agency must treat the historic resource [garage] as significant based on the information previously provided and the information provided in this letter. This issue was addressed in Response to Comments 3-2 as follows:
68 City of Glendale, Community Development Department. Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment for the Lucia Park Project. SCH Number 2022010297. Page 5.0-55. Available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65609/637781200347330000. Accessed March 2022. 69 Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation. Lucia Park Project, Glendale California, Historical Resources Technical Report. January 2022. Appendix F. Page 33. Available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65601/637781192094970000. Accessed March 2022. 2153 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 55 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 [TGHS and Francesca Smith] indicate the belief that the parking garage is a “contributor to or significant part of the historical resource.” To make this case, they first claim as a “fact” the date of the parking garage’s construction and its design by the architect of the Chase Building. It is a fact that the construction dates of the Chase Building and the garage not identical (see Response to Comment 3-1). Even if they were, the mere fact that they were built at the same time and designed by the same person (which is undisputed) does not establish historic significance. They go on to claim significance for the parking garage with a “reasonable assumption predicated on facts” that “if the main building is significant under the themes Commercial Development, PostWorld War II Modernism (1919 [sic]-2000), Post-World War II Commercial Development (1945- 1969), then so too is its matching, functionally-related Parking Garage.” (Emphasis in original) This conditional relationship is unsubstantiated and is not borne out in historic preservation practice: a functionally-related ancillary building or garage does not ipso facto contribute to the significance of a site’s primary building. The document continues with the assertion that the expert opinion supported by facts of Francesca Smith demonstrates that demolition of the garage will have a substantial adverse change on the historic resource. To make this case, the document cites Smith’s assertion that the garage was designed to “correspond to the design of the main building,” going on to mention several design similarities. As discussed in Response to Comment 3-1, the parking garage was clearly designed to visually complement the Chase Building, but that both its design and material palette reflect a much more modest, superficial take on the Chase Bank building’s Corporate Modern/New Formalist design. Aside from the presence of vertical fins at two facades and a cornice band, which themselves only visually recall the appearance of the bank building, the parking garage is not a “matching” garage. TGHS’s and Francesca Smith’s focus on visual similarities does not provide any facts or reasonable assumptions based on fact that the garage provides the site with any historic significance beyond that found at the Chase Building, or that demolition of the garage would cause a significant adverse change to that significance, or material impair the ability of the Bank Building to quality for the California or local register.

Response to Comment 4-5
This comment incorrectly states that the proposed Project would cause both significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to historical resources. As discussed in Response to Comment 3-20, Responses to Comment 3-1 through 3-21, the SCEA, and the Historic Report demonstrate the proposed Project would not cause a significant impact to the Chase Building as a historical resource defined by CEQA and the parking garage is not a character defining feature contributing to the historic significance of the Chase Building. Therefore, the proposed Project will not cause impacts to historical resources and the preparation of a SCEA is consistent with CEQA.
2154 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 56 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 The Historic Report accurately identified the Chase Building as the only historical resource on the Project site. As the parking garage was not identified as an individual historical resource its demolition would not result in a significant impact on historical resources.

As discussed in Response to Comment 3-2, even if the parking garage were a character-defining feature of the historical resource, the demolition of the parking garage and the construction of the proposed building would not meet the threshold for a significant impact on the historical resource under CEQA. To retain integrity, a historical resource will possess most, but not necessarily all, seven aspects: location, setting, design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association. Determining which of these aspects are essential, requires an understanding of why, where, and when the resource is significant. The South Glendale Historic Context established the integrity considerations for associated property types. For property types, like the Chase Building, associated with the Post-World War II Commercial Development Theme, the South Glendale Historic Context states a commercial property from this period should retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, materials, and feeling, at a minimum. Integrity of setting and association were not identified as essential aspects of integrity. Setting is defined as the physical environment of a historical resource, while association is the direct link between an important event or person and a historical resource. The Historic Report concludes the historical resource currently retains all aspects of integrity including setting and association, even though setting and association are not essential according to the South Glendale Historic Context.

Response to Comment 4-6
This comment states that CEQA mandates public agencies should not approve projects if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available to substantially lessen significant environmental effects. As demonstrated in Responses to Comments 3-1 through 3-21, the SCEA, and the Historic Report, the proposed Project would not cause a significant impact to the Chase Building as a historical resource defined by CEQA and the parking garage is not a character defining feature contributing to the historic significance of the Chase Building. For this reason, demolition of the parking garage would not result in a significant impact to a historical resource under CEQA.

This comment also states that the comment letter and its attachments provide the Lead Agency with a “fair argument”, which the commenter asserts is the legal standard for determining the significance of impacts. The commenter is incorrect. As discussed in Response to Comment 3-2, Under Public Resources Code Section 21155.2, a SCEA is reviewed under the substantial evidence standard and not the fair argument standard.
2155 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 57 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 As such, the SCEA for the proposed Project and the Historic Report are subject to the substantial evidence standard. The SCEA and the Historic Report, prepared by Teresa Grimes, a historic resources expert, provided facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts and Ms. Grimes’s opinion supported by facts that the parking garage is not a character-defining feature of or a significant part of the Chase Building as a historical resource defined by CEQA. As discussed above and in Responses to Comments 3-1 through 3- 21, TGHS and Francesca Smith’s conclusions are not supported by facts and reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts that constitute substantial evidence as defined by CEQA. Smith states that “the Lead Agency must treat the historic resource [garage] as significant based on the information previously provided and the information provided in this letter. This issue was addressed in Response to Comments 3-2 as follows:
[TGHS and Francesca Smith] indicate the belief that the parking garage is a “contributor to or significant part of the historical resource.” To make this case, they first claim as a “fact” the date of the parking garage’s construction and its design by the architect of the Chase Building. It is a fact that the construction dates of the Chase Building and the garage not identical (see Response to Comment 3-1). Even if they were, the mere fact that they were built at the same time and designed by the same person (which is undisputed) does not establish historic significance. They go on to claim significance for the parking garage with a “reasonable assumption predicated on facts” that “if the main building is significant under the themes Commercial Development, PostWorld War II Modernism (1919 [sic]-2000), Post-World War II Commercial Development (1945- 1969), then so too is its matching, functionally-related Parking Garage.” (Emphasis in original) This conditional relationship is unsubstantiated and is not borne out in historic preservation practice: a functionally-related ancillary building or garage does not ipso facto contribute to the significance of a site’s primary building. The document continues with the assertion that the expert opinion supported by facts of Francesca Smith demonstrates that demolition of the garage will have a substantial adverse change on the historic resource. To make this case, the document cites Smith’s assertion that the garage was designed to “correspond to the design of the main building,” going on to mention several design similarities. As discussed in Response to Comment 3-1, the parking garage was clearly designed to visually complement the Chase Building, but that both its design and material palette reflect a much more modest, superficial take on the Chase Bank building’s Corporate Modern/New Formalist design. Aside from the presence of vertical fins at two facades and a cornice band, which themselves only visually recall the appearance of the bank building, the parking garage is not a “matching” garage. TGHS’s and Francesca Smith’s focus on visual similarities does not provide any facts or reasonable assumptions based on fact that the garage provides the site with any historic significance beyond that found at the Chase Building, or 2156 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 58 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 that demolition of the garage would cause a significant adverse change to that significance, or material impair the ability of the Bank Building to quality for the California or local register.

This comment claims the SCEA is based on findings made in error because it is expected to cause significant adverse changes in the significance of the historical resource and, therefore, the proposed Project does not qualify as a transit priority project or for environmental review through the preparation of a SCEA. Responses to Comment 3-1 through 3-21, the SCEA, and the Historic Report demonstrate that the proposed Project would not cause a significant impact to the Chase Building as a historical resource as defined by CEQA and the parking garage is not a character defining feature contributing to the historic significance of the Chase Building. Therefore, the proposed Project will not cause impacts to historical resources and the preparation of a SCEA is appropriate.

Response to Comment 4-7
This comment concludes by stating the proposed Project should be redesigned as a far smaller project that would be more deferential to the Chase Building and its parking garage, setting, and the Fidelity Savings Building. As discussed in Responsesto Comments 3-18, the proposed building incorporates design elements, including the step backs, vertical projecting fins, curtain wall sections, and a rooftop trellis garage that respond to the scale and design of the Chase Building. Responses to Comment 3-1 through 3- 21, the SCEA, and the Historic Report demonstrate the proposed Project would not cause a significant impact to the Chase Building as a historic resource defined by CEQA and the parking garage is not a character defining feature contributing to the historic significance of the Chase Building. In addition, Response to Comment 3-7 discusses the setting and cites to the analysis in the SCEA and Historic Report that discuss and define why the setting of the Chase Building would not be diminished by views of the proposed Project.

This comment also states a qualified Historic Preservation Architect should design any future iterations of the proposed Project to ensure conformance with the Standards. As discussed in Responses to Comments 3-5 and 3-13, consistency with the Standards is not required by CEQA and the Standards are not the threshold for determining significant impacts on historical resources. Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states a project would normally have a significant impact on historical resources if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and whether a project would materially alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the historical resource that convey its significance.
2157 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 59 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 The analysis in the SCEA and the Historic Report support the conclusion that the proposed Project would not materially alter the Chase Building in an adverse manner, and it would continue to convey its significance that justifies its eligibility for inclusion in national, state, and local historic registers.

Response to Attachment No. 1 to Comment Letter No. 4 – February 8, 2022 Email from Jay Correia Responses to Comments 4-8 through 4-15
The email from Jay Correia, Supervisor in the Cultural Resources Programs, Registration and Project Review Units, addresses a question posed by Francesca Smith about a hypothetical California Register nomination submitted for the Chase Bank property at 620 N. Brand Boulevard. Specifically, the inquiry focuses on whether the parking garage should be included in such a nomination. Mr. Correia responded affirmatively, quoting some guidance from the NPS. He concluded (without analysis) that the parking garage cannot be ignored or dismissed in any nomination or environmental evaluation. Since his response is about a potential nomination and SHPO has no role in the present environmental evaluation, his opinion is not relevant to the present analysis. However, it should be pointed out that Francesca Smith’s email to Mr. Correia was misleading, in that it suggested that the garage had not been noticed in the 2017-18 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey. As discussed in Response to Comments 3-1, the garage was in fact noted and the Survey consultant found the garage to not be a significant feature of the property. The survey consultant has submitted a letter to verify this finding that is provided in Appendix I to the SCEA, Appendix D to this Responses to Comments and provided on page 44 of these responses.

Response to Attachment No. 2 to Comment Letter No. 4 - January 20, 2022 Letter to City Council from TGHS re: Stage I Design Review Hearing
Response to Comment 4-16
This comment states the proposed Project would alter Glendale’s appearance and skyline and would impact the City. As discussed in Section 5.1, Aesthetics, in the SCEA, 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. The available views in the vicinity of the Project site are largely constrained by existing high-rise buildings surrounding the site, including the six-story Chase Building located on the Project site to the northwest and the 21-story commercial office building located to the south of the Project site. Photographs were taken showing the current views of the Project site, Verdugo Mountains, and Griffith Park. 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 2158 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 60 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 where the Project site is located, proposed Project development would not result in a substantial effect on any existing scenic vista.70 For these reasons, the SCEA concluded the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts to available scenic vistas or the visual character of the area.

Response to Comment 4-17
This comment states the Staff Report for the January 21, 2020, City Council hearing regarding the Stage I design review failed to acknowledge the property is a historical resource in its analysis of the Project under Section 4.1.1 of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) and that it is a mistake to discount the property as a historical resource under CEQA.–The “not applicable” response to Section 4.1.1 Historic Preservation / Adaptive Reuse in the Stage I design review memo was not in error because the Project itself does not include the “Rehabilitation of a historic resource” (DSP 4.1.1.A) or the “Reuse of older buildings that are not historic resources” (DSP 4.1.1.B), and therefore, this DSP section does not apply. The City has consistently stated that the Chase Building is a historical resource under CEQA in multiple documents relating to the Project. It should be noted that the referenced hearing and associated staff report are not directly related to the CEQA analysis. The SCEA and the Historic Report clearly and consistently state the Chase Building is a historical resource as defined by CEQA.

Response to Comment 4-18
The Historic Report correctly analyzed impacts on the identified historical resource, i.e., the Chase Building, using the thresholds in the CEQA Guidelines. The entire “property” or Project Site does not meet the CEQA definition of a historical resource.

See Responses to Comments 3-2 and 4-5 for more information on the Standards and setting.

Response to Comment 4-19
This comment states that the current design of the proposed Project shows minimal if any deference to the design and setting of the Chase Building. This comment suggests that opportunities be explored which might include additional step backs at the level of the 6-story building and further articulation at areas near that building. As discussed in Response to Comment 3-18, the proposed building incorporates design elements, including the vertical projecting fins, curtain wall sections, and rooftop trellis garage that respond to the scale of the Chase Building. Additionally, as discussed in Responses 3-16 through 3-19, the proposed building would conform to the DSP standards, including the requirements for step backs.

Responses to Comment 3-1 through 3-21, the SCEA, and the Historic Report demonstrate the proposed 70 City of Glendale, Community Development Department. Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment for the Lucia Park Project. SCH Number 2022010297. Page 5.0-5. Available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65609/637781200347330000. Accessed March 2022. 2159 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 61 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 Project would not cause a significant impact to the Chase Building as a historical resource defined by CEQA and the parking garage is not a character defining feature contributing to the historic significance of the Chase Building. In addition, Response to Comment 3-7 discusses the setting cites the analysis in the SCEA and Historic Report that the setting of the Chase Building would not be diminished by the view of the proposed Project.

Response to Comment 4-20
This comment inaccurately states that survey forms were not prepared as part of the 2017-18 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey and, for this reason, the question of whether the parking garage contributes to the historic significance of the Chase Building has not been addressed.

As discussed in Response to Comment 4-3, the 2017-18 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey was an intensive-level survey that included field work, research, analysis, and preparation of survey forms. The South Glendale Survey considered but determined the parking garage was not a character-defining feature of the Chase Building as a historical resource The survey consultant has submitted a letter to verify this finding that is provided in Appendix I to the SCEA, Appendix D to this Responses to Comments, and also provided on page 44 of these responses. Additionally, the Historic Report re-evaluated the parking garage and came to the same conclusion.71
Response to Attachment No. 2-6Comment - 4-21
This comment provides an integrity analysis. The analysis of integrity provided by TGHS is not relevant because it assumes the parking garage is contributing to the historic significance of the Chase Building, which is not the case as demonstrated in Responses to Comment 3-1 through 3-21, the SCEA, and the Historic Report.

Response to Attachment No. 3 to Comment Letter No. 4 – January 21, 2020 Email from Francesca Smith to City Council re: Stage I Design Review Hearing
Response to Comment 4-22
This comment is nearly identical to the one addressed in Response to Comment 4-17, stating that the Staff Report for the January 21, 2020, City Council hearing regarding the Stage I design review failed to acknowledge the Chase Bank property a historical resource in its analysis of the project under Section

4.1.1 of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) and that it is a mistake to discount the property as a historical 71 Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation. Lucia Park Project, Glendale California, Historical Resources Technical Report. January 2022. Appendix F. Executive Summary. Available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65601/637781192094970000. Accessed March 2022. 2160 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 62 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 resource under CEQA. The SCEA and the Historic Report clearly and consistently state the Chase Building is a historical resource as defined by CEQA.

Response to Comment 4-23
This comment states the property was found to be locally significant in the City’s survey and, therefore, the whole property is the historical resource, not just the Chase Building. This comment misrepresents the findings of the 2017-18 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey. The South Glendale Survey considered the parking garage but determined it was not as a character-defining feature of the Chase Building as a historical resource. The survey consultant has submitted a letter to verify this finding that is provided in Appendix I to the SCEA, Appendix D to this Responses to Comments, and provided on the page 44 of these responses.

Although the South Glendale Survey was based upon data from the County of Los Angeles, which is organized by Assessor Parcel Numbers, that does not necessarily mean that identified historical resources included the entire parcel. Parcel information is simply the common tool for zoning and land management systems and thus historical resource surveys. Also see Response to Comment 4-3 for additional discussion of the “property”.

Response to Comment 4-24
This comment cites the NPS guidance on historic properties and the Standards. As discussed in Responses to Comments 3-5 and 3-13, the proposed Project is not subject to the Standards; thus, the comment is not pertinent to the CEQA analysis.

Response to Comment 4-25
It should be noted that this comment was made regarding the Stage I design proposal, which has been significantly changed. It is presumed, however, that the comment stating the proposed Project would crowd, overhang, and be too close to the Chase Building and demolish the parking garage and landscaped parking lot, altering the historic character of the property. This comment also cites the Standards. At the ground level, the proposed building would be physically separated from the Chase Building by approximately 32 feet and will be located to the rear of the historic building and will not block its primary elevations, as is suggested in the guidance quoted from the NPS. The massing of the proposed building steps away from the east (rear) façade of the historic building beginning at the fourth and fifth stories to increase the physical separation from the historical resource by another 17 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 is diminished by the distance between the two buildings by 47.5 feet above the fourth 2161 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 63 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 story. Responses to Comment 3-1 through 3-21, the SCEA, and the Historic Report demonstrate the proposed Project would not cause a significant impact to the Chase Building as a historical resource defined by CEQA and the parking garage is not a character defining feature contributing to the historic significance of the Chase Building. As discussed in Responses to Comments 3-5 and 3-13, the proposed Project is not subject to the Standards; thus, the comment is not pertinent to the CEQA analysis.

This comment also states that the proposed Project would demolish the existing open space, including the landscaped surface parking lot. While the proposed Project would demolish these existing uses, the proposed Project includes 15,844 square feet of common open space, 6,994 square feet of public accessible open space, and 1,595 square feet of landscaping on the first level as well as 41,625 square feet of residential development open space and 7,064 square feet of landscape area throughout the residential building.72
Response to Comment 4-26
This comment cites the Standards and states the proposed Project would eliminate the relationship between the parking garage, a contributing garage, and the Chase Building. As discussed in Responses to Comments 3-5 and 3-6, the proposed Project is not subject to the Standards; thus the comment is not pertinent to the CEQA analysis. Responses to Comment 3-1 through 3-21, the SCEA, and the Historic Report demonstrate the proposed Project would not cause a significant impact to the Chase Building as a historical resource defined by CEQA and the parking garage is not a character defining feature contributing to the historic significance of the Chase Building.

Response to Comment 4-27
This comment cites the Standards. As discussed in Responses to Comments 3-5 and 3-6, the proposed Project is not subject to the Standards; thus, the comment is not pertinent to the CEQA analysis.

This comment also states the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the proposed building are not compatible with the Chase Building. This comment reiterates that the proposed Project would be too close to the Chase Building. As discussed in Response to Comments 3-18, the proposed building incorporates design elements, including the vertical projecting fins, curtain wall sections, and rooftop trellis garage that respond to the scale of the Chase Building. Additionally, as discussed in Responses 3-18 through 3-21, the proposed building would conform to the DSP standards. At the ground level, the proposed building would be physically separated from the Chase Building by approximately 30 feet. The 72 City of Glendale, Community Development Department. Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment for the Lucia Park Project. SCH Number 2022010297. Page 1.0-2. Available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65609/637781200347330000. Accessed March 2022. 2162 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 64 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 massing of the proposed building steps away from the east façade of the historic building beginning at the fourth and fifth stories to increase the physical separation from the historical resource by another 17 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 is diminished by the distance between the two buildings by 47.5 feet above the fourth story.

This comment also claims environmental review of historical resource impacts have not been addressed.

Historical resource impacts were addressed in the SCEA and Historic Report. Responses to Comments 3-1 through 3-21, the SCEA, and the Historic Report demonstrate the proposed Project would not cause a significant impact to the Chase Building as a historical resource defined by CEQA and the parking garage is not a character defining feature of the Chase Building. For these reasons, the proposed Project is not detrimental to current historical resources.

Response to Comment 4-28
This comment asks the City to not approve the Project and for clarification on the environmental review.

The SCEA, the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project, was released for public review on January 18, 2022. The deadline for comments was extended beyond the 30-day review period defined in CEQA with the public review period closing on March 10, 2022.

Response to Attachment No. 4 to Comment Letter No. 4 – January 17, 2022 Letter from TGHS to the Historic Preservation Commission re: Advisory Design Review Hearing Response to Comment 4-29
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-1.

Response to Comment 4-30
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-2.

Response to Comment 4-31
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-3.

Response to Comment 4-32
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-3.

Response to Comment 4-33
2163 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 65 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-3.

Response to Comment 4-34
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-4.

Response to Comment 4-35
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-5.

Response to Comment 4-36
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-6.

Response to Comment 4-37
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-7.

Response to Comment 4-38
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-8.

Response to Comment 4-39
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-9.

Response to Comment 4-40
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-10.

Response to Comment 4-41
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-11.

Response to Comment 4-42
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-12.

Response to Comment 4-43
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-13.

Response to Comment 4-44
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-14. 2164 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 66 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 Response to Comment 4-45
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-15.

Response to Comment 4-46
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-16.

Response to Comment 4-47
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-17.

Response to Comment 4-48
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-18.

Response to Comment 4-49
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-19.

Response to Comment 4-50
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-20.

Response to Comment 4-51
This comment letter is identical to Comment Letter No. 3. Please see Response to Comment 3-21. 2165 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 67 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 Response to Attachment No. 5 to Comment Letter No. 4 – January 19, 2022 Email from Sonnier Francisco to the Historic Preservation Commission
Response to Comment 4-52
The comment states the concern that the Project will demolish the parking garage, which the commenter believes contributes to the historic significance of the property because it was designed by the successor firm of the primary building’s architect, was completed in 1970, and was uniquely designed as a small addition to the tower that fits the period of significance, design, and style of the Chase Building.

The Historic Report found that the parking garage is not a significant character defining feature of the property or an individually eligible historic resource because the garage is an ancillary garage that does not contribute to the reasons for which the Chase Bank building was determined to be historically significant in the developmental history of downtown Glendale or as a good example of the Corporate Modern/New Formalist architectural style. Please see Responses to Comments 3-1 and 3-2.

Response to Comment 4-53
The comment states that the parking garage should have been evaluated in the context of the entire site because it was designed as part of, and contributes to, the larger site and its setting. The commenter notes that the Chase Bank building could not function without the parking garage and the garage exists only to serve the office tower.

This comment is very similar to some included in Comment Letters No. 3 and No. 4. Please see Responses to Comments 3-7 and 4-3.

Response to Comment 4-54
The comment states the Project does not meet Downtown Specific Plan Standards A, B, F, G, or K.

The commenter does not provide any evidence or commentary beyond, or in support of, this assertion.

Similar, but more detailed, assertions are also made in Comment Letter No. 3 and discussed in Responses to Comments 3-16 to 3-19.

Response to Comment 4-55
2166 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 68 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 The comment states that it was a serious problem that the SCEA was not available for public review at the time of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) advisory design review hearing held on January 20, 2022.

The Draft SCEA was circulated between January 18, 2022 and March 10, 2022 in fulfillment of the legallyrequired comment period required under CEQA. The commenter did not submit any comments regarding the SCEA during that period.

Response to Comment 4-56
The commentstates that projects that may have an impact on historic resources are not eligible for review under a SCEA. The commenter believes the Project will have unmitigable impacts because of the proposed demolition of the parking garage, the size and design of the project, and its disruption of the existing property setting.

This is incorrect. The Project qualifies for review through the preparation, review and consideration of a SCEA because it will not have a significant adverse impact on the Chase Bank building or its setting, and the parking garage is not a historic resource. Please see Response to Comment 3-21.

Response to Attachment No. 5b to Comment Letter No. 4 –January 20, 2022 email from Daniel Paul to the Historic Preservation Commission
Response to Comment 4-57
The comment states the concern that the Historic Report analyzed the parking garage as a separate property from the Chase Bank building instead of considering it as an element of the larger property, which the commenter believes is appropriate.

The Historic Report acknowledged and analyzed the parking garage as part of the Chase Bank property and its relationship with the Chase Building. Because the SCEA and the Historic Report find that the parking garage is not a historically significant component of the larger site, only the parcels of this multi-parcel property that are associated with the Chase Building were identified as the appropriate boundary for the historic resource. Please see Response to Comments 4-3.

COMMENT LETTER NO. 5:

Burt Culver
Response to Comment 5-1
2167 of 2287
1 Leanna Williams
From: Zemaitaitis, Vilia <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 3:47 PM
To: Rodney Khan; Ralph Cimmarusti; Tony Locacciato; Leanna Williams Subject: FW: Objection to 625 N. Maryland Avenue
From: Burt Culver <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 8:52 AM
To: Zemaitaitis, Vilia <[email protected]>
Cc: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Agajanian, Vrej <[email protected]> Subject: Objection to 625 N. Maryland Avenue
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Ms. Zemaitaitis,
Per the published notice of intent, I'm writing to object to the proposed project at 625 N. Maryland Avenue. At this time in our battle against climate change, we must limit new gas infrastructure in our city. Allowing a building with 294 residential units to be piped for gas creates a significant pollution source in our city. That's 294 natural gas water heaters, furnaces, stoves, ovens and clothes dryers. Each of these may make a minor amount of pollution, but cumulatively, it is a significant amount. Electric heat pump water heaters, heat pump space heaters, induction stoves, electric convection ovens, and heat pump clothes dryers would make this building much more livable and would fit into Glendale's Greener Glendale Plan.

Not only is natural gas bad for the environment, burning it indoors creates a significant health hazard for the occupants. Especially, in new, tightly sealed buildings, the PM2.5, NOx, CO, and Formaldehyde produced by burning natural gas in stove and ovens leads to long term health consequences to the residents. As per the research quoted in the article, rates of asthma, heart disease, and premature mortality increase dramatically in homes with natural gas appliances.

Also, of note is that the project doesn't seem to include any electric car charging capabilities for residents or visitors. The percentage of new cars that are sold is now over 10% in California and most likely even higher in the Los Angeles area. Any building built today must take this into account and provide tenants and visitors with facilities to charge their vehicles.
5-1
5-2
5-3
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 5
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
March 2022
2168 of 2287
2 Please, for the future of Glendale and its citizens, do not allow natural gas in this building and design it for our electrified future by providing electric car charging stations for every parking space.

Regards,
Burt
5-3
5-4
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter No. 5
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
March 2022
2169 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 69 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 The comment expresses concern with allowing the proposed Project to use gas as the commenter asserts it would create a significant pollution source to the City. The SCEA and Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study (Appendix A to the SCEA) analyzed potential impacts related to pollutants. Specifically, the commenter determined the proposed Project would add a considerable cumulative contribution to Federal or State nonattainment pollutants, which would result in a significant impact. SCAQMD’s CalEEMod program was used to calculate regional area, energy, mobile source, and stationary emissions.73,74 Natural gas usage is also included in CalEEMod. Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s emission thresholds. As such, operational impacts would be less than significant.

Natural gas service would be provided to the Project site by Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas).75 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.

The comment also states that the use of electric appliances (water heaters, space heaters, induction stoves, etc.) within the proposed building would fit into the Greener Glendale Plan. As discussed in the SCEA, 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 with which the building will comply.
77 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. The Greener Glendale Plan incorporates twelve (12) measures in addition to the mandatory Green Building 73 City of Glendale, Community Development Department. Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment for the Lucia Park Project. SCH Number 2022010297. Page 5.0-24. Available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65609/637781200347330000. Accessed March 2022. 74 Meridian Consultants LLC. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Technical Study for the Lucia Park Project 625 N. Maryland Avenue and 620 N. Grand Boulevard Glendale, California 91203. December 2021. Appendix A. Available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65591/637781192050470000. Accessed March 2022. 75 City of Glendale, Community Development Department. Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment for the Lucia Park Project. SCH Number 2022010297. Page 5.0-25. Available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65609/637781200347330000. Accessed March 2022. 76 California Gas and Electric Utilities, 2020 California Gas Report, October 2020, https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf. 77 CEC, 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/, accessed August 2021.
2170 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 70 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 Standards for new construction projects. The twelve (12) measures and their applicability to the proposed Project are provided in Table 5.8-7: Project Consistency with Greener Glendale Plan in Section 5.8, Greenhouse Gases of the SCEA.78
Response to Comment 5-2
The comment states burning natural gas is a significant health hazard for occupants, especially in new, tightly sealed buildings, the PM2.5, NOx, CO, and formaldehyde produced by burning natural gas in stove and ovens leads to long term health consequences to the residents. The article cited in the comment says gas cooking produces PM 2.5, “nitrogen oxides (NOx), including nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and formaldehyde (CH2O or HCHO). All of these pollutants are health risks if not properly managed.”79 While not a CEQA issue, project inhabitants would be protected from potential internal air quality issues, as the proposed Project would be required to comply with CALGreen.

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. The Greener Glendale Plan incorporates twelve (12) measures in addition to the mandatory Green Building Standards for new construction projects, which would properly manage these pollutants should gas stoves and ovens be installed in the proposed building. The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study (Appendix A to the SCEA) and the SCEA analyzed the potential impacts related to pollutants, including PM2.5, NOx, and CO. Specifically, they determined whether the proposed Project would add a considerable cumulative contribution to Federal or State nonattainment pollutants, which would result in a significant impact. SCAQMD’s CalEEMod program was used to calculate regional area, energy, mobile source, and stationary emissions.80,81 Natural gas usage is also included in CalEEMod. Operational emissions associated with the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s emission thresholds. As such, operational impacts would be less than significant.

Should gas stoves or ovens be installed in the residential building, the US EPA and CARB has provided guidance on how to reduce formaldehyde exposure, including the use of air conditioners and 78 City of Glendale, Community Development Department. Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment for the Lucia Park Project. SCH Number 2022010297. Page 5.0-86. Available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65609/637781200347330000. Accessed March 2022. 79 Roberts, David. Gas stoves can generate unsafe levels of indoor air pollution. Vox. Available at:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/5/7/21247602/gas-stove-cooking-indoor-air-pollution-health-risks.

Accessed March 2022. 80 City of Glendale, Community Development Department. Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment for the Lucia Park Project. SCH Number 2022010297. Page 5.0-24. Available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65609/637781200347330000. Accessed March 2022. 81 Meridian Consultants LLC. Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Technical Study for the Lucia Park Project 625 N. Maryland Avenue and 620 N. Grand Boulevard Glendale, California 91203. December 2021. Appendix A. Pages 30-31. Available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65591/637781192050470000. Accessed March 2022. 2171 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 71 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 dehumidifiers, increase of ventilation and use of range hoods. 82,83 If a range hood is not installed, CARB also recommends opening of windows or exterior doors and use of wall or ceiling exhaust fans. 84 The
proposed Project would comply with the most recent 2019 California Green Building Standards Code which requires HVAC systems would provide ventilation to the proposed building residential units. The residential units would also have windows and doors to improve ventilation. Should gas stoves or ovens be installed in the residential units, range hoods could be installed. These would assist in decreasing formaldehyde exposure from gas stoves or ovens. Additionally, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations and other pollutants produced by gas stoves and ovens are dependent on level of usage, temperature, humidity, and seasonal conditions which would be specific to the Project site and the residents. The level of usage of gas stoves and ovens by the residents is not required to be disclosed or analyzed under CEQA.

This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of the SCEA for their consideration in reviewing the proposed Project.

Response to Comment 5-3
The comment states the proposed Project does not seem to include any electric car charging and any building must account for electric charging capabilities.. City Building Code currently requires developers to “make ready” the infrastructure for EV chargers for a minimum of 5% of the required parking, though there is no requirement to install EV chargers at this time. While there is no requirement to have to install the chargers, the spaces are adaptable and the infrastructure is there to install at a later date.

The Applicant has made a commitment to make the building as green as they can. All appliances will be Energy Star-rated and will comply with City Building Code and CalGreen regarding the use of electric appliances in the proposed building. The Applicant has expressed a commitment to not only meet the building code but also install the chargers. It is assumed the number of installed chargers would be 5% of required parking or more.

Response to Comment 5-4
The comment asks for natural gas to not be allowed in the proposed building and to provide electric charging stations for every parking space. Please see Responses to Comments 5-1 through 5-3. This 82 United States EPA. Indoor Air Quality (IAQ), What should I know about formaldehyde and indoor air quality? Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-should-i-know-about-formaldehyde-and-indoor-air-quality. Accessed March 2022. 83 CARB. Indoor Air Pollution from Cooking. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/indoor-air-pollutioncooking. Accessed March 2022. 84 CARB. Indoor Air Pollution from Cooking. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/indoor-air-pollutioncooking. Accessed March 2022. 2172 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 72 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of the SCEA for their consideration in reviewing the proposed Project. 2173 of 2287
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-------CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7
100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 266-3571
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life
March 11, 2022
Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Division Office,
633 East Broadway, Room 103,
Glendale, CA 91206
RE: 620 N. Brand Blvd. and 625 N.

Maryland Ave.

Draft Sustainable Communities
Environmental Assessment
GTS # LA-2022-03830-SCEA
Dear Vilia Zemaitaitis:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced document. The Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment proposes the construction of a new 294-unit, 24-story multi-family residential building on a 63,760 SF (1.48 acre) project site zoned DSP Gateway District. The proposed Floor Area Ratio is 7.25 and the building height is 266 feet (7.25 FAR and 275 feet maximum by right). The Project includes 373 subterranean parking spaces for the residential use and 129 above-ground, replacement parking spaces for existing commercial bank building, as well as a publicly accessible open space plaza fronting Brand Boulevard and residential amenity spaces throughout the project.

Caltrans provides the following comments:

1. Please include these two additional intersection locations for analysis WB On-Ramp for Central Ave
EB Off-Ramp at Central Ave

2. Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map- Please provide entrance point to the project.

3. Figure 4-1 Existing Lane Configurations- Include weaving analysis between on/off ramps
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
March 2022
2174 of 2287

4. Based on all the project on Table 7-1 Related Project List and Trip Generation- The annual average growth rate should be higher than a 1 % increase

5. Please include traffic data for the Intersection in the following Figures:

Figure 6-1 Existing Traffic Volumes
Figure 7-2 Related Projects Traffic Volumes
Figure 7-3 Related Projects Traffic Volumes

6. -Table 8-1 Project Trip Generation- Please indicate if numbers provided are assumed or from the traffic counts

7. -Figure 8-1 Project Trip Distribution
Include % on ramp traffic data
Provide am and pm intersection analysis

8. -Figure 8-4 Net New Project Traffic Volumes- Please clarify, the traffic volume does not add up at the 1 and 2 intersection
Please be aware that any work performed within the State Right-of-way will require an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans. Any modifications to State facilities must meet all mandatory design standard and specifications.

As a reminder, any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which requires use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways will need a Caltrans transportation permit. We recommend large size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Miya Edmonson the project coordinator at (213) 266-3571 and refer to GTS # LA-2022-03830.

Sincerely,

MIYA EDMONSON
LDR Branch Chief
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
6-10
6-11
Lucia Park Project
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
City of Glendale
March 2022
2175 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 73 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 COMMENT LETTER NO. 6:

California Department of Transportation, District 7
Miya Edmonson
LDR Branch Chief
100 S. Main Street, MS 16
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Response to Comment 6-1
This comment provides an understanding and description of the proposed Project. This comment is acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making bodies as part of the SCEA for their consideration in reviewing the proposed Project.

Response to Comment 6-2
This comment requests analysis of two additional intersections. As discussed in Response to Comment 1 in Appendix B, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) prepared the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA; Appendix E to the SCEA) in conformance with the City of Glendale Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Glendale TIA Guidelines) and in consultation with the City’s Principal Traffic Engineer. The Glendale TIA Guidelines, provide the following requirements for study intersections:
• Project driveways
• Intersections at either end of the block on which the project is located or up to 500 feet from the primary project driveways, whichever is closer.85
The two intersections requested, WB On-Ramp for Central Ave and EB Off-Ramp for Central Ave fall outside the recommended scope of analysis because they are not Project driveways, are not intersections at either end of the block on which the proposed Project is located, and are approximately 1,000 feet northwest and 975 feet west of the Project site, respectively. Additionally, prior to the commencement of the TIA, the City’s Principal Traffic Engineer, Pastor Casanova, was consulted and confirmed the list of six study intersectionsto be analyzed within the TIA. The TIA found that none of the six study intersections would exceed the operations criteria with the addition of the forecast proposed Project traffic.86 These six study intersections, which include the Brand Boulevard / Goode Avenue – SR-134 WB Off-Ramp and Brand Boulevard / Sanchez Drive – SR-134 EB On-Ramp, are closer to the Project site, are within 400 feet of the Project site and closer to the Project site than the two intersections requested. Therefore, the six 85 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, October 30, 2020, https://www.glendaleplan.com/transportation-guidelines. Accessed March 2022. 86 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers. Transportation Impact Analysis 606 N. Maryland Avenue Residential Project City of Glendale, California. June 22, 2021. Appendix E. Page 47. Available at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/65599/637781192080470000. Accessed March 2022. 2176 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 74 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 study intersections would experience more changes in traffic operations with the addition of the forecast proposed Project traffic than the two intersections requested. These six study intersections would not exceed the operations criteria with the addition of the forecast proposed Project traffic. The two intersections requested are farther at distances than the six study intersections, and, therefore, are expected to experience less change in traffic operations than the six study intersections. As the six study intersections would not exceed the operations criteria with the addition of the proposed Project traffic, the two intersections at farther distances experiencing less change in traffic operations than the six study intersections and would also not exceed the operations criteria with the addition of the proposed project traffic. For these reasons, no additional analysis is warranted.

Response to Comment 6-3
The comment asks to provide entrance points to the Project on Figure 1-1 of the TIA. Updated Figure 1-1 depicting the vehicular access points to the Project is attached to Appendix B.

Response to Comment 6-4
The comment requests the inclusion of a weaving analysis between on/off ramps. As discussed in Response to Comment 3 in Appendix B, the Glendale TIA Guidelines do not provide thresholds for preparing a weaving analysis. Caltrans also does not have any published guidelines providing recommendations for a weaving analysis. As shown in Figure 8-3 and 8-4 of the TIA, the proposed Project would generate approximately 10 or fewer net new peak hour trips on any freeway on-ramp in the proposed Project vicinity. Given the negligible addition of peak hour trips generated by the proposed Project, a weaving analysis is not required, and no further analysis is warranted.

Response to Comment 6-5
The comment asserts the annual average growth rate should be higher than a 1.0% increase in Table 7-1 of the TIA. Response to Comment 4 in Appendix B states Section 7.0 of the TIA discusses the forecast of on-street traffic conditions prior to occupancy of the proposed Project was prepared by incorporating potential trips associated with related projects in addition to the 1.0% annual average growth rate. This methodology provides an extremely conservative estimate of future traffic conditions prior to occupancy of the proposed Project. A higher annual traffic growth is not required, and no further analysis is warranted.

Response to Comment 6-6
The comment requests the inclusion of traffic data for intersections in Figures 6-1, 7-2, and 7-3 of the TIA.

As discussed in Response to Comment 5 in Appendix B, Section 6.0 of the TIA states that new traffic count 2177 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 75 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 data could not be collected at study intersections due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In consultation with City staff, historical data at the study intersections, with appropriate adjustments, was utilized to represent current (pre-pandemic) traffic volume conditions at the study intersections during the analyzed peak hours. A 1.0% annual traffic growth rate was applied to traffic count data through the year 2021 to estimate year 2021 traffic volumes. The manual traffic count data is provided in Appendix B of the TIA.

Additionally, Figures 7-2 and 7-3 provide the forecast turning movement traffic volumes at the study intersections during the AP and PM peak hours, respectively. No further analysis is warranted.

Response to Comment 6-7
The comment asks to indicate if the numbers provided are assumed or from traffic counts. Response to Comment 6 in Appendix B explains traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed Project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as on a daily basis, were estimated using standard trip rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. 87 This was indicated in Section 8.1 and in the
footnotes of Table 8-1 in the TIA.

Response to Comment 6-8
The comment calls for inclusion of the percentage of on ramp traffic data and AM and PM intersection analysis to Figure 8-1 in the TIA. The percentage of trips that are assumed to utilize the nearby freeway on- and off-ramps were depicted in Figure 8-1 and 8-2 of the TIA, as discussed in Response to Comment 7 in Appendix B. An intersection analysis was prepared for the Brand Boulevard / Goode Avenue – SR-134 WB Off-Ramp and Brand Boulevard / Sanchez Drive – SR-134 EB On-Ramp intersections. The addition of proposed Project traffic is forecast to increase the overall delay by less than one second during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours under Opening Year Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions at the Brand Boulevard / Goode Avenue – SR-134 WB On-Ramp. An increase in delay is not anticipated with the addition of proposed Project traffic at the Brand Boulevard / Sanchez Drive – SR-134 EB On-Ramp.

As indicated in Table 10-1 in the TIA, the addition of proposed Project traffic does not exceed the criteria set forth in the Glendale TIA Guidelines for signalized intersections. Please see Response to Comment 6- 2 and Response to Comment 1 in Appendix B for a response related to the preparation of an intersection analysis for the Central Avenue / Goode Avenue – SR-134 WB On- Ramp and Brand Boulevard / Sanchez Drive – SR-134 EB Off-Ramp intersections.

Response to Comment 6-9
The comment asks to clarify the traffic volumes at Intersections 1 and 2 in Figure 8-4. As discussed in Response to Comment 8 in Appendix B, the traffic volumes at Intersection 1 and 2 add up. As stated in 87 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Washington, D.C., 2017. 2178 of 2287
Responses to Comments
Lucia Park Project 76 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Responses to Comments June 2022 Section 8.2 of the TIA, the traffic volume assignments presented in Figure 8–4 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 8–1 and Figure 8–2 applied to the proposed Project traffic generation forecast presented in Table 8–1. There are instances where volumes arriving/departing from one intersection may not add up with volumes arriving/departing at an adjacent intersection due to rounding, as well as differences in site access points between the existing site and the proposed Project.

Response to Comment 6-10
The comment states any work performed within the State Right-of-way will require an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans. The proposed Project would not require work performed within SR-134. No Encroachment Permit would be necessary for the proposed Project.

Response to Comment 6-11
This comment is a reminder that any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials which require use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways need a Caltrans transportation permit. Should transportation of heavy construction equipment or materials require the use of oversizedtransport vehicles on SR-134 or another State highway, the Applicant or contractor will obtain a Caltrans transportation permit.

The comment also recommends large size truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods. The Applicant and/or contractor will limit large size truck trips to off-peak commute periods as feasible. 2179 of 2287

APPENDIX A
Air Quality Response Memorandum
2180 of 2287
Los Angeles Office
706 S. Hill Street, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
(213) 335-3434
Westlake Village Office
920 Hampshire Road, Suite A5
Westlake Village, CA 91361
(805) 367-5720
Date: February 18, 2022
To: Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP, Principal Planner
City of Glendale, Community Development Department
633 East Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, CA 91206
From: Christ Kirikian
Principal | Director of Air Quality & Acoustics
Subject: Lucia Park Project (Case Nos. PDR 2119308, PDA1806045) Response to Re: Second Request for Immediate Access to Project Emissions Data for Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment
This memorandum responds to the Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardazo (Adams Broadwell) letter dated February 16, 2022 requesting the City provide the unlocked emissions input files relied upon in the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (“SCEA”) prepared for the Lucia Park project, Case No. PDR 2119308, PDA1806045 (“Project”) proposed by Cimmarusti Holdings, LLC (“Applicant”).

The Adams Broadwell letter incorrectly states that the City cannot rely on the CalEEMod emissions output files appended to the SCEA to support its findings on the significance of the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions the Project would generate, as the information provided in the SCEA document is sufficient to allow for all parties to review the emissions modeling as explained below.

The Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (AQ/GHG) Technical Report included a detailed description on methodology and assumptions. Information disclosed included type and versions of modeling software used, project data used to estimate emissions, and all additional assumptions made in the absence of project-specific data. This information was provided for all phases of the Project analyzed including construction and operations.

For construction emissions, the AQ/GHG technical study identified anticipated start and end dates (Table 11 of AQ/GHG Study) the amount of export soil (in cubic yards), the type and number of pieces of equipment anticipated to be used during each sub-phase, and the assumed duration of use (refer to Table 2181 of 2287
12 of AQ/GHG Study). This information was input into the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The output files also identified the total number of truck trips assumed to be associated with occupancy and use of the Project, including vendor and haul trips, and worker trips. All modeling output files were provided as an appendix to the study.

All parties reviewing the SCEA can review this information to understand the methodology and assumptions used in the analysis. The CalEEMod output files provide a table showing changes to default model assumptions that includes the reason for each change from a default assumption in the model (Section 1.3 of the CalEEMod output files).

In addition, the AQ/GHG report identified data inputs for operational emissions, i.e., trip generator, and data sources and/or assumption used to estimate operational emissions. Adjustments to trip generation rate model inputs were made based on the traffic study prepared for the project, which is also appended to the SCEA. For these reasons, the unlocked input files are not required to review the emissions modeling to confirm or comment on the results.

Similarly, the methodology and technical study for the Mobile Health Risk Assessment identifies input parameters and specific citations for the sources for information used (e.g., annual average daily trips on SR-134 Freeway) and a description of the modeling methodology. The description of the modeling methodology identifies the models used, meteorological data sources, source treatment (e.g., line source for roadways), receptor treatment (i.e., receptor grid and number of receptors), and equations used to estimate cancer and non-cancer risk. The methodology and technical appendices include the modeling results including the data to support the results and findings of the analysis. The unlocked input files are not needed to complete a technical review of the modeling to confirm or comment on the modeling and the results of the modeling.
2182 of 2287

APPENDIX B
Responses to Caltrans Comments
2183 of 2287

MEMORANDUM
O:\0343\memo\Responses to Comments (03.16.22).docx
To: Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP
City of Glendale
Date: March 16, 2022
From: David S. Shender, P.E.

Jason A. Shender, AICP
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
LLG Ref: 5-17-0343-1
Subject:

Responses to Caltrans Comments
Lucia Park Project
620 N. Brand Boulevard and 625 N. Maryland Avenue
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is in receipt of comments1 prepared by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided in response to the Transportation Impact Analysis2 (TIA) prepared as part of the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the Lucia Park project (the “Project”) located at 620 N. Brand Boulevard and 625 N. Maryland Avenue in the City of Glendale (the “City”). This memorandum provides responses to the individual comments contained in the Caltrans letter. It is noted that none of the comments in the Caltrans letter relate to the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis provided in the TIA. As stated in the TIA, VMT is the primary metric used in the City of Glendale in evaluating potential transportation impacts of development projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As stated in the TIA, the Project’s transportation impacts are deemed to be less than significant based on the VMT analysis provided therein.

Provided below are the restated (or paraphrased) comments, followed by a response prepared by LLG:

Comment No. 1
Please include these two additional intersections locations for analysis:
 WB On-Ramp for Central Ave
 EB Off-Ramp for Central Ave
Response to Comment 1
The City of Glendale Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines3 (the “TIA Guidelines”) provide the following requirements for study intersections:
 Project driveways
 Intersections at either end of the block on which the project is located or up to 500 feet from the primary project driveways, whichever is closer 1 “620 N. Brand Blvd. and 625 N. Maryland Ave. Draft Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment GTS # LA-2022-03830-SCEA,” Caltrans, March 11, 2022. 2 Transportation Impact Analysis for the 606 N. Maryland Avenue Residential Project, LLG, June 21, 2021.
3 City of Glendale Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, City of Glendale, October 2020

2184 of 2287
Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP
March 16, 2022

O:\0343\memo\Responses to Comments (03.16.22).docx
The two intersections identified in the comment fall outside the recommended scope of analysis provided in the TIA Guidelines. Further, LLG consulted the City’s Principal Traffic Engineer, Pastor Casanova, prior to the commencement of the TIA.

The City confirmed the list of study intersections to be analyzed within the TIA.

Comment No. 2
Figure 1–1 (Vicinity Map) – Please provide entrance points to the Project.

Response to Comment 2
An updated Figure 1–1 (Vicinity Map) depicting the Project’s vehicular access points is attached to this memorandum.

Comment No. 3
Figure 4–1 (Existing Lane Configurations) – Include weaving analysis between on/off ramps.

Response to Comments 3
The City’s TIA Guidelines do not provide thresholds for the preparation of a weaving analysis. Further, Caltrans does not have any published guidelines providing recommendations for when a weaving analysis is to be prepared related to potential vehicular traffic generated by proposed development projects. As shown on Figure 8–3 (Net New Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour) and Figure 8–4 (Net New Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour), the Project is forecast to generate approximately 10 or fewer net new peak hour trips on any freeway onramp in the Project vicinity. The Project’s effect on freeway operations would be de minimis, and therefore a weaving analysis is not required for this Project.

Comment No. 4
Based on all the projects on Table 7–1 (Related Projects List and Trip Generation), the annual average growth rate should be higher than a 1.0% increase.

Response to Comment 4
As described in Section 7.0 of the TIA, a forecast of on-street traffic conditions prior to occupancy of the Project was prepared by incorporating potential trips associated with the related projects, as well as application of a 1.0% annual average growth rate.

The methodology utilized in the TIA provides an extremely conservative estimate of future traffic conditions prior to occupancy of the Project, and therefore a higher annual traffic growth rate is not required.
2185 of 2287
Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP
March 16, 2022

O:\0343\memo\Responses to Comments (03.16.22).docx
Comment No. 5
Please include the traffic data for the Intersection in the following Figures:
 Figure 6–1 (Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour)  Figure 7–2 (Related Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour)  Figure 7–3 (Related Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour) Response to Comment 5
As stated in Section 6.0 of the TIA, new traffic count data could not be collected at the study intersections due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In consultation with the City, with City staff, historical data at the study intersections, with appropriate adjustments, was utilized to represent current (pre-pandemic) traffic volume conditions at the study intersections during the analyzed peak hours. A 1.0% annual traffic growth rate was applied to traffic count data through the year 2021 to estimate year 2021 traffic volumes. The manual traffic count data is provided in Appendix B of the TIA.

LLG is unclear regarding the request for data related to Figures 7–2 and 7–3. The figures provide the forecast turning movement traffic volumes at the study intersections during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

Comment No. 6
Table 8–1 (Project Trip Generation) – Please indicate if numbers are provided are assumed or from the traffic counts.

Response to Comment 6
As indicated in Section 8.1 of the TIA and in the footnotes of Table 8–1 (Project Trip Generation), traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed Project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as on a daily basis, were estimated using standard trip rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. 4 Comment No. 7
Figure 8–1 (Project Trip Distribution – Existing Site)
 Include percentage of on ramp traffic data
 Provide AM and PM intersection analysis
Response to Comment 7
The percentage of trips that are assumed to utilize the nearby freeway on- and offramps are depicted in Figure 8–1 (Project Trip Distribution – Existing Site) and Figure 8–2 (Project Trip Distribution).
4 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Washington, D.C., 2017. 2186 of 2287 Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP
March 16, 2022

O:\0343\memo\Responses to Comments (03.16.22).docx
An intersection analysis was prepared for the Brand Boulevard / Goode Avenue – SR-134 WB Off-Ramp and Brand Boulevard / Sanchez Drive – SR-134 EB On-Ramp intersections (Study Intersection Nos. 1 and 2, respectively). As indicated in Table 10–1 (Summary of Delay Values and Levels of Service – Weekday AM and PM Peak Hours), the addition of Project traffic is forecast to increase the overall delay by less than one second during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours under Opening Year Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions at the Brand Boulevard / Goode Avenue – SR-134 WB On-Ramp. An increase in delay is not anticipated with the addition of Project traffic at the Brand Boulevard / Sanchez Drive – SR-134 EB On-Ramp intersection during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours under Opening Year Plus Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. As indicated in Table 10–1, the addition of Project traffic does not exceed the criteria set forth in the City’s TIA Guidelines for signalized intersections.

Please refer to the Response to Comment 1 for a response related to the preparation of an intersection analysis for the Central Avenue / Goode Avenue – SR-134 WB OnRamp and Brand Boulevard / Sanchez Drive – SR-134 EB Off-Ramp intersections.

Comment No. 8
Figure 8–4 (Net New Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour) – Please clarify, the traffic volumes do not add up at Intersections 1 and 2.

Response to Comment 8
The traffic volumes at Intersection Nos. 1 and 2 do add up. As shown in Figure 8–4, a total of four (4) vehicles arrive at Intersection 1 from Intersection 2. Similarly, 16 vehicles arrive at Intersection 2 from Intersection 1. As stated in Section 8.2 of the TIA, the traffic volume assignments presented in Figure 8–4 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 8–1 (Project Trip Distribution – Existing Site) and Figure 8–2 (Project Trip Distribution) applied to the Project traffic generation forecast presented in Table 8–1 (Project Trip Generation). There are instances where volumes arriving/departing from one intersection may not add up with volumes arriving/departing at an adjacent intersection due to rounding, as well as differences in site access points between the existing site and the Project.

2187 of 2287
2188 of 2287

APPENDIX CC
Permits and Certificates of Occupancy
2189 of 2287
2190 of 2287
2191 of 2287
2192 of 2287
2193 of 2287
2194 of 2287
2195 of 2287
2196 of 2287
2197 of 2287
2198 of 2287
2199 of 2287
2200 of 2287

APPENDIX D
2017-18 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey Consultant Letter 2201 of 2287
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP 620 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale 1 June 2, 2022
Jay Platt
Senior Urban Designer
Glendale Community Development Department
633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103
Glendale, CA 91206
RE: Home Savings and Loan, 620 N. Brand Blvd.

Dear Mr. Platt:

This letter provides clarification of the methodology applied by HRG in our 2017 South Glendale Historic Resources Survey finding for the former Home Savings and Loan building located at 620 N. Brand Boulevard. We found the building eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under local Criterion 1 as an example of commercial development associated with the post-World War II growth of Glendale, and under local Criterion 3 as a good example of Corporate Modern commercial architecture.

Our finding applies only to the six-story office building constructed in 1969 and does not include the adjacent surface parking lot and parking structure. Although designed and constructed almost concurrently with the tower, the parking lot and parking structure are standard features of late-20th century commercial development, virtually identical to similar features on any number of contemporary properties. They are not essential elements of a distinctive site composition and do not have a formal relationship to the office building or to each other; they are simply ancillary, utilitarian features located as needed on the property.

The parking structure’s exterior has a pattern of vertical fins that were added to mimic the mullions of the bank building but is otherwise a standard, utilitarian parking structure. National Park Service guidance states that a building is not representative of a particular style, and therefore is not eligible for historic designation, if it has some detailing of the style only as a surface application, rather than fully integrated with the overall design. The parking structure’s minimal exterior detailing was clearly applied to resemble 2202 of 2287
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP 620 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale 2 the design of the adjacent Corporate Modern office building, but it is otherwise a typical parking structure; the essential features of Corporate Modern architecture are not fully integrated into its overall design.

The parking structure therefore does not possess high artistic value, does not embody the distinctive characteristics of Late Modern architecture, and does not express Home Savings and Loan’s unique use of architecture to identify and build their brand in communities across Southern California in the 1960s. For these reasons we determined that the parking structure and surface parking lot do not contribute to the historic character and significance of the property, and that only the six-story bank building is eligible for designation. If the parking structure were to be demolished, the historic integrity and significance of the bank building would be unimpaired and the property would remain eligible for designation.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information.

Sincerely,
Christine Lazzaretto
Managing Partner
2203 of 2287
EXHIBIT 7
2204 of 2287
2205 of 2287
2206 of 2287
EXEMPT FROM RECORDER’S FEES
Pursuant to Government Code §§ 6103 and
27383
Recording requested by and when recorded
return to:

City Clerk
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway, Room 110
Glendale, CA 91206
(SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER’S USE)

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

CITY OF GLENDALE,
a California municipal corporation,
and

ADELFIA PROPERTIES II, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Company

THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED WITHIN TEN DAYS

OF EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES HERETO PURSUANT TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT CODE §65868.5
EXHIBIT 8
2207 of 2287
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

1. Recitals ..........................................................................................................................1

2. Definitions .....................................................................................................................2

3. Binding Effect................................................................................................................5

4. Negation of Agency.......................................................................................................5

5. Development Impact Fees and Affordable Housing .....................................................5

6. Developer Covenants.....................................................................................................6

7. Applicable Rules; Reserved Powers..............................................................................6

8. Limitation on Application of Conflicting Requirements...............................................8

9. Acknowledgments, Agreements and Assurances on the Part of Developer..................8

10. Acknowledgments, Agreements and Assurances on the Part of the City......................8

11. Acknowledgements, Agreements, and Assurances on the Part of the Parties...............9

12. Cooperation and Implementation ................................................................................10

13. Compliance; Default; Termination; Modifications and Amendments ........................11

14. Administration .............................................................................................................13

15. Term of Agreement......................................................................................................13

16. Administration of Agreement and Resolution of Disputes..........................................14

17. Injunctive Relief ..........................................................................................................14

18. No Personal Liability...................................................................................................14

19. Mortgagee Protection ..................................................................................................14

20. Notices .........................................................................................................................15

21. Recordation..................................................................................................................16

22. Severability and Termination ......................................................................................16

23. Time of Essence...........................................................................................................17

24. Waiver .........................................................................................................................17

25. Enforced Delay; Extension Of Time Of Performance.................................................17

26. No Third Party Beneficiaries .......................................................................................17

27. Attorneys’ Fees............................................................................................................17

28. Applicable Law............................................................................................................17

29. Authority to Execute; Binding Effect ..........................................................................18

30. Entire Agreement; Conflicts ........................................................................................18

31. City Approvals and Actions.........................................................................................18

32. Counterparts.................................................................................................................18

33. Digital Signatures ........................................................................................................18

34. Integration....................................................................................................................18

35. Interpretation................................................................................................................19

36. Legal Advice................................................................................................................19

37. Conflicts of Interest .....................................................................................................19

38. Assignment ..................................................................................................................19 2208 of 2287
ii
Page on Which
Exhibits First Referenced
Exhibit A Legal Description.............................................................................1 Exhibit B Project Site.......................................................................................1 Exhibit C Approved Project .............................................................................1 Exhibit D Project Entitlements.........................................................................1 2209 of 2287
1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This Development Agreement (“Agreement”) is made in Los Angeles County, California as of ____________, 2022, by and between the CITY OF GLENDALE, a municipal corporation and charter city (the “City”), and ADELFIA PROPERTIES II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Developer”). Together, the City and Developer shall be referred to as the “Parties” or each individually a "Party."

RECITALS

1. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and for the following purposes, each of which is acknowledged as true and correct by the Parties:
(a) The City is authorized, pursuant to Government Code §§65864 through 65869.5, the Development Agreement Statutes, and under its authority as a charter city to enter into binding agreements with persons or entities having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to establish certainty in the development process; (b) Developer is the owner of the real property located at 620 North Brand and 625 North Maryland Avenue, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described in Exhibit "A", (“Legal Description”), and as further depicted in Exhibit “B” (the "Site” or “Project Site”), both Exhibits being attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property").
(c) Developer proposes to construct a multi-family residential project on the Property, as further described in Exhibit "C", (the "Approved Project") located in the Gateway District (“District”) of the Downtown Specific Plan (“DSP”) area in the City of Glendale, and Developer requests the Project entitlements, as further described in Exhibit "D". (d) The Project will provide the following benefits to the City, which include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) A new multi-family residential development in downtown Glendale in conformance with the DSP;
(2) An expanded property tax base and incidental sales tax revenues; (3) High quality design that contributes to the downtown’s unique sense of place, and provides an important component to a thriving downtown and city; (4) An increase in the population staying, working and recreating downtown, which will help reduce commuter traffic and other impacts on quality of life; (5) Employment opportunities for City residents during and after Project construction; and
2210 of 2287
2 (6) A public art contribution, made pursuant to the DSP art requirement, for use and enjoyment by downtown residents, visitors, and the general public. (e) On ________________, the Planning Commission of the City held a duly noticed public hearing on Developer’s application for a Development Agreement and by motion recommended to the City Council approval of this Agreement based on a finding that the proposed Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. (f) On ________________, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on Developer’s application for this Agreement and introduced an ordinance to implement this Agreement. The City Council approved and determined that:
(1) An environmental review has been conducted and the Project was determined to qualify for review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") using a Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis (SCEA); and (2) A Stage I & II Design Review for the Project.
(g) On_________, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. _______ approving this Agreement.
(h) Pursuant to Government Code §65867.5, the City Council of the City of Glendale (“City Council”) finds that: (i) this Agreement, the Applicable Rules and any Future Approvals (as defined herein) of the Project implement the goals and policies of the City of Glendale’s General Plan (“General Plan”) and the DSP, provide balanced and diversified land uses and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City; (ii) this Agreement, and the Project as depicted in the approved Stage I& II Project design, as shown on Exhibit “C” hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, is in the best interests of, and not a detriment to, the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the City and the surrounding region; (iii) this Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in the zoning district and planning area in which the Project Site is located; (iv) adopting this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and DSP, and constitutes a present exercise of the City’s police power and in accordance with its authority as a charter city; and (v) this Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Government Code §65867.

2. Definitions. In this Agreement capitalized terms shall have the meanings set forth below, or if not defined in this Section 2, shall have the meaning ascribed thereto when such terms are first used herein:
(a) “Agreement” means this Development Agreement by and between the City and Developer, including all exhibits attached hereto and all amendments and modifications thereto. (b) “Applicable Rules” are as defined in Section 7(a).
2211 of 2287
3 (c) “Approved Project” means the Project approved by the City on ____________, which consists of the City approved Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (“SCEA”) SCH Number 2022010297, Stage II Final Design Review Case No. PDR 2119308, and this Development Agreement (“DA”) City Case No. PDA1806045, all of which are as shown and described in Exhibits “C” and “D” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. (d) “Construction Period” shall mean the time period during which the Project is being constructed pursuant to the Approved Project attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. (e) “Developer” means Adelfia Properties II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as developer of record, and any of their successors or assigns. (f) “Developer Property” means property with a legal and equitable ownership held by Developer, and as identified on Site Map attached hereto as Exhibit “A” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and described more particularly in the Legal Description attached hereto as Exhibit “B” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. (g) “Development Impact Fee(s)” means those impact fees, linkage fees, exactions, or fair share charges or other similar impact fees or charges (collected as a condition to issuance of demolition, grading and/or building permits, or other permits) imposed by the City on and/or in connection with new development. Development Impact Fees do not include (i) Filing or Processing Fees; or (ii) other City-wide fees or charges of general applicability, provided that such City-wide fees or charges are not imposed on impacts of new development; (iii) impact fees, linkage fees, exactions, assessments or fair share charges or other similar fees or charges imposed by other governmental entities and which the City is required to collect or assess pursuant to applicable law (e.g., school district impact fees pursuant to Government Code Section 65995). (h) “Effective Date” is the date the Ordinance approving this Agreement becomes effective.
(i) “Enforced Delay” is defined in Section 25 below.
(j) “Filing or Processing Fees” means those fees uniformly charged by various City departments to cover the administrative costs of, among other things, reviewing and analyzing permit applications and similar requests for ministerial and/or discretionary approvals. (k) “Future Approvals” means any action approved by the City which implement development of the Project, including, without limitation, parcel maps, tentative subdivision maps, lot line adjustments, development plan, any applicable specific plan, site plan reviews, variances, conditional use permits, and approvals related to construction of off-site affordable housing, if any.

Future Approvals, as they may be granted from time to time, shall become part of the Applicable Rules.
(l) “Hazardous Materials” means any toxic substance, materials, or waste which is now regulated by any local governmental authority, the State of California, or the United States Government under any Environmental Law including, but not limited to, any material or substance which is (i) defined as a "hazardous waste," "extremely hazardous waste," or "restricted hazardous waste" under Sections 25115, 25117, or 25122.7, or listed pursuant to Section 25140 of the 2212 of 2287
4 California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5 (Hazardous Waste Control Law), (ii) defined as a "hazardous substance" under Section 25316 of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8 (Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act), (iii) defined as a "hazardous material," "hazardous substance," or "hazardous waste" under Section 25501 of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95 (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory), (iv) defined as a "hazardous substance" under 25281 of the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.7 (Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances), (v) a petroleum or refined petroleum product, including without limitation petroleum-based paints and solvents, (vi) asbestos, (vii) polychlorinated biphenyls, (viii) methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), (ix) listed under Article 9 or defined as "hazardous" or "extremely hazardous" pursuant to Article 11 of Title 22 of the California Administrative Code, Division 4, Chapter 20, (x) designated as a "hazardous substance" pursuant to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1317), (xi) defined as a "hazardous waste" pursuant to Section 1004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq., (xii) defined as a "hazardous substance" pursuant to Section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq., (xiii) any flammable or explosive materials, (xiv) a radioactive material, or (xv) lead, cyanide, DDT, printing inks, acids, pesticides, ammonia compounds and other chemical products, asbestos, PCBs and similar compounds and including any different products and materials which have been found to have adverse effects on the environment or the health and safety of persons.
(m) “Improvements” means the Project to be constructed by Developer or by its tenants on the Project Site, pursuant to the Approved Project and the Applicable Rules and the Plans submitted by Developer and approved by the City.
(n) “Indemnitees” is defined in Section 12(d) below.
(o) “Minor Change” is defined in Section 11(a) below.
(p) “Mortgagee” is defined in Section 19 below.
(q) “Municipal Code” means the Glendale Municipal Code and all amendments thereto.
(r) “Periodic Review” is defined in Section 13(a) below. (s) “Plans” shall mean plans, specifications, drawings and other information required for the construction of the Improvements, which may include as applicable: (a) designs, locations and dimensions of Improvements, (b) site plans, (c) street level plans, (d) typical building floor plans, (e) key elevations and key building cross sections, (f) features in public areas, (g) landscape features, materials and sizes, (h) locations for signs and signage designs, (i) parking facilities with spaces indicated, (j) general construction techniques, (k) detailed tabulation of floor area by use, (l) structural dimensions and elevations, (m) building materials and colors, all of which shall be consistent with the Approved Project, and (n) written requirements for materials, equipment, systems, standards and workmanship, and/or working drawings. (t) “Project” is defined in Recital 1(c) herein above.
2213 of 2287
5 (u) “Project Site” is defined in Recital 1(b) herein above. (v) “Reserved Powers” means the rights and authority excepted from the restrictions of this Agreement on the City's police powers and which are instead reserved to the City. The Reserved Powers include the power to enact and implement rules, regulations, ordinances and policies after the Effective Date that are not in conflict with the Applicable Rules or that may be in conflict with the Applicable Rules but are permitted by Section 7 (b) of this Agreement. (w) “Specific Plan” means the Glendale Downtown Specific Plan applicable to this Project.
(x) “Term” means the applicable period of time during which this Agreement shall be in effect and shall bind the City and Developer, as described in Section 15. (y) Other terms not specifically defined in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Municipal Code or applicable Specific Plan.

3. Binding Effect. This Agreement, and all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall, to the extent permitted by law, constitute covenants which shall run with the land comprising the Project Site for the benefit thereof, and the benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective assigns, heirs, or other successors in interest.

4. Negation of Agency. The Parties acknowledge that by entering into and performing under this Agreement each is acting as an independent entity and not as an agent of the other in any respect. Nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making the City and Developer joint venturers, partners, agents of the other, or employer/employee.

5. Development Impact Fees and Affordable Housing.
(a) This Agreement freezes the amount of Development Impact Fees, if any, that may be owed by this Project, including but not limited to any impact fees, linkage fees, exactions, assessments or fair share charges or other similar impact fees or charges imposed on and in connection with Approved Project by the City pursuant to rules, regulations, ordinances and policies of the City, including but not limited to (i) Public Use Facilities Development Impact Fees pursuant to Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 4.10, (ii) Affordable Housing Development Impact Fees pursuant to Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 4.11, (iii) the In-Lieu Affordable Housing Fees pursuant to Glendale Municipal Code section 30.35.060, and (iv) except as otherwise provided in Section 7 of this Agreement, the Parties agree that this Project shall not be subject any increases in Development Impact Fees that may be imposed after the Effective Date of this Agreement.
(b) Developer shall comply with the Inclusionary Housing Requirements set forth in GMC Chapter 30.35 by: (i) paying the In-Lieu Fee amount, in effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement, prior to the issuance of a temporary or final certificate of occupancy for the Approved Project (“Option 1)”); or (ii) 2214 of 2287
6 constructing the required inclusionary units on site (“Option 2”); or (iii) paying a combination of an In-Lieu Fee and constructing inclusionary units on-site (“Option 3”); or (iv) constructing the required inclusionary units off-site (“Option 4”); or (v) by acquiring and rehabilitating existing off-site market-rate units located in the City of Glendale and converting them to units affordable to low income households (“Option 5”).
(c) Prior to the Effective Date of this Agreement, Developer has not identified any off-site market-rate units that are both available to acquire and rehabilitate in order to pursue Option 5 compliance with GMC Chapter 30.35. If, however, following the Effective Date of this Agreement, Developer acquires and rehabilitates off-site existing market-rate units in compliance with GMC §30.35.075, with CEQA and with all other applicable Governmental Requirements, and Developer obtains a temporary or final certificate of occupancy for the Off Site Rehab Units prior to the issuance of a temporary or final certificate of occupancy of the Approved Project, then Developer shall be in compliance with GMC Chapter 30.35.

6. Developer Covenants. Developer covenants and agrees the covenants contained in this Agreement run with the land, and that should Developer construct the Approved Project, and for so long as the Approved Project is in existence, Developer shall operate and maintain the Approved Project in accordance with the conditions of the Project entitlements contained in Exhibit “D” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which may be modified from time to time in compliance with the provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code ("GMC") .

In addition, Developer may seek subsequent modifications to the Approved Project as it pertains to Design Review procedures set forth in GMC section 30.47, and subject to the applicable processes for Minor Changes and amending or modifying this Agreement, as the case may be, as provided for in this Agreement and as required by the California Government Code.

7. Applicable Rules; Reserved Powers. The development standards and restrictions set forth in this Section 7 shall govern the use and development of the Project and the Project Site and shall constitute the Applicable Rules, except as subject to the Reserved Powers and otherwise provided herein.
(a) Applicable Rules. The following shall be part of the Applicable Rules, in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement:
(1) The General Plan;
(2) Downtown Specific Plan;
(3) The Municipal Code (including the Zoning Code) to the extent it is not amended or superseded by the Downtown Specific Plan;
(4) Such other ordinances, rules, regulations, and official policies of the City governing permitted uses of the Project, and density, design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Project and to the extent they are not superseded by the Downtown Specific Plan;
2215 of 2287
7 (5) This Agreement and Exhibits and all attachments thereto; (6) The Approved Project and all Future Approvals; and
(7) The permit fees and all other applicable fees, except those set forth in Section 5 herein above, will be assessed at the time that they are required, and are not fixed as a part of this Agreement. Notwithstanding this provision, the amount of the City’s sewer mitigation fee, if any, shall be fixed in the sum applicable to the Project of the date of final approval of the Project, May 22, 2018.
(b) Public Open Space. The Project shall comply with the public open space standards required in Section 5.4, Open Space Design Standards and Guidelines, of the Downtown Specific Plan, in effect on the Effective Date of this Agreement. (c) Reserved Powers. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, the City reserves the right through its Reserved Powers, as defined herein below, to enact and implement:
(1) Ordinances, rules, regulations and policies relating to uniform codes, including reach or stretch codes adopted by City or by the State of California, such as, but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, the California Building Standards Code, International Building Code as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission, National Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical Code or Uniform Fire Code, as amended (including those amendments to the promulgated uniform codes which reflect local modification to implement the published recommendations of the multi-state organization and which are applicable City-wide), and the application of such uniform codes to the Project at the time of application for issuance of building permits for structures on the Project Site including such amendments to uniform codes as the City may adopt from time to time;
(2) Rules, regulations, ordinances and/or policies determined by the City to be necessary in order to prevent or remedy conditions dangerous to the health and safety of City residents;
(3) In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or regulations; provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall not adopt or undertake any regulation, program or action or take any action required by State or Federal laws or regulations which is/are inconsistent with or in conflict with this Agreement until it has met and discussed the proposed action with Developer; (4) The City shall retain all of its discretion with respect to determinations regarding requests for Future Approvals consistent with the Applicable Rules and this Agreement. 2216 of 2287
8 8. Limitation on Application of Conflicting Requirements. This Agreement shall not preclude the application to the Project of rules, regulations, ordinances and officially adopted plans and policies not in conflict with the Applicable Rules.

9. Acknowledgments, Agreements and Assurances on the Part of Developer. In order to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement, and in consideration for the City entering into this Agreement and obligating itself to carry out the covenants and conditions set forth herein, Developer hereby agrees and acknowledges that:
(a) Construction of Project. The Project, including the Improvements, shall be constructed pursuant to this Agreement and the Applicable Rules. (b) Other Governmental Permits. Developer shall apply in a timely manner for such other permits and approvals as may be required from other governmental or quasigovernmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project for the development of, or provision of services to, the Project. The City shall cooperate with Developer in its endeavors to obtain such permits and approvals, but Developer shall have no separate cause of action against the City under this Section 9 if Developer fails to obtain such permits and approvals.

10. Acknowledgments, Agreements and Assurances on the Part of the City. In order to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement, and in consideration for Developer entering this Agreement and obligating itself to carry out the covenants and conditions set forth in the preceding Section of this Agreement, the City hereby agrees and acknowledges that:
(a) Entitlement to Develop. Developer is hereby granted the vested right to develop the Project on the Project Site to the extent and in the manner provided in this Agreement, subject to and in accordance with the Applicable Rules, Reserved Powers, and the Future Approvals. The City hereby grants and Developer shall have the vested right to develop and construct the Project in accordance with the Applicable Rules, subject to termination of this Agreement as set forth hereinafter. The vested right to develop and construct the Project includes an extension of the life of the Project Approvals for the Term of this Agreement. (b) Conflicting Enactments. With the exception of those changes authorized by the Reserved Powers, as defined herein in Section 7 (b), any other change in the Applicable Rules, including, without limitation, any change in the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, zoning, subdivision or building regulation, adopted or becoming effective after the Effective Date, and adopted in any form by the City Council, the Planning Commission or any other board, commission or department of the City, or any officer or employee thereof, or by the electorate, as the case may be, which would, absent this Agreement, otherwise be applicable to the Project Site and which would conflict in any way with or be more restrictive than the Applicable Rules shall not be applied by the City to any part of the Project Site. If Developer elects to have any such change made part of the Applicable Rules, then Developer shall give the City written notice of its election to have such change in the Applicable Rules applied to such portion of the Project and/or Project Site, in which case such change shall be deemed to be an Applicable Rule insofar as that portion of the Project and/or Project Site is concerned. 2217 of 2287
9 (c) Permitted Conditions. Provided Developer’s applications for any Future Approvals are consistent with this Agreement and the Applicable Rules, the City shall review and consider, subject to the Reserved Powers, including Section 7 (b)(4), such Future Approvals in accordance with the Applicable Rules and this Agreement and subject to the City’s review as applicable, authorize development of the Project Site for the uses and to the density and regulations as described herein. The City shall have the right to impose conditions in connection with Future Approvals provided, however, that such conditions and dedications shall not be inconsistent with this Agreement or the Applicable Rules.

11. Acknowledgements, Agreements, and Assurances on the Part of the Parties.

In order to effectuate the provisions of this Agreement, and in consideration for the Parties entering this Agreement and obligating themselves to carry out the covenants and conditions set forth in the preceding Section of this Agreement, the Parties hereby agree and acknowledge that:
(a) Administrative Changes and Amendments. The Parties acknowledge that further planning and development of the Project may demonstrate that refinements and changes are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the Parties under this Agreement. The Parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Project development and with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Agreement. If and when the parties find that “Minor Changes”, as herein defined, are necessary or appropriate, they shall, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes or adjustments through administrative amendments executed by Developer and the City Manager or their designee, pursuant to the processes established through the Applicable Rules and Reserved Powers. As used herein, “Minor Changes” are changes, modifications or adjustments, which are consistent with the Applicable Rules, and which do not materially alter the overall nature, scope, or design of the Project, including, without limitation, minor changes in locations of buildings, streets, or infrastructure, configuration and size of parcels or lots (including lot line adjustments), or development of the infrastructure, provided, however, that any Minor Changes shall be subject to the limitations set forth in this Section 11 of this Agreement. Minor Changes shall not be deemed to be an amendment to this Agreement under Government Code section 65868, and unless otherwise required by law, no such administrative amendments shall require prior notice or hearing by the Planning Commission or City Council.

12. Cooperation and Implementation. The City and Developer agree that they will cooperate with one another to the fullest extent reasonable and feasible to implement this Agreement. Such cooperation shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Further Assurances; Covenant to Sign Documents. Each Party shall take all actions and do all things, and execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit, if required, any and all documents and writings, including estoppel certificates, which may be necessary or proper to achieve the purposes and objectives of this Agreement. The Party requesting the herein described actions, including the execution of any documents, writings and estoppel certificates (collectively documents), shall pay for all legal and other consulting fees and/or costs incurred by the City in reviewing such documents.
(b) Processing. Upon satisfactory completion by Developer of all required preliminary actions and payments of appropriate filing or processing fees, if any, the City shall, 2218 of 2287
10 subject to all legal requirements, promptly initiate, diligently process, and complete all required steps, and promptly act upon any approvals and permits necessary for the development by Developer in accordance with this Agreement.
(c) Defense of Agreement. The City and Developer agree to cooperate, and to timely take all actions necessary or required to uphold the validity and enforceability of this Agreement, Applicable Rules, and Reserved Powers subject to the indemnification provisions of Section 12 (d) herein below. The City and Developer shall promptly notify one another of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. (d) Indemnification. Developer shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City) the City, their officers, agents and employees, (the “Indemnitees”), from and against any and all claims, demands, costs, judgments, attorneys’ fees and/or liabilities which arise from (i) the performance of this Agreement by Developer or Developer's ownership, development, use, or operation of the Project on the Site or any portion thereof, pursuant to this Agreement, excepting those liabilities which are caused by the Indemnitees' (or any of them) gross negligence or willful misconduct, and (ii) any litigation challenging the validity and/or sufficiency of the environmental review and/or land use entitlements for the Project. The City agrees to work with Developer to discuss and effectuate settlement of any litigation hereunder where it is in the Parties’ best interests to do so. Indemnitees and Developer, upon mutual consent, shall have the right to require that any case be handled through an alternative dispute resolution process. The City and Developer agree to fully cooperate with one another in any case where no conflict of interest between the Parties exist. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Developer specifically agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees from any liabilities resulting from Developer's failure to comply with all laws applicable to the Project on the Project Site.

13. Compliance; Default; Termination; Modifications and Amendments. (a) Review of Compliance. During the term of this Agreement, the City shall review this Agreement on or before each anniversary of the Effective Date (“Periodic Review”) in order to determine whether Developer is in good faith compliance with any specific term or provision of this Agreement. At the commencement of each Periodic Review, the Director shall notify Developer in writing that the Periodic Review will commence or has commenced. The City shall notify Developer regarding any alleged non-compliance on the part of Developer. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the Director’s notice that the Periodic Review will commence or has commenced (and unless Developer requests and is granted a waiver by the City), the City may request Developer to demonstrate good faith compliance with this Agreement. (1) Non-Compliance/Default by Developer. In addition to the Periodic Review process set forth in this Section 13, in the event Developer does not perform its obligations under this Agreement in a timely manner, the City shall have those rights and remedies provided for in this Agreement.
(2) Notice of Non-Compliance/Default. With respect to any noncompliance/default under this Agreement, the City shall submit to Developer, by registered or 2219 of 2287
11 certified mail return receipt requested, a written notice of default in the manner prescribed in Section 20 herein, identifying with specificity those obligations of Developer, which have not been performed. Upon receipt of the notice of non-compliance/default, Developer shall promptly commence to cure the identified defaults(s) at the earliest reasonable time after receipt of the notice of default and shall complete the cure of such default(s) not later than sixty (60) days after receipt of the notice of default, or such longer period as is reasonably necessary to remedy such default(s), provided that Developer shall continuously and diligently pursue such remedy at all times until such default(s) is cured. Pursuant to Section 19, Mortgagees may be entitled to notice of any default by Developer hereunder and an additional period on which to cure such default. (3) Developer Failure to Cure Non-Compliance/Default Procedure. If, after the cure period has elapsed, the City finds and determines that (i) Developer has not demonstrated that it is in compliance with this Agreement, and (ii) Developer is out of compliance with a specific, substantive term or any provision of this Agreement, then the City shall first notify Developer in writing and then shall make a report to the City Council and set a public hearing before the City Council in accordance with the notice and hearing requirements of Government Code sections 65867 and 65868. If, after public hearing, the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not cured the default pursuant to this Section, then the City may terminate or modify this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, non-performance by either Party shall be excused when it is delayed unavoidably and beyond the reasonable control of the Parties as a result of any of the events identified in Section 25 of this Agreement.
(b) Developer Default. Subject to the cure period set forth in this paragraph and Force Majeure (as defined herein in Section 25), and provided that Developer elects to commence Project construction, failure by Developer to construct, operate and maintain the Approved Project as required by this Agreement, and following notice and failure to cure as described hereafter, constitutes a “Default” under this Section of the Agreement, and entitles the City to institute legal actions pursuant to Section 13 or as otherwise permitted by this Agreement. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, the City shall not institute any proceeding against Developer and Developer shall not be in Default if within sixty (60) days from receipt of the notice required by this Section 13, Developer promptly and with due diligence, commences to cure, correct or remedy such failure or delay within such sixty (60) day period and diligently prosecutes such cure to completion. In addition to any other remedies, the City has the option, in its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement if Developer fails to cure the Default. (c) Institution of Legal Actions. In addition to any other rights or remedies and subject to the restrictions otherwise set forth in this Agreement, the City may institute an action at law or equity to seek specific performance of the terms of this Section 13 of the Agreement, or to cure, correct or remedy the Default, to collect on the Performance Bond as set forth in, and subject to the limitations of, the following subsection, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purpose of this Agreement. Such legal actions must be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, in an appropriate municipal court in that county, or in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (d) Rights and Remedies Are Cumulative. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the Parties are cumulative, and the exercise by either 2220 of 2287
12 party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. The right of the City to collect on the Performance Bond under a Developer Default shall be limited, whether in a single action or cumulatively, to an aggregate amount of the Performance Bond, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees, if any. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the City shall not be entitled to consequential or punitive damages. (e) Inaction Not a Waiver of Default. Any failures or delays by either Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any Default shall not operate as a waiver of any Default or of any such rights or remedies, or deprive either such party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies.
(f) Termination of Agreement. Subject to compliance with Government Code section 65868, the City may terminate this Agreement, after final determination of the City Council, on the basis of substantial evidence that Developer has not cured its Default within the applicable cure period. Following the transfer of the Property, or any portion thereof, to a permitted transferee, this Agreement may only be terminated with respect to the transferred parcel on account of a default by the owner of such transferred parcel, and no such default shall result in termination of this Agreement with respect to the portion of the Project Site retained by Developer. (g) Non-Compliance/Default by the City. With respect to any noncompliance/default under this Agreement, Developer shall submit to the City, by registered or certified mail return receipt requested, a written notice of default in the manner prescribed in Section 20 herein, identifying with specificity those obligations of the City which have not been performed. Upon receipt of the notice of non-compliance/default, the City shall promptly commence to cure the identified defaults(s) at the earliest reasonable time after receipt of the notice of default and shall complete the cure of such default(s) not later than sixty (60) days after receipt of the notice of default, or such longer period as is reasonably necessary to remedy such default(s), provided that the City shall continuously and diligently pursue such remedy at all times until such default(s) is cured.
(h) Modification or Amendment. Notwithstanding Section 11(a) herein above pertaining to Administrative Amendments, and subject to the notice and hearing requirements of the Development Agreement Statute, this Agreement may be modified or amended from time to time only with the written consent of Developer and the City or their successors and assigns in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code and Government Code section 65868. As a condition precedent to the City's execution of any amendment of this Agreement, Developer shall deliver to the City a preliminary title report with respect to the portions of Developer's Property to be affected by such amendment, together with a notice stating that the mortgagees listed in such report will be entitled to notice of and consent to such amendment pursuant to Section 20 of this Agreement.

14. Administration. This Agreement shall be administered and executed by the City Manager, or their designated representative, following approval of this Agreement by the City.

The City shall maintain authority of this Agreement through the City Manager (or their authorized representative). The City Manager shall have the authority to issue interpretations, waive 2221 of 2287
13 provisions, extend time limits, make minor modifications to City design approvals, and/or revise this Agreement on behalf of the City so long as such actions do not conflict with the substantive provisions of this Agreement, substantially change the uses, floor area, or development permitted on the Project Site pursuant to the Scope of Development, or add to the City costs, or conflict with the Applicable Rules. All waivers of this Agreement shall comply with Section 23 of this Agreement. All amendments of this Agreement, other than those minor changes described in this Section 11(a), shall comply with Section 13(h) of this Agreement pertaining to Modifications or Amendments.

15. Term of Agreement. Except for the covenants contained herein in Section 6 which run with the land, this Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date and the Term shall end six (6) years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, unless this Agreement is terminated, modified or extended upon mutual written consent of the Parties hereto or as otherwise provided by this Agreement. Prior to expiration of the term of the Agreement, Developer shall obtain the required demolition, grading and building permits for the Approved Project and commence construction; provided, however, and for avoidance of doubt, Developer’s failure to obtain the required demolition, grading and building permits during the term of this Agreement shall not operate to extend this Agreement’s term. Following expiration or termination of the Term hereof, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further force and effect. The Term shall be automatically extended by the number of days equal to the number of days that any Enforced Delay as defined in Section 25 was in effect. Notwithstanding this provision, Developer shall make its best efforts to diligently construct the Project in the minimum feasible timeframe.

16. Administration of Agreement and Resolution of Disputes. All disputes involving the enforcement, interpretation or administration of this Agreement shall first be subject to good faith negotiations between the Parties to resolve the dispute. In the event the dispute is not resolved by negotiations, the Parties shall be permitted to pursue any remedy provided for under this Agreement or otherwise available under applicable law or judicial decision, whether at law or in equity. No remedy or election hereunder shall be deemed exclusive but shall, wherever possible, be cumulative with all other remedies available to any Party.

17. Injunctive Relief. Any Party to the dispute may, in addition to any other rights or remedies provided by this Agreement, seek to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereof, or enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties hereto, except as otherwise provided herein.

18. No Personal Liability. No board member, councilmember, official or employee of the City shall be personally liable to Developer in the event of any default or breach by the City for any amount which may become due to Developer or on any obligations under the terms of this Agreement.

19. Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer, in any manner, at Developer’s sole discretion, from encumbering the Developer Property or any portion thereof or any Improvements thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device, including but not limited to, a mezzanine loan. The City acknowledges that the lender(s) providing such financing (“Mortgagee”) may, from time to time, request the City issue 2222 of 2287
14 interpretations of this Agreement. The City agrees to respond to Mortgagee requests for City interpretation of this Agreement within a reasonable time period. The City retains sole and absolute discretion over any interpretations of this Agreement issued by the City. Any Mortgagee of a mortgage or a beneficiary of a deed of trust or any successor or assign thereof, including without limitation the purchaser at a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure sale or a person or entity who obtains title by deed-in-lieu of foreclosure on the Developer Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges:
(a) Mortgage Not Rendered Invalid. Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the priority of the lien of any mortgage, deed of trust, or other loan or security device on the Developer Property made in good faith and for value. No Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform Developer’s obligations, or to guarantee such performance, prior to taking title to all or a portion of the Property.
(b) Request for Notice to Mortgagee. The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Developer Property, or any part thereof, who has submitted a request in writing to the City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive a copy of any notice of non-compliance/default delivered to Developer. (c) Mortgagee’s Time to Cure. The City shall provide a copy of any notice of noncompliance/default to the Mortgagee within ten (10) days of sending the notice of noncompliance/default to Developer. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default for a period of sixty (60) days after receipt of such notice of noncompliance/default. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if such default shall be a default which can only be remedied by such Mortgagee obtaining possession of Developer's Property, or any portion thereof, and such Mortgagee seeks to obtain possession, such Mortgagee shall have until sixty (60) days after the date of obtaining such possession to cure or, if such default cannot reasonably be cured within such period, to commence to cure such default, provided that such default is cured no later than one (1) year after Mortgagee obtains such possession. (d) Cure Rights. Any Mortgagee who takes title to all of the Developer Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, shall succeed to the rights and obligations of Developer under this Agreement as to the Developer Property or portion thereof so acquired; provided, however, in no event shall such Mortgagee be liable for any defaults or monetary obligations of Developer arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by such Mortgagee, except that any such Mortgagee shall not be entitled to a building permit or occupancy certificate until all delinquent and current fees and other monetary or nonmonetary obligations due under this Agreement for the Developer Property, or portion thereof acquired by such Mortgagee, have been satisfied. (e) Bankruptcy. If any Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature of foreclosure by any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings involving Developer, the times specified in Section 16(c) above shall be extended for the period of the prohibition, except that any such extension shall not extend the term of this Agreement.
2223 of 2287
15 (f) Disaffirmation. If this Agreement is terminated as to any portion of the Developer Property by reason of (i) any default or (ii) as a result of a bankruptcy proceeding, this Agreement is disaffirmed by a receiver, liquidator, or trustee for Developer or its property, the City, if requested by any Mortgagee, shall negotiate in good faith with such Mortgagee for a new development agreement for the Project as to such portion of the Developer Property with the most senior Mortgagee requesting such new agreement. This Agreement does not require any Mortgagee or the City to enter into a new development agreement pursuant to this Section 19.

20. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed delivered when personally received by the addressee, or within three (3) calendar days after deposit in the United States mail by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the following Parties and their counsel at the addresses indicated below; provided, however, if any Party to this Agreement delivers a notice or causes a notice to be delivered to any other Party to this Agreement, a duplicate of that Notice shall be concurrently delivered to each other Party and their respective counsel. Such notices or communications shall be given to the Parties at their addresses set forth below:

To City: City of Glendale
633 E. Broadway, Suite 201
Glendale, California 91206-4387
Attention: Community Development Director
[email protected]
Fax: (818) 240-7913
With copies to: City of Glendale, City Attorney’s Office 613 East Broadway, Suite 220
Glendale, California 91206
Attention: Gillian van Muyden,
Chief Assistant City Attorney
[email protected]
Fax: (818) 547-3402
To Developer: Adelfia Properties II, LLC
620 North Brand, Suite 402
Glendale California 91203
Attention: Ralph Cimmarusti
Fax: (323) 275-9663
With copy to: Jeffer Mangels Butler Mitchell LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Attention: Sheri Bonstelle, Esq.
[email protected]
Fax: (310) 712-3377

2224 of 2287
16 Notice given in any other manner shall be effective when received by the addressee. The addresses for notices may be changed by notice given in accordance with this provision.

21. Recordation. As provided in Government Code Section 65868.5, the City Clerk of Glendale shall record a copy of this Agreement with the Registrar-Recorder of the City of Glendale within ten (10) days following the execution of the Agreement by all Parties.

22. Severability and Termination. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, or if any provision of this Agreement is superseded or rendered unenforceable according to any law which becomes effective after the Effective Date, the remainder of this Agreement shall be effective to the extent the remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform when taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement.

23. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this Agreement of which time is an element.

24. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought.

25. Enforced Delay; Extension of Time of Performance. Required performance by either Party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in Default, and all performance and other dates specified in this Agreement shall be extended, where delays or Defaults are due to: litigation challenging the validity of this transaction or any element thereof or the right of either Party to engage in the acts and transactions contemplated by this Agreement; litigation challenging the Project approvals, or enjoining performance under this Agreement; litigation impairing Developer's ability to perform any act required under this Agreement; a referendum filed challenging this Agreement; inability to secure necessary labor materials or tools; actions in connection with the remediation of Hazardous Materials, including groundwater contamination; withdrawal of financing not caused by any act or omission of Developer; war; insurrection; strikes; lockouts; riots; floods; earthquakes; fires; casualties; acts of God; acts of the public enemy; acts of terrorism; epidemics; pandemics; quarantine restrictions; freight embargoes; lack of transportation; governmental restrictions or priority; moratoria related to building, sewer, water, planning or other items; unusually severe weather; acts or omissions of the other Party; acts or failures to act of the City or any other public or governmental agency or entity; or any other causes beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time to perform. An extension of time for any such cause shall be for the period reasonably attributable to the enforced delay and shall run from the time of the commencement of the cause, if notice by the Party claiming such extension is sent to the other Party within sixty (60) days of the commencement of the cause.

Times of performance under this Agreement may also be extended in writing by the mutual agreement of the City and/or Developer. Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, the lack of funding to complete the Improvements shall not constitute grounds for enforced delay pursuant to this Section 25.

26. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of Developer and the City and their successors and assigns. There are 2225 of 2287
17 no third party beneficiaries and this Agreement is not intended, and shall not be construed, to benefit or be enforceable by any other person or entity.

27. Attorneys’ Fees. If any Party commences any action for the interpretation, enforcement, termination, cancellation or rescission of this Agreement or for specific performance for the breach hereof, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys’ fees, arbitration expenses and costs, and litigation expenses and costs arising from the action. Attorneys’ fees under this Section shall include attorneys’ fees on any appeal as well as any attorneys’ fees incurred in any post-judgment proceedings to collect or enforce the judgment.

28. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and the venue for any legal actions brought by any Party with respect to this Agreement shall be the County of Los Angeles, State of California for state actions and the Central District of California for any federal actions.

29. Authority to Execute; Binding Effect. Developer represents and warrants to the City that it has the power and authority to execute this Agreement and, once executed, this Agreement shall be final, valid, binding and enforceable against Developer in accordance with its terms. The City represents and warrants to Developer that (a) all public notices and public hearings have been held in accordance with law and all required actions for the adoption of this Agreement have been completed in accordance with applicable law; (b) this Agreement, once executed by the City, shall be final, valid, binding and enforceable against the City in accordance with its terms; and (c) this Agreement may not be amended, modified, changed or terminated in the future by the City except in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein.

30. Entire Agreement; Conflicts. This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto represent the entire agreement of the Parties. This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties or their predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. Should any or all of the provisions of this Agreement be found to be in conflict with any other provision or provisions found in the Applicable Rules, then the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail.

31. City Approvals and Actions. Whenever a reference is made herein to an action or approval to be undertaken by the City, the City Manager or their designee is authorized to act on behalf of the City unless specifically provided otherwise or the context should require otherwise.

32. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and which, when signed by all Parties, shall constitute a binding agreement.

33. Digital Signatures. The Parties consent to the use of electronic signatures for this Agreement in compliance with State and Federal law. The Parties deem a copy of this Agreement, or any amendment to it, that bears a digital signature as having the same legal effect, for all purposes, as delivery of a signed original of this Agreement or the amendment, and each digital signature will have the same legal force and effect as a handwritten signature. 2226 of 2287
18 34. Integration. This Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto contains the entire understanding between the Parties relating to the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged in this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each Party is entering this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each Party’s own independent investigation of any and all facts such Party deems material. This Agreement includes Exhibits “A” through “C,” (each such Exhibit incorporated in this Agreement as if fully set forth herein) which together constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the Parties, notwithstanding any previous negotiations or agreements between the Parties or their predecessors-in-interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof.

35. Interpretation. As used in this Agreement, masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others where and when the context so dictates. The word “including” shall be construed as if followed by the words “without limitation.” This Agreement shall be interpreted as though prepared jointly by both Parties.

36. Legal Advice. Each Party represents and warrants to the other the following: they have carefully read this Agreement, and in signing this Agreement, they do so with full knowledge of any right which they may have; they have received independent legal advice from their respective legal counsel as to the matters set forth in this Agreement, or have knowingly chosen not to consult legal counsel as to the matters set forth in this Agreement; and, they have freely signed this Agreement without any reliance upon any agreement, promise, statement or representation by or on behalf of the other Party, or their respective agents, employees or attorneys, except as specifically set forth in this Agreement, and without duress or coercion, whether economic or otherwise.

37. Conflicts of Interest. No member, official or employee of the City shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor shall any such member, official or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement which affects their personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership or association in which he is directly or indirectly interested.

38. Assignment. The burdens of the Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest and assigns of the Parties to the Agreement. The Parties shall provide thirty (30) days advance written notice of any assignment, and the notice shall be in compliance with Section 20 herein. [SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
2227 of 2287
19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
By: ______________________________
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

MICHAEL J. GARCIA, CITY ATTORNEY
By:

Gillian van Muyden,
Chief Assistant City Attorney
ADELFIA PROPERTIES II, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company
By: __________________________

ATTEST:

By:

Aram Adjemian, City Clerk
2228 of 2287
20 EXHIBIT “A”

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL 1:

LOT 5 OF MCNUTT TRACT, IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 11, PAGE 160 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 2:

LOTS 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 AND 26 OF TRACT NO. 93, IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 14, PAGES 22 AND 23 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 3:

THAT PORTION OF LOTS 18 AND 27 OF TRACT NO. 93, IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 14, PAGES 22 AND 23 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 27; THENCE FROM A TANGENT WHICH BEARS NORTH 16 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 34 SECONDS EAST, NORTHEASTERLY ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 10.00 FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 72 DEGREES 32 MINUTES 16 SECONDS AN ARC DISTANCE OF 12.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY OF SAID CURVE WITH A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND DISTANT NORTHERLY 7.00 FEET, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 27 AND 18; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 89 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 49 SECONDS EAST, 271.27 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 18; THENCE SOUTHERLY, SOUTH 00 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 23 SECONDS EAST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 18; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, 280.75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

APN: 5643-018-031, 5643-018-032
2229 of 2287
21 EXHIBIT “B”

PROJECT SITE DEPICTION
2230 of 2287
22 EXHIBIT “C”

APPROVED PROJECT
The Approved Project has the following project description:
- Demolition of the existing two-story building, parking structure, and associated surface parking lot;
- Retention of the Chase Bank building on the site, and replacement of the Chase Bank 129 parking spaces in the Project; and
Construction of:
- A maximum 294-unit multi-family residential project;
- Parking in compliance with the Glendale Municipal Code 30.32.050, and the Approved Project includes 502 total parking spaces, including 373 residential parking spaces, 129 commercial parking spaces and code-required bicycle parking; - Open space in compliance with the Municipal Code, which includes 6,994 sf of publicly accessible open space and 8,867 square feet of residential common open space for a total of 15,844 sf of Project open space on the ground floor, as well as the residential common open space and private open space totaling 41,160 sf;
- Additional amenities, including but not limited to, landscaping, outdoor and private terraces, pool, and community spaces;
- A maximum FAR of 7.5:1 by right, and the Approved Project has a floor area of 417,135 square feet of new residential building and 45,125 square feet of the existing Chase Bank building on a 1.46 acre (63,760 sf) project site; and
- A maximum height of 275 feet by right, and the Approved Project includes twenty-four (24) stories and 265.5 feet.”
2231 of 2287
23 EXHIBIT “D”

PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
The City made findings and approved, as appropriate, the following entitlements for the Approved Project on _________________:

1. SCEA - Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment, SCH Number 2022010297

2. Stage II Final Design Review Case No. PDR 2119308

3. Development Agreement (“DA”) Case No. PDA1806045: A Development Agreement between the City of Glendale and Adelfia Properties II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 through 65869.5. The DA provides a six (6) year entitlement period for the Project. The DA freezes the current Development Impact Fees (impact and linkage fees, exactions, or fair share charges imposed on new development) for the project including the Public Use Facilities Development Impact Fee (GMC Section 4.10); Affordable Housing Development Impact Fee (GMC Section 4.11); and Inclusionary Housing Requirements (GMC Section

30.35.060).

The Project Entitlements are kept in the official records of and available for review in the Office of the Glendale City Clerk.
2232 of 2287
RESOLUTION NO. _____________

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

CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND THE MITIGATION MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE LUCIA PARK PROJECT
620 N. BRAND BLVD. & 625 N. MARYLAND AVENUE
WHEREAS, Adelfia Properties II, LLC (Cimmarusti Holdings, LLC) has applied to the City of Glendale (“City”) for entitlements to carry out the proposed Lucia Park Project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project requires compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City is the Lead Agency under CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (“SCEA”) in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21155, subdivision (b) to evaluate the potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the Project; and WHEREAS, the SCEA, along within the Notice of Intent / Notice of Availability (“NOI/NOA”) of the SCEA, was originally circulated for public review and comment on January 17, 2022, with the public comments being accepted through February 17, 2002. The NOI was published in the Glendale Independent, a newspaper authorized and accepted by the City Council as a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project. The review period was later extended to March 10, 2022, to allow the public additional time to review the SCEA along with supporting documents; and
WHEREAS, the SCEA and NOI were made available for public inspection and review at the City’s Community Development Department offices, as well as electronically on the City’s website; and
WHEREAS, a total of six comment letters and emails on the proposed SCEA were received by the City before the close of the extended public review and comment period on March 10, 2022; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the provisions of Public Resources Code §21155.2(b)(4) which require the Lead Agency to consider public comments received on the SCEA, the City has prepared responses to the comments on the SCEA received during the public comment period and has presented both the SCEA, the comments and responses to comments to the City for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the City has taken all actions required by applicable law related to the preparation, circulation, and review of the proposed SCEA; and WHEREAS, the SCEA, comments and responses to comments on the SCEA were posted on the City’s website on or about June 7, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the SCEA, the comments and responses to comments on the SCEA, at a duly-noticed open and public meeting on June 14, 2022, and has 2233 of 2287
independently reviewed and analyzed the reports and documents which became a part of the record of this decision; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, based upon the relevant criteria of CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21155.2, and the CEQA Guidelines, and the reasons as documented in the SCEA for the Project, that all potentially significant or significant effected required to be identified in the initial study have been identified and analyzed; and WHEREAS, based on the initial study and SCEA the City Council finds that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment with implementation of the identified mitigating measures; and
WHEREAS, with respect to each significant effect on the environment required to be identified in the initial study, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project that avoid or mitigate the significant effects to a level of insignificance; and
WHEREAS, the SCEA includes measures that mitigate certain significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels and the Project incorporates these mitigation measures and approval of the Project is conditioned upon the inclusion of these measures in and the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) attached as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, no significant information was received by the City after circulation of the SCEA for public comment such that recirculation is required; and WHEREAS, the City Council has made its decision to adopt the SCEA for the Project in light of the record as a whole as set forth in these findings; and WHEREAS, the City Council is adopting the SCEA for the Project, of which these findings are a part, through the exercise of its independent judgment and review after finding substantial evidence, in light of the record as a whole and after having considered all testimony and evidence presented at or prior to the close of the public meeting, inclusive of letters, reports, comments, and analysis, to support the adoption of the SCEA.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Glendale as follows:

Section 1. The City Council incorporates the findings set forth above as if restated herein in their entirety.

Section 2. The SCEA for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and all applicable state and local CEQA Guidelines.

Section 3. The City Council finds as follows:

A. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21155, the Project is a Transit Priority Project that:
(1) Contains at least 50 percent residential use;
2234 of 2287
(2) Provides a minimum net density of at least 20 dwelling units per acres; and
(3) Is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan.

B. The Project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the Project area in the Southern California Association of Government’s (“SCAG”) Sustainable Communities Strategy (“SCS”). The California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) has accepted SCAG’s determination that the SCS would, if implemented, achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets established by CARB.

C. Pursuant to Public Recourses Code §21155.2(b)(1), an initial study has been prepared that identifies all significant or potentially significant impacts of the Project, other than those that do not need to be reviewed pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21159.28 based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

D. The initial study identified any cumulative effects that have been adequately addressed and mitigated pursuant to the requirements of Public Recourses Code in prior applicable certified environmental impact report.

E. The draft SCEA was completed, noticed and circulated in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Glendale Municipal Code and related procedures.

F. The SCEA includes measures that either avoid or mitigate to a level of insignificance all potentially significant or significant effects of the Project required to be identified in the initial study, including any cumulative impacts.

G. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21155.2(a), the Project has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria set forth in the prior applicable environmental impact reports and adopted in findings made pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, including the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/SCS Environmental Impact Report.

Section 4. The SCEA has been presented to the City Council at a duly-noticed public hearing and the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the SCEA, including the initial study, the conditions incorporated into the Project, the MMRP, and the comments received during the public review process and the public hearing.

The City Council has determined that the SCEA constitutes an adequate, accurate, and complete review of the environmental effects of the proposed Project.

Section 5. Based on its review of the SCEA and on the basis of the whole record, the City Council finds that the SCEA reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Glendale as the Lead Agency, and that all potentially significant or significant effects required to be identified in the initial study have been identified and analyzed. The City Council further finds that with respect to each significant effect on the environment required to be identified in the initial study, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that 2235 of 2287
avoid or mitigate the significant effects to a level of insignificance, and that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment after implementation of mitigation.

Section 6. In support of its approval of the Project, the City Council hereby adopts a MMRP to require all reasonably feasible mitigation measures.

Section 7. Based on the findings set forth above, and the basis of the whole record, the City Council hereby approves the Project and adopts the SCEA and MMRP.

Section 8. The City Council hereby directs the Community Development Director to file a Notice of Determination within five working days after approval of the Project with the Los Angeles County Clerk and, if the Project requires a discretionary approval from any state agency, with the State Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to section 21152, subdivision (a) of the Public Resources Code and section 15075 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Section 9. This Resolution will take effect immediately upon its adoption.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the custodian of the SCEA and all materials which constitute the record shall be the Community Development Department, Planning Division of the City of Glendale at 633 East Broadway, Glendale, California.

Adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale on the ______ day of ____________, 2022. ___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Aram Adjemian, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, ARAM ADJEMIAN, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _______________ was adopted by a majority vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ______ day of December, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:
2236 of 2287

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________________
City Clerk
EXHIBIT “A”

6.0 MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM

6.1 INTRODUCTION
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, which requires a Lead Agency to adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for changes to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” In addition, Section 15097(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that a public agency adopt a program for monitoring or reporting mitigation measures and project revisions, which it has required to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. This MMP has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

The City of Glendale is the Lead Agency for the proposed Project and therefore is responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. A public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity that accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed, the Lead Agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measures occurs in accordance with the program.

A Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Pursuant to PRC 21155.2.(a), the evaluation of the proposed Project’s impacts in the SCEA incorporates all feasible mitigation measures from prior applicable environmental impact reports, takes into consideration the 2237 of 2287
project design features (PDF) and applies mitigation measures (MM) needed to avoid or reduce potentially significant environmental impacts. This MMP is designed to monitor implementation of the PDFs and MMs identified for the proposed Project.

6.2 ORGANIZATION
As shown on the following pages, each identified project design feature (PDF) and mitigation measure for the proposed Project is listed and categorized by environmental impact area, with accompanying identification of the following:
 Enforcement Agency: the agency with the power to enforce the PDF or MM.  Monitoring Agency: the agency to which reports involving feasibility, compliance, implementation, and development are made.
 Monitoring Phase: the phase of the proposed Project during which the PDF or MM shall be monitored.  Monitoring Frequency: the frequency at which the PDF or MM shall be monitored.  Action Indicating Compliance: the action by which the Enforcement or Monitoring Agency indicates that compliance with the identified PDF or required MM has been implemented.

6.3 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND ENFORCEMENT
This MMRP shall be enforced throughout all phases of the proposed Project. The Applicant shall be responsible for implementing each PDF and MM and shall be obligated to provide certification, as identified below, to the appropriate monitoring and enforcement agencies that each PDF and MM has been implemented. The Applicant shall maintain records demonstrating compliance with each PDF and MM. Such records shall be made available to the City upon request.

During the construction phase and prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall retain an independent Construction Monitor (either via the City or through a third-party consultant), approved by the Department of City Planning, who shall be responsible for monitoring implementation of PDFs and MMs during construction activities consistent with the monitoring phase and frequency set forth in this MMP.

The Construction Monitor shall also prepare documentation of the Applicant’s compliance with the PDFs and MMs during construction every 90 days in a form satisfactory to the Community Development Department, Planning Division. The Applicant and Construction 2238 of 2287
Monitor must sign the documentation and include it as part of the Applicant’s Compliance Report. The Construction Monitor shall be obligated to immediately report to the Enforcement Agency any non-compliance with the MMs and PDFs within two businesses days if the Applicant does not correct the non-compliance within a reasonable time of notification to the Applicant by the monitor or if the non-compliance is repeated. Such non-compliance shall be appropriately addressed by the Enforcement Agency.

6.4 PROGRAM MODIFICATION
After review and approval of the final MMRP by the Lead Agency, minor changes, and modifications to the MMRP are permitted, but can only be made subject to City approval as the Lead Agency. The City, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or departments, will determine the adequacy of any proposed change or modification. This flexibility is necessary considering the nature of the MMRP and the need to protect the environment. No changes will be permitted unless the MMP continues to satisfy the requirements of CEQA, as determined by the Lead Agency.

The proposed Project shall be in substantial conformance with the PDFs and MMs contained in this MMRP. The enforcing departments or agencies may determine substantial conformance with PDFs and MMs in the MMRP in their reasonable discretion. If the department or agency cannot find substantial conformance, a PDF or MM may be modified or deleted as follows:
the enforcing department or agency, or the decision maker for a subsequent discretionary project related approval finds that the modification or deletion complies with CEQA, which could include the preparation of additional environmental clearance documents, if necessary, to analyze the impacts from the modifications to or deletion of the PDFs or MMs. Any addendum or subsequent CEQA clearance shall explain why the PDF or MM is no longer needed, not feasible, or the other basis for modifying or deleting the PDF or MM, and that the modification will not result in a new significant impact consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Under this process, the modification or deletion of a PDF or MM shall not, in and of itself, require a modification to any proposed Project discretionary approval unless the Director of Community Development or his designee also finds that the change to the PDF or MM results in a substantial change to the proposed Project or the non-environmental conditions of approval.

6.5 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
2239 of 2287
Air Quality
a. Mitigation Measures
i. 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.
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 2240 of 2287
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 because 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, except for on-road and offroad 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 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 2241 of 2287
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.
2242 of 2287
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.
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:
x. Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards, or emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%.
xi. 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%.
xii. Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. xiii. Diesel nonroad construction equipment on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines meeting EPA Tier 4 nonroad 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.
xiv. Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
2243 of 2287
xv. 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.
xvi. 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.
xvii. 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 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. xviii. The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, nonroad 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
2244 of 2287
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 energyefficient 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

3. Providing a web site or messaging board for coordinating rides

4. Permanent transportation management association membership 2245 of 2287
and finding requirement
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Once during proposed Project plan check; continuous field inspections during construction, with quarterly reporting  Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans, Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit; Field inspection sign-off ii. 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 2246 of 2287
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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan check; continuous field inspections during construction, with quarterly reporting  Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans, Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit; Field inspection sign-off 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.

Policy AQ-5: Create a more multi-modal transportation network of comprehensive, integrated, and connected network of transportation facilities and services 2247 of 2287
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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Continuous field inspections during construction, with quarterly reporting
 Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit; Field inspection sign-off
2248 of 2287
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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Continuous field inspections during construction, with quarterly reporting
 Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit; Field inspection sign-off
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 gasoline stations) shall be located as far away as possible 2249 of 2287
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
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Operation
 Monitoring Frequency:
 Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans; Issuance of applicable building permit
iii. City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR:

MM 4.2-2(a): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that all dieselpowered 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
2250 of 2287
MM 4.2-2(b): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that all heavy-duty diesel- powered equipment operating and refueling at the project site use lowNOX 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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 2251 of 2287
specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(e): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that constructionrelated 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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. 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
2252 of 2287
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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 on-site 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
2253 of 2287
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
2254 of 2287
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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 2255 of 2287
shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
2256 of 2287
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
MM 4.2-2(p): Project applicants shall require by contract specification that high-pressurelow-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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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 2257 of 2287
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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permits 2258 of 2287
 Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Operation
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of occupancy permit  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of occupancy permit

2. Biological Resources
a. Mitigation Measures
i. 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit 2259 of 2287
 Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans; Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit; Field inspection sign-off

3. Cultural Resources
a. Mitigation Measures
i. 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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit
 Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of demolition or grading permit 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 project- specific 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 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 2260 of 2287
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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to the issuance of a demolition or grading permit; continuous field inspections during construction  Action Indicating Compliance: Compliance report by a qualified archaeological monitor
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 2261 of 2287
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 resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Section 21083.2.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Periodic
 Action Indicating Compliance: Compliance report by a tribal monitor and archaeologist
ii. 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 2262 of 2287
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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City Development Services/Planning/Public Works  Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to the approval of site plan and design  Action Indicating Compliance: Compliance report by a qualified historian or architectural historian
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 2263 of 2287
mitigation measures required under mitigation measures MM 4.4-4(a) through (c).
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City Development Services/Planning/Public Works  Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to the approval of site plan and design  Action Indicating Compliance: Compliance report by a qualified historian or architectural historian

4. Geology and Soils
a. Mitigation Measures
i. 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 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 2264 of 2287
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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
ii. 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
2265 of 2287
iii. 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, as necessary. 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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Periodic during earthwork
 Action Indicating Compliance: Compliance report by qualified paleontological monitor

5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Mitigation Measures
i. 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.
2266 of 2287
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Construction, Operation
 Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan check; prior to issuance of occupancy permit
 Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans; issuance of occupancy permit
Policy GHG-3: The City shall 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; promoting energy-efficient building design and site planning; improving the jobs/housing ratio in each community; and other methods of reducing emissions;
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Construction, Operation
 Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan check; prior to issuance of occupancy permit
 Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans; issuance of occupancy permit

6. Hydrology and Water Quality
a. Mitigation Measures
i. 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 2267 of 2287
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
2268 of 2287
t) Cistern
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of a grading permit  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of a grading permit  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Public Works/Planning  Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of a grading permit  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit 2269 of 2287
or building permit

7. Noise
a. Mitigation Measures
i. 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 is properly maintained per manufacturers’ specifications and fitted with the best available noise suppression devices (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of 2270 of 2287
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. 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 repavement 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 2271 of 2287
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 noise generating facilities.
u) Construct sound reducing barriers between noise sources and noisesensitive 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. 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 2272 of 2287
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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Periodic field inspections
 Action Indicating Compliance: Field inspection sign-off ii. 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Operation
 Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan check; periodic field inspections; prior to occupancy permit
 Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans; issuance of occupancy permit
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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Operation
2273 of 2287
 Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan check; periodic field inspections; prior to occupancy permit
 Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans; issuance of occupancy permit
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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan check; continuous field inspections during construction, with quarterly reporting
 Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of plans, Field inspection sign-off iii. 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: During construction; prior to issuance of grading permit
 Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit
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 2274 of 2287
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
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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: During construction; prior to issuance of grading permit
2275 of 2287
 Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permit  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development
Services/Planning/Public Works
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction; Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Prior to issuance of grading permit  Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building 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.  Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
2276 of 2287
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale Development Services/Planning  Monitoring Phase: Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: During construction; prior to issuance of grading permit
 Action Indicating Compliance: Issuance of applicable grading permit or building permit; Field inspection sign-off
iv. 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
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.
2277 of 2287
 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 lowervibratory 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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Construction, Post-Construction  Monitoring Frequency: Once during Project plan and permit check; periodic field inspections
 Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of demolition, grading and building permits; Post-construction and Post-demolition surveys
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 2278 of 2287
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.
 Enforcement Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Agency: City of Glendale
 Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction, Construction
 Monitoring Frequency: Once during plan and permit check; Continuous field inspections during construction, with monthly reporting
 Action Indicating Compliance: Approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of demolition, grading and building permits 2279 of 2287
MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member ,
that upon review and consideration of all materials in connection with a Stage II final design (Case No. PDR 2119308) submittal for the proposed new 294-unit, 24-story multi-family residential building on a 63,760 SF (1.48 acre) project site zoned DSP Gateway District located at 625 North Maryland Avenue (the “Lucia Park” or “Project”), the Stage II final design is hereby approved as outlined in the staff report from the Director of Community Development dated June 14, 2022, including comments and recommendations from the Planning Commission, Design Review Board and Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and comments and recommendations from Planning staff incorporated herein, and subject to any Council comments and/or conditions thereon.

The City Council’s approval for the Stage II Design is subject to the following conditions:

Staff’s Recommended Conditions – Upheld by DRB

1. Provide a unique or enhanced paving pattern on the driveways, equal to the width of the garage entry to create visual separation. Garage doors or gates shall be set back from the face of building.

2. Incorporate lighting to highlight and illuminate the project’s significant loggia framework at the top of the building, not just the columns, as shown in the nighttime rendering.

3. Provide an appropriate metal mesh behind the louvers on the second and third levels so as to better screen the commercial parking.

4. Consider employing either a stacked bond pattern for the limestone cladding at the base of the east and west facades or an alternative material more in keeping with the material palette at the rest of the building.

5. Consider using gray spandrel glass in lieu of the proposed gray-colored metal panels at the curtain-wall portions of the upper floors to enhance the desired uniformity of these surfaces.

Additional Conditions Recommended by DRB

6. Enhance the programming and amenities of the publicly-accessible open spaces at the west side of the project, and provide more landscaped areas, to encourage use by occupants of the commercial bank building and the general public, as well as residents of the apartment building, and to soften the overall appearance of this area.

7. Revise the design of the vertical fins at the building podium to provide caps or other appropriate means of terminating these elements, with the goal of achieving a more consistent design language.
2280 of 2287
Additional Conditions and Considerations Recommended by HPC

8. Eliminate or redesign the large building name sign and shade structure in the plaza facing Brand Boulevard to avoid having an overbearing architectural feature at this location.

9. Revise DRB Condition 3 to call for a redesign of the fins, rather than just install metal mesh, to better obscure views of the parked cars.

10. Provide shade trees rather than palms at the landscaped plaza.

11. Eliminate the proposed limestone cladding at the base and use a material, such as granite, to better integrate with the mid-century materials of the bank building.

12. Upon project completion, nominate the bank building to the National and Glendale Registers.

Additional Conditions and Considerations Recommended by Planning Staff

13. That the Project comply with all mitigation measures in the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment approved for the Project.

14. Adelfia Properties II, LLC (“Developer”) agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and each of its agents, officers, council members, commissioners, attorneys, employees and representatives (the “Indemnitities”) from any claim, action or proceeding brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul any City land use or California Environmental Quality Act approval for the Project. Developer agrees to use legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the City. The foregoing shall include, without limitation, payment of all damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action or proceeding. In the event that a claim, action or proceeding referenced herein is brought, the City shall promptly notify the Developer of the existence of the claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action or proceeding. As used herein, "land use approval" shall refer to decisions of the City approving requests of applicants for planning permits including but not limited to general plan amendments, annexations, zone changes, zoning ordinance text amendments, tentative maps, vesting tentative maps, tentative parcel maps, reversions to acreage, final maps, final map modifications or amendments, time extensions, parcel map waivers, lot line adjustments, boundary line adjustments, certificates of compliance, conditional certificates of compliance, design review, development agreements, conditional use permits, conditional use permit modifications, conditional use permit extensions, variances, variance modifications, precise plan of design, specific plans, sign permits, site plans, temporary use permits,any administrative or discretionary permit pertaining to a land use approval or any accompanying California Environmental Quality Act determinations pertaining to the type of approval referred to in this section, and any other similar approval.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:
2281 of 2287
1 ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF GLENDALE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE

CITY OF GLENDALE AND ADELFIA PROPERTIES II, LLC,

A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Glendale held a public hearing to consider and recommend the Glendale City Council approve a Development Agreement (“DA”) (attached as Exhibit “A” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference) by and between the City of Glendale ("City") and Adelfia Properties II, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company ("Developer") in connection with development of a 294-unit, 24-story multi-family residential building (“Project”) on the easterly half of the 63,760 SF (1.48 acre) project site zoned Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Gateway District located at 625 N.

Maryland and 620 N. Brand Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the Project includes: 247 1-bedroom units and 47 2-bedroom units; 373 subterranean parking spaces for the residential uses and 129 above-ground, replacement parking spaces for existing commercial bank building; sizeable, publicly accessible open space courtyard/plaza fronting Brand Boulevard; and residential amenity spaces and decks throughout the project; and
WHEREAS, the Project has a FAR of 7.25 and the building height is 266 feet (7.25 FAR and 275 feet maximum by right in the DSP Gateway District), and complies with all of the development standards and no variances are proposed; and WHEREAS, the Project also involves preservation of an existing a six-story commercial bank/office building located on site at 620 N. Brand Boulevard, and demolition a two-level parking garage and adjacent commercial building to the rear of the site along Maryland Avenue (625 N. Maryland Avenue); and
WHEREAS, the City has confirmed that the Developer has an equitable interest in the property on which the Project is to be located; and
2282 of 2287
2 WHEREAS, the Developer has requested the City enter into the DA to preserve the Project entitlements for a six (6) year term, and lock in the current Development Impact Fees (impact and linkage fees, exactions, or fair share charges imposed on new development) for the Project including the Public Use Facilities Development Impact Fee (GMC Section 4.10); Affordable Housing Development Impact Fee (GMC Section 4.11); and Inclusionary Housing Requirements (GMC Section 30.35.060) so that the Developer has time to finance and construct the Project in light of the continued financial instability resulting from the uneven economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and so that the Developer has sufficient time to secure construction financing and subsequent preparation of construction documents, plan check and permitting; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq., the City Planning Commission has transmitted its findings, comments and recommendations on the DA to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the DA and the findings and recommendations of the City Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department, after having conducted an Initial Study, prepared a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the Project, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21155 et seq., which SCEA, including public comments and responses to comments, (Exhibit 7) was presented to City Council for consideration and approval prior to Project approval on June 14, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2022, following a public hearing on the Project and found Project would not cause any significant non-mitigable environmental impacts and based thereon approved the SCEA and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project; and
WHEREAS, after considering the Development Agreement, the City finds and determines that the Development Agreement is in the vital and best interests of the City and the health, 2283 of 2287
3 safety, and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable state and local law.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA:

1. The City Council hereby finds and determines as follows:
(a) The City has complied with the applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
(b) The Development Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan, with the Downtown Specific Plan.
(c) The Development Agreement fully complies with all currently applicable provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code.
(d) The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because it encourages the development of much-needed housing in a location that is recognized by state law as a transit priority project that qualifies for a stream-lined environmental assessment under CEQA because the location of the project will reduce impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions compared to developments not so situated. (e) The Development Agreement is compatible with the orderly development of property in the surrounding area, and will provide enhancements to the surrounding area and public benefit, including housing.
(f) The Development Agreement constitutes a lawful present exercise of the City's police power and complies with all applicable City and State regulations governing Development Agreements.
(g) The Development Agreement is necessary to strengthen the public planning process and to reduce the public and private costs of development uncertainty.

2. Based on all the findings contained herein, the City Council hereby approves the Development Agreement and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute it on behalf of 2284 of 2287
4 the City of Glendale, and further directs the City Clerk to record the Development Agreement and this Ordinance with the County Recorder within ten (10) days of its execution.

3. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in the Glendale Independent or other local newspaper of general circulation, consistent with requirements of applicable State and local law.

4. This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days after the date of adoption.

Adopted this ______ day of ______________________, 2022. ________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, ARAM ADJEMIAN, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the __________ day of ________________, 2022, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
__________________________________
City Clerk
2285 of 2287
5 EXHIBIT “A”

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
2286 of 2287
c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\spcc_06142022_motion_1d.pdf MOTION
Moved by Council Member and seconded by
Council Member that the Council hereby continues the
matter of Design Review Case No. PDR 2119308, for the proposed multi-family residential project to be located at 620 N. Maryland Avenue, until June 28, 2022 and directing the City Attorney to prepare findings in support of denial of the Stage II Design Review.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
2287 of 2287