Agenda packet, special meeting — Glendale City Council, June 14, 2022 (part 1 of 9)

A
GENDA
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings are broadcast live on Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T Uverse, channel 99. Meetings are also streamed live in high definition (HD) on the city's webpage, glendaleca.gov/live, on YouTube.com/myglendale, and on Apple TV, Roku, and Amazon Fire devices usinga free app called Screenweave and choosing “Glendale TV” from the menu. Meetings are also archived on the City Website for viewing anytime at glendaleca.gov/agendas. Call (818) 548-4013 for program schedules. DVDs of the proceedings are available for purchase in the City Clerk's Office.

For public comments and questions during the meeting, call (818) 937-8100. Public comments ona specific agenda item will be taken when that agenda item is discussed. If you have any question about matters on the agenda, or requests for assistance, please contact the City Clerk at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, auxiliary hearing aids, sign language translation, and Braille transcripts are available upon request. Assisted listening devices are available same-day upon request. At least 48 hours (or two business days) notice is required for requests regarding sign language translation and Braille transcription services. All documents related to open session items on this agenda that are received less than 72 hours prior to this meeting, and are public records, will be available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation services are provided for meetings through the use of bilingual staff for speakers who wish to utilize the service as available. Speakers should state their request by contacting the City Clerk’s office at (818) 548-2090, at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please specify the language for which you require translation. The exclusive use of City provided interpreters is not required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language.

JUNE 14, 2022
ROLL CALL - 2:00 PM - Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, June 14, 2022 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on June 8, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall. 1
TYPED 6/13/2022 3:16:15 PM
06 14 22
SP CC
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 2:00 PM on Tuesday, June 14, 2022, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Community Development, re: Request for Approval of Stage II Final Design Review and Development Agreement fora New 294-Unit, 24-Story Multi-family Residential Project –“Lucia Park”, located at 620 N. Brand Boulevard and 625 N. Maryland Avenue

1. Resolution Adopting the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Lucia Park Project

2. Motion to Approve Stage II Design Review

3. Introduction of Ordinance for Development Agreement

4. Motion Continuing the Matter until June 28, 2022 and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare Findings in Support of Denial of Stage II Design Review

ADJOURNMENT
2 TYPED 6/13/2022 3:16:15 PM
06 14 22
SP CC
1 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Request for Approval of Stage II Final Design Review and Development Agreement for a New 294-Unit, 24-Story Multi-family Residential Project –“Lucia Park”, located at 620 N. Brand Boulevard and 625 N. Maryland Avenue

1. Resolution Adopting the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Lucia Park Project

2. Motion to Approve Stage II Design Review

3. Introduction of Ordinance for Development Agreement

4. Motion Continuing the Matter until June 28, 2022 and Directing the City Attorney to Prepare Findings in Support of Denial of Stage II Design Review.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for June 14, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A Stage II Design Review package and proposed Development Agreement are being presented to City Council for consideration. The proposal consists of the preservation of a six-story commercial bank/office building at 620 N. Brand Boulevard, the demolition of the two-level parking garage and adjacent commercial building to the rear along Maryland Avenue (625 N. Maryland Avenue), and the construction a new 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.

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;  A sizeable, publicly accessible open space courtyard/plaza fronting Brand Boulevard; and
 Residential amenity spaces and decks throughout the project.

The proposed FAR is 7.25 and the building height is 266 feet (7.25 FAR and 275 feet maximum by right in the DSP Gateway District). The project complies with all of the development standards and no variances are proposed.
3 of 2287
2 1
A Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the project, a Stage II Final Design Review package, as well as a Development Agreement request for a sixyear entitlement period and a freeze of the current development impact fees, are being presented to the City Council for consideration and approval.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Balanced, Quality Housing: Balanced, Quality Housing is the maintenance, preservation, and development of balanced housing opportunities.

The high-density development proposes 294 new residential units in a prime Downtown location with direct access to jobs, services, transit, and other Downtown amenities. The Project also contributes a significant number of housing units to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. Furthermore, in compliance with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the owners will be paying the in-lieu fee for 15% inclusionary housing units which will be used towards the development of affordable housing units.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council, upon consideration and approval of the SCEA, approve the Stage II Final Design for the Lucia Park Project, subject to staff’s recommendations, and introduce the ordinance approving the proposed Development Agreement.

BACKGROUND
A Stage I Preliminary Review application for a new 20-story, 240-unit, multi-family residential development (“Project”) was originally submitted on December 6, 2017. The Project included 5% very low affordable housing (total of 12 units), as well as open space, landscaping and amenities. Several months later, a Development Agreement (DA) request was submitted for the Project mid-March 2018.

On March 20, 2018, City Council adopted a one-year moratorium on all multi-family residential development in the Downtown, essentially halting the project from moving forward. During the moratorium, Planning staff prepared a comprehensive update to the DSP that included urban design, open space and incentive requirements and objective design standards, as well as an updated Community Benefits program. These amendments were ultimately approved by City Council on March 12, 2019.

In response to the then-new DSP standards, the applicants revised the project and prepared an updated Stage I Preliminary Design Review submittal package featuring an iconic, approximately 350-foot tall, 348-unit multi-family residential development fronting on Maryland Avenue with a total of 621 parking spaces for both the commercial and residential uses and a significant publicly accessible open space courtyard/plaza fronting Brand Boulevard. This Project, which utilized the “Tiered Community Benefit” Program to attain additional height in the DSP Gateway District, would have produced one of the tallest and most striking new buildings on the downtown skyline, with swooping curved elements and architectural features. The Stage I design was 4 of 2287
3 1
presented to City Council on January 21, 2021. Following public testimony and deliberations, City Council voted to approve the preliminary design with three conditions:

1. That the applicant shall reduce the overall height of the building by relocating the above-grade residential parking below-grade (subterranean).

2. That the applicant shall provide information regarding the scaling, scoring, and application of the metal panel material to ensure that the project meets the intent of human scaled and high-quality materials as required per the DSP.

3. That the applicant shall consider revising the design of the Project to better reflect the Midcentury Modern aesthetic of the adjacent commercial building onsite.

The current, Stage II Final Design Review proposal has been designed to address the above conditions: all of the residential parking has been relocated below grade, detailed information has been provided for the high-quality, human-scale materials, and the design has modified to focus more on rectilinear forms and building lines as seen on the adjacent bank building.

The Stage II submittal package was presented to the Design Review Board for advisory comments on January 13, 2022, and to the Historic Preservation Commission on January 20, 2022. The DRB’s and HPC’s comments are discussed later in this staff report.

The Development Agreement (DA) is also being requested for a six-year entitlement period for the Project and a freeze on all current Development Impact Fees. The DA was presented for recommendation to the Planning Commission on February 2, 2022.

The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the DA with one comment.

See Development Agreement section below.

ANALYSIS

SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED PROJECT
The 63,760 SF (1.46 acre) project site consists of nine adjoining parcels – four fronting Brand Boulevard and five fronting Maryland Avenue. The site currently features a sixstory commercial bank/office building facing Brand Boulevard (Chase Bank/Coldwell Banker) and a two-story, 163-space parking structure with an attached two-story, 12,156 square-foot (SF) commercial building fronting Maryland Avenue. The six-story office building will be maintained, while the parking structure and small commercial building will be demolished. The parking spaces for the commercial bank/office building will be replaced within the Project’s new garage.

The proposed Project features a new 294-unit, 24-story multi-family residential building with associated amenities (significantly sized publicly-accessible open space, outdoor decks for use by residents, common rooms, etc.) and required commercial and residential parking on the easterly half of the 63,760 SF (1.48 acre). See Exhibit 1 for Project Plans. The Project is 265.5 feet in height and features a 7.25 FAR.
5 of 2287
4 1

ZONING AND SURROUNDING USES
The project site and the surrounding properties fronting Brand Boulevard are zoned DSPGateway. Located at the northern portion of the DSP area, the Gateway District features the most visibly noted skyline of Downtown Glendale. Characterized by high-rise development, the district is home to numerous corporate headquarters and businesses whose multi-storied towers are visible from the various viewpoints throughout the city and the 134 Freeway. The focus of the area is the continued promotion and location of corporate headquarters, new hotels, mixed-use and residential buildings, complementary/accessory service and retail businesses at the street level, as well as the introduction of appropriate night-time entertainment uses.

DSP Gateway District properties can be developed with buildings up to 275 feet high and with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 7.25 by right, and ultimately up to 380 feet and with an FAR of 7.5 through the DSP Community Benefit program.

The context of the surrounding built environment includes: the 134 Freeway directly to the north, with mid- and high-rise development north of the freeway, including CitiBank, Monterey Towers condominium building, and California Credit Union buildings; the Bank of America high-rise building across Brand Boulevard to the west; the parking garage for the US Bank building and low-rise multi-family housing to the east; and mid/high-rise buildings, including 600 N. Brand (US Bank) and 550 N. Brand buildings directly to the south. The block-face across Maryland Avenue (between Maryland Place and Doran Street) is also zoned DSP-Gateway, while the other side of the same block, facing Louise Street, is zoned R-1250 (High Density Residential).

Zoning Existing Uses
North DSP – Gateway District 134 Freeway and on-ramp
South DSP – Gateway District Six-story commercial office building and adjacent surface parking lot
East DSP – Gateway District Maryland Avenue, three-story parking structure West DSP – Gateway District Brand Boulevard, 14-story office building and adjacent surface parking lot
Project
Site
DSP – Gateway District Six-story bank/office building at 620 N. Brand Blvd.; parking structure & two-story, commercial
building at 625 N. Maryland

PARKING AND CIRCULATION
The parking provided by the Project exceeds the 464 spaces required by Code (see Sheet 26 in Exhibit 1 for details):
 94 spaces for the existing commercial building (2 spaces per 1,000 SF of office area, 2.7 spaces per 1,000 SF of bank office area, and 4 spaces per 1,000 SF for customer service areas in banks).
 370 spaces for the residential portion of the building (1 space per 1-bedroom units, 2 spaces per 2+bedroom units and 1 guest space for every 10 units in the DSP). 6 of 2287
5 1
The Project is proposing a total of 502 spaces:
 129 spaces for commercial uses that would remain on site in two, above-ground levels in the parking garage; and
 373 parking spaces for the residential units proposed on the site within four subterranean levels.

In compliance with Code and in response to Council’s Stage I comments, all of the residential parking is provided below grade. Access to the parking is provided from Maryland Avenue via two two-way driveways – one leading to the residential parking below grade and one leading to the commercial parking above grade.

OPEN SPACE
For developments that are 100% residential and have an FAR greater than 3.0, the DSP requires 20% of the gross site area to be open space, with 10% of the gross site area to be dedicated as publicly accessible open space (PAOS, 50% of required open space).

An additional 140 SF of residential open space is required per residential unit (can be provided as publicly accessible open space, common open space or private open space).

DSP Standards
Gateway District
Project
Design
Open Space for project > 3.0 FAR 20% x 63,760 SF = 12,752 SF min. 15,844 SF Publicly Accessible Open Space
(50% of required open space) 50% x 12,752 SF = 6,460 SF min. 6,994 SF Residential Open Space
(140 SF per residential unit) 140 x 294 units = 41,160 SF min. 41,625 SF Landscaping (25% of publicly
accessible open space) 25% x 6,376 SF = 1,594 SF 1,595 SF for PAOS only The Project provides greater than the minimum of Open Space, PAOS and Residential Open Space. The entire 63,760 SF project site provides 15,844 SF (or 24.9% of the project site) of open space at grade, and 6,994 SF (11%) of which is counted towards the PAOS requirement. The PAOS is located within a substantially-sized courtyard/plaza fronting Brand Boulevard between the street and the new building. The landscape plans and perspective images show the programming of this space, which includes seating, landscaping, a water feature, and an open area that doubles as an emergency fire lane from Brand Boulevard, as required by Glendale Fire Department, and which may have moveable tables, chairs and landscape pots. Visually and on paper, the plaza area is greater than 80 feet wide measured parallel to Brand Boulevard and has a depth of 126 feet. These dimensions far exceed the DSP requirement that a minimum 30 feet by 40 feet uninterrupted area be provided within the publicly accessible open space. If all of the adjacent, contiguous areas around the bank building were included, the open space total is 15,844 SF (0.36 acre).
7 of 2287
6 1
The project exceeds the minimum required amount of residential open space (140 SF per unit), and this does not include the various enclosed community rooms proposed on the 4th level: a total of 34,633 SF in the form of common open space throughout the project, both at grade and within various decks and rooftop terraces, as well as 6,992 SF in the form of private balconies.

STAGE I DESIGN REVIEW
Design review for projects in the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) districts is performed by the City Council. A detailed package has been provided for Stage II Final Design Review for Council’s consideration. The site planning, mass and scale, and architectural style and details of the Project have been analyzed by staff in regards to the DSP Gateway District standards and guidelines and are summarized below; a detailed analysis by staff is attached as Exhibit 2.

Site Planning
The new high-rise project is located on the easterly half of the dual-frontage, project site, adjacent to Maryland Avenue. The site planning for the project is driven by the existing six-story bank building at the north-west corner of the site to be maintained and the proposed publicly accessible open space courtyard/plaza along Brand Boulevard that replaces the existing surface parking lot. The Project provides 6,994 square feet of designated PAOS and this area is surrounded by additional open space that includes the landscaped street front setback between the existing bank building, as well as the residential common open space (6,034 SF) at the ground floor between the two buildings; the cumulative effect of all of these areas (15,844 SF, 0.36 acre) results in the appearance of a much larger publicly accessible open space fronting Brand Boulevard.

The over 83-foot wide and 123-foot deep courtyard/plaza is completely open to the sky and fulfils the primary function of a publicly accessible open space (PAOS) entry design which is to encourage a diversity of opportunities for social interaction and activities, to expand and reinforce the public realm, and to contribute to the livability of the downtown.

Fully developed landscape plans show a variety of drought-tolerant landscaping (tree and shrub palette), decorative hardscape, a water feature and seating in the PAOS.

Meanwhile, the Project site features a “Primary Street” designation along Brand Boulevard and complies with the “Mixed-Use Residential” frontage requirements along Maryland Avenue, having a minimum 16-foot setback from the curb face (5-ft. parkway, 8- ft. sidewalk, 3-ft. average building adjacent zone). Pedestrian access to the building and its ground floor lobby is provided from both streets, while the vehicular access to the project’s parking garage is only from Maryland Avenue, creating a more pedestrianoriented frontage along Brand. Overall, staff supports the site planning of the Project.

Building Design: Massing & Scale, and Architectural Elements The massing of the proposed 24-story, 262.5-foot tall project complies with the DSP’s by-right height and FAR standards, and is consistent with the surrounding development in the Gateway District, which includes high-rises in three directions (north, west and south). Given the height of the proposed Project, the DSP section on “Tall Buildings” applies. The regulations in that subsection focus on creating well-designed taller buildings that serve as landmarks in the urban fabric and add to the Downtown civic 8 of 2287
7 1
pride. Additionally, as noted in the DSP, taller, narrower buildings can create opportunities for additional open space at the street level, as is the case for this particular Project with its significant open space plaza fronting Brand Boulevard. The high-rise massing above 60 feet fronting Maryland Avenue are stepped back the required minimum of 20 feet and the building floorplates above 200-feet in height are reduced in area by 15%, as required by the Taller Buildings standards. The Project’s compliance with all of the Tall Building standards is further detailed in Staff’s Design Memo (Exhibit 2).

The contemporary architectural style is consistent around all elevations, and the finishes and design treatments help to break down the scale of the project. The massing of the building is divided into three basic volumes, both vertically and horizontally. Vertically, the project features a classic tripartite division: base, middle and top. Composed of the lobby and the two commercial parking levels, the three-story podium, which extends the entire length of the project site from north to south, is the rectangular base. The ground floor is primarily clad in glass and limestone for a more transparent, pedestrian-oriented feel, as recommended by the DSP. The podium levels above features vertical fins screening the two levels of commercial parking; these are intended to reflect the fins of the existing bank building (while not mimicking them) and to screen the cars. This podium base is also punctuated by three architectural elements: a two-story high frame facing Maryland with deep blue louvers that screens the 4th floor community room and 3rd floor commercial parking; a one-story high element that wraps the pool with deep, angled metal louvers; and an unframed screen of vertically-oriented lights and woodtoned louvers facing the publicly accessible courtyard/plaza on Brand. The elements and materials help to differentiate the base from the tower above and provide visual interest at the pedestrian level. The middle section is divided into three defined sections – two end sections, clad with vision glass framed by blue and white metal panels, with a central volume clad entirely in vision glass and matching gray metal panels. For the two end sections, the two sizes of tripartite windows systems and varying widths of the vertical panels help provide greater articulation and a sense of movement for these larger, grid-patterned expanses that would otherwise be monolithic and rigid/fixed. The rooftop framing elements rising above the roofs at the end volumes, creating decorative “loggia” that crown the structure and also support the building’s photovoltaic panels.

These rectilinear forms play off the facades’ rectilinear grid patterns below, while the openness adds a sense of lightness to the top of the high-rise building. The tripartite divisions are somewhat less pronounced horizontally: the west and east elevations feature two, expansive, grid-patterned sections, composed of vision glass and blue and white metal panels set within white frames, that are set off from a completely different central volume - a swath of vision glass and gray metal panels that are color-matched to read as one uniform center. This same gray-on-gray treatment is used at levels 4 and 5 to differentiate the base podium from the shaft of the main middle above. The strong sense of base, middle and top building components (podium, repetitive residential floors, and dramatic roof trellises), along with variety of contemporary materials, façade modulations, and floorplate reductions, help to further help reduce the scale of the tall building while resulting in well-articulated facades.
9 of 2287
8 1
At the Stage I hearing, City Council directed the project team to redesign the building to make it more compatible with the design of the former Home Savings building. This has been accomplished in several ways. Vertical fins used at the podium echo the masonry fins that are a key feature of the bank building. Not mimicking the historic design, these proposed fins allow for a visual dialogue between the buildings’ eras while establishing a harmonious design for people using the open space plaza framed by the buildings.

The overall form of the new building is also more rectilinear than the Stage I proposal, with the curved elements removed from the design. Instead, there is an emphasis on the interplay of horizontal and vertical elements that abstractly captures some of the older building’s features. The vertical expression of the podium’s fins is carried upward by the vertical portions of the window grids and the columns of the rooftop trellis structure, with the spacing (and therefore visual density) of the verticals widening at each section. In addition, the curtain wall sections of the new building also harken the scale-less aspect of the older building’s window bays, while the rooftop trellis structure can be seen as a “very abstracted take on the tall frieze band at the top of the former Home Savings”. Staff believes the new design successfully meets Council’s goal of making the proposal more compatible with the historic building than was the case at Stage I review.

Overall, the contemporary design of the 24-story, high-rise project fits within its urban context in the DSP’s Gateway District of taller, streamlined developments and is appropriately scaled and articulated for its highly visible location adjacent to the 134 Freeway. The current design also addresses City Council’s three conditions from Stage I Preliminary Design Review: residential parking has been relocated below grade, detailed information has been provided for the high-quality, human-scale materials, and the design has modified to focus more on rectilinear forms and building lines as seen on the adjacent bank building. As detailed in the Staff’s Design Memo (Exhibit 2), the design of the Project is consistent with the DSP Gateway standards and guidelines, and therefore, staff recommends approval of the Stage II Final Design Review proposal with conditions, as identified in the Design Review Board’s Advisory Review and Comments (see below).

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ADVISORY REVIEW
On January 13, 2022, following presentations by staff, the applicant, and public testimony, the Design Review Board (DRB) voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval of the Project with comments and seven suggested conditions; the DRB’s Advisory Review and Comments are attached as Exhibit 3.

The DRB supported the site planning, believed that the proposed massing and scale of the high-rise development work in this area, and agreed that the design detailing of the modern project is well thought-out. The Board also suggested a number of considerations to the applicant/design team:
 Explore ways to provide the upper levels of the building with a more residential, rather than commercial, feel;
 Explore separating the access points for users of the above-grade commercial parking levels from the residential lobby;
 Explore shifting the pool deck from the northeast to the southwest and adjust 10 of 2287
9 1
building masses accordingly; and
 Explore ways to avoid potential traffic impacts on Maryland Avenue caused by delivery and rideshare services with Public Works and Planning.

Ultimately, DRB voted unanimously to uphold staff’s recommended conditions:

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.

DRB also recommended adding the following conditions:

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.

DRB staff report and attachments available online at:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?compiledMeetingDocumentFileId=463 94 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ADVISORY REVIEW
On January 20, 2022, following presentations by staff, the applicant, and public testimony, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) voted 3-1 to not recommend approval of the Project. Much of the discussion focused on the proposed demolition of the two-story garage along Maryland Avenue, as well as the size of the new apartment building.

The HPC majority found that the garage contributes to the historic significance of the site and that its demolition would lead to a substantial adverse effect on the entire property.

These commissioners also indicated that the proposed apartment building is not appropriate because of its size, massing, and scale. Though not stated directly, the HPC majority also appears to believe that the bank tower would no longer be eligible for listing 11 of 2287
10 1
at the local, state, or federal level if the garage were demolished and the new building built as proposed. Staff believes that the demolition of the existing parking garage and construction of the proposed building will not have an adverse impact on historic resources and that the existing historic resource (bank building) will remain eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. One commissioner suggested that the new building be lowered and moved further from the bank tower, leaving it unclear if such a change would mitigate the demolition of the garage. The majority also indicated that an EIR, rather than a SCEA, is the appropriate environmental review document because they believe the project will have an adverse impact on a historic resource. The commissioner in the minority expressed support for the project and agreed with the findings in the staff report and the conditions recommended by DRB. Please note that the historic issues raised by the HPC and by the public at the HPC meeting were addressed in the SCEA.

Recognizing that City Council may vote to approve the project, the Commission expressed support for the staff and DRB conditions/considerations and also recommended some additional conditions. In terms of DRB’s considerations, the Commission strongly supported the concept of shifting the building masses and moving the pool deck to the southwest corner. If implemented, this would provide more space between the bank tower and the façade of the new building above the podium level.

Strong support was also shown for incorporating a porte cochere at the Maryland frontage to help alleviate potential traffic issues, as well as adding more landscaping at the plaza facing Brand.

The Commission also recommended the following new conditions:

1. 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.

2. 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.

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

4. 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.

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

HPC staff report and attachments available online at:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?compiledMeetingDocumentFileId=46484

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The Applicant is requesting a DA to preserve the entitlements for a six (6) year term.

The DA is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. In addition, the DA would 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 12 of 2287
11 1

30.35.060). The DA incorporates the proposed Stage II Design, including the PAOS, and provides indemnification of the City, acknowledgements, agreements and assurances on the part of the Developer and the City.

The DA is being requested by the applicant to preserve the Project’s entitlements to allow additional time to ride out the continued financial instability resulting from the uneven economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and provide additional time to secure construction financing and subsequent preparation of construction documents, plan check and permitting.

On February 2, 2022, the DA was presented to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, as required by State statute. Based on staff’s analysis and public testimony, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed DA is consistent with the City's General Plan and the DSP, and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend approval of the DA, with one comment. The Planning Commission recommended that the applicant/owner reach out to the skilled labor groups/unions regarding local hiring for construction. See Exhibit 5 for Planning Commission’s Motion.

PC staff report and attachments available online at:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?compiledMeetingDocumentFileId=464 60 STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Code requires publication of public notices when the City Council considers approval of entitlements. Staff has published all required notices in the Glendale Independent newspaper and has mailed copies to all property owners and occupants with 500 feet of the project site for all public meetings and hearings, including City Council, and the site was duly posted. CEQA noticing requirements for the SCEA were met as well.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with the Stage II Design and Development Agreement submission. However, if developed, the project would have a fiscal impact consistent with other quality residential projects including new property taxes, building permit/plan check fees, and potential increased sales tax by expanding the downtown residential base.

If the project is approved, the developer will need to pay public use facilities development impact fees ("DIFs") pursuant to Chapter 4.1 0 of the GMC.

Preliminary Development Impact Fees include:

Inclusionary Housing Fee: $55.00/SF X 246,236 gross SF = Approx. $13.5 M Park & Library Fee: 294 units X $18,751/unit = Approx. $5.5 M GUSD Fee: $3.48/SF X 246,236 Gross SF = Approx. $836,500

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA)
13 of 2287
12 1
The Community Development Department, after having conducted an Initial Study, has 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. The SCEA, including public comments and responses to comments, (Exhibit 6 A- SCEA; 6B - Responses to Comments; All Appendices to the SCEA are here:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/current-projects/environmental-review). All of which are being presented to City Council for consideration and approval prior to Project approval.

As a quick overview, the State created the SCEA process through the “Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008,” known as Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) in order to encourage projects that implement regional plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. by building housing near public transit) by providing for streamlined environmental review of "Transit Priority Projects" (TPP) that are consistent with an adopted sustainable communities strategy, which is the SCAG’s 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016–2040 RTP/SCS) for projects in the County of Los Angeles.

A SCEA is similar in some respects to a negative declaration, primarily in that the lead agency must find that all significant or potentially significant impacts of the project have been identified and analyzed, and those impacts have been mitigated to a less-thansignificant level. In preparing the SCEA, cumulative effects of the project that have been addressed and mitigated in a prior environmental document need not be treated as cumulatively considerable, and growth-inducing impacts of the project need not be addressed. Project-specific or cumulative impacts from car and light-duty truck trips also need not be addressed. Finally, the statute specifically states that SCEAs are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, rather than the "fair argument" standard that is applied to negative declarations. Pub Res C §21155.2(b); Sacramentans for Fair Planning v. City of Sacramento, 37 CA5th at 722 (applying substantial evidence to review of decision to use SECAs as well as to the content of such assessments).

As identified in the SCEA, the City, acting as the lead CEQA agency, has determined that the Project meets the four TPP criteria (SCEA Section 3.0) that qualifies this Project to use a SCEA, in that the Project:

1. Is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the Project area in the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS;

2. Contains at least 50 percent residential use;

3. Provides a minimum net density of at least 20 units per acre; and

4. Is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan.

Based on the prepared initial study (SCEA Section 4.0), detailed in the analysis (SCEA Section 5.0) and substantiated by data in the seven appendices, the SCEA concludes that the Project will not result in any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. 14 of 2287
13 1
The SCEA identifies the following environmental factors that are all less than significant with mitigation: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. None of these are potentially significant impacts and all other environmental impacts were found to be less than significant. The SCEA incorporates all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards and criteria set forth in prior applicable EIRs (Section 6.0), including the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR, the South Glendale Community Plan EIR and the DSP EIR, which reduce the environmental impacts of the above factors to less than significant.

A Notice of Availability/Intent of the SCEA was circulated on January 18, 2022, for a 30- day review and comment period by the public and the responsible reviewing agencies.

The 30-day review period deadline was later extended from February 17, 2022 to March 10, 2022, to allow additional time for comment submittal. A total of six letters were received during the comment period and the attached SCEA (Exhibit 6C) includes responses to those comments.

Two of the six comment letters focused on historic issues. These two letters contend the parking garage is a historic resource and a character defining feature of the historic Bank Building, and therefore demolition of the existing parking garage would be a significant environmental impact. Significant impacts that cannot be mitigated disqualify a project from using a SCEA and require preparation of an EIR. The SCEA includes an assessment of the Project’s potential impact on the historic resources (both on- and offsite) and based on an in-depth individualized assessment of historic resources contained in a Historical Resource Technical Report, prepared by Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation and incorporated into the SCEA, the SCEA determined the existing parking garage is not a historical resource in and of itself or a character defining feature of the existing bank building. Accordingly, the SCEA concludes, based on the analysis and assessment, that the demolition of the existing parking garage and construction of the proposed Project will not have an adverse impact on historic resources and that the existing historic resource (bank building) will remain eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. This conclusion is based on the in-depth analysis and findings contained in a Historical Resource Technical Report.

Additionally, the responses public comments on the SCEA thoroughly address all comments on Cultural Resources and factually demonstrate the commenters’ contentions about the historicity of the parking structure are unfounded. The decisionmaking body, here the City Council acting as Lead Agency, is vested with the authority to make the determination as to whether the parking garage is a historic resource. That decision must be based on substantial evidence in light of the whole record, and will be upheld even though there may evidence to the contrary. Planning staff concurs with the findings in Ms. Grimes’ report and based thereon maintains its determination that the proposed demolition of the parking structure is not a significant and unavoidable environmental impact which would require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, and that the Project qualifies for a SCEA environmental review.

Other letters included comments on air quality, greenhouse gas, public health, noise, and traffic. None of these comments provided any new substantial evidence that the 15 of 2287
14 1
Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Thorough responses to these comment letters are also included in the SCEA.

The proposed SCEA and all documents referenced therein were and remain available for review on the Planning Division website at:
http://www.glendaleca.gov/environmental.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 7, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
City Council has the following alternatives to consider associated with the Stage II Design:

Alternative 1: Adopt the SCEA, approve the Development Agreement as proposed by staff, and approve the Stage II Final Design Submission in accordance with Staff’s recommended conditions;
Alternative 2: Adopt the SCEA, approve the Development Agreement as proposed by staff, and approve the Stage II Final Design Submission subject to design recommendations made by the City Council;
Alternative 3: Adopt the SCEA, approve the Stage II Final Design Submission in accordance with either Staff’s recommended conditions or subject to design recommendations made by the City Council, and deny the Development Agreement as proposed;
Alternative 3: Do not adopt the SCEA. Doing so would preclude approval of the Stage II Final Design Submission and the Development Agreement and result in the denial of the proposed project.

Alternative 4: Consider any other alternatives not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP, Principal Planner
Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
John Takhtalian, Interim Director of Community Development/Deputy City Manager Reviewed by:
16 of 2287
15 1
Gillian van Muyden, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Bradley Calvert, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Stage II Final Design Submission - Plans

2. DSP Design Memo by Staff

3. Design Review Board’s Comments

4. Historic Preservation Memo by Staff

5. Planning Commission’s Resolution Regarding the Development Agreement

6. 6A- SCEA and 6B- Comments and Responses to Comments

7. Campaign Finance Disclosure

8. Development Agreement
17 of 2287
June 14th 2022
Address: 625 N. Maryland Ave.

Lucia Park
by The Cimmarusti Family
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects
EXHIBIT 1
Stage II Final Design Review Plans
18 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
2 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

PROJECT NARRATIVE

RENDERINGS

LOCATION MAP AND ZONING ANALYSIS

VICINITY AND PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY

PROJECT DATA

SITE SURVEY AND SETBACKS
SITE PLAN: PROPOSED PROJECT

FLOOR PLANS

BUILDING SECTIONS

BUILDING ELEVATIONS

UNIT PLANS

DETAILED OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS

LOBBY DESIGN PLAN & REFLECTED CEILING PLAN

ENLARGED SECTIONS AND ELEVATIONS

DETAILS

LIGHTING PLANS

LANDSCAPE PLANS

OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM

PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE & LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE & LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
3 4
27 28
31 32
33 34
57 60
64 68
69 70
79 81
86 91
92 93

CONTENTS
19 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
3 PROJECT NARRATIVE Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects Introduction:

Located at the intersection of Brand Blvd and the 134 freeway, the new residential project known as Lucia Park will occupy one of the City’s prime spots, where it will contribute to an already elegant gateway formed by a number of existing towers and mid-20th Century structures.

Likewise, its 294 residential units and publicly accessible “pocket” park will provide much needed housing and civic open space.

Siting, Program, and Size:

Unlike most new projects, Lucia Park does not bulge out to all its property lines, but sits approximately 130 feet away from Brand Blvd, behind a new pocket park and the beloved mid-century Chase building, which was one of the original Home Savings and Loan buildings punctuating the Southland for many decades. Inspired by the Chase Building, but not mimicking it, the new 22-story residential tower takes a respectful stance as a background building that actually calls more attention to the significance of its forebear. The first floor of Lucia Park contains a building lobby, valet car drop-off, and mechanical space; Levels 2 and 3 provide 129 parking spaces for the Chase Building’s commercial space; Levels 4-22 accommodate all the residential units – 247 one-bedroom and 47 two-bedroom units – plus a significant amount of indoor and outdoor amenities. (All residential parking is located in 4 below-grade levels.) The main vehicular entrance to Lucia Park will be from Maryland Ave, so as not to contribute to the heavy commuter traffic on Brand Boulevard, but pedestrians will be able to enter from both Maryland and the new pocket park accessed from Brand Blvd, which includes a welcoming new gateway and fountain next to the sidewalk. The well-landscaped park will include comfortable areas for seating as well as plenty of room for small commercial amenities like coffee carts. Additionally, it will have a roughly equal distribution of sun-filled and shaded spaces, the latter in the zone between the back of the Chase building and the west façade of the new structure. The overall result is that an unexceptional asphalt parking lot on Brand Boulevard will be replaced by a generously landscape plaza with fountain and seating.

Architectural Design:

As mandated by the City Council, the overall design goal for this project was to fit within the existing context created by several of the nearby buildings. For this reason, and in particular drawing from the salmon-colored, stepped-roof building to the south (held up by one council person as a desirable model), the proposed structure also steps back as it rises, and is topped by a series of larger “figures,” which take the form of tall, open-air rooftop terraces shaded by photovoltaic panels. Vibrant but controlled massing, colorful but elegant cladding, and the use of vertical louvers that honor the design of the existing Chase Building further reinforce the welcoming qualities of Glendale’s urban topography.

The overall massing of the building can be divided into three basic volumes, both horizontally and vertically: Vertically, the building integrates the classic tripartite division of “base,” “middle,” and “top.” The three-story high rectangular base (though in some places it rises four levels) acts like a plinth for the vertically-oriented middle, which is then crowned by a series of open “loggias” and roof terraces at the top, a nice metaphor for the welcoming, down-to-earth quality of the City and its inhabitants. Horizontally, the three-part composition comes from the fact that there are two similarly patterned ends divided by a completely different central volume; the central volume is almost uniformly grayish in tone – just vision glass and gray metal panels – while the cladding at the ends is mainly composed of vision glass surrounded by a legible but shifting pattern of blue and white metal panels. Importantly, the dynamism of the pattern at the ends is created by a simple shifting of the location and width of the colored panels, but behind them, the units are uniform in size and layout.

Base: Starting at the bottom, a 12-foot-high lobby anchors the building to the life and energy of the pedestrian-oriented pocket park and sidewalk, which in the future may lead to a large park covering the freeway. The first floor is primarily clad in glass and limestone. Immediately above are two levels of commercial parking screened by louvers that refer to the louvers of the Chase Building (without mimicking them) and also help to hide views of the cars. This three-four story base is further punctuated by three architectural elements. The first is a two-story high frame on Maryland infilled with two-foot deep blue metal louvers, which screen the community room on the 4th floor and the commercial parking on the 3rd. The second is another frame, this time one-story high and located at the northeast corner of the building, where it hugs the outside corner of the swimming pool and is infilled with six-foot deep angled metal panels, like large louvers. The third is an unframed screen that faces the pocket park off Brand Boulevard. While it may become the piece of public art, it is currently composed of vertically-oriented lights and wood-toned louvers. Finally, the top of the base, that is, the exterior of the 4th (and sometimes 5th) floor is filled with outdoor amenities, including the pool at the northeast corner, a dog park along the east side (above the community room) and unprogrammed terrace space on the west side, looking over the pocket park. They all include table and seating elements, planters, and in some cases, barbeques, fire pits, and other amenities.

Middle: As mentioned above, the middle is divided horizontally into three clearly defined masses - two end sections, clad by vision glass and blue and white metal panels, with a central volume clad entirely in vision glass and spandrel glass. (The spandrel glass has been selected to match the glass as much as possible.) The end volumes step down at their outside corners in order to break down their overall mass – which is a reference to the newer commercial buildings on the just down Brand, also on the east side of the street. These resulting roofs, many of them relatively small, are all accessible and available for use as roof terraces, with seating elements and planters.

Top: From an urban perspective, the signifying feature of the building’s top is the two tall open “loggias” (one on each of the long east and west sides) that rise up out of the end volumes – one on the south, one on the north. Each of these creates open-air roof terraces that are shaded by photovoltaic arrays. Elsewhere, the roof is also covered by terraces that include seating and tables, planters with trees, BBQ areas, and fire pits, all of which provide direct views to the mountains, Downtown Glendale, and Downtown LA beyond.

Materials:

Overall, the building’s materials have been selected for their quality, durability, and consistency. The use of different colors, patterns and materials on different volumes breaks down the mass of the building, creating a comfortable, well-scaled addition to the City of Glendale. 20 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
4 high aerial from northeast
21 of 2287
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
5 high aerial from northeast at dusk
22 of 2287
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
6 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects eye-level from northeast - looking across 134 23 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
7 medium aerial from northeast at dusk
24 of 2287
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
8 high aerial from northwest - looking south on Brand Blvd 25 of 2287
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
9 high aerial from southwest - looking over Brand
26 of 2287
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
10 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects eye-level from southwest - from Maryland - Doran intersection 27 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
11 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects eye-level from northwest - from Brand - Sanchez intersection 28 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
12 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects eye-level from northeast - from Maryland 29 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
13 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects eye-level of new publicly accessible park on Brand Blvd 30 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
14 new publicly accessible park looking east to lobby
31 of 2287
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
15 new publicly accessible park looking west
32 of 2287
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
16 aerial highlighting levels 4 &5 exterior amenities
33 of 2287
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
17 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects low aerial of pool and stair/bleachers to dog park on level 5 34 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
18 pool and amenities looking north to mountains
35 of 2287
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
19 pool and amenities looking southeast
36 of 2287
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
20 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects stair/bleachers and dog park with downtown LA in distance 37 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
21 aerial to southwest highlighting roof amenities
38 of 2287
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
22 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects roof deck looking south towards downtown LA 39 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
23 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects lobby interior highlighting green wall and bleachers 40 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
24 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects lobby view highlighting service desk 41 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
25 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects typical living room in one or two-bedroom unit 42 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
26 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects typical bedroom in one or two-bedroom unit 43 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
27 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 280’
134 FRWY
Sanchez Dr.

Goode Ave
N. Brand Blvd N. Brand Blvd
W. Doran St
Maryland Pl
N. Maryland Ave
N. Louise St N. Louise St
140’
500’
140’
73’
104’
50’
206’
256’
6-story commercial “Chase” building
(Formerly Home Savings & Loan)
48,000 SF

ZONING DSP / GATEWAY, COMMERCIAL
ZONING INFORMATION DSP 2.1.2 Gateway District
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE Highrise Towers
USE Existing Building: Commercial Bank (Ground Floor),
Office (L2-L6)
New Building: Parking, Residential
SETBACK Brand: Per Brand Streetscape Plan
Side: N/A
Maryland: 16’ min setback from curb face
(See Sheet 13) - Per DSP Streetscape Standards
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT BY RIGHT 275’
PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT 265’- 6” (24 Stories)
SITE AREA 63,760 SF (1.46 acres) Dedications along Maryland excluded F.A.R. BY RIGHT 7.25
PROPOSED F.A.R. 7.25
(INCLUDING EXISTING CHASE BANK)
MAX ALLOWABLE GROSS AREA 462,260 GSF
EXISTING BUILDING 45,125 GSF
PROPOSED TOTAL BUILDING AREA 417,135 GSF
(NOT INCLUDING EXISTING CHASE BANK)
TOTAL BUILDING AREA 462,260 GSF
(PROPOSED BUILDING + EXISTING CHASE BANK)
UNIT BREAKDOWN 294 Units
247 - 1 Bedroom, 47 - 2 Bedroom
VEHICLE PARKING RATIO Bank (Customer Service Area): 4 stalls per 1,000 GSF in DSP Zone (PER GMC 30.32.050) Bank (Office): 2.7 stalls per 1,000 GSF in DSP Zone Office: 2 stalls per 1,000 GSF in DSP Zone
(Existing Bank - 45,125 SF)
Residential: 1 stall for 1 bedroom and 2 stalls for 2 bedroom, Guest parking: 1 stall per 10 units in DSP Zone
BICYCLE PARKING RATIO Long Term: 1 space per 4 units
(PER GMC 30.32) Short Term: 1 space per 20 units
In DSP Zone: 1 space per 20 units
COMMERCIAL REQUIRED PARKING 94 Parking Stalls
Bank (Customer Service Area) - 7 Parking Stalls
1,796 SF (4/1000 SF round down, less than 7.5)
Bank (Office) - 12 Parking Stalls
4,520 SF (2.7/1000 SF round down, less than 12.5)
Office - 75 Stalls
37,228 SF (2/1000 SF round up, more than 74.5)
COMMERCIAL PROPOSED PARKING 129 Parking Stalls
RESIDENTIAL REQUIRED PARKING 370 Parking Stalls
247 (1 BR) + 94 (2 BR) + 29 (Guest Parking)
RESIDENTIAL PROPOSED PARKING 373 Parking Stalls
**Floor Area Ratio means the ratio of floor area (gross) plus above-grade garage area (Commercial Parking L2 & L3) to lot area. Indoor recreational facilities, subterranean and semi-subterranean areas shall be excluded from this ratio.

LOCATION MAP AND ZONING ANALYSIS
44 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
28 LOCATION MAP Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 134 FRWY
Sanchez Dr.

Goode Ave
N. Brand Blvd
N. Brand Blvd
W. Doran St
Maryland Pl
N. Maryland Ave
N. Louise St N. Louise St
6-story commercial “Chase” building
(Formerly Home Savings & Loan)
48,000 SF
Average 3-Story Residential
Neighborhood.

Future Space 134 Project
2-Story Parking
Garage
1 1
2 2
A
D
C B
E
H
F
G
45 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
29 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 1 2

VIEW FROM N BRAND BLVD
VIEW FROM N. MARYLAND AVE

VICINITY AND PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY
46 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
30 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects VIEW OF US BANK FROM N. BRAND BLVD. VIEW OF CITY NATIONAL BANK BRANCH BUILDING FROM N. MARYLAND AVE
INTERSECTION OF N. BRAND BLVD
AND E. DORAN ST

VIEW OF YELLOW PAGES BUILDING FROM
N. BRAND BLVD

A B C D
INTERSECTION OF MARYLAND PL AND ENTRANCE TO HIGHWAY 134 EAST N. MARYLAND AVE
INTERSECTION OF N. BRAND AVE AND
ENTRANCE TO HIGHWAY 134 EAST
INTERSECTION OF N. MARYLAND AVE
AND E. DORAN ST E F G H
47 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
31 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects SQ. Ft. Max area Parking A. Open Space
Provided 12,752
B4 48,469 97 (Residential) 5381 Open Space Provided Level - Ground 15,844 B3 48,469 91 (Residential) 672
B2 48,469 91 (Residential) 11065
B1 49,983 94 (Residential) 1636 B. Public Accessible Open Space 1 29,343 438 6,376
2 35,883 64 (Commercial) 366 Public Accessible Open Space Provided Level - Ground 6,994 3 36,487 65 (Commercial) 736
4 17,286 2343
5 12,185 750 C. Residential Development Open Space
6 16,279 9116
7 16,016 1738 Residential Common Res
8 16,016 34241 Level Open Space (sf) O
9 16,766 Ground 6,034
10 16,826 Level 4 11,949
11 16,826 7114 Level 5 1,228
12 16,826 Level 6 438
13 16,826 41355 Level 7 366
14 16,826 Level 17 731
15 16,826 Level 19 2,300
16 16,826 Level 21 731
17 16,167 Level 23 9,118
18 16,167 Level 24 1,738
19 13,612 Residential Development Open Space Provided 34,633 20 13,612
21 12,871
22 12,871 D. Landscape Area
Roof 1 - Landscape Area Required - 20% of Residential Common Open Space (34,633 x 20%) 6,927 Roof 2 - Ground 1,126
Level 4 1,970
Existing Chase Bank 45,125 234 Level 5 180
7 234 Level 6 67
12 132 Level 7 67
75 127 Level 17 141
94 108 Level 19 330
129 181 Level 21 141
341 1016 Level 23 2,800
29 Leve 24 242
370 Landscape Area Provided 7,064
373
Landscape Area Required - 25% of Public Accessible Open Space (6,376 x 25%) 1,594 Area Total 417,135 417,135 Unit Count 294 Ground 1,595
FAR Percentage 100.00% Percentage 100% Landscape Area Provided 1,595 Residential Parking Req 341
E. Bicycle Parking
464 Long Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 4 units (294 / 4) 74 502 Short Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 20 units (294 /20) 15 Long Term Bicycle Parking Provided 96
Short Term Bicycle Parking Provided 19
32 16
47 47
Residential Development Open Space Required - 140 sf Per Residential Unit (294 x 140 sqft) Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
247

16.0%
94 84.0%
247
Total Residential + Commercial Parking Required
Total Parking Provided
606 N. Maryland
Commercial Parking Required
Total Commercial Parking Provided
Open Space Required - 20% of Site Area (63,760 x 20%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (47 x 2 BR)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided
Residential Guest Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Provided
Residential Unit Parking Required
Public Accessible Open Space Required - 10% of Site Area (63,760 x 10%) 11 14
15 15
13 13
13 13
13 16
17 17
13 1 Bedroom
>600 SF
-
-
11 11
10 10
-
-
-
-
10 47
2 Bedroom
>800 SF
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 1
3 Bank (Customer Service Area) - 7 Parking Stalls, 1,796 SF (4/1000 SF round down, less than 7.5) 2 12
2 4
4 4
4 4
2 1
1 3
3 2
2 2
2 -
-
Bank - 75 Parking Stall, 37,228 sf (2/1000 sf round up, more than 75) -
Bank (Office) - 12 Parking Stalls, 4,520 sf (2.7/1000 sf round down, more than 12.5) -
SQ. Ft. Max area Parking A. Open Space
Provided 12,752
B4 48,469 97 (Residential) 5381 Open Space Provided Level - Ground 15,844 B3 48,469 91 (Residential) 672
B2 48,469 91 (Residential) 11065
B1 49,983 94 (Residential) 1636 B. Public Accessible Open Space 1 29,343 438 6,376
2 35,883 64 (Commercial) 366 Public Accessible Open Space Provided Level - Ground 6,994 3 36,487 65 (Commercial) 736
4 17,286 2343
5 12,185 750 C. Residential Development Open Space
6 16,279 9116
7 16,016 1738 Residential Common Res
8 16,016 34241 Level Open Space (sf) O
9 16,766 Ground 6,034
10 16,826 Level 4 11,949
11 16,826 7114 Level 5 1,228
12 16,826 Level 6 438
13 16,826 41355 Level 7 366
14 16,826 Level 17 731
15 16,826 Level 19 2,300
16 16,826 Level 21 731
17 16,167 Level 23 9,118
18 16,167 Level 24 1,738
19 13,612 Residential Development Open Space Provided 34,633 20 13,612
21 12,871
22 12,871 D. Landscape Area
Roof 1 - Landscape Area Required - 20% of Residential Common Open Space (34,633 x 20%) 6,927 Roof 2 - Ground 1,126
Level 4 1,970
Existing Chase Bank 45,125 234 Level 5 180
7 234 Level 6 67
12 132 Level 7 67
75 127 Level 17 141
94 108 Level 19 330
129 181 Level 21 141
341 1016 Level 23 2,800
29 Leve 24 242
370 Landscape Area Provided 7,064
373
Landscape Area Required - 25% of Public Accessible Open Space (6,376 x 25%) 1,594 Area Total 417,135 417,135 Unit Count 294 Ground 1,595
FAR Percentage 100.00% Percentage 100% Landscape Area Provided 1,595 Residential Parking Req 341
E. Bicycle Parking
464 Long Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 4 units (294 / 4) 74 502 Short Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 20 units (294 /20) 15 Long Term Bicycle Parking Provided 96
Short Term Bicycle Parking Provided 19
32 16
47 47
Residential Development Open Space Required - 140 sf Per Residential Unit (294 x 140 sqft) Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
247

16.0%
94 84.0%
247
Total Residential + Commercial Parking Required
Total Parking Provided
606 N. Maryland
Commercial Parking Required
Total Commercial Parking Provided
Open Space Required - 20% of Site Area (63,760 x 20%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (47 x 2 BR)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided
Residential Guest Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Provided
Residential Unit Parking Required
Public Accessible Open Space Required - 10% of Site Area (63,760 x 10%) 11 14
15 15
13 13
13 13
13 16
17 17
13 1 Bedroom
>600 SF
-
-
11 11
10 10
-
-
-
-
10 47
2 Bedroom
>800 SF
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 1
3 Bank (Customer Service Area) - 7 Parking Stalls, 1,796 SF (4/1000 SF round down, less than 7.5) 2 12
2 4
4 4
4 4
2 1
1 3
3 2
2 2
2 -
-
Bank - 75 Parking Stall, 37,228 sf (2/1000 sf round up, more than 75) -
Bank (Office) - 12 Parking Stalls, 4,520 sf (2.7/1000 sf round down, more than 12.5) -
SQ. Ft. Max area Parking A. Open Space
Provided 12,752
B4 48,469 97 (Residential) 5381 Open Space Provided Level - Ground 15,844 B3 48,469 91 (Residential) 672
B2 48,469 91 (Residential) 11065
B1 49,983 94 (Residential) 1636 B. Public Accessible Open Space 1 29,343 438 6,376
2 35,883 64 (Commercial) 366 Public Accessible Open Space Provided Level - Ground 6,994 3 36,487 65 (Commercial) 736
4 17,286 2343
5 12,185 750 C. Residential Development Open Space
6 16,279 9116
7 16,016 1738 Residential Common Re
8 16,016 34241 Level Open Space (sf) O
9 16,766 Ground 6,034
10 16,826 Level 4 11,949
11 16,826 7114 Level 5 1,228
12 16,826 Level 6 438
13 16,826 41355 Level 7 366
14 16,826 Level 17 731
15 16,826 Level 19 2,300
16 16,826 Level 21 731
17 16,167 Level 23 9,118
18 16,167 Level 24 1,738
19 13,612 Residential Development Open Space Provided 34,633 20 13,612
21 12,871
22 12,871 D. Landscape Area
Roof 1 - Landscape Area Required - 20% of Residential Common Open Space (34,633 x 20%) 6,927 Roof 2 - Ground 1,126
Level 4 1,970
Existing Chase Bank 45,125 234 Level 5 180
7 234 Level 6 67
12 132 Level 7 67
75 127 Level 17 141
94 108 Level 19 330
129 181 Level 21 141
341 1016 Level 23 2,800
29 Leve 24 242
370 Landscape Area Provided 7,064
373
Landscape Area Required - 25% of Public Accessible Open Space (6,376 x 25%) 1,594 Area Total 417,135 417,135 Unit Count 294 Ground 1,595
FAR Percentage 100.00% Percentage 100% Landscape Area Provided 1,595 Residential Parking Req 341
E. Bicycle Parking
464 Long Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 4 units (294 / 4) 74 502 Short Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 20 units (294 /20) 15 Long Term Bicycle Parking Provided 96
Short Term Bicycle Parking Provided 19
32 16
47 47
Residential Development Open Space Required - 140 sf Per Residential Unit (294 x 140 sqft) Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
247

16.0%
94 84.0%
247
Total Residential + Commercial Parking Required
Total Parking Provided
Commercial Parking Required
Total Commercial Parking Provided
Open Space Required - 20% of Site Area (63,760 x 20%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (47 x 2 BR)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided
Residential Guest Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Provided
Residential Unit Parking Required
Public Accessible Open Space Required - 10% of Site Area (63,760 x 10%) 11 14
15 15
13 13
13 13
13 16
17 17
13 1 Bedroom
>600 SF
-
-
11 11
10 10
-
-
-
-
10 47
2 Bedroom
>800 SF
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 1
3 Bank (Customer Service Area) - 7 Parking Stalls, 1,796 SF (4/1000 SF round down, less than 7.5) 2 12
2 4
4 4
4 4
2 1
1 3
3 2
2 2
2 -
-
Bank - 75 Parking Stall, 37,228 sf (2/1000 sf round up, more than 75) -
Bank (Office) - 12 Parking Stalls, 4,520 sf (2.7/1000 sf round down, more than 12.5) -
SQ. Ft. Max area Parking A. Open Space
Provided 12,752
B4 48,469 97 (Residential) 5381 Open Space Provided Level - Ground 15,844 B3 48,469 91 (Residential) 672
B2 48,469 91 (Residential) 11065
B1 49,983 94 (Residential) 1636 B. Public Accessible Open Space 1 29,343 438 6,376
2 35,883 64 (Commercial) 366 Public Accessible Open Space Provided Level - Ground 6,994 3 36,487 65 (Commercial) 736
4 17,286 2343
5 12,185 750 C. Residential Development Open Space
6 16,279 9116
7 16,016 1738 Residential Common Re
8 16,016 34241 Level Open Space (sf) O
9 16,766 Ground 6,034
10 16,826 Level 4 11,949
11 16,826 7114 Level 5 1,228
12 16,826 Level 6 438
13 16,826 41355 Level 7 366
14 16,826 Level 17 731
15 16,826 Level 19 2,300
16 16,826 Level 21 731
17 16,167 Level 23 9,118
18 16,167 Level 24 1,738
19 13,612 Residential Development Open Space Provided 34,633 20 13,612
21 12,871
22 12,871 D. Landscape Area
Roof 1 - Landscape Area Required - 20% of Residential Common Open Space (34,633 x 20%) 6,927 Roof 2 - Ground 1,126
Level 4 1,970
Existing Chase Bank 45,125 234 Level 5 180
7 234 Level 6 67
12 132 Level 7 67
75 127 Level 17 141
94 108 Level 19 330
129 181 Level 21 141
341 1016 Level 23 2,800
29 Leve 24 242
370 Landscape Area Provided 7,064
373
Landscape Area Required - 25% of Public Accessible Open Space (6,376 x 25%) 1,594 Area Total 417,135 417,135 Unit Count 294 Ground 1,595
FAR Percentage 100.00% Percentage 100% Landscape Area Provided 1,595 Residential Parking Req 341
E. Bicycle Parking
464 Long Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 4 units (294 / 4) 74 502 Short Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 20 units (294 /20) 15 Long Term Bicycle Parking Provided 96
Short Term Bicycle Parking Provided 19
32 16
47 47
Residential Development Open Space Required - 140 sf Per Residential Unit (294 x 140 sqft) Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
247

16.0%
94 84.0%
247
Total Residential + Commercial Parking Required
Total Parking Provided
Commercial Parking Required
Total Commercial Parking Provided
Open Space Required - 20% of Site Area (63,760 x 20%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (47 x 2 BR)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided
Residential Guest Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Provided
Residential Unit Parking Required
Public Accessible Open Space Required - 10% of Site Area (63,760 x 10%) 11 14
15 15
13 13
13 13
13 16
17 17
13 1 Bedroom
>600 SF
-
-
11 11
10 10
-
-
-
-
10 47
2 Bedroom
>800 SF
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 1
3 Bank (Customer Service Area) - 7 Parking Stalls, 1,796 SF (4/1000 SF round down, less than 7.5) 2 12
2 4
4 4
4 4
2 1
1 3
3 2
2 2
2 -
-
Bank - 75 Parking Stall, 37,228 sf (2/1000 sf round up, more than 75) -
Bank (Office) - 12 Parking Stalls, 4,520 sf (2.7/1000 sf round down, more than 12.5) -
Parking A. Open Space
Provided 12,752
97 (Residential) 5381 Open Space Provided Level - Ground 15,844 91 (Residential) 672
91 (Residential) 11065
94 (Residential) 1636 B. Public Accessible Open Space
438 6,376
64 (Commercial) 366 Public Accessible Open Space Provided Level - Ground 6,994 65 (Commercial) 736
2343
750 C. Residential Development Open Space
9116 41,160
1738 Residential Common Residential Private
34241 Level Open Space (sf) Open Space (sf) Total (sf)
Ground 6,034 - 6,034
Level 4 11,949 6,992 18,941
7114 Level 5 1,228 - 1,228
Level 6 438 - 438
41355 Level 7 366 - 366
Level 17 731 - 731
Level 19 2,300 - 2,300
Level 21 731 - 731
Level 23 9,118 - 9,118
Level 24 1,738 - 1,738
Residential Development Open Space Provided 34,633 6,992 41,625 D. Landscape Area
Landscape Area Required - 20% of Residential Common Open Space (34,633 x 20%) 6,927 Ground 1,126
Level 4 1,970
234 Level 5 180
7 234 Level 6 67
12 132 Level 7 67
75 127 Level 17 141
94 108 Level 19 330
129 181 Level 21 141
341 1016 Level 23 2,800
29 Leve 24 242
370 Landscape Area Provided 7,064
373
Landscape Area Required - 25% of Public Accessible Open Space (6,376 x 25%) 1,594 5 Unit Count 294 Ground 1,595
% Percentage 100% Landscape Area Provided 1,595
Residential Parking Req 341
E. Bicycle Parking
464 Long Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 4 units (294 / 4) 74 502 Short Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 20 units (294 /20) 15 Long Term Bicycle Parking Provided 96
Short Term Bicycle Parking Provided 19
32 16
47 47
Residential Development Open Space Required - 140 sf Per Residential Unit (294 x 140 sqft) Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
247

16.0%
94 84.0%
247
Total Residential + Commercial Parking Required
Total Parking Provided
606 N. Maryland
Commercial Parking Required
Total Commercial Parking Provided
Open Space Required - 20% of Site Area (63,760 x 20%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (47 x 2 BR)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided
Residential Guest Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Provided
Residential Unit Parking Required
Public Accessible Open Space Required - 10% of Site Area (63,760 x 10%) 11 14
15 15
13 13
13 13
13 16
17 17
13 1 Bedroom
>600 SF
-
-
11 11
10 10
-
-
-
-
10 47
2 Bedroom
>800 SF
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 1
3 Bank (Customer Service Area) - 7 Parking Stalls, 1,796 SF (4/1000 SF round down, less than 7.5) 2 12
2 4
4 4
4 4
2 1
1 3
3 2
2 2
2 -
-
Bank - 75 Parking Stall, 37,228 sf (2/1000 sf round up, more than 75) -
Bank (Office) - 12 Parking Stalls, 4,520 sf (2.7/1000 sf round down, more than 12.5) -
Parking A. Open Space
Provided 12,752
97 (Residential) 5381 Open Space Provided Level - Ground 15,844 91 (Residential) 672
91 (Residential) 11065
94 (Residential) 1636 B. Public Accessible Open Space
438 6,376
64 (Commercial) 366 Public Accessible Open Space Provided Level - Ground 6,994 65 (Commercial) 736
2343
750 C. Residential Development Open Space
9116 41,160
1738 Residential Common Residential Private
34241 Level Open Space (sf) Open Space (sf) Total (sf)
Ground 6,034 - 6,034
Level 4 11,949 6,992 18,941
7114 Level 5 1,228 - 1,228
Level 6 438 - 438
41355 Level 7 366 - 366
Level 17 731 - 731
Level 19 2,300 - 2,300
Level 21 731 - 731
Level 23 9,118 - 9,118
Level 24 1,738 - 1,738
Residential Development Open Space Provided 34,633 6,992 41,625 D. Landscape Area
Landscape Area Required - 20% of Residential Common Open Space (34,633 x 20%) 6,927 Ground 1,126
Level 4 1,970
234 Level 5 180
7 234 Level 6 67
12 132 Level 7 67
75 127 Level 17 141
94 108 Level 19 330
129 181 Level 21 141
341 1016 Level 23 2,800
29 Leve 24 242
370 Landscape Area Provided 7,064
373
Landscape Area Required - 25% of Public Accessible Open Space (6,376 x 25%) 1,594 5 Unit Count 294 Ground 1,595
% Percentage 100% Landscape Area Provided 1,595
Residential Parking Req 341
E. Bicycle Parking
464 Long Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 4 units (294 / 4) 74 502 Short Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 20 units (294 /20) 15 Long Term Bicycle Parking Provided 96
Short Term Bicycle Parking Provided 19
32 16
47 47
Residential Development Open Space Required - 140 sf Per Residential Unit (294 x 140 sqft) Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
247

16.0%
94 84.0%
247
Total Residential + Commercial Parking Required
Total Parking Provided
606 N. Maryland
Commercial Parking Required
Total Commercial Parking Provided
Open Space Required - 20% of Site Area (63,760 x 20%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (47 x 2 BR)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided
Residential Guest Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Provided
Residential Unit Parking Required
Public Accessible Open Space Required - 10% of Site Area (63,760 x 10%) 11 14
15 15
13 13
13 13
13 16
17 17
13 1 Bedroom
>600 SF
-
-
11 11
10 10
-
-
-
-
10 47
2 Bedroom
>800 SF
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 1
3 Bank (Customer Service Area) - 7 Parking Stalls, 1,796 SF (4/1000 SF round down, less than 7.5) 2 12
2 4
4 4
4 4
2 1
1 3
3 2
2 2
2 -
-
Bank - 75 Parking Stall, 37,228 sf (2/1000 sf round up, more than 75) -
Bank (Office) - 12 Parking Stalls, 4,520 sf (2.7/1000 sf round down, more than 12.5) -
Parking A. Open Space
Provided 12,752
97 (Residential) 5381 Open Space Provided Level - Ground 15,844 91 (Residential) 672
91 (Residential) 11065
94 (Residential) 1636 B. Public Accessible Open Space
438 6,376
64 (Commercial) 366 Public Accessible Open Space Provided Level - Ground 6,994 65 (Commercial) 736
2343
750 C. Residential Development Open Space
9116 41,160
1738 Residential Common Residential Private
34241 Level Open Space (sf) Open Space (sf) Total (sf)
Ground 6,034 - 6,034
Level 4 11,949 6,992 18,941
7114 Level 5 1,228 - 1,228
Level 6 438 - 438
41355 Level 7 366 - 366
Level 17 731 - 731
Level 19 2,300 - 2,300
Level 21 731 - 731
Level 23 9,118 - 9,118
Level 24 1,738 - 1,738
Residential Development Open Space Provided 34,633 6,992 41,625 D. Landscape Area
Landscape Area Required - 20% of Residential Common Open Space (34,633 x 20%) 6,927 Ground 1,126
Level 4 1,970
234 Level 5 180
7 234 Level 6 67
12 132 Level 7 67
75 127 Level 17 141
94 108 Level 19 330
129 181 Level 21 141
341 1016 Level 23 2,800
29 Leve 24 242
370 Landscape Area Provided 7,064
373
Landscape Area Required - 25% of Public Accessible Open Space (6,376 x 25%) 1,594 Unit Count 294 Ground 1,595
% Percentage 100% Landscape Area Provided 1,595
Residential Parking Req 341
E. Bicycle Parking
464 Long Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 4 units (294 / 4) 74 502 Short Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 20 units (294 /20) 15 Long Term Bicycle Parking Provided 96
Short Term Bicycle Parking Provided 19
32 16
47 47
Residential Development Open Space Required - 140 sf Per Residential Unit (294 x 140 sqft) Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
247

16.0%
94 84.0%
247
Total Residential + Commercial Parking Required
Total Parking Provided
606 ayad
Commercial Parking Required
Total Commercial Parking Provided
Open Space Required - 20% of Site Area (63,760 x 20%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (47 x 2 BR)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided
Residential Guest Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Provided
Residential Unit Parking Required
Public Accessible Open Space Required - 10% of Site Area (63,760 x 10%) 11 14
15 15
13 13
13 13
13 16
17 17
13 1 Bedroom
>600 SF
-
-
11 11
10 10
-
-
-
-
10 47
2 Bedroom
>800 SF
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 1
3 Bank (Customer Service Area) - 7 Parking Stalls, 1,796 SF (4/1000 SF round down, less than 7.5) 2 12
2 4
4 4
4 4
2 1
1 3
3 2
2 2
2 -
-
Bank - 75 Parking Stall, 37,228 sf (2/1000 sf round up, more than 75) -
Bank (Office) - 12 Parking Stalls, 4,520 sf (2.7/1000 sf round down, more than 12.5) -
Parking A. Open Space
Provided 12,752
97 (Residential) 5381 Open Space Provided Level - Ground 15,844 91 (Residential) 672
91 (Residential) 11065
94 (Residential) 1636 B. Public Accessible Open Space
438 6,376
64 (Commercial) 366 Public Accessible Open Space Provided Level - Ground 6,994 65 (Commercial) 736
2343
750 C. Residential Development Open Space
9116 41,160
1738 Residential Common Residential Private
34241 Level Open Space (sf) Open Space (sf) Total (sf)
Ground 6,034 - 6,034
Level 4 11,949 6,992 18,941
7114 Level 5 1,228 - 1,228
Level 6 438 - 438
41355 Level 7 366 - 366
Level 17 731 - 731
Level 19 2,300 - 2,300
Level 21 731 - 731
Level 23 9,118 - 9,118
Level 24 1,738 - 1,738
Residential Development Open Space Provided 34,633 6,992 41,625 D. Landscape Area
Landscape Area Required - 20% of Residential Common Open Space (34,633 x 20%) 6,927 Ground 1,126
Level 4 1,970
234 Level 5 180
7 234 Level 6 67
12 132 Level 7 67
75 127 Level 17 141
94 108 Level 19 330
129 181 Level 21 141
341 1016 Level 23 2,800
29 Leve 24 242
370 Landscape Area Provided 7,064
373
Landscape Area Required - 25% of Public Accessible Open Space (6,376 x 25%) 1,594 Unit Count 294 Ground 1,595
% Percentage 100% Landscape Area Provided 1,595
Residential Parking Req 341
E. Bicycle Parking
464 Long Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 4 units (294 / 4) 74 502 Short Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 20 units (294 /20) 15 Long Term Bicycle Parking Provided 96
Short Term Bicycle Parking Provided 19
32 16
47 47
Residential Development Open Space Required - 140 sf Per Residential Unit (294 x 140 sqft) Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
247

16.0%
94 84.0%
247
Total Residential + Commercial Parking Required
Total Parking Provided
Commercial Parking Required
Total Commercial Parking Provided
Open Space Required - 20% of Site Area (63,760 x 20%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (47 x 2 BR)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided
Residential Guest Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Provided
Residential Unit Parking Required
Public Accessible Open Space Required - 10% of Site Area (63,760 x 10%) 11 14
15 15
13 13
13 13
13 16
17 17
13 1 Bedroom
>600 SF
-
-
11 11
10 10
-
-
-
-
10 47
2 Bedroom
>800 SF
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 1
3 Bank (Customer Service Area) - 7 Parking Stalls, 1,796 SF (4/1000 SF round down, less than 7.5) 2 12
2 4
4 4
4 4
2 1
1 3
3 2
2 2
2 -
-
Bank - 75 Parking Stall, 37,228 sf (2/1000 sf round up, more than 75) -
Bank (Office) - 12 Parking Stalls, 4,520 sf (2.7/1000 sf round down, more than 12.5) -
Parking A. Open Space
Provided 12,752
97 (Residential) 5381 Open Space Provided Level - Ground 15,844 91 (Residential) 672
91 (Residential) 11065
94 (Residential) 1636 B. Public Accessible Open Space
438 6,376
64 (Commercial) 366 Public Accessible Open Space Provided Level - Ground 6,994 65 (Commercial) 736
2343
750 C. Residential Development Open Space
9116 41,160
1738 Residential Common Residential Private
34241 Level Open Space (sf) Open Space (sf) Total (sf)
Ground 6,034 - 6,034
Level 4 11,949 6,992 18,941
7114 Level 5 1,228 - 1,228
Level 6 438 - 438
41355 Level 7 366 - 366
Level 17 731 - 731
Level 19 2,300 - 2,300
Level 21 731 - 731
Level 23 9,118 - 9,118
Level 24 1,738 - 1,738
Residential Development Open Space Provided 34,633 6,992 41,625 D. Landscape Area
Landscape Area Required - 20% of Residential Common Open Space (34,633 x 20%) 6,927 Ground 1,126
Level 4 1,970
234 Level 5 180
7 234 Level 6 67
12 132 Level 7 67
75 127 Level 17 141
94 108 Level 19 330
129 181 Level 21 141
341 1016 Level 23 2,800
29 Leve 24 242
370 Landscape Area Provided 7,064
373
Landscape Area Required - 25% of Public Accessible Open Space (6,376 x 25%) 1,594 Unit Count 294 Ground 1,595
% Percentage 100% Landscape Area Provided 1,595
Residential Parking Req 341
E. Bicycle Parking
464 Long Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 4 units (294 / 4) 74 502 Short Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 20 units (294 /20) 15 Long Term Bicycle Parking Provided 96
Short Term Bicycle Parking Provided 19
32 16
47 47
Residential Development Open Space Required - 140 sf Per Residential Unit (294 x 140 sqft) Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
247

16.0%
94 84.0%
247
Total Residential + Commercial Parking Required
Total Parking Provided
Commercial Parking Required
Total Commercial Parking Provided
Open Space Required - 20% of Site Area (63,760 x 20%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (47 x 2 BR)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided
Residential Guest Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Provided
Residential Unit Parking Required
Public Accessible Open Space Required - 10% of Site Area (63,760 x 10%) 11 14
15 15
13 13
13 13
13 16
17 17
13 1 Bedroom
>600 SF
-
-
11 11
10 10
-
-
-
-
10 47
2 Bedroom
>800 SF
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 1
3 Bank (Customer Service Area) - 7 Parking Stalls, 1,796 SF (4/1000 SF round down, less than 7.5) 2 12
2 4
4 4
4 4
2 1
1 3
3 2
2 2
2 -
-
Bank - 75 Parking Stall, 37,228 sf (2/1000 sf round up, more than 75) -
Bank (Office) - 12 Parking Stalls, 4,520 sf (2.7/1000 sf round down, more than 12.5) -
,
97 (Residential) 5381 Open Space Provided Level - Ground 15,844 91 (Residential) 672
91 (Residential) 11065
94 (Residential) 1636 B. Public Accessible Open Space
438 6,376
64 (Commercial) 366 Public Accessible Open Space Provided Level - Ground 6,994 65 (Commercial) 736
2343
750 C. Residential Development Open Space
9116 41,160
1738 Residential Common Residential Private
34241 Level Open Space (sf) Open Space (sf) Total (sf)
Ground 6,034 - 6,034
Level 4 11,949 6,992 18,941
7114 Level 5 1,228 - 1,228
Level 6 438 - 438
41355 Level 7 366 - 366
Level 17 731 - 731
Level 19 2,300 - 2,300
Level 21 731 - 731
Level 23 9,118 - 9,118
Level 24 1,738 - 1,738
Residential Development Open Space Provided 34,633 6,992 41,625 D. Landscape Area
Landscape Area Required - 20% of Residential Common Open Space (34,633 x 20%) 6,927 Ground 1,126
Level 4 1,970
234 Level 5 180
7 234 Level 6 67
12 132 Level 7 67
75 127 Level 17 141
94 108 Level 19 330
129 181 Level 21 141
341 1016 Level 23 2,800
29 Leve 24 242
370 Landscape Area Provided 7,064
373
Landscape Area Required - 25% of Public Accessible Open Space (6,376 x 25%) 1,594 Unit Count 294 Ground 1,595
% Percentage 100% Landscape Area Provided 1,595
Residential Parking Req 341
E. Bicycle Parking
464 Long Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 4 units (294 / 4) 74 502 Short Term Bicycle Parking Required - 1 space per 20 units (294 /20) 15 Long Term Bicycle Parking Provided 96
Short Term Bicycle Parking Provided 19
32 16
47 47
Residential Development Open Space Required - 140 sf Per Residential Unit (294 x 140 sqft) Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
247

16.0%
94 84.0%
247
Total Residential + Commercial Parking Required
Total Parking Provided
Commercial Parking Required
Total Commercial Parking Provided
ppq(,)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (47 x 2 BR)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided
Residential Guest Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Required
Total Residential Parking Provided
Residential Unit Parking Required
Public Accessible Open Space Required - 10% of Site Area (63,760 x 10%) 11 14
15 15
13 13
13 13
13 16
17 17
13 -
-
11 11
10 10
-
-
-
-
10 47
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 1
3 Bank (Customer Service Area) - 7 Parking Stalls, 1,796 SF (4/1000 SF round down, less than 7.5) 2 12
2 4
4 4
4 4
2 1
1 3
3 2
2 2
2 -
-
Bank - 75 Parking Stall, 37,228 sf (2/1000 sf round up, more than 75) -
Bank (Office) - 12 Parking Stalls, 4,520 sf (2.7/1000 sf round down, more than 12.5) -
* For residential uses, each set of accessible and tandem or vertically stacked parking spaces shall be assigned to the same residential unit.
48 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
32 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects SIDE SETBACK = 0
MINIMUM 16’ - 0”

FROM CURB (PROPOSED)
MINIMUM 12’ - 0”

FROM CURB

EXISTING GARAGE

BUILT TO PROPERTY
LINE: SETBACK = 0
SIDE SETBACK = 0
SITE SURVEY AND SETBACKS (PER DSP 4.2.7A)

NOT TO SCALE
49 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
33 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects N
SITE PLAN: PROPOSED PROJECT
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

ENTRY / EXIT

COMMERCIAL

ENTRY / EXIT

RESIDENTIAL
50 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
34 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: B4
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
8’ - 2”
3’ - 0”
4’ - 0”
90 CF PRIVATE STORAGE PER
UNIT
Single Tandem Total
B4 88 9 97
B3 81 10 91
B2 81 10 91
B1 76 18 94
Total: 326 47 373
186
47 Single Tandem Total
L2 55 9 64
L3 58 7 65
Total: 113 16 129
32 16
Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (373x50%)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed 47 47
Total Residential Tandem Parking Provided

RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY
PL PL
PL
PL PL
51 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
35 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: B3
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
Single Tandem Total
B4 88 9 97
B3 81 10 91
B2 81 10 91
B1 76 18 94
Total: 326 47 373
186
47 Single Tandem Total
L2 55 9 64
L3 58 7 65
Total: 113 16 129
32 16
Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (373x50%)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided

RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed
47 47
Total Residential Tandem Parking Provided
PL PL
PL
PL PL
52 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
36 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: B2
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
Single Tandem Total
B4 88 9 97
B3 81 10 91
B2 81 10 91
B1 76 18 94
Total: 326 47 373
186
47 Single Tandem Total
L2 55 9 64
L3 58 7 65
Total: 113 16 129
32 16
Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (373x50%)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided

RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed
47 47
Total Residential Tandem Parking Provided
PL PL
PL
PL PL
53 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
37 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: B1
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N

RESIDENTIAL PARKING ONLY
Single Tandem Total
B4 88 9 97
B3 81 10 91
B2 81 10 91
B1 76 18 94
Total: 326 47 373
186
47 Single Tandem Total
L2 55 9 64
L3 58 7 65
Total: 113 16 129
32 16
Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (373x50%)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed 47 47
Total Residential Tandem Parking Provided
PL PL
PL
PL PL
54 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
38 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 1
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

LOBBY W/ SUPPORT

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

BICYCLE PARKING

EXISTING BUILDING

LANDSCAPE
55 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
39 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 2
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
Maximum Commercial Tandem Parking Allowed(129x25%) 32
Total Commercial Tandem Parking Provided 16

COMMERCIAL PARKING ONLY
Single Tandem Total
B4 88 9 97
B3 81 10 91
B2 81 10 91
B1 76 18 94
Total: 326 47 373
186
47 Single Tandem Total
L2 55 9 64
L3 58 7 65
Total: 113 16 129
32 16
Maximum Commerical Tandem Parking Allowed (129x25%)
Commerical Tandem Parking Provided
Maximum Residential Tandem Parking Allowed (373x50%)
Residential Tandem Parking Provided
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE
56 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
40 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 3
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE
57 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
41 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 4
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
1 BR 2 BR
Level >600 SF >900 SF Total
4 10 1 11
5 11 1 12
6 14 3 17
7 15 2 17
8 15 2 17
9 13 4 17
10 13 4 17
11 13 4 17
12 13 4 17
13 13 4 17
14 16 2 18
15 17 1 18
16 17 1 18
17 13 3 16
18 12 3 15
19 11 2 13
20 11 2 13
21 10 2 12
22 10 2 12
247 47 294
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
58 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
42 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 5
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
1 BR 2 BR
Level >600 SF >900 SF Total
4 10 1 11
5 11 1 12
6 14 3 17
7 15 2 17
8 15 2 17
9 13 4 17
10 13 4 17
11 13 4 17
12 13 4 17
13 13 4 17
14 16 2 18
15 17 1 18
16 17 1 18
17 13 3 16
18 12 3 15
19 11 2 13
20 11 2 13
21 10 2 12
22 10 2 12
247 47 294
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
59 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
43 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 6
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
1 BR 2 BR
Level >600 SF >900 SF Total
4 10 1 11
5 11 1 12
6 14 3 17
7 15 2 17
8 15 2 17
9 13 4 17
10 13 4 17
11 13 4 17
12 13 4 17
13 13 4 17
14 16 2 18
15 17 1 18
16 17 1 18
17 13 3 16
18 12 3 15
19 11 2 13
20 11 2 13
21 10 2 12
22 10 2 12
247 47 294
60 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
44 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 1 BR 2 BR
Level >600 SF >900 SF Total
4 10 1 11
5 11 1 12
6 14 3 17
7 15 2 17
8 15 2 17
9 13 4 17
10 13 4 17
11 13 4 17
12 13 4 17
13 13 4 17
14 16 2 18
15 17 1 18
16 17 1 18
17 13 3 16
18 12 3 15
19 11 2 13
20 11 2 13
21 10 2 12
22 10 2 12
247 47 294
LEVEL: 7 & 8
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
61 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
45 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 1 BR 2 BR
Level >600 SF >900 SF Total
4 10 1 11
5 11 1 12
6 14 3 17
7 15 2 17
8 15 2 17
9 13 4 17
10 13 4 17
11 13 4 17
12 13 4 17
13 13 4 17
14 16 2 18
15 17 1 18
16 17 1 18
17 13 3 16
18 12 3 15
19 11 2 13
20 11 2 13
21 10 2 12
22 10 2 12
247 47 294
LEVEL: 9 - 13
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
62 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
46 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 14
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
1 BR 2 BR
Level >600 SF >900 SF Total
4 10 1 11
5 11 1 12
6 14 3 17
7 15 2 17
8 15 2 17
9 13 4 17
10 13 4 17
11 13 4 17
12 13 4 17
13 13 4 17
14 16 2 18
15 17 1 18
16 17 1 18
17 13 3 16
18 12 3 15
19 11 2 13
20 11 2 13
21 10 2 12
22 10 2 12
247 47 294
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
63 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
47 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 15 & 16
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
1 BR 2 BR
Level >600 SF >900 SF Total
4 10 1 11
5 11 1 12
6 14 3 17
7 15 2 17
8 15 2 17
9 13 4 17
10 13 4 17
11 13 4 17
12 13 4 17
13 13 4 17
14 16 2 18
15 17 1 18
16 17 1 18
17 13 3 16
18 12 3 15
19 11 2 13
20 11 2 13
21 10 2 12
22 10 2 12
247 47 294
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
64 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
48 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 17
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
1 BR 2 BR
Level >600 SF >900 SF Total
4 10 1 11
5 11 1 12
6 14 3 17
7 15 2 17
8 15 2 17
9 13 4 17
10 13 4 17
11 13 4 17
12 13 4 17
13 13 4 17
14 16 2 18
15 17 1 18
16 17 1 18
17 13 3 16
18 12 3 15
19 11 2 13
20 11 2 13
21 10 2 12
22 10 2 12
247 47 294
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
65 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
49 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 18
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
1 BR 2 BR
Level >600 SF >900 SF Total
4 10 1 11
5 11 1 12
6 14 3 17
7 15 2 17
8 15 2 17
9 13 4 17
10 13 4 17
11 13 4 17
12 13 4 17
13 13 4 17
14 16 2 18
15 17 1 18
16 17 1 18
17 13 3 16
18 12 3 15
19 11 2 13
20 11 2 13
21 10 2 12
22 10 2 12
247 47 294
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
66 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
50 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 1 BR 2 BR
Level >600 SF >900 SF Total
4 10 1 11
5 11 1 12
6 14 3 17
7 15 2 17
8 15 2 17
9 13 4 17
10 13 4 17
11 13 4 17
12 13 4 17
13 13 4 17
14 16 2 18
15 17 1 18
16 17 1 18
17 13 3 16
18 12 3 15
19 11 2 13
20 11 2 13
21 10 2 12
22 10 2 12
247 47 294
LEVEL: 19
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
67 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
51 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 20
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
1 BR 2 BR
Level >600 SF >900 SF Total
4 10 1 11
5 11 1 12
6 14 3 17
7 15 2 17
8 15 2 17
9 13 4 17
10 13 4 17
11 13 4 17
12 13 4 17
13 13 4 17
14 16 2 18
15 17 1 18
16 17 1 18
17 13 3 16
18 12 3 15
19 11 2 13
20 11 2 13
21 10 2 12
22 10 2 12
247 47 294
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
68 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
52 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 21
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
1 BR 2 BR
Level >600 SF >900 SF Total
4 10 1 11
5 11 1 12
6 14 3 17
7 15 2 17
8 15 2 17
9 13 4 17
10 13 4 17
11 13 4 17
12 13 4 17
13 13 4 17
14 16 2 18
15 17 1 18
16 17 1 18
17 13 3 16
18 12 3 15
19 11 2 13
20 11 2 13
21 10 2 12
22 10 2 12
247 47 294
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
69 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
53 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 22
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
1 BR 2 BR
Level >600 SF >900 SF Total
4 10 1 11
5 11 1 12
6 14 3 17
7 15 2 17
8 15 2 17
9 13 4 17
10 13 4 17
11 13 4 17
12 13 4 17
13 13 4 17
14 16 2 18
15 17 1 18
16 17 1 18
17 13 3 16
18 12 3 15
19 11 2 13
20 11 2 13
21 10 2 12
22 10 2 12
247 47 294
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
70 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
54 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LEVEL: 23
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
71 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
55 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects N
LEVEL: 24
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
72 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
56 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects ROOF
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
N
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
73 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
57 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects EAST-WEST SECTION 1 PARALLEL TO FREEWAY 134
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

LOBBY SUPPORT

COMMERCIAL PARKING

RESIDENTIAL PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM LEGEND
74 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
58 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects EAST-WEST SECTION 2 PARALLEL TO FREEWAY 134
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

LOBBY SUPPORT

COMMERCIAL PARKING

RESIDENTIAL PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM LEGEND
75 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
59 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

NORTH-SOUTH SECTION PARALLEL TO BRAND
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

LOBBY SUPPORT

COMMERCIAL PARKING

RESIDENTIAL PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM LEGEND
76 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
60 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

NORTH ELEVATION
77 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
61 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

EAST ELEVATION
2 71
2 72
3 73
78 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
62 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

SOUTH ELEVATION
4 78
79 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
63 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

WEST ELEVATION
2 75
3 76
80 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
64 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

REPRESENTATIVE UNIT PLANS
DW
W/D
WH
1 BEDROOM - TYPE 1A (610 SF)
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

LIVING BEDROOM

DW W/D WH
1 BEDROOM - TYPE 1C (635 SF)
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

LIVING BEDROOM

KITCHEN
CLOSET
WC

BEDROOM
LIVING
W/D
1 BEDROOM - TYPE 1B (620 SF)
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
DW
WH

KITCHEN
CLOSET
WC

BEDROOM LIVING
W/D
1 BEDROOM - TYPE 1D (670 SF)
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
DW
WH
1 BEDROOM - TYPE 1A (610 SF)
1 BEDROOM - TYPE 1C (635 SF)
1 BEDROOM - TYPE 1B (620 SF)
1 BEDROOM - TYPE 1D (670 SF)
81 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
65 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

REPRESENTATIVE UNIT PLANS
CLOSET
WC

BEDROOM
LIVING
W/D
DW
WH
1 BEDROOM - TYPE 1E (990 SF)
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

KITCHEN
1 BEDROOM - TYPE 1F (1,022 SF)
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

KITCHEN
CLOSET
WC

BEDROOM
LIVING
W/D
DW
WH
1 BEDROOM - TYPE 1E (990 SF) 1 BEDROOM - TYPE 1F (1,022 SF) 82 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
66 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

REPRESENTATIVE UNIT PLANS
CLOSET

BEDROOM
2 BEDROOM - TYPE 2A (950 SF)
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

KITCHEN
CLOSET
WC

BEDROOM LIVING
W/D
DW

WH CLOSET

BEDROOM
2 BEDROOM - TYPE 2B (1,022 SF)
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"

KITCHEN
CLOSET
WC

BEDROOM LIVING
W/D
DW
WH
2 BEDROOM - TYPE 2A (950 SF) 2 BEDROOM - TYPE 2B (1,022 SF) CLOSET
WC

BEDROOM
LIVING
W/D
DW
WH

KITCHEN

BEDROOM
CLOSET
WC
2 BEDROOM - TYPE 2C (1,430 SF)
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 BEDROOM - TYPE 2C (1,430 SF)
83 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
67 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

WINDOW LOCATION
84 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
68 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects CONC-1
CONC-2
CONC-3
CONC-4
CONC-5
GL-1
GL-2
GL-3
GL-4
GL-5
GL-6
GL-7

DETAILED OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS - EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS

NATURAL GRAY POURED CONCRETE

WITH LIGHT ACID WASH

POURED CONCRETE WITH SILICA

CARBIDE, DAVIS COLOR LIGHT GRAY
(IRON OXIDE) 8060, AND LIGHT ACID
POURED CONCRETE WITH WHITE AGGREGATE, DAVIS COLOR LIGHT GRAY (IRON OXIDE) 8060, AND LIGHT ACID
PRE-CAST CONCRETE PAVER BY STEPSTONE, FRENCH GRAY, 1404, WITH

SLAG AND LIGHT SANDBLAST

POLISHED, POURED CONCRETE WITH
80% SMALL WHITE AGGREGATE, 20%

SMALL BLACK AGGREGATE, AND DAVIS
COLOR LIGHT GRAY (IRON OXIDE) 8060

SPANDREL GLASS TO MATCH
PT-1 (WHITE)

SPANDREL GLASS TO MATCH
PT-2 (LIGHT BLUE)

SPANDREL GLASS TO MATCH
PT-3 (MEDIUM BLUE)
SPANDREL GLASS TO MATCH PT-4 (MEDIUM GRAY TO MATCH CLEAR GLASS) 1” THICK, DOUBLE-PANED, CLEAR VISION

GLASS (WINDOW WALL THROUGHOUT)
½” THICK, TEMPERED, SINGLE-PANED CLEAR

VISION GLASS (GLASS GUARDRAILS)

THICK, LAMINATED, CLEAR VISION
GLASS (ARCHITECTURAL “SCREEN”

AT WEST LOBBY ENTRANCE)
MTL-1
MTL-2
MTL-3
MTL-4
MTL-5
MTL-6
METAL CLADDING PANELS, LOUVERS, MULLIONS, OR FLASHING TO MATCH PT-1 (WHITE)

METAL CLADDING PANELS AND LOUVERS TO
MATCH PT-2 (LIGHT BLUE)

METAL CLADDING PANELS AND LOUVERS TO
MATCH PT-3 (MEDIUM BLUE)
METAL CLADDING PANELS TO MATCH PT-4
(MEDIUM GRAY TO MATCH CLEAR GLASS)

METAL WINDOW WALL MULLIONS AND

LOUVERS (CLEAR ANODIZED - SILVER)
METAL WINDOW WALL MULLIONS, LOUVERS, STEEL WINDOW/DOOR FRAMES,

PLANTER BOXES (MEDIUM BRONZE)
WD-4
WD-3
WD-2
WD-1
ST-2
ST-1 2 CM THICK, HONED, PORTO BEIGE LIMESTONE (EXTERIOR CLADDING AT BASE) 2 CM THICK, STATUARY WHITE POLISHED

MARBLE (INTERIOR CLADDING AT LOBBY
2 ½” DEEP X 1 ½” WIDE POPLAR CEILING GRILLE BY MADRID WITH WHITE 2 ½” DEEP X 1 ½” WIDE POPLAR CEILING

AND WALL GRILLE BY MADRID WITH WAL-
¾” THICK STAINED TEAK (INTERIOR

BLEACHER)
1 ½” THICK NATURAL IPE (EXTERIOR STAIR/

BLEACHER AND ROOF DECK)
PL-1
GWB-1
APL-1
APL-2
PERMA-FLEX STUCCO GRADE ACRYLIC FINISH WITH SMOOTH FINISH BY LA HABRA, CRYSTAL WHITE X-50 (79) BASE 100
PAINTED GYPSUM WALL BOARD WITH LEVEL 5 FINISH AND PT-1 (WHITE) NATURAL LAWN PET & PLAY ARTIFICIAL 82

OZ TURF BY TURF TEK (EXTERIOR DOG RUN
ARTIFICIAL GREEN WALL BY VISTAFOLIA (LOBBY INTERIOR)
PT-1
PT-2
PT-3
PT-4
DUNN EDWARDS DE W384, SNOWFLAKE, LRV 80 (WHITE)
DUNN EDWARDS DE 5863, SAIL TO
THE SEA, LRV 49 (LIGHT BLUE)
DUNN EDWARDS DE T586, PACIFIC
BLUES, LRV 17 (MEDIUM BLUE)
DUNN EDWARDS DE 6348, DRAW YOUR
SWORD, LRV 16 (MEDIUM GRAY TO MATCH
85 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
69 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 94 LONG TERM

BIKE STORAGE

MECH MECH

ELEV LOBBY

RECEPTION DESK
TRASH

VEHICULAR

ENTRANCE / EXIT

STORAGE
STOR
LOUNGE
LOUNGE
BREAK
ROOM
OFFICE

OFFICE JAN
WC

MAIL ROOM
LOBBY
STOR
WC

LOBBY DESIGN PLAN
WD-3 CONC-5
PT-1
PT-1 PT-1
PT-1
PT-1
PT-1
PT-1
PL-1
GWB-1
PL-1
WD-2 WD-1 WD-1

LOBBY REFLECTED CEILING PLAN
86 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
70 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

EAST ELEVATION
2 71
2 72
3 73
87 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
71 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects MTL-3
GL-6
GL-5
MTL-5
MTL-1
MTL-2
ST-1
1 71
5 2
6 1
77 77
77 77
1 ENLARGED SECTION
71 @SWIMMING POOL
2 ENLARGED ELEVATION
88 of 2287
71 @SWIMMING POOL

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
72 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects MTL-3
MTL-1
MTL-1
OPEN TO GAOPEN TO GAMTL-2
GL-5
GL-6
MTL-5
WD-4
1 72
4 77
3 77
2 ENLARGED ELEVATION
72 @EAST LOBBY ENTRANCE
1 ENLARGED SECTION
72 @EAST LOBBY ENTRANCE
ST-1
89 of 2287
73 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LUCIA PARK
606 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
GL-2
GL-3
GL-1
GL-5
MTL-1
MTL-3
1 73
2 73
1 ENLARGED SECTION
73 @METAL PANEL & VISION GLASS
2 ENLARGED SECTION
@METAL PANEL & VISION GLASS &

OPERABLE WINDOW
73 3 ENLARGED ELEVATION
90 of 2287
73 @EAST ELEVATION

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
74 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

WEST ELEVATION
2 75
3 76
91 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
75 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 1 ENLARGED SECTION
75 @WEST LOBBY ENTRANCE ARCHITECTURAL SCREEN
MTL-1
MTL-6
MTL-1
GL-7
GL-5
MTL-5
GL-5
MTL-1
1 75
3 77
2 ENLARGED ELEVATION
@WEST LOBBY ENTRANCE

ARCHITECTURAL SCREEN
92 of 2287
75 LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
76 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 1 ENLARGED SECTION
@METAL PANEL & SPANDREL

GLASS & VISION GLASS
76 2 ENLARGED SECTION
@METAL PANEL & SPANDREL GLASS &

VISION GLASS & OPERABLE WINDOW
76 3 ENLARGED ELEVATION
76 @WEST ELEVATION
GL-4
MTL-1
MTL-5
GL-5
2 76
1 76
93 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
77 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

SOUTH ELEVATION
4 78
94 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
78 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 1 ENLARGED SECTION
@METAL PANEL & VISION
GLASS
78 2 ENLARGED SECTION
@METAL PANEL & VISION

GLASS & OPERABLE
WINDOW
78 3 ENLARGED SECTION
78 @METAL PANEL & SPANDREL GLASS
MTL-1
GL-5
GL-4
GL-2
GL-1
3 78
2 78
1 78
4 ENLARGED ELEVATION
78 @SOUTH ELEVATION
95 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
79 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 6 GUARDRAIL
79 @TOPPING SLAB
5 GUARDRAIL
79 @IPE DECKING
4 GUARDRAIL
79 @ARTIFICIAL GRASS
3"
[76.20]
1'‐0"
[304.80]
1 2"
[12.70]
4"
[101.60]
4"
[101.60]
1 7
16"
[35.80]
1 3
16"
[30.00]
1 7
16"
[35.80]
15 16"
[23.10]
15 16"
[23.10]
1 3
16"
[30.00]
2'‐0"
[609.60]
115
16"[50.00]x11516"[50.00]x18"[3.00]
thick steel hollow
"[3.00]thick steel plate
1 9
16"[40.00]x1 916"[40.00]x18"[3.00]
thick steel angle
"[3.00]thick steel plate
Drawn By :

Checked By :
‐
Drawing No :

Scale:

Rev:

Drawing Title
D13a
Lucia Park
Project name :

Structural engineer :

Architect Of Record :

Main contractor :

SIZE: A1
‐
‐
16:11 25OCT2021 AA X:\BIDDING PROJECT\TEPCO‐LUCIA PARK, CA\SHOP DWGS\TENDER DWGS\DWGS\D13A_‐.DWG Authorized:

This document and the disclosures therein are
submitted with the mutual understanding and
agreement that the recipient will not disclose the
same to others, nor reproduce nor manufacture
using this document or the information
contained therein without prior writen
authorization by Pure Facades Inc. and further
that all rights to this document details therein are
the exclusive and confidential property of Pure
Facades Inc.,Pure Facades Inc. will not be
responsible for any errors and or work that
occurs from the use of these drawings by other
trades.

Key Plan
Owner :

Cimmarusti Holding
Signature:

Notes
Do not take measurements directly from this
drawing.

Check and verify dimensions on site.

Read this drawing in conjunction with the
specifications & all other related drawings.

Latest print date:
‐
‐
2021‐OCT‐25
www.PureFacades.com
Design Architect :

John Friedman Alice Kimn
Architects
Patents Pending
‐
Metal panel
@1'‐0" deep white louvers
Metal panel 1
@2'‐0" deep light and medium bule column covers
2 Pure FacadesPure FacadesPure Facades
3"
[76.20]
1'‐0"
[304.80]
1 2"
[12.70]
4"
[101.60]
4"
[101.60]
1 7
16"
[35.80]
1 3
16"
[30.00]
1 7
16"
[35.80]
15 16"
[23.10]
15 16"
[23.10]
1 3
16"
[30.00]
2'‐0"
[609.60]
115
16"[50.00]x11516"[50.00]x18"[3.00]
thick steel hollow
"[3.00]thick steel plate
1 9
16"[40.00]x1 916"[40.00]x18"[3.00]
thick steel angle
"[3.00]thick steel plate
Drawn By :

Checked By :
‐
Drawing No :

Scale:

Rev:

Drawing Title
D13a
Lucia Park
Project name :

Structural engineer :

Architect Of Record :

Main contractor :

SIZE: A1
‐
‐
16:11 25OCT2021 AA X:\BIDDING PROJECT\TEPCO‐LUCIA PARK, CA\SHOP DWGS\TENDER DWGS\DWGS\D13A_‐.DWG Authorized:

Key Plan
Owner :

Cimmarusti Holding
Signature:

Notes
Do not take measurements directly from this
drawing.

Check and verify dimensions on site.

Read this drawing in conjunction with the
specifications & all other related drawings.

Latest print date:
‐
‐
2021‐OCT‐25
www.PureFacades.com
Design Architect :

COLUMN COVERS
79 1 METAL PANEL
79 @2’-6” DIAMETER SEMICIRCULAR COLUMN COVERS
1 4"
[6.00]
5 316"
[131.60]
4"
[101.60]
15 16"
[24.00]
3"
[76.20]
11 2"
[38.10]
11 2"
[38.10]
5 16"
[8.00]
3 4"
[19.10]
9 16"
[15.00]
1 4"
[6.00]
11 16"
[18.10]
3 8"
[10.00]
11 2"
[38.10]
11 2"
[38.10]
5 16"
[8.00]
3 4"
[19.10]
9 16"
[15.00]
1 4"
[6.00]
11 16"
[18.10]
3 8"
[10.00]
R1'‐3"
[R381.00]
5 16"
[8.00]
1 4"
[6.00]
5 316"
[131.60]
4"
[101.60]
15 16"
[24.00]
Drawn By :

Checked By :
‐
Drawing No :

Scale:

Rev:

Drawing Title
D13b
Lucia Park
Project name :

Structural engineer :

Architect Of Record :

Main contractor :

SIZE: A1
‐
‐
16:12 25OCT2021 AA X:\BIDDING PROJECT\TEPCO‐LUCIA PARK, CA\SHOP DWGS\TENDER DWGS\DWGS\D13B_‐.DWG Authorized:

Key Plan
Owner :

Cimmarusti Holding
Signature:

Notes
Do not take measurements directly from this
drawing.

Check and verify dimensions on site.

Read this drawing in conjunction with the
specifications & all other related drawings.

Latest print date:
‐
‐
2021‐OCT‐25
www.PureFacades.com
Design Architect :

John Friedman Alice Kimn
Architects
Patents Pending
‐
Metal panel
@2'‐6" diameter semicircular column covers
1 Pure FacadesPure FacadesPure Facades
96 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
80 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects Draw
Chec
‐
Draw
Dra
3D
Lu
Proj
Stru
Arc
Ma
‐
‐
This
subm
agre
same
using
conta
auth
that
the e
Faca
respo
occu
trade
Key
Ow
Cim
Sub
No
Do
dr
Ch
Re
sp
Lat
‐
www
Des
Jo
A
Pate
3D View Details
@sill & head transom @slab cover
3 3D View Details
@sill transom
4 3D View Details
@split mullion & slab cover
1 3D View Details
@split mullion
2 Pure FacadesPure FacadesPure Facades
Drawn By :

Checked By :
‐
Drawing No :

Drawing Title
3D.07
Lucia Park
Project name
Structural en
Architect Of
Main contrac
‐
‐
This document an
submitted with th
agreement that th
same to others, n
using this docume
contained therein
authorization by P
that all rights to t
the exclusive and
Facades Inc.,Pure
responsible for an
occurs from the u
trades.

Key Plan
Owner :

Cimmarusti
Submittal Inf
Notes
Do not take me
drawing.

Check and verif
Read this draw
specifications &
Latest print d
‐
202
www.PureFaca
Design Archi
John Fried
Architects
Patents Pending
3D View Details
@sill & head transom @slab cover
3 3D View Details
@sill transom
4 3D View Details
@split mullion & slab cover
1 3D View Details
@split mullion
2 Pure FacadesPure FacadesPure Facades
Drawn By :

Checked By :
‐
Drawing No :

Scale:

Rev:

Drawing Title
3D.10
Lucia Park
Project name :

Structural engineer :

Architect Of Record :

Main contractor :

SIZE: A1
‐
‐
16:07 25OCT2021 ADMINISTRATOR X:\BIDDING PROJECT\TEPCO‐LUCIA PARK, CA\SHOP DWGS\TENDER DWGS\DWGS\3D.10_‐.DWG Authorized:

Key Plan
Owner :

Cimmarusti Holding
Signature:

Submittal Information
Notes
Do not take measurements directly from this
drawing.

Check and verify dimensions on site.

Read this drawing in conjunction with the
specifications & all other related drawings.

Latest print date:
‐
‐
2021‐OCT‐25
www.PureFacades.com
Design Architect :

John Friedman Alice Kimn
Architects
Patents Pending
3D View Details
@split mullion & metal panel @intermediate transom
1 3D View Details
@split mullion & metal panel @spandrel
2 Pure FacadesPure FacadesPure Facades
Draw
Chec
‐
Draw
Dra
3D
Lu
Proj
Stru
Arc
Ma
‐
‐
This
subm
agre
same
using
conta
auth
that
the e
Faca
respo
occu
trade
Key
Ow
Cim
Sub
No
Do
dr
Ch
Re
sp
Lat
‐
www
Des
Jo
A
Pate
3D View Details
@sill & head transom @slab cover
3 3D View Details
@sill transom
4 3D View Details
@split mullion & slab cover
1 3D View Details
@split mullion
2 Pure FacadesPure FacadesPure Facades
Drawn By :

Checked By :
‐
Drawing No :

Key Plan
Owner :

Cimmarusti
Submittal Inf
Notes
Do not take me
drawing.

Checked By :
‐
Drawing No :

Scale:

Rev:

Drawing Title
3D.08
Lucia Park
Project name :

Structural engineer :

Architect Of Record :

Main contractor :

SIZE: A1
‐
‐
16:07 25OCT2021 ADMINISTRATOR X:\BIDDING PROJECT\TEPCO‐LUCIA PARK, CA\SHOP DWGS\TENDER DWGS\DWGS\3D.08_‐.DWG Authorized:

Key Plan
Owner :

Cimmarusti Holding
Signature:

Submittal Information
Notes
Do not take measurements directly from this
drawing.

Check and verify dimensions on site.

Read this drawing in conjunction with the
specifications & all other related drawings.

Latest print date:
‐
‐
2021‐OCT‐25
www.PureFacades.com
Design Architect :

John Friedman Alice Kimn
Architects
Patents Pending
3D View Details
@split mullion @sash
1 3D View Details
@intermediate transom @top of sash
2 3D View Details
@split mullion @intermediate transom @spandrel
3 Pure FacadesPure FacadesPure Facades
MTL-1
GL-5
MTL-1
GL-1
GL-3
GL-5
2 3D VIEW DETAILS
80 @ SILL TRANSOM
6 3D VIEW DETAILS
80 @ SPLIT MULLION
3 3D VIEW DETAILS
80 @ SILL & HEAD TRANSOM @ SLAB COVER
4 3D VIEW DETAILS
80 @ INTERMEDIATE TRANSOM @ TOP OF SASH
5 3D VIEW DETAILS
80 @ SPLIT MULLION @ SASH
1 3D VIEW DETAILS
@ SPLIT MULLION @ INTERMEDIATE TRANSOM
@ SPANDREL
80 7 3D VIEW DETAILS
80 @ SPLIT MULLION & SLAB COVER
9 3D VIEW DETAILS 8 3D VIEW DETAILS
@ SPLIT MULLION & ,METAL PANEL @ INTERMEDIATE @ SPLIT MULLION & ,METAL PANEL @ SPANDREL

TRANSOM
80 80
GL-1
GL-5
MTL-1
GL-5
GL-1
MTL-1
GL-1
GL-4
MTL-1
97 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
81 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects F-1 : Pedestrian Pole Light
Bega Pole Light Luminaire 84120
F-2 : Bollard Erco Castor Bollard
F-3 : Palm Tree Uplight Stella LED
F-4 : Tree Uplight
B-K Lighting Delta Star
F-5 : In-grade Mini Uplight F-X Luminaire VO
F-6 : Step Light
Bega Wall Luminaire
F-7 : Sconce Louis Poulsen Flindt Sconce
F-8: LED Strip Light
F-9 : Small Landscape Bollard Louis Poulsen Flindt Bollard

OUTDOOR LIGHTING PLANS
98 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
82 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects F-1 : Pedestrian Pole Light
Bega Pole Light Luminaire 84120
F-2 : Bollard Erco Castor Bollard
F-3 : Palm Tree Uplight Stella LED
F-4 : Tree Uplight
B-K Lighting Delta Star
F-5 : In-grade Mini Uplight F-X Luminaire VO
F-6 : Step Light
Bega Wall Luminaire
F-7 : Sconce Louis Poulsen Flindt Sconce
F-8: LED Strip Light
F-9 : Small Landscape Bollard Louis Poulsen Flindt Bollard F-1 : Pedestrian Pole Light
Bega Pole Light Luminaire 84120
F-2 : Bollard Erco Castor Bollard
F-3 : Palm Tree Uplight Stella LED
F-5 : In-grade Mini Uplight F-X Luminaire VO
F-6 : Step Light
Bega Wall Luminaire
F-7 : Sconce Louis Poulsen Flindt Sconce
F-8: LED Strip Light
F-3 : Palm Tree Uplight Stella LED
F-4 : Tree Uplight
B-K Lighting Delta Star

OUTDOOR LIGHTING PLANS
99 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
83 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects F-1 : Pedestrian Pole Light
Bega Pole Light Luminaire 84120
F-2 : Bollard Erco Castor Bollard
F-5 : In-grade Mini Uplight F-X Luminaire VO
F-6 : Step Light
Bega Wall Luminaire
F-2 : Bollard Erco Castor Bollard
F-3 : Palm Tree Uplight Stella LED
F-4 : Tree Uplight
B-K Lighting Delta Star

OUTDOOR LIGHTING PLANS
100 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
84 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects F-1 : Pedestrian Pole Light
Bega Pole Light Luminaire 84120
F-2 : Bollard Erco Castor Bollard
F-3 : Palm Tree Uplight Stella LED
F-4 : Tree Uplight
B-K Lighting Delta Star
F-5 : In-grade Mini Uplight F-X Luminaire VO
F-6 : Step Light
Bega Wall Luminaire
F-7 : Sconce Louis Poulsen Flindt Sconce
F-8: LED Strip Light
F-9 : Small Landscape Bollard Louis Poulsen Flindt Bollard F-1 : Pedestrian Pole Light
Bega Pole Light Luminaire 84120
F-2 : Bollard Erco Castor Bollard
F-3 : Palm Tree Uplight Stella LED
F-5 : In-grade Mini Uplight F-X Luminaire VO
F-6 : Step Light
Bega Wall Luminaire
F-7 : Sconce Louis Poulsen Flindt Sconce
F-8: LED Strip Light
F-3 : Palm Tree Uplight Stella LED
F-4 : Tree Uplight
B-K Lighting Delta Star

OUTDOOR LIGHTING PLANS
101 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
85 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects Fluorescent Strip in between Wood Slats
Brichwood Lighting WP System
L-1:

Indoor Round Can
Cooper Industries Portfolio 6” Round Can
L-2:

Indoor Recessed Light
Focal Point Seem 4 Perimeter
L-4:

Indoor Track Light
Lightoiler OmniSpot LED
L-5:

Indoor Recessed Light
Focal Point Seem 4 Recessed LED Strip Light
L-6: Indoor Pendant Light
DMF Lighting DDC Modern Cylinder System
L-3:

LOBBY LIGHTING PLAN
102 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
86 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LANDSCAPE PLAN - GROUND LEVEL

REQUIRED LANDSCAPE
(DSP 5.4.1)
25% OF REQUIRED PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN
SPACE
= 6,376 x 25%
= 1,594 SQFT

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE
= 1,595 SQFT

REQUIRED SHADE TREES
= 10

PROVIDED SHADE TREES
= 10
MAX 25% OF LANDSCAPING

IN PLANTERS
= 1,595 x 25%
= 399 SQFT

PROVIDED PLANTING

IN PLANTERS
= 136 SQFT
103 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
87 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LANDSCAPE PLAN - LEVEL 4

REQUIRED LANDSCAPE

OF COMMON OPEN SPACE
(DSP 5.5.D.1)
= 34,633 x 20%
= 6,927 SQFT

PROVIDE LANDSCAPE
= 7,064 SQFT

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE
ON
LEVEL 4 COMMON OPEN

SPACE (NORTH EAST)
TOTAL : 1,970 SQFT

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE
ON LEVEL 4 PRIVATE

OPEN SPACE (SOUTH
WEST)
TOTAL: 702 SQFT
104 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
88 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects LANDSCAPE PLANS - LEVELS (5, 6,
7, 17, 19, 21)

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE ON
LEVEL 5 COMMON OPEN SPACE
TOTAL : 180 SQFT

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE ON
LEVEL 6 COMMON OPEN SPACE
TOTAL : 67 SQFT

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE ON
LEVEL 7 COMMON OPEN SPACE
TOTAL : 67 SQFT

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE ON
LEVEL 17 COMMON OPEN SPACE
TOTAL : 141 SQFT

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE ON
LEVEL 19 COMMON OPEN SPACE
TOTAL : 330 SQFT

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE ON
LEVEL 21 COMMON OPEN SPACE
TOTAL : 141 SQFT
105 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
89 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects

LANDSCAPE PLANS

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE ON
LEVEL 23 COMMON

OPEN SPACE
TOTAL : 2,800 SQFT

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE ON
LEVEL 24 COMMON OPEN SPACE
TOTAL : 242 SQFT
106 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
90 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects TYP. PLAZA TREE PLANTER SECTION
TYP. STL. PLANTER SECTION - LEVEL 4 & ROOF
TYP. STL. PLANTER SECTION LEVEL 4-21 TYP. STL. PLANTER W/ BENCH TYP. TREE PLANTER DETAIL

PLANTER SECTIONS & DETAILS
107 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
91 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 106'-10"
207'
20'-9"
28' 179'
89'-6"
126'-3"
20'-3"
32'-1 1/4"
11'-4"

OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
open space
108 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
92 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 83'
7'
83'
28' 21' 40'

REQUIRED OPEN SPACE
(DSP 5.3.2)
=63,760 x 20%
= 12,752 SQFT

PROVIDED OPEN SPACE
=15,844 SQFT

REQUIRED PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN
SPACE
(DSP 5.3.2)
= 12,752 x 50%
= 6,376 SQFT

PROVIDED PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN
SPACE
= 6,994 SQFT
PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM publicly accessible open space landscape
E
H
J
C
F
A
D
G
B
open space open space
LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
publicly accessible open space
109 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
93 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 89'
39' 1 1/4"
178'
7'
32'-1 1/4"
88'
A
B
C
D
E
F
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
LEVEL 17
LEVEL 19
LEVEL 21
LEVEL 23
LEVEL 24
TOTAL

TOTAL(SF)
6,034
18,941
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
41,625

COMMON(SF)
6,034
11,949
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
34,633

PRIVATE (SF)
-
6,992
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,992

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED- - 41,160

RESIDENTIAL COMMON AND

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” residential common open space
open space open space landscape
residential common open space
110 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
94 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 44'
73'
4'
115'
32' 43'
71'-6" 38'-8" 18'-9"
7' 40' 20'
9'
17' 32'
55' 14'-5"
17'
126'
20'
62'
47'-6"
51'
109'-6"
14'-2"
B A
E
F
G
J
K
D
C
H
L
M
N
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
10 9
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
LEVEL 17
LEVEL 19
LEVEL 21
LEVEL 23
LEVEL 24
TOTAL

TOTAL(SF)
6,034
18,941
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
41,625

COMMON(SF)
6,034
11,949
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
34,633

PRIVATE (SF)
-
6,992
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,992

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED- - 41,160

RESIDENTIAL COMMON AND

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
residential common open space SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
residential private open space landscape
residential common open space
residential private open space
(DSP 5.3.3)
140 SF PER UNIT - 294 UNITS
140 X 294 = 41,160

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE
ON
LEVEL 4 COMMON OPEN

SPACE (NORTH EAST)
TOTAL : 1,970 SQFT

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE
ON LEVEL 4 PRIVATE

OPEN SPACE (SOUTH
WEST)
111 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
95 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 20'
66'
A
B
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
LEVEL 17
LEVEL 19
LEVEL 21
LEVEL 23
LEVEL 24
TOTAL

TOTAL(SF)
6,034
18,941
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
41,625

COMMON(SF)
6,034
11,949
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
34,633

PRIVATE (SF)
-
6,992
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,992

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED- - 41,160

RESIDENTIAL COMMON AND

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
landscape
residential common open space residential common open space (DSP 5.3.3)
140 SF PER UNIT - 294 UNITS
140 X 294 = 41,160
112 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
96 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 12'-6"
35' A
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
LEVEL 17
LEVEL 19
LEVEL 21
LEVEL 23
LEVEL 24
TOTAL

TOTAL(SF)
6,034
18,941
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
41,625

COMMON(SF)
6,034
11,949
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
34,633

PRIVATE (SF)
-
6,992
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,992

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED- - 41,160

RESIDENTIAL COMMON AND

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” residential common open space residential common open space landscape
(DSP 5.3.3)
140 SF PER UNIT - 294 UNITS
140 X 294 = 41,160
113 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
97 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 29'-3"
12'-6"
A
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
LEVEL 17
LEVEL 19
LEVEL 21
LEVEL 23
LEVEL 24
TOTAL

TOTAL(SF)
6,034
18,941
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
41,625

COMMON(SF)
6,034
11,949
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
34,633

PRIVATE (SF)
-
6,992
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,992

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED- - 41,160

RESIDENTIAL COMMON AND

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” residential common open space residential common open space landscape
(DSP 5.3.3)
140 SF PER UNIT - 294 UNITS
140 X 294 = 41,160
114 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
98 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 29'-3"
25'
A
B
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
LEVEL 17
LEVEL 19
LEVEL 21
LEVEL 23
LEVEL 24
TOTAL

TOTAL(SF)
6,034
18,941
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
41,625

COMMON(SF)
6,034
11,949
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
34,633

PRIVATE (SF)
-
6,992
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,992

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED- - 41,160

RESIDENTIAL COMMON AND

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” residential common open space residential common open space landscape
(DSP 5.3.3)
140 SF PER UNIT - 294 UNITS
140 X 294 = 41,160
115 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
99 Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects 34'-6"
25'
50'
28'-9"
A
C
D
B
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
LEVEL 17
LEVEL 19
LEVEL 21
LEVEL 23
LEVEL 24
TOTAL

TOTAL(SF)
6,034
18,941
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
41,625

COMMON(SF)
6,034
11,949
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
34,633

PRIVATE (SF)
-
6,992
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,992

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED- - 41,160

RESIDENTIAL COMMON AND

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” residential common open space residential common open space landscape
(DSP 5.3.3)
140 SF PER UNIT - 294 UNITS
140 X 294 = 41,160
116 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
100
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects
29'-6"
25'
A
B
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
LEVEL 17
LEVEL 19
LEVEL 21
LEVEL 23
LEVEL 24
TOTAL

TOTAL(SF)
6,034
18,941
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
41,625

COMMON(SF)
6,034
11,949
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
34,633

PRIVATE (SF)
-
6,992
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,992

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED- - 41,160

RESIDENTIAL COMMON AND

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
residential common open space SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” residential common open space landscape
(DSP 5.3.3)
140 SF PER UNIT - 294 UNITS
140 X 294 = 41,160
117 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
101
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects
35'-3"
111'
35'
9'-6
6'
9'
65'
8'-4"
11'
19'
23'
10'-6"
11'
34'
29'
25' 87'-6"
35'
111'-6"
C
A
D
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
O
E
B
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
LEVEL 17
LEVEL 19
LEVEL 21
LEVEL 23
LEVEL 24
TOTAL

TOTAL(SF)
6,034
18,941
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
41,625

COMMON(SF)
6,034
11,949
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
34,633

PRIVATE (SF)
-
6,992
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,992

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED- - 41,160
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE OF COMMON OPEN SPACE
(DSP 5.5.D.1)
= 34,633 x 20%
= 6,927 SQFT

PROVIDE LANDSCAPE
= 7,064 SQFT

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE ON
LEVEL 23 COMMON OPEN SPACE
A - 14 SQFT
B - 457 SQFT
C - 221 SQFT
D - 382.5 SQFT
E - 14 SQFT
F - 302 SQFT
G - 14 SQFT
H - 195 SQFT
J - 14 SQFT
K - 329 SQFT
L - 14 SQFT
M - 14 SQFT
N - 426.5 SQFT
O - 403 SQFT
TOTAL : 2,800 SQFT

RESIDENTIAL COMMON AND

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
residential common open space SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” residential common open space landscape
(DSP 5.3.3)
140 SF PER UNIT - 294 UNITS
140 X 294 = 41,160
118 of 2287

LUCIA PARK
625 N. MARYLAND AVE, GLENDALE, CA

STAGE II DESIGN REVIEW
102
Copyright © 2019 John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects
35'-3"
50'
A
B
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
LEVEL 17
LEVEL 19
LEVEL 21
LEVEL 23
LEVEL 24
TOTAL

TOTAL(SF)
6,034
18,941
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
41,625

COMMON(SF)
6,034
11,949
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
34,633

PRIVATE (SF)
-
6,992
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,992

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE
REQUIRED- - 41,160

RESIDENTIAL COMMON AND

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”

LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
residential common open space SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0” residential common open space landscape
(DSP 5.3.3)
140 SF PER UNIT - 294 UNITS
140 X 294 = 41,160
119 of 2287

Page 1 of 20 ends

CITY OF GLENDALE

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
To: City Council
From: Vilia Zemaitaitis, Principal Planner
Jay Platt, Principal Urban Designer
Date: June 14, 2022
Re: Stage II Final Design Review Case No. PDR 2119308
620 N. Brand Boulevard & 625 N. Maryland Avenue
The following comments are an evaluation of the above project in regards to the design standards, policies and intentions of the updated Downtown Specific Plan, based on drawings prepared by John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects, dated June 14, 2022.

Summary comments are provided on the final page of this memo.

General Project Description
The Stage II project proposal consists of the maintenance of the existing six-story commercial bank/office building at 620 N. Brand Boulevard, the demolition of the twolevel parking garage and attached commercial building to the rear along Maryland Avenue, and the construction of a new 24-story (only 22 habitable stories), approximately 266-foot tall, 294-unit multi-family residential development (Project) fronting on Maryland Avenue with a total of 502 parking spaces for both the commercial and residential uses and a significant publicly accessible open space courtyard/plaza fronting Brand Boulevard. The 1.48 acre (64,600 square feet) project site is located in the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Gateway District.

A previous project consisting of an approximately 350-foot tall, 348-unit multi-family residential development with a total of 621 parking spaces for both the commercial and residential uses in a subterranean and above-grade parking garage was reviewed by City Council as a Stage I Preliminary Review on January 21, 2020. The proposed design would have produced one of the most striking and tallest new buildings on the downtown skyline, with swooping curved elements and architectural features. Council voted to approve the preliminary design with the following comments:

1. That the applicant shall reduce the overall height of the building by relocating the above-grade residential parking below-grade (subterranean).

3. That the applicant shall consider revising the design of the Project to better reflect the Midcentury Modern aesthetic of the adjacent commercial building onsite.

The current has been designed to address the above conditions; all of the residential parking has been relocated below grade, detailed information has been provided for the high-quality, human-scale materials, and the design has modified to focus more on rectilinear forms and building lines.

EXHIBIT 2
120 of 2287

Page 2 of 20 ends

Context and Zoning (DSP Gateway District)
The project site consists of nine adjoining parcels – four fronting Brand Boulevard and five fronting Maryland Avenue. It currently features a six-story commercial bank/office building facing Brand Boulevard (Chase Bank/Coldwell Banker) and a two-story, 163-space parking structure with an attached two-story, 12,156 square-foot commercial building fronting Maryland Avenue. The six-story office building will be maintained, while the parking structure and small, attached commercial building will be demolished. The parking spaces for the commercial bank/office building will be replaced within the Project’s new subterranean garage.

The site is bordered by Brand Boulevard to the west, the 134 Freeway to the north, Maryland Avenue to the east, and a six-story commercial office building and adjacent surface parking lot to the south (north of Doran Street). Across Maryland Avenue to the east is a three-story parking structure and across Doran Street to the south is a 19-story office building and associated parking structure. The surrounding properties fronting Brand Boulevard are zoned DSP-Gateway and could be developed with buildings up to 275 feet high and with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 7.25 by right, and ultimately up to 380 feet and with an FAR of 7.5 through the DSP Community Benefit program. The blockface across Maryland Avenue (between Maryland Place and Doran Street) is also zoned DSP-Gateway, while the other side of the same block, facing Louise Street, is zoned R1250 (High Density Residential).

LAND USE – DSP Chapter 3
Located at the northern portion of the Downtown Specific Plan area, the Gateway district features the most visibly noted skyline of Downtown Glendale. Characterized by high-rise development, the district is home to numerous corporate headquarters and businesses whose multi-storied towers are visible from the various viewpoints throughout the city and the 134 Freeway. The focus for the area is the continued promotion and location of corporate headquarters, hotels, mixed-use and residential buildings, and complementary/accessory service and retail businesses at the street level, as well as the introduction of appropriate night-time entertainment uses.

The proposed multi-family residential project is permitted by right in the DSP Gateway District and is appropriately sited in the Downtown, adjacent to various employment centers, commercial amenities and major city thoroughfares, including the 134 Freeway.

SITE PLANNING – DSP Chapter 4.1 Urban Design
Overall Site Plan – The site plan is driven by the retention of the existing, six-story bank building on the north-west corner of the project site and the Project’s compliance with the additional publicly accessible open space requirement for properties adjacent to Brand Boulevard. As a result, the proposed building occupies the remaining east half of the site, with frontage on Maryland Avenue. The new structure is placed behind the main façade of the existing bank building, maintaining views of the iconic main façade along Brand Boulevard. The existing, landscaped open space around the bank building 121 of 2287

Page 3 of 20 ends

will also be maintained while the current surface parking lot south of the bank building will be converted to an approximately 88-ft. by 83-ft. publicly accessible open space plaza (6,994 SF total or 11% of the project site area) that, when the adjacent landscaped area in front of the bank building and the other perimeter areas is included, brings the open space total to 15,844 SF or 24.8% of the project site. The existing parking garage at the rear will be replaced by the new multi-story residential tower, with vehicular access from Maryland Avenue to the parking garage. Pedestrian access to the ground-floor residential lobby from Brand Boulevard will be through the publicly accessible open space on one side and with direct pedestrian access from Maryland on the other. Meanwhile, along the north side, the building will be set back four feet which allows a well-landscaped pedestrian walkway to run along the entire length, connecting Brand Boulevard to Maryland Avenue. The three-story podium of the new building will be set back approximately 30 feet from the rear façade of 625 N. Brand and the upper residential floors, beginning at the fourth floor, will be set back by approximately 47.5 feet. Meanwhile, the decorative screen of the Brand façade entry is approximately 20 feet and the podium approximately 33 to 34 feet from the rear façade of 600 N. Brand, and approximately 80 feet above the fourth floor. The site plans showing these dimensions can be found on sheets 38-42 of the plan packet.

4.1.1. Historic Preservation / Adaptive Reuse – The project itself does not include a “Rehabilitation of a historic resource” (DSP 4.1.1.A) or a “Reuse of older buildings that are not historic resources” (DSP 4.1.1.B), and therefore, this DSP section does not apply.

4.1.2 Building Heights & Floor Area Ratios
DSP Standards
Gateway District Project Design
Height (by right) 275 FT 266 FT
Height (Community Benefit
program – Chapter 7) 380 FT --
Density (by right) 7.25 FAR 7.25 FAR
Density (Community Benefit
program – Chapter 7) 7.50 FAR --
As noted in the table, the proposed project is approximately 266 feet high with a

7.25 FAR, which is permitted by right in the Gateway District.

4.1.3 Building Setbacks
The project site features a “Primary Frontage” designation along Brand Boulevard and a Mixed-Use Residential designation along Maryland Avenue.

Projects in the DSP located along a “Primary Frontage” must comply with the Brand Boulevard Streetscape Plan, and those along “Mixed-Use Residential” streets are required to have a minimum 16-foot setback from the curb face (5-ft. 122 of 2287

Page 4 of 20 ends

parkway, 8-ft. sidewalk, 3-ft. average building adjacent zone). The project complies with the required streetscape standards on both frontages.

4.1.4 Publicly Accessible Open Space
The project provides the required publicly accessible open space within a substantially-sized entry courtyard/plaza fronting Brand Boulevard. The publicly accessible open space is 100% open to the sky, oriented towards and accessed from a public street, and integrated within the site plan for the project. The programming of the publicly accessible open space plaza includes amenities, water feature, hardscape, and landscaping. This area is described in greater detail in the Open Space section of this staff report on pages 14-16.

BUILDING DESIGN – DSP Chapter 4.2 Urban Design
Overall Building Design – The Project is a contemporary high-rise whose building design focuses on off-set geometric volumes, tripartite sections, rectilinear design elements, gridded fenestration patterns, and contemporary materials to create a modern structure that fits within its urban context and the Downtown skyline. Given the height of the proposed 266-foot Project, the DSP section on “Tall Buildings” applies. The regulations in that subsection focus on creating well-designed taller buildings that serve as landmarks in the urban fabric and add to the Downtown civic pride. Additionally, as noted in the DSP, taller, narrower buildings can create opportunities for additional open space at the street level, as is the case for this particular Project with its large open plaza fronting Brand Boulevard. A detailed analysis of the project’s architectural elements (materials, entries, canopies, etc.) is provided below.

4.2.1 Massing & Scale: Tall Buildings
The massing of the proposed 24-story, 262.5-foot high project is consistent with the surrounding development in the Gateway District, which includes high-rises interspersed with lower scale development in three directions (north, west and south) and complies with the DSP’s by-right height limit and the various Tall Building standards in this subsection:

A. The building is a tall, slender tower that has been designed on a northsouth axis to enhance the skyline without blocking significant views from other buildings along Brand Boulevard.

B. The bulk of the building is reduced through the articulation of the building massing and building facades using stepped floor plates at required intervals, tripartite divisions across the longer facades, changes in colored metal panel frames within the overall fenestration pattern, and other such architectural devices as described in subsequent comments below.

C. The building floorplates above the 200-foot height are reduced in area by 15%; after the 19th floor (197 feet in height) the floorplan is constricted on the north and south ends, thereby tapering the size of the floorplate by the required 15%, while additional step-backs on the upper floors for outdoor decks provide further tapering of the structure. This narrowing of the 123 of 2287

Page 5 of 20 ends

building form as the structure rises helps to reduce the overall massing of the Project.

D. The high-rise facades comply with this code subsection in that a substantial modulation is provided every 150 feet; the tower features offset volumes that are each less than 150 feet in length, connected at the vertical circulation core, creating a zigzagged floorplate between the north and south half of each floor. This is best seen in the floor plans for levels 5 – 24 and in the aerial perspective drawings (not readily apparent in the building elevation plans).

E. View opportunities are integrated into the massing of new development at appropriate locations on the various common open space decks on the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 17, 19th, 21st, 23rd, and 24th levels.

F. Lighting has been designed to consider safety on the ground level for pedestrian walkways and common open spaces, as well as to reduce glare to surrounding properties. See Lighting Section 4.2.22 below.

G. This subsection, requiring that new buildings respond to the scale and placement of design features of earlier buildings adjacent to them in order to improve the consistency of scale on the street, is specifically intended for when buildings are directly adjacent to one another. In that case, a street wall is formed and the concept of reflecting existing patterns, such as ground-floor heights, window patterns, colonnades, and material palettes, at an infill façade becomes important. The project block does not have any consistent pattern or even street front setback. With the new building set back over 140 feet from the street front property line, design consistency along the street wall is not an issue.

H. The building facade is set back further from the street than the existing adjacent buildings, and the connection between the new construction and adjacent buildings has been designed to minimize dark corners and blank walls and create a continuous, attractive, pedestrian environment, given the design of the publicly accessible open space plaza along Brand (as described in further detail in Section 5.4.1 of this memo) and the landscaped residential open space that fills the approximately 30-foot wide separation between the bank building and the podium of the new building to the east.

I. The rooftop design, with its tall, rectangular trellis structures that create open rooftop terraces shaded by photovoltaic panels, results in a building profile and “roofline” that is recognizable and distinct. These two tall, open loggias (one on each of the east and west building sides) not only provide an appropriate architectural termination for the building, but also help screen the rooftop mechanical equipment and elevator overruns.

J. This subsection calls for new construction to result in “landmark buildings.” The project site is quite prominent, especially due to its visibility from Brand and the 134 Freeway. The Project’s design features several elements to accomplish this, including: the division of the building form between two slender offset volumes; the vertical and horizontal articulation of the facades; the quality cladding materials and use of color; and the vertical fins at the base designed to reflect the historic Home Savings 124 of 2287

Page 6 of 20 ends

building. The large trellis structure at the roof will undoubtedly be the building’s most distinctive feature and help fulfill this goal of the DSP.

K. This subsection, calling for taller buildings to step down to meet the height of lower adjacent buildings at the street wall, does not apply to the Project for reasons similar to those discussed in Subsection G above. The intent of this section is to guide designs of buildings that share a street wall with existing buildings. This is not the case at the subject property and no stepping of the building mass or alignment of adjoining cornices is required.

L. This subsection does not apply since the new development is not adjacent to low-rise residential uses. Nevertheless, the project, with its three story podium base 16 feet from the curb and the additional, minimum 20-foot setback above, helps provide an appropriate transition to the parking structure across Maryland and the lower scale neighborhood to the west.

M. The high-rise massing above 60 feet fronting Maryland Avenue is stepped back the required minimum of 20 feet; the podium level is 60 feet high, above which is the 4th floor amenity deck.

N. Existing views of the mountains and other local landmarks from nearby buildings have been preserved to the extent feasible.

4.2.2 Massing & Scale: Modulation of Height
The regulations in this subsection apply to the typical five- and six-story, Type V construction developments previously built in the DSP Transitional District along Central Avenue, though the overall intent of the Modulation of Height standards are met by the high-rise Project. The project incorporates framing elements, the loggias, which rise above the residential finished floors, adding visual interest to the skyline and creating variation in height that visually demarcates where the building silhouette meets the sky.

4.2.3 Massing & Scale: Façade Modulation
While the regulations in this subsection are geared towards the typical five- and six-story, Type V construction developments previously built in the DSP, the overall intent of the Façade Modulation standards are met by this high-rise Project. The Project complies with Standards A.2 of this DSP section in that the massing of the building is divided into three basic volumes, both vertically and horizontally. Vertically, the project features a classic tripartite division: base, middle and top. Composed of the lobby and the two commercial parking levels, the three-story podium, which extends the entire length of the project site from north to south, is the rectangular base. Above this, Levels 4 – 22 act as the middle, while the tall, open-air rooftop terraces (“loggias”) and photovoltaic panels serve as the crowning top to the structure. The tripartite divisions are somewhat less pronounced horizontally: the west and east elevations feature two, expansive, grid-patterned sections, composed of vision glass and blue and white metal panels set within white frames, that are set off from a completely different central volume - a window wall of gray-tinted vision glass and gray 125 of 2287

Page 7 of 20 ends

spandrel glass that will read as one uniform surface. This same gray-on-gray treatment is used at levels 4 and 5 to differentiate the base podium from the shaft of the main middle above.

4.2.4 Massing & Scale: Building Separations
Again, the regulations in this subsection are geared towards the typical five- and six-story, Type V construction developments in the DSP Transitional District greater than 250 feet of façade length to provide building separation to reduce the scale of the project, provide opportunities for open space areas, reinforce a pedestrian scale and provide visual reference to building entrances. Therefore, the standards outlined in this section are not applicable to the Project, which does not have any façade length greater than 250 feet. Nevertheless, the project’s sense of mass is reduced by its offset building forms, the tapering-off of its height at the north and south at the upper floors, changes in planes and materials, and the significant setback from Brand Boulevard behind the front plaza.

4.2.5 Massing & Scale: Transitional Massing
The standards outlined in this section of the DSP are not applicable to the proposal because the project site does not directly abut a residentially zoned property.

4.2.6 Massing & Scale: Landmark Architectural Features
The standards outlined in this section are not applicable to the proposal because while the north-west corner of the project site is identified as an entry location (primary intersection) in DSP Figure 4-D, no changes are proposed to the existing building at this “entry location”. The project retains the former Home Savings & Loan tower, which will continue to anchor its corner as it has since its completion in 1969, when it was the first tall building built at the northern edge of downtown Glendale and served as a marker of the city’s growing downtown for drivers on the then-new Ventura Freeway.

4.2.7 Architectural Elements
DSP Section 4.2.7 requires that buildings use architectural solutions to avoid unarticulated building facades, that facades appear substantial, high quality, that ground level parking not be visible at the street level, that ground level facades be interesting and integrated with the streetscape, that large expanses of glass be subdivided into smaller units and window tops and bases be differentiated, that ground level floors are architecturally separated from above, that landscaping be used to augment the base of the building and enhance the pedestrian experience.
126 of 2287

Page 8 of 20 ends

The project incorporates a number of architectural elements and design features that create a design that is unique and identifiable, while recognizing the priorities of the DSP.

The ground floor is primarily clad in glass and limestone for a more transparent, pedestrian-oriented feel, as recommended by the DSP. The podium levels above features vertical fins screening the two levels of commercial parking that are intended to reflect, but not mimic, the vertical ribs between the window bays of the former Home Savings building. They also serve to screen the parked cars and provide passive ventilation for the garage. The podium base is also punctuated by three architectural elements: a two-story high frame facing Maryland with deep blue louvers that screens the 4th floor community room and 3rd floor commercial parking; a one-story high element that wraps the pool with deep, angled metal louvers; and an unframed screen of vertically-oriented lights and wood toned louvers facing the plaza on Brand. These elements and materials help to differentiate the base from the tower above and provide visual interest at a more pedestrian level.

At the Stage I hearing, City Council directed the project team to redesign the building to make it more compatible with the design of the former Home Savings building. This has been accomplished in several ways. As noted above, the vertical fins used at the podium echo the masonry fins that are a key feature of the older building. This will be especially apparent to those using the Brand plaza and common space areas. While not mimicking the historic design, the proposed fins will allow for a visual dialogue between the buildings’ eras while establishing a harmonious design for people using this space. The overall form of the building is also more rectilinear that was seen in the Stage I proposal, with all of the curved elements removed from the design. Instead, there is an emphasis on the interplay of horizontal and vertical elements that abstractly captures some of the older building’s features. The vertical expression of the podium’s fins is carried upward by the vertical portions of the window grids and the columns of the rooftop trellis structure, with the spacing (and therefore visual density) of the verticals widening at each section. This references the use of evenly spaced verticals of the Home Savings building without mimicking them on the new building, which would be historically inappropriate. In addition, the curtain wall sections of the new building also recall the scale-less aspect of the older building’s window bays, whereas the rooftop trellis structure can be seen as an “abstracted take on the tall frieze band at the top of the former Home Savings”.

Staff believes the new design successfully meets Council’s goal of making the proposal more compatible with the historic building than was the case at Stage I review.

The tower above the podium appears as two offset rectangular building volumes, whose longer west and east elevations feature a gridded window pattern that is contrasted at the central volume by more monolithic curtain wall cladding. The gridded façade sections feature white frames and horizontally and verticallyoriented rectangular blue panels around the window openings. The window-wall 127 of 2287

Page 9 of 20 ends

facades feature have a more uniform appearance, with gray-tinted windows and matching spandrel glass panels. The two highest roof levels are surmounted by tall metal trellis structures with a white finish that allows them to visually integrate with the white fin at the podium and the vertical portions of the white-gridded walls of the residential floors. These structures will also serve as the armature for photovoltaic panels. Meanwhile, the narrower north and south elevations feature the same patterning as on the elongated tower facades, allowing all the wall treatments to successfully wrap each building volume in a manner that provides a consist and unified overall design.

The Design Review Board, at its advisory review of the Project on January 13, 2022, upheld staff’s recommended condition regarding architectural detailing which has been included for Council’s consideration:

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.

4.2.8 Architectural Elements: Materials
DSP Section 4.2.8 requires that durable, human-scaled materials to be used on all street level facades, especially within the first 20 feet of the building base, and that no more than 60% of the building elevation be clad with EIFS or stucco above street level (minimum 20 feet). Furthermore, building facades must use architectural solutions and contrasting colors to avoid creation of impenetrable, unarticulated building facades with monotone color palettes. Further, facades shall be constructed in a manner to appear substantial and avoid low-quality building materials and construction details.

Detailed information on construction material and details, including material junctions, are provided in the Stage II project packet (see Sheets 64 to 76). The base is primarily clad in glass and limestone panels, with colored metal fins screening the commercial parking levels above. Materials in the middle sections include vision glass and a combination of blue (light blue and dark blue) and white metal panels that are used to form a grid pattern, while the central volume consists of vision glass and spandrel panels colored to match the glass as much as possible. All balcony rails are to be tempered glass, while the white, rooftop trellis frame will be metal. The applicant asserts that the “materials have been selected for their quality, durability, and consistency”. No EIFS or stucco is proposed at the base or upper floors, conforming the DSP standards.

The Design Review Board, at its advisory review of the Project on January 13, 2022, upheld staff’s recommended condition regarding materials which has been included for Council’s consideration:

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. 128 of 2287

Page 10 of 20 ends

The Historic Preservation Commission, at its advisory review of the Project on January 20, 2022, recommended the following condition which has been included for Council’s consideration:

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.

4.2.9 Architectural Elements: Storefronts – Not applicable for the residential Project.

4.2.10 Architectural Elements: Building Lobbies & Entries DSP Section 4.2.10 requires building lobbies to include design features that provide weather protection and create visual prominence such as canopies or marquees. Material application must create continuity with building design but also create a distinct and identifiable aesthetic quality. Furthermore, a recess or projection should delineate this lobby feature from the remainder of the building.

The pedestrian lobby entry facing Brand is highlighted by the architectural, unframed screen element of lights and wooden louvers, while the lobby entry on the opposite side fronting Maryland is identifiable by the expansive glass opening below the two-story, framed, louvered element, and Lucia Park signage. The ground floor residential lobby is accessed from Brand Boulevard through the publicly accessible open space plaza that is visible from and connected to the public street. The lobby is also readily accessible from Maryland Avenue, which is actually the primary façade for residents and users of the building given its street adjacency, its vehicular access to the parking garage, and its street addressing. As already noted, both lobby elevations feature architectural frames that distinctly mark and provide visual interest to the glazed lobbies’ entrances.

Furthermore, the two lobby walls feature a great deal of glass, allowing visibility through the lobby from the Brand plaza to Maryland Avenue.

4.2.11 Architectural Elements: Stoops & Ground Level Residential Entries – No residential units are proposed on the ground floor, so not applicable.

4.2.12 Architectural Elements: Corners – Not applicable.

4.2.13 Architectural Elements: Canopies
The DSP requires a minimum of 50% of the street facade of a project include canopies or marquees. Canopies shall be installed between 9 ft. and 14 ft. above grade and the materials and colors used shall be complimentary with the building aesthetic.

The design incorporates architectural marquees/canopies at the ground floor on the street-facing Maryland Avenue façade that complement the overall building aesthetic and material palette. Canopies are proposed along the majority of this façade, and are approximately 12 feet above grade.
129 of 2287

Page 11 of 20 ends

4.2.14 Architectural Elements: Balconies – Not applicable. No balconies proposed.

4.2.15 Architectural Elements: Fenestration
DSP Section 4.2.15 requires a variety of window sizes to create visual complexity and reflect different internal uses. Unarticulated glass curtain walls should be avoided and instead windows should be divided into individual storefronts and glazing subdivided into smaller units with differentiation provided at the base and top of windows.

The window design of the project features a variety of window types and patterns. The lobby and lower levels of the “middle” portion of the building (versus the podium level and crowing loggias/trellises) features expansive glazing / vision glass. The middle portion above utilizes essentially two sizes of tripartite window systems that are juxtaposed within a grid pattern of colored metal panels. The slight offset of the window systems within the patterned, colored frames result in a more activated, playful expression than what a typical stacked window pattern would provide; this composition is one of the more striking features of the façade design and it is imperative that it not be lost due to any value engineering during the plan check process. Meanwhile, the colored, patterned grid design is counterbalanced by the darker, vertical curtain walls composed of stacked gray vision glass and matching metal panels Staff recommended a condition of approval for DRB’s consideration that gray spandrel glass be considered 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; this condition was actually already incorporated in the design.

4.2.16 Architectural Elements: Fences, Walls and Gates – Not applicable

4.2.17 Architectural Elements: Planters
Planter regulations within the DSP include 18-in. maximum height requirements within 10 feet of the street facing property line, a minimum depth of 12 inches to encourage seating and a limitation that planters not exceed 25% of all project landscaping within the publicly accessible open space. All planters must also have a minimum area of 24” by 24” by 24” in order to count towards the required landscaping calculations.

The landscape plans show primarily at-grade landscaping as part of the open space plaza design and landscaping within containers/landscape planters for the landscaping on the upper decks and patios. Approximately 91% of the landscaping in the PAOS plaza is provided at grade, far surpassing the DSP maximum of 25% of the required landscaping in the publicly accessible courtyard may be provided in planters. The project also complies with the DSP code standards that specifies that planters at the ground level shall not exceed a height of 18 inches within the first 10 feet of any street property line, including 130 of 2287

Page 12 of 20 ends

along Maryland Avenue. The planters within the open space decks above grade shall meet the minimum soil area.

4.2.18 Architectural Elements: Arcades – Not applicable.

4.2.19 Architectural Elements: Porte-Cocheres – Not applicable.

4.2.20 Architectural Elements: Garage Entries
Per the DSP standards, with the exception of parking entries, no ground level parking shall be visible from any street frontage and any ground level parking shall have active retail or other habitable uses facing the sidewalk. Garage entries shall be integrated into the overall building design, while not detracting from the streetscape and pedestrian realm. Furthermore, garage entries located on the street shall conform to the following standards:
a. Utilities shall not be visible from the street frontage. Projects shall provide screening, dropped ceilings, or locate utilities away from areas visible from the pedestrian level.
b. Garage doors or gates shall be setback from the face of the building. c. A unique or enhanced paving pattern shall be provided on the driveway, equal to the width of the garage entry to create visual separation and acknowledge potential conflicts with other modes of transportation.
d. The width of the garage opening shall be as narrow as possible.

While the pedestrian access to the building’s main lobby is through the publicly accessible courtyard/plaza fronting Brand, with another entry facing Maryland, vehicular access to the parking garage is solely from Maryland Avenue.

The proposed project provides a total of 129 spaces in the two above-ground levels for the existing commercial building to remain on site (replacement parking) and 373 parking spaces for the residential use proposed on the site within four subterranean levels. These levels are best seen in the cross-section plans featured on Sheets 57-59.

Access to the parking is provided from Maryland Avenue via two two-way driveways – one leading to the residential parking below grade and one leading to the commercial parking above grade. Aside from the valet staging area on the ground floor accessed from the southerly driveway, there is no parking at-grade and no parking visible from the adjacent street frontages, in compliance with the DSP. The commercial parking on Levels 2 and 3 are wrapped with architectural screening featuring louvers, so as to not be visible from any of the adjacent public rights-of-way; the residential parking is fully subterranean, as conditioned by City Council as part of the Stage I Preliminary design review. 131 of 2287

Page 13 of 20 ends

The Design Review Board, at its advisory review of the Project on January 13, 2022, upheld staff’s recommended conditions regarding garage entries and screening which have been included for Council’s consideration:
o 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.
o Provide an appropriate metal mesh behind the louvers on the second and third levels so as to better screen the commercial parking.

The Historic Preservation Commission, at its advisory review of the Project on January 20, 2022, recommended the following condition which has been included for Council’s consideration:

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

4.2.21 Architectural Elements: Utilities
The DSP requires that the electrical transformer rooms be screened and incorporated into the building to provide the visual appearance of a storefront. All utilities will be required to comply with the standards outlined in this section. The electrical transformer is proposed within the main body of the building. The electrical substation transformer room and doorway to the utility room front Maryland Avenue, and are proposed to be screened with limestone and glazed paneling to match the rest of the easterly façade. All backflow preventers and utility-oriented equipment will need to be appropriately screened and designed in compliance with the standards of this section.

4.2.22 Architectural Elements: Lighting
The DSP specifies the following: pedestrian-scaled lighting is required on all storefronts; lighting shall be directed away from surrounding development and shielded to minimize spillover on adjacent properties; and significant architectural features such as corners or unique cornices should be illuminated and enhanced by a comprehensive lighting design.

Detailed lighting specifications and plans are included in the Stage II project packet (see sheets 81-85). Building and open-space design feature a diversity in lighting, including building uplighting, pathway lighting, and lighting that activates gathering areas. The comprehensive lighting palette includes pedestrian pole lighting, bollard lighting, tree uplights, sconces, step lights, in-grade uplights and small landscape bollards. The scale of the lighting has been designed to fit the context and project. The Stage II packet also includes lighting details for the interior lobby (sheet 85).

Given the signature treatment at the top of the building and its visibility from all directions, there is a prime opportunity to utilize lighting in such a way as to highlight the trellis/loggia’s horizontal elements and not just the columns as 132 of 2287

Page 14 of 20 ends

shown in the nighttime rendering. The Design Review Board upheld staff’s recommended condition of approval that the Project shall 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.

4.2.23 Architectural Elements: Signage
This section of the DSP outlines standards related to signage to enhance the pedestrian experiences along commercial streetscapes. Additionally, signs are regulated by the Zoning Code, and all signage will be required to comply with Chapter 30.33 of the Glendale Municipal Code. Due to the multi-family residential scope of the proposal, a sign program is not required for the Project.

THE PEDESTRIAN REALM – DSP Chapter 4.3 Urban Design
The project site is a dual-frontage lot with frontage on a “Primary Street” (Brand Boulevard), and a “Mixed-Use Residential Street” (Maryland Avenue). The development is required to comply with the standards outlined in this Chapter of the DSP, which focus on improvements to the public right-of-way to enhance the pedestrian experience.

Necessary improvements to the public right-of-way will be reviewed in detail by the Public Works Department if the Project is approved. Improvements will include widened sidewalks to comply with the setback requirements in Section 4.1.3, new sidewalk paving and parkway improvements that encourage live plant material and street trees.

4.3.1 Primary Street
The northerly half of Brand Boulevard, the City’s primary north-south street, is identified as having a Primary Street Frontage. Brand Boulevard is one of the City’s widest streets with a landscaped center median with street trees, fourlanes of vehicular traffic in each direction, and a substantial public right-of-way setback. Brand is also one of the City’s signature, pedestrian-oriented streets, lined with active, ground floor commercial uses (retail, restaurants and services).

New infill development must uphold this pedestrian orientation and shopping experience.

4.3.3 Mixed-Use Residential Street
Maryland Street is classified as a Mixed-Use Residential Street, and features a narrower street width and public right-of-way, and will feature the secondary elevation of the new development. The parkway design is depicted on the site plan, in compliance with the following Mixed-Use Residential Street standards:
• All parkways shall be a minimum width of 5 feet from face of curb and shall provide a 4-foot-wide paved area every 20 feet to allow for unloading of vehicles.
• Sidewalks shall be a minimum 8 feet wide with no overlapping use by urban amenities such as café seating, trash receptacles and signage. 133 of 2287

Page 15 of 20 ends

• The building adjacent zone shall be an average 3 feet in depth and used for landscaping or commercial uses.
• All landscaped areas shall contain a combination of low, medium and tall plant materials appropriate for an interesting and effective landscape. • The ground floor of the building frontage shall be a minimum of 12 feet in height and a maximum of 16 feet.

OPEN SPACE – DSP Chapter 5

5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 Open Space Requirements
For developments that are 100% residential and have an FAR greater than 3.0, the DSP requires 20% of the gross site area to be open space, with 10% of the gross site area to be dedicated as publicly accessible open space (50% of required open space). An additional 140 SF of residential open space is required per residential unit (can be provided as publicly accessible open space, common open space or private open space).

The project exceeds the minimum required amount of residential open space (140 SF per unit), and this does not include the various enclosed community rooms proposed on the 4th level. A total of 34,633 SF is provided in the form of common open space throughout the project, both at grade and within various decks and rooftop terraces, as well as 6,992 SF in the form of private balconies.

Please see Section 5.5 below for more detail.,
The submitted plan packet includes detailed landscape plans that show the programming of the publicly accessible plaza and open space on the ground floor, 134 of 2287

Page 16 of 20 ends

and the common open space decks on Levels 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 19, 21, 23 and 24. As required by the DSP, 25 % of the publicly accessible open space plaza is landscaped and over 20% of the common open space areas are landscaped. All landscaping is drought tolerant and specifically designed to complement the Project.

5.4.1 Publicly Accessible Open Space - Courtyards & Plazas This DSP code section requires residential projects over 3.0 FAR to provide 10% of the site area as publicly accessible open space. The subject site is 63,760 square feet in area and, therefore, requires 6,376 square feet of open space. The project provides 6,994 square feet of the required publicly accessible open space (PAOS) within a large entry courtyard/plaza fronting Brand Boulevard (see Sheet 87). This area is surrounded by additional open space that includes the landscaped street front setback between the existing bank building, as well as the residential common open space (6,034 SF) at the ground floor adjacent to the front of the new building facing Brand Boulevard, as well as between the two buildings.

The cumulative effect of all of these areas (15,844 SF) results in a much larger publicly accessible open space fronting Brand Boulevard.

The publicly accessible open space complies with the DSP’s open space standards:
• Open to the sky;
• Fully accessible on one or two sides;
• Located at the sidewalk level;
• Include a special feature such as public art, a water feature or specimen tree;
• Include large canopy trees (1 tree per 600 SF minimum); • Provide landscaping primarily at grade (minimum 25% of open space with maximum 25% in raised planters);
• Feature pedestrian scaled lighting, signage and wayfinding, seating, waste receptacles, etc.

The programming of plaza includes outdoor seating, a gateway element and water feature that help camouflage an exit stair from the residential subterranean garage below, and a trellis structure that extends towards new building and around the back of the bank building, resulting in useable, shaded open space between the existing and new buildings. The area also includes decorative hardscape and drought tolerant landscaping (including required shade trees). The site planning includes a required fire lane for GFD access to the building from Brand Boulevard that is to be used only in emergency situations and will be closed at all other times; this area has been incorporated into the open space and can feature movable furniture and planters. The programming of ground floor open space can be seen in the submitted landscape plans on Sheet 86.
135 of 2287

Page 17 of 20 ends

The Design Review Board, at its advisory review of the Project on January 13, 2022, recommended the following condition which has been included for Council’s consideration:

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.

The Historic Preservation Commission, at its advisory review of the Project on January 20, 2022, recommended the following conditions which has been included for Council’s consideration:
• 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.
• Provide shade trees rather than palms at the landscaped plaza.

5.4.2 Paseos – Not applicable.

5.5 Residential Development Open Space.

The project exceeds the DSP’s residential development open space standard of 140 SF per unit (41,160 minimum). The project provides a total of 41,625 SF (0.96 acres) of residential open space in the form of both private open space within balconies and common open space, which include at-grade plaza area and open decks of various sizes located on Levels 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 19, 21, 23 and 24. The two largest decks are on Levels 4 (pool deck of 11,949 SF) and 23 (rooftop terrace of 9,118 SF). Amenities include an outdoor pool, dog park, tables and seating furniture, bar-b-ques, fire pits, landscape planters (some with shade trees) and other features for the residents. As required by the DSP, over 20% of the common open space areas are landscaped.

5.6 Public Art Program
Development in the DSP is required to include on-site public art, equal to 2% of project value, subject to review by the Arts & Culture Commission and approval by the City Council, or payment of an amount equivalent to 1% of project value to the City’s Urban Art Fund. The applicant will be paying the in lieu fee.

MOBILITY – DSP Chapter 6 Mobility
The DSP designates Brand Boulevard as a Transit Priority Street and a Vehicular Priority Street. Brand Boulevard is designated Signature Streets due to its unique identity as Glendale’s “Main” street. The Transit Streets give first priority to moving transit, even at the expense of some loss of performance for auto traffic, while Primary Transit Streets give first priority to moving automobile traffic and will greatly resemble the existing definition of a primary arterial street in Glendale. Brand 136 of 2287

Page 18 of 20 ends

Boulevard is identified as one of the multi-function streets, given its designation as both Primary Transit and Primary Auto. Balancing the needs of different modes of transportation as they compete for limited space on this street is crucial, and a rational, practical method of compromise should be established whereby the net gain for the community can be maximized while the net impact on different modes and context can be minimized. Consistent with these designations, the main building entrance for pedestrians is essentially centered on the front façade through the publicly accessible open space plaza, while the vehicle entrance is located off Maryland Place and not on Brand Boulevard. The landscaped, publicly accessible open space patio proposed along Brand further enhances the pedestrian experience along this Signature Street.

6.3 Mobility Standards
The project addresses key points outlined in the DRB Chapter 6.3 Mobility Standards and Guidelines:
• The Project provides ample public bicycle storage, especially near commercial areas, transit hubs and large employers (6.3.3.B). • The Project provides the minimum of long-term and short term bicycle parking, per GMC 30.32.171.C, as located between the existing bank building and the new development.

COMMUNITY BENEFITS – DSP Chapter 7
Projects in the DSP Gateway District may utilize the Community Benefits Program to increase the permitted height from 275 feet to 380 feet, and the FAR from 7.25 to

7.50. Unlike the previous Stage I Preliminary proposal, the current Stage II Project is not utilizing the “Tiered Community Benefit” Incentive permitted by Section 7.3 of the DSP. The prior proposal, as a qualified Tier III project, was entitled to the maximum height and FAR in the Gateway District (380 feet and 7.5 FAR), and had requested an increase of height to 350 feet. The current residential Project is completely codecompliant with the by-right standards for the DSP Gateway District, with a proposed overall height of 266 feet and an FAR of 7.25.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Density Bonus – GMC 30.36
The applicant is not seeking a density bonus under Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”) Section 30.36 for the Stage II Final Design Review submittal.

Inclusionary Housing – GMC 30.35
As outlined in the proposed Development Agreement, the project will be required to comply with the Inclusionary Housing ordinance, as described in GMC 30.35. 137 of 2287

Page 19 of 20 ends

SUMMARY COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATION
Aside from the issues addressed by the recommended conditions of approval, the Stage II Final Design Review submittal materials indicate that the proposed multi-family residential project is consistent with the design standards, policies and intent of the Downtown Specific Plan.

The contemporary design of the 24-story, high-rise Project fits within its urban context in the DSP’s Gateway District of taller, streamlined developments along Brand and Central, and is appropriately articulated for its highly visible location adjacent to the 134 Freeway. The Project effectively utilizes off-set building forms above the podium, stepbacks and floorplate reductions at the upper floors on the south and north ends, and changes in planes and materials, with variation in glazing and colored metal panel surrounds, to lessen the appearance of its mass and to add visual interest. The Project also exhibits the DSP-required tripartite building form with a strong sense of base, middle and top – podium base clad in high-quality, durable, human scaled materials and vertical louvers intended to echo the fins in the existing bank building; repetitive residential floors above (levels 4 – 22) feature a combination of vision and spandrel glass, and patterned white and blue metal panels; and dramatic roof trellises (open air loggias topped by photovoltaic panels) serve as the crowning top to the building. The tower element is set back about 140 feet from Brand Boulevard, to the rear of the two adjacent historic buildings with the considerable setback of the new tower from their rear facades, and also more than 20 feet from the podium edge along Maryland Avenue, thereby centering the tall massing away from the street edge. This placement allows the new building to serve as a visual backdrop to the two buildings on Brand (600 and 620 N. Brand), while also helping the older buildings retain their prominence as viewed from the street and allowing for the expression of their building volumes in relation to their new neighbor. The generously-sized, open-to-the-sky, publicly accessible open space plaza fronting Brand Boulevard in front of the building’s lobby and between the two existing buildings provides a valuable outdoor room for the residents and public in this Downtown location and relief from the street edge for the building. As detailed in the various sections above, the Project complies with the publicly accessible open space standards, the residential open space standards, the landscaping standards, and the parking standards (both for the residential units in subterranean parking levels and the commercial replacement parking for the existing bank building in above grade levels screened from view). This is a fully-by right project with no variances required/requested.

Therefore, based on staff’s review of the project documents, Planning and Urban Design Staff recommend that City Council approve the Stage II Design Review with the following conditions (first five are staff’s original conditions for DRB and the last two are ones added by the DRB on January 13, 2022):
138 of 2287

Page 20 of 20 ends

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.

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

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.
139 of 2287
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Advisory Review and Comments
Meeting Date January 13, 2022 DRB Case No. PDR No. 2119308 Address 620 N. Brand Blvd. & 625 N. Maryland
Applicant Rodney Khan, Khan Consulting
Project Summary:

The proposal consists of maintaining the six-story commercial bank/office building at 620 N.

Brand Boulevard, demolishing the two-level parking garage and adjacent commercial building to the rear along Maryland Avenue (625 N. Maryland Avenue), and constructing a new 294-unit, 24-story multi-family residential building on the easterly half of the 63,760 SF (1.48 acre) project site zoned DSP Gateway District.

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; • A sizeable, publicly accessible open space courtyard/plaza fronting Brand Boulevard; and • Residential amenity spaces and decks throughout the project.

The proposed FAR is 7.25 and the building height is 266 feet (7.25 FAR and 275 feet maximum by right). The project complies with all of the development standards and no variances are proposed. The office building at 620 N. Brand was identified as a potential historic resource in the 2019 South Glendale Historic Resources Survey and is therefore considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Design Review:

Board Member Present Absent
Minas X
Simonian X
Tchaghayan X
Welch X
EXHIBIT 3
140 of 2287
620 N. Brand Boulevard &
625 N. Maryland Avneue
“Lucia Park” Project
2 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.

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 Added by DRB

Additional Comments by the Board:
• The Board believes that City Council’s three conditions from Stage I Design Review have been addressed: residential parking has been relocated below grade, detailed information has been provided for the high-quality, human-scale materials, and the design has modified to focus more on rectilinear forms and building lines as seen on the adjacent bank building.
• DRB supports the site planning, with its generous, useable, at-grade open space and substantial setback from Brand Boulevard, as well as setbacks from the two existing buildings (600 N. Brand and 620 N. Brand).
• Open Space:
− The project has a good distribution of outdoor open space (ground level, podium deck levels, rooftop decks).
− Because the publicly accessible open space is designed as a key entry point, consideration should be given to “soften” the plaza. However, the plaza includes a required fire lane for emergency access which can only have moveable furniture and planters.
141 of 2287
620 N. Brand Boulevard &
625 N. Maryland Avneue
“Lucia Park” Project
3 − Comments made to reconsider to move pool from the north-east corner to the south-west corner.
• Circulation:
− Several board members voiced concerns regarding possible impacts to traffic and questioned whether the Public Works Engineering Division required street widening (not required) and if the project has a drop-off/pick-up area for deliveries.
− The Board suggest to explore ways to avoid potential traffic impacts on Maryland Avenue caused by delivery and rideshare services with Public Works and Planning. A recommendation was made to include a porte cochere along Maryland Avenue to address drop-offs and pick-ups while not impacting circulation, but at this time, the DSP does not permit porte cocheres along Maryland Avenue, designated a Mixed Use Residential Street. • Pedestrian Circulation:
− Consideration should be given to the access from the commercial parking garage levels to the existing building. Currently, commercial visitors and residents use the same bank of elevators. Explore separating the access points for users of the above-grade commercial parking levels from the residential lobby. • Massing & Scale
− Proposed massing and scale of the high-rise development work in this area. − The staggered building forms do a great job breaking up the mass, though suggestions were made to explore shifting the pool deck from the northeast to the southwest and adjust building masses accordingly.
• Design
− Overall, the design detailing of the project is well thought-out, the modern design is fresh, and the renderings are well-done.
− The current design appears more commercial, less residential, than the Stage I proposal, and more horizontally oriented then vertically. Board recommends to explore ways to provide upper levels of building with a more residential, rather than commercial, feel.
− The Board relinquishes detailed historic comments to the Historic Preservation Commission, though recommended a condition to cap the fins for a more consistent design language.

Staff’s Determination of Compatibility Findings from the DRB Staff Report:

Site Planning
The proposed site planning is appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The site planning for the project is driven by the existing six-story bank building at the north-west corner of the site to be maintained and the proposed publicly accessible open space courtyard/plaza along Brand Boulevard that replaces the existing surface parking 142 of 2287
620 N. Brand Boulevard &
625 N. Maryland Avneue
“Lucia Park” Project
4 lot; the new high-rise project is located on the easterly half of the dual-frontage, project site, adjacent to Maryland Avenue.
• The placement of the new building to the rear of the two nearby historic buildings and the wide setbacks between them allow each to viewed in the round even though the new building will block some visual access to the older buildings from vantage points to the east.
• Pedestrian access to the building and its ground floor lobby is provided from both streets, while the vehicular access to the project’s parking garage is only from Maryland Avenue; this creates a more pedestrian-oriented frontage along Brand, and relocates the project’s vehicular access to the secondary frontage along Maryland that faces a threelevel parking garage. • The proposed project complies with the Brand Boulevard Streetscape Plan, as well as the mixed-use residential frontage street requirements of the DSP along Maryland Avenue by providing a 5-foot parkway, 8-foot sidewalk and 3-foot building adjacent zone. • The project provides a 6,994 SF, landscaped, publicly accessible open space courtyard/plaza fronting Brand Boulevard, and a total of 15,844 SF of general open space at grade (exceeding the DSP requirements of 6,376 SF (10%) and 12,752 SF (20%), respectively).
• The project includes 41,625 SF of residential open space in the form of private balconies and common decks on various levels throughout the project, featuring a pool deck, dog park, outdoor seating decks of various sizes and a substantial rooftop deck to take in the view.
• Fully developed landscape plans show a variety of drought-tolerant landscaping (tree and shrub palette), decorative hardscape, a water feature and seating in the open space area fronting Brand Boulevard. A condition is recommended to incorporated decorative paving for the driveways along Maryland.

Massing and Scale:

The proposed massing and scale are appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The mass of the proposed 24-story, 262.5-foot high project complies with the DSP’s byright height standard, and is consistent with the surrounding development in the Gateway District, which includes high-rises interspersed with lower scale development in three directions (north, west and south). The project, with its three-story podium base 16 feet from the curb and the additional, minimum 20-foot setback above, also helps provide an appropriate transition to the lower scale neighborhood to the west. • The tower element is set back about 140 feet from Brand Boulevard, to the rear of the two adjacent historic buildings with the considerable setback of the new tower from their rear facades, and also more than 20 feet from the podium edge along Maryland Avenue, thereby centering the tall massing away from the street edge. This placement allows the new building to serve as a visual backdrop to the two buildings on Brand, while also 143 of 2287
620 N. Brand Boulevard &
625 N. Maryland Avneue
“Lucia Park” Project
5 helping the older buildings retain their prominence as viewed from the street and allowing for the expression of their building volumes in relation to their new neighbor. • The project effectively utilizes off-set building forms, step-backs, façade modulations and floorplate 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).
• The project has a strong sense of base, middle and top building components – podium base, repetitive residential floors, and dramatic roof trellises signaling the building’s termination, as required by the DSP, to further help reduce the scale of the tall building.

Design and Detailing
The proposed design and detailing are appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The contemporary design of the 24-story, high-rise project fits within its urban context in the DSP’s Gateway District of taller, streamlined developments and is appropriately articulated for its highly visible location adjacent to the 134 Freeway. • The ground floor is primarily clad in glass and limestone for a more transparent, pedestrian-oriented feel, as recommended by the DSP. The podium levels above features louvers screening the two levels of commercial parking; these louvers are intended to harken the fins of the existing bank building (while not mimicking them) and to screen the cars. This podium base is also punctuated by three architectural elements: a two-story high frame facing Maryland with deep blue louvers that screens the 4th floor community room and 3rd floor commercial parking; a one-story high element that wraps the pool with deep, angled metal louvers; and an unframed screen of vertically-oriented lights and wood toned louvers facing the publicly accessible courtyard/plaza on Brand.

The elements and materials help to differentiate the base from the tower above and provide visual interest at a more pedestrian level.
• The pedestrian lobby entry facing Brand is highlighted by the architectural, unframed screen element of lights and wooden louvers, while the lobby entry on the opposite side fronting Maryland is identifiable by the expansive glass opening below the two-story, framed, louvered element, and Lucia Park signage.
• The middle section is divided into three defined sections – two end sections, clad by vision glass framed by blue and white metal panels, with a central volume clad entirely in vision glass and matching gray metal panels. For the two end sections, the two sizes of tripartite windows systems and varying widths of the vertical panels help provide greater articulation and a sense of movement for these larger, grid-patterned expanses that would otherwise be monolithic and rigid/fixed; a condition is recommended to ensure that the proposed design is not lost when value engineered for construction. • The trellis/loggia architectural elements rising from the end volumes on the north and south are the signifying feature of the building’s top. The rectilinear forms play off the project’s rectilinear grid patterns below, while the openness adds a sense of lightness to the top of the high-rise building.

DRB Staff Member Vilia Zemaitaitis, Principal Planner 144 of 2287

Page 1 of 4 ends

CITY OF GLENDALE

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
To: City Council
From: Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Date: June 14, 2022
Re: Staff Analysis of the Historic Resource Technical Report prepared for 620 N. Brand Boulevard & 625 N. Maryland Avenue
Staff believes the Project will not have a substantial adverse impact on the Chase Bank building at 620 N. Brand Boulevard or affect its ongoing eligibility for historic designation.

The following discussion is excerpted from the staff report for the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) advisory design review hearing of January 20, 2022 in which staff provided its analysis of the information in the Teresa Grimes Historic Preservation (TGHP) Historic Resource Technical Report (“Report”).

The project applicant retained TGHP to prepare the Report to provide historical background for the former Home Savings & Loan building at 620 N. Brand and assess the Project in terms of its potential impacts to the historic building. The report finds that the Project will not have any adverse impact and that the historic resource will remain intact and eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and California Register of Historical Resources if the new building is constructed as proposed. Planning staff agrees with these findings as well as the overall methodology and reasoning provided in the Report. The key findings, broken down by topic, are summarized as follows:

Eligibility for Historic Designation (see Report, pp. 24-30) 620 N. Brand Office Building
Both the Report and the South Glendale Historic Resource Survey (“Survey”) find 620 N. Brand to be a historic resource under CEQA, though there are several differences in their specific findings. The intensive-level Report finds the building eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NR), the California Register of Historical Resources (CR), and the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (GR), whereas the reconnaissance-level Survey found it eligible only at the local level. A further difference is the Report finds the building eligible only under registration criteria A/1/1 (NR/CR/GR) as an important commercial property type that represents the growth of Glendale in the post-World War II era. The Survey found it similarly eligible at the local level under Criterion 1, but also found it eligible under Glendale designation Criterion 3 for its architectural merit. Planning staff supports that determination but also respects the Report’s reasoning for why this is not the case. For the purposes of this analysis, however, the difference is moot because a property need only meet one criterion at either the federal, state, or local level to be considered a historic resource under CEQA.

The Report does not assess the mirrored-glass building at 600 N. Brand in depth, but EXHIBIT 4
145 of 2287

Page 2 of 4 ends

supports the Survey’s finding that it is a locally eligible historic resource and indicates that its findings regarding the Home Savings building apply equally to its neighbor to the south.
620 N. Brand Garage
The Project calls for the demolition of the parking garage built in 1970, the year after the completion of the six-story bank building. While its design reflects that of the office tower, it was not identified as a character-defining feature, or even mentioned, on the DPR form produced for the Survey despite being clearly visible to the survey team from both Brand Boulevard and Maryland Avenue.1 The intensive-level Report finds that the garage is not historically significant or eligible for designation at any level. Specifically, it does not contribute to the tower’s significance as a reflection of postwar development patterns and the growth of downtown Glendale. It is seen as a typical reinforced concrete parking structure, which staff finds interesting solely for its effort to blend in with the earlier building by superficially incorporating vertical fins. This feature’s visual impact is, however, diminished in comparison to the tower by the parking structure’s two-story height. Staff agrees with the Report’s assessment, finding the garage to be a complementary addition to the site that ultimately has no role in the story the office building tells us about the commercial or architectural development of Glendale that lead to the finding that the office tower is a historic resource. 625 N. Maryland Avenue
Both the Report and the Survey identify 625 N. Maryland, which is proposed for demolition, as not historically significant. Staff agrees with this assessment.

Historic Integrity (see Report, pp. 30-32, 38-41)
For a building to be eligible for designation at the national, California, or Glendale level, it must retain historic integrity. The seven aspects of integrity identified by the National Park Service are: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A project does not need to retain all seven aspects and some are more important than others depending on the specific site and its historical meaning. The Report analyzes the Project in terms of how it may impact the integrity of 620 N. Brand using its 1969 construction date as a benchmark because the parking garage has been determined to not be historically significant in terms of the city’s postwar development or as a work of architecture. The Project was found to maintain all seven aspects, but a deeper look at the aspect of setting is provided because there will be obvious changes to the project site if the 24-story apartment building is built. Setting is defined as the “physical environment of the site.” The Report correctly differentiates between a site’s immediate and broad settings. The proposed building will clearly alter the immediate setting by creating a new backdrop when 620 N. Brand is seen from Brand Boulevard and obscuring some visibility when viewed from the east. The construction of the Home Savings building in 1969 served as something of a magnet, drawing new, even taller development to the freeway-adjacent portion of Brand Boulevard that serves as the gateway to the city’s commercial core. This led to changes to the broader setting that resulted in Glendale’s development of a skyline visible from miles away. The Project will fit into this broad setting which, perhaps ironically, was nudged into existence by the construction of Home Savings. Staff supports the Report’s findings regard historic integrity. 146 of 2287

Page 3 of 4 ends

Assessment of Project Impacts (see Report, pp. 36-42)
If the project is built as proposed, 620 N. Brand will retain all of its character-defining features and materials, its historic integrity, its existing visibility from the north, west, and south (as well as the northeast and southeast), and will remain eligible for historic designation. The Report analyzes the project under the CEQA Guidelines and related state laws and properly concludes that, “the test for determining whether or not a proposed project will have a significant impact on an identified historic resource is whether or not the project will alter in an adverse manner the integrity of the historic resource such that it would no longer be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local level.” Both the Report and staff agree that the former Home Savings building will remain eligible for designation upon completion of the Project. While the immediate setting of the building will change to some degree, this will not affect the building’s eligibility as the broader setting has changed dramatically over the years and the project represents a continuation of this pattern. The existing taller construction in the vicinity of the smaller building over the years has clearly not caused it to lose its historic meaning. Though the new building will be closer than other nearby high-rises, there will be enough breathing room around the historic building for it to continue to be understood in terms of both its architectural design and its role in the historical development of the city.

The Report also considers the Project in terms of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, particularly Rehabilitation Standard 9, noting that these help guide projects toward appropriate design solutions but are not prescriptive in nature and are not to be used as a threshold for assessing project impacts under CEQA. Standard 9 indicates that:

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 integrity of the property and its environment.

As “related new construction,” the project will not destroy any historic materials or features of the older building. It will affect spatial relationships at the east side of the property, but those at the north, west, and south, which are the most commonly experienced vantage points for 620 N. Brand, will not be significantly impacted. The building will still be seen in the round as a free-standing mid-rise tower set among similar or taller buildings. The new building will clearly be much bigger and taller than the Home Savings building, which is encouraged by the DSP and City Council’s established goals for downtown development. Changes in scale between buildings in an urban environment are inevitable and often desirable, even when historic buildings are involved.

For example, a one-story brick building directly abuts the nine-story Masonic Temple/CBRE building further south on Brand Boulevard. This reflects a historical development pattern that features a much greater disparity in height than the Project would create, but nonetheless does not preclude either building from being considered historic. This kind of juxtaposition is played out in cities worldwide. With regard to the current proposal, DRB took this aspect of the site into consideration. It found that the distances between the historic building and the new building were respectful and that the 147 of 2287

Page 4 of 4 ends

mass and scale of the new building is appropriate for this part of downtown. They also felt the use of vertical fins at the base of the new building helps establish an appropriate dialogue between the old and new buildings when experienced from the plaza level.

Conclusion
Staff finds that the Report provides a thorough and well-reasoned analysis of the relationship between the historic building and the proposed apartment building and supports its conclusion that the Project will not result in any adverse impact to historic resources.

HPC Staff Report and Attachments from the January 20, 2022 HPC Meeting available online at:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?compiledMeetingDocumentFileId=464 84 1
Historic Resources Group submitted a memo on June 2, 2022 clarifying its determination during the South Glendale Historic Resources Survey that the parking garage and surface parking lot are not historically significant components of the property. It is included as Appendix D to the Responses to Comments in the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) prepared for the project. 148 of 2287
February 2, 2022
Rodney V. Khan
Khan Consulting, Inc.

P.O. Box 816
Montrose, CA 91021
&
Adelfia Properties II, LLC (Cimmarusti Holdings, LLC)
Attn: Ralph Cimmarusti
620 N. Brand Blvd. #402
Glendale, CA 91203
RE: 620 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD AND 625 NORTH MARYLAND AVENUE

NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
STAGE II FINAL DESIGN REVIEW CASE NO. PDR 2119308
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CASE NO. PDA 1806045
Dear Sirs:

The Planning Commission of the City of Glendale, at its meeting held on February 2, 2022, conducted a public hearing on your project proposing a Development Agreement for the construction of a new 294-unit, 24-story multi-family residential building on a 63,760 square-foot (1.48 acre) project site zoned “DSP Gateway District”, described as Portions of Lots 18 and 27, and all of Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Tract No. 93 and Lot 5 of the McNutt Tract, City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles. 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.

After due consideration, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve said Development Agreement.

A copy of the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission is attached.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forward to the City Council for their consideration.

Sincerely,
Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP
Principal Planner
VZ:sm
Attachment
EXHIBIT 5
149 of 2287

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE

RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

IN CONNECTION WITH THE LUCIA PARK PROJECT
LOCATED AT 620 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD AND 625 NORTH MARYLAND AVENUE,

GLENDALE, CA

THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as follows:
a. The Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing, pursuant to the provisions of Section 30.61 of the Glendale Municipal Code, California Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091 and Chapter 3, Title 7 of the Government Code of the State of California, on February 2, 2022.
b. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on February 2, 2022. c. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered all materials, communications, public testimony, maps and exhibits of current record on said Development Agreement.

SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds and determines that the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, and that the proposed action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Specifically, said action is consistent with the following policies of the Glendale General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan:
a. Encourages a city with a wide range of housing types to meet the needs of current and future residents (Land Use Element, Residential Goal 1)
o Housing Element Policy 1.3 directs the City to provide higher density residential development in close proximity to public transportation, services and recreation. o Housing Element Policy 1.4 directs the City to continue to promote residential/mixed use development in appropriate locations.
o Housing Element Policy 1.5 encourages the development of residential units in the downtown area and along appropriate commercial corridors b. Encourage a city with high quality residential neighborhoods that are attractive and well designed (Land Use Element, Residential Goal 1).
c. Support the creation of higher density residential development in those areas best suited from the standpoint of accessibility, current development, community organization, transportation and circulation facilities and economic feasibility. (Land Use Element, Residential Goal 4) d. Encourage housing around and in commercial centers (Circulation Element, Objective 3.2) e. Concentrate growth in the downtown to relieve development pressures on existing residential neighborhoods. (Downtown Specific Plan, Purpose 1.1.10) SECTION 3. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds and determines that the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan and is in the best interests of the City and the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable State and local law requirements and recommends approval of the development agreement with the following findings:
150 of 2287
a. The development agreement is within the scope of Sustainability Communities Environmental Assessment prepared on behalf of the project and available for public comment for the required 30-day comment period from January 18 to February 17, 2022. b. The development agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan. c. The development agreement will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because it encourages the construction of a project which is desirable and beneficial to the public.
d. The development agreement complies with all applicable City and State regulations governing such agreements.
e. The development agreement is necessary to strengthen the public planning process and to reduce the public and private costs of development uncertainty.

SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission resolves the following:
a. Recommend to the City Council the approval of the Development Agreement.

Adopted this 2nd day of February, 2022.

Moved by Planning Commissioner Shahbazian, and Seconded by Planning Commissioner Fuentes, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the Development Agreement.

VOTE
Ayes: Chraghchian, Fuentes, Minassian, Shahbazian, Lee
Noes: None

Absent: None
Abstain: None

151 of 2287
DRAFT

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
for the

LUCIA PARK PROJECT
City of Glendale
Community Development Department
Planning Division
633 E. Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, CA 91206
JUNE 2022
EXHIBIT 6A
SCEA
152 of 2287
Lucia Park Project i City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................1.0-1

2.0 Project Description........................................................................................2.0-1

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria .....................................3.0-1

4.0 Initial Study Checklist ....................................................................................4.0-1

5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis....................................................5.0-1

6.0 Mitigation Monitoring Program ..........................................................................6.0-1 Appendices
A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Study
B Health Risk Assessment
C Energy Output Files
D Noise Study
E Transportation Impact Analysis
F Historic Resources Technical Report
G AB 52 Consultation Letters
H Permits and Certificates of Occupancy
I 2017–2018 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey Consultant Letter 153 of 2287
Lucia Park Project ii City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 List of Figures
Figure Page

2.0-1 Regional and Local Vicinity............................................................................2.0-2

2.0-2 Site Map, Existing Conditions .........................................................................2.0-3

2.0-3 Downtown Specific Plan Land Use and Zoning .....................................................2.0-4

2.0-4 Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................... 2.0-13

2.0-5 Proposed Project Rendering......................................................................... 2.0-14

2.0-6 Floor Plan — Levels B1-B4 ........................................................................... 2.0-15

2.0-7 Floor Plan — Level 1.................................................................................. 2.0-16

2.0-8 Floor Plan — Level 2.................................................................................. 2.0-17

2.0-9 Floor Plan — Level 3.................................................................................. 2.0-18

2.0-10 Floor Plan — Level 4.................................................................................. 2.0-19

2.0-11 Floor Plan — Level 5-13 .............................................................................. 2.0-20

2.0-12 Floor Plan — Levels 14-18 ........................................................................... 2.0-21

2.0-13 Floor Plan — Levels 19-22 ........................................................................... 2.0-22

2.0-14 Floor Plan — Level 23-Roof.......................................................................... 2.0-23

2.0-15 Sections — East-West................................................................................. 2.0-24

2.0-16 Sections — North-South .............................................................................. 2.0-25

2.0-17 Open Space Diagram ................................................................................. 2.0-30

2.0-18 Publicly Accessible Open Space and Landscape Diagram....................................... 2.0-31

2.0-19 Residential Common and Private Open Space and Landscape Diagram ...................... 2.0-32

2.0-20 North and East Elevation ............................................................................ 2.0-33

2.0-21 South and West Elevation............................................................................ 2.0-34

2.0-22 Related Projects ...................................................................................... 2.0-35

3.0-1 North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Map................................................. 3.0-11

3.0-2 SCAG 2045 Planned High Quality Transit Corridors .............................................. 3.0-12

3.0-3 Glendale Beeline Route 1............................................................................ 3.0-13

3.0-4 City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation: Future High Quality Transit Areas ............... 3.0-14

3.0-5 Existing Transit Routes in Project Site Vicinity ................................................... 3.0-15

5.1-1 Viewpoint Location Map ............................................................................. 5.0-11

5.1-2 Viewpoints 1-3 ......................................................................................... 5.0-12

5.1-3 Viewpoints 4-6 ......................................................................................... 5.0-13

5.1-4 Proposed Project Building Shadows ................................................................ 5.0-14

5.1-5 Summer Solstice Shadows ........................................................................... 5.0-15

5.1-6 Winter Solstice Shadows ............................................................................. 5.0-16 154 of 2287
Lucia Park Project iii City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 List of Tables
Table Page

2.0-1 Proposed Project Development Summary ......................................................... 2.0-12

2.0-2 Related Projects List ................................................................................. 2.0-29

3.2-1 Transit Priority Analysis ................................................................................3.0-2

3.2-2 SCAG Population Projections for the City of Glendale, Los Angeles County, and SCAG Region .................................................................................................. 3.0-10

3.3-1 Mitigation Measures from the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR Incorporated into the Proposed Project...................................................................................... 3.0-19

3.3-2 Mitigation Measures from the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR Not Incorporated into the Proposed Project................................................................................. 3.0-31

3.3-3 Mitigation Measures from the South Glendale Community Plan EIR Incorporated into the Proposed Project................................................................................. 3.0-78

3.3-4 Mitigation Measures from the South Glendale Community Plan EIR Not Incorporated into the Proposed Project................................................................................. 3.0-84

3.3-5 Mitigation Measures from Downtown Specific Plan EIR Incorporated into the Proposed Project.................................................................................................. 3.0-89

3.3-6 Mitigation Measures from Downtown Specific Plan EIR Not Incorporated into the Proposed Project...................................................................................... 3.0-97

5.3-1 Maximum Construction Emissions .................................................................. 5.0-24

5.3-2 Maximum Operational Emissions ................................................................... 5.0-25

5.3-3 Localized Construction Emissions .................................................................. 5.0-27

5.3-4 Localized Operational Emissions ................................................................... 5.0-27

5.3-5 Estimated Inhalation Cancer Risk and Chronic Hazards ........................................ 5.0-28

5.6-1 Summary of Energy Use During Construction..................................................... 5.0-66

5.6-2 Summary of Annual Energy Use During Operation ............................................... 5.0-68

5.8-1 Construction GHG Emissions ........................................................................ 5.0-81

5.8-2 Area Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................... 5.0-82

5.8-3 Energy Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................ 5.0-82

5.8-4 Mobile Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions......................................................... 5.0-83

5.8-5 Solid Waste Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................... 5.0-83

5.8-6 Water Source Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................... 5.0-84

5.8-7 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................... 5.0-84

5.8-8 Project Consistency with Greener Glendale Plan................................................ 5.0-86

5.11-1 Consistency Analysis 2020–2045 RTP/SCS ........................................................ 5.0-116

5.11-2 City of Glendale General Plan Consistency with Applicable Policies ........................ 5.0-133

5.11-3 Consistency Analysis Partially Adopted South Glendale Community Plan................... 5.0-139

5.11-4 Consistency Analysis Downtown Specific Plan................................................... 5.0-143 155 of 2287
Lucia Park Project iv City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 List of Tables (continued)
Table Page

5.13-1 Interior and Exterior Presumed Noise Standards................................................ 5.0-153

5.13-2 Ambient Noise Measurements...................................................................... 5.0-154

5.13-3 Project Construction Noise Estimates ............................................................ 5.0-157

5.13-4 Off-Site Roadway Noise Levels – Existing Plus Project ......................................... 5.0-158

5.13-5 On-Site Construction Vibration Impacts – Building Damage ................................... 5.0-163

5.13-6 Off-Site Roadway Noise Levels – Cumulative Plus Project..................................... 5.0-166

5.17-1 City of Glendale Circulation Plan Consistency Analysis ........................................ 5.0-190

5.17-2 Partially Adopted South Glendale Community Plan Consistency Analysis ................... 5.0-194

5.17-3 Downtown Specific Plan Consistency Analysis .................................................. 5.0-195

5.17-4 City Intersections Operations Criteria............................................................ 5.0-199

5.17-5 Summary of Delay Values and Levels of Service (LOS)......................................... 5.0-199

5.19-1 Estimated Water Demand........................................................................... 5.0-211

5.19-2 Projected Water Supply............................................................................. 5.0-212

5.19-3 Estimated Solid Waste Generation ................................................................ 5.0-219 156 of 2287
Lucia Park Project 1.0-1 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title: Lucia Park Project
Project Location: The Project site is located at 620 North Brand Boulevard and 625 N. Maryland Avenue within the Glendale Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Gateway District.

Project Applicant: Cimmarusti Holdings
3061 Riverside Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90039
Lead Agency: City of Glendale
Community Development Dept., Planning Division
633 E. Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, CA 91206

1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
This Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment has been prepared pursuant to Section 21155.2 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC). In 2008 the State legislature created an additional document for environmental review called a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA).

Previously, the City reviewed the environmental impacts of a project through one of three methods:
categorical exemption, negative declaration/mitigated negative declaration (ND/MND), or environmental impact report (EIR).

The subject of this SCEA is the proposed development of a residential apartment building on a 63,760- square-foot site in the City of Glendale currently developed with a two-story office building (625 N.

Maryland Avenue; “two-story office building”), containing approximately 5,297 square feet of floor area; the six-story Chase Bank office building (620 N. Brand Boulevard; “Chase Building”), containing approximately 45,125 square feet of floor area; and an associated parking structure fronting Maryland Avenue.

The proposed Project includes the proposed demolition of the existing parking structure and two-story office building and construction of a 24-story, 294-unit residential building containing 247 one-bedroom and 47 two-bedroom apartments, with a parking garage containing 502 parking spaces, including 373 parking spaces for the proposed apartments (30 parking spaces would be reserved for guests) in four levels of subterranean parking and two above-ground levels containing 129 replacement parking spaces for the Chase Building which will remain on the site. The total 502 automobile parking spaces and 115 157 of 2287

1.0 Introduction
Lucia Park Project 1.0-2 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 bicycle parking spaces (96 long term and 19 short term) would be proposed. The proposed Project has been designed to comply with the DSP and Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) standards.

The proposed Project would add a total of 417,135 square feet (sq. ft.) of new residential building at the easterly half of the Project site for a combined 462,260 sq. ft. of floor area. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the proposed Project would be 7.25, including the Chase Building which will remain.

The proposed Project would be required to provide 12,752 square feet of common open space for the Project site, 6,376 square feet of publicly accessible open space, and 1,594 square feet of landscape area. As such, 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. 41,160 square feet of residential development open space and 6,927 square feet of landscape area would also be required on-site. As such, the proposed Project would provide 41,625 square feet of residential development open space and 7,064 square feet of landscape area throughout the residential building. A number of community spaces are proposed throughout the building, including outdoor and private terraces and a pool on the fourth floor and a dog park on the fifth floor. Terraces are also proposed on the sixth, seventeenth, nineteenth, and twenty-first floors, including roof terraces on the twenty-third and twenty-fourth floors.

The Applicant is requesting approval of the following discretionary actions by the City:
• Design Review pursuant to GMC Chapter 30.47; and
• Development Agreement.

1.3 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
Through the “Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008,” known as Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), the State legislature created a new document for environmental review called a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA). The intent of a SCEA is to encourage projects that would implement regional plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., by building housing near public transit) by providing for streamlined environmental review of "Transit Priority Projects" that are consistent with an adopted sustainable communities strategy. The SCEA provides complete environmental analysis by evaluating the potential effects of a Project in an Initial Study similar to a Mitigated Negative Declaration, with additional requirements specific to a SCEA as described below.

1.0 Introduction
Lucia Park Project 1.0-3 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 (SCAG) is the MPO for the County of Los Angeles (along with the Counties of Imperial, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Ventura). On September 3, 2020, SCAG's Regional Council adopted the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020–2045 RTP/SCS), which outlines strategies to meet or exceed the greenhouse gas emission targets set by CARB.

1.4 TRANSIT PRIORITY PROJECT CRITERIA
SB 375 provided CEQA streamlining provisions for projects that are consistent with an adopted applicable SCS and meet certain other criteria. Cities acting as lead CEQA agency within the SCAG region can now prepare a SCEA as the environmental CEQA Clearance for "transit priority projects" that are consistent with SCAG's 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. A transit priority project is a project that meets the following four criteria:

1. Is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS;

2. Contains at least 50 percent residential use, based on total building square footage or, if the project contains between 26 percent and 50 percent nonresidential uses, a floor area ratio of not less than

0.75;

3. Provides a minimum net density of at least 20 units per acre; and

4. Is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan.

1.5 SCEA PROCESS
A transit priority project may be approved if it has been determined that the project will not result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. For a SCEA, an initial study shall be prepared to identify all potentially significant impacts.3 As with an MND, mitigation must be identified for any potentially significant impacts. In addition, for a project to qualify to be evaluated through a SCEA, the project should incorporate all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards and criteria set forth in prior applicable EIRs.4 This would include the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR.

A SCEA need not consider the cumulative effects of the project that have been adequately addressed and mitigated in prior ElRs; growth-inducing impacts are not required to be referenced, described or addressed; and project-specific or cumulative impacts from cars and light-duty truck trips on global warming or the regional transportation network need not be analyzed.5 The SCEA does not analyze alternatives to a project because, like with an ND or MND, there are no significant impacts that need to be reduced or eliminated through project alternatives.
3 PRC Section 21155.2(b)(1).
4 PRC Section 21155.2(a).
5 PRC Section 21159.28.
159 of 2287

1.0 Introduction
Lucia Park Project 1.0-4 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 A draft of the SCEA will be circulated for public comment for a period of not less than 30 days with notice provided in the same manner as required for an environmental impact report.6 Prior to acting on the SCEA, the lead agency shall conduct a public hearing and shall review and consider all comments received.7
The SCEA may be approved by the lead agency after the lead agency’s legislative body conducts a public hearing, reviews comments received, and finds the following:
a. All potentially significant or significant effects required to be identified in the initial study have been identified and analyzed, and
b. With respect to each significant effect on the environment required to be identified in the initial study, either of the following apply:
i. Changes or alternations have been required in or incorporated into the project that avoid or mitigate the significant effects to a level of insignificance. ii. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

The lead agency’s decision to review and approve a TPP with a SCEA shall be reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.

1.6 REQUIRED FINDINGS
The City has determined that:

1. The proposed Project is consistent with the general use designations, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG);

2. The State Air Resources Board, pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code, has accepted SCAG’s determination that the sustainable communities strategy adopted by SCAG in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets;

3. The proposed Project qualifies as a transit priority project pursuant to PRC Section 21155(b);

4. The proposed Project is a residential or mixed-use project as defined by PRC Section 21159.28(d); 6 PRC Section 21155.2(b)(3).
7 PRC Section 21155.2(b)(5).
160 of 2287

1.0 Introduction
Lucia Park Project 1.0-5 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

5. The proposed Project incorporates all relevant and feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria set forth in prior environmental reports, including the RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report;

6. All potentially significant or significant effects required to be identified and analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been identified and analyzed in an initial study; and

7. The proposed Project, as mitigated, either avoids or mitigates to a level of insignificance all potentially significant or significant effects of the proposed Project required to be analyzed pursuant to CEQA.

Therefore, the City finds that the proposed Project complies with the requirements of CEQA for using an SCEA as authorized pursuant to PRC Section 21155.2(b).

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE SCEA
This SCEA is organized into the following sections:

Section 1.0: Introduction provides introductory information about the proposed Project.

Section 2.0: Project Description provides a detailed description of the proposed Project, including the environmental setting, Project characteristics, related Project information, Project objectives, and environmental clearance requirements.

Section 3.0: Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria describes the regulatory background and criteria for the use of a SCEA in completing the CEQA process for this Project and identifies all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, and criteria from prior Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs).

Section 4.0: Initial Study Checklist contains the completed SCEA Initial Study Checklist showing the significance level under each environmental impact category.

Section 5.0: Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis contains an assessment and discussion of impacts associated with each environmental issue identified in the Initial Study Checklist.

Section 6.0: Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program is the program for monitoring and reporting implementation of mitigation measures and project revisions, which a project is required to mitigate in order to avoid significant environmental effects pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.

In addition, the Appendices include Project-specific reports and data used to support the analysis in this Initial Study.
161 of 2287
Lucia Park Project 2.0-1 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located directly south of State Route (SR-) 134 (Ventura) Freeway, east of Interstate (I-5) and west of SR-2 as shown in Figure 2.0-1: Regional and Local Vicinity at 620 North Brand Boulevard and 625 N. Maryland Avenue. The Project site is bounded by the SR-134 Eastbound On-Ramp to the north, an existing commercial building and an associated surface parking lot to the south, N. Brand Boulevard to the west, and N. Maryland Avenue to the east as shown in Figure 2.0-2: Site Map, Existing Conditions.

The Project site includes two parcels, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 5643018032 and 5643018031.

2.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The approximately 63,760-square-foot (1.46-acre) Project site is currently occupied by a two-story office building containing 5,297 square feet of floor area, the six-story Chase Building containing approximately 45,125 square feet of office floor area, an associated parking structure, and surface parking lots. There are no on-site trees and six street trees along N. Maryland Avenue and N. Brand Boulevard.

2.3 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The Project site is located within the City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area. The DSP land use designation and zoning for the Project site is Gateway District as shown in Figure 2.0-3: Downtown Specific Plan Land Use and Zoning. The Gateway District, located at the northern portion of the DSP area, is characterized by high-rise development including numerous corporate headquarters and businesses with multi-storied towers visible from various viewpoints throughout the City and SR-134. The focus of the Gateway District is to promote and locate corporate headquarters, new hotels, mixed-use and residential buildings, complementary/accessory service, and retail businesses at the street level, as well as the introduction of appropriate nighttime entertainment uses.8 The permitted floor area ratio (FAR) by right in the Gateway District is 7.25 and the height by right is 275 feet. The DSP Streetscape Standards contains setback requirements for Brand Boulevard, as a Primary Street Frontage. A 16-foot minimum setback from the curb face to the louvers face along Maryland Avenue is required by the DSP Streetscape Standards for Maryland Avenue as a Mixed Use Residential Street Frontage. 9 8 City of Glendale, Glendale Downtown Specific Plan, website https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/50230/636904148989570000, Accessed August 2021. 9 City of Glendale, Glendale Downtown Specific Plan, Chapter 4, website https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/50230/636904148989570000, Accessed August 2021. 162 of 2287
Terminal Island
Los Angeles County
Kern County
Ventura County
Los Angeles County
Sherman Oaks
Calabasas
Malibu
San Bernardino County
Los Angeles County
Santa Monica
Santa Clarita
Chatsworth
Warner Center
Granada Hills
Porter Ranch
Mission Hills
Sun Valley
Woodland Hills Encino
Culver City
Pasadena
South
Pasadena Hollywood
Beverly Hills
Inglewood
Huntington
Park
Los Angeles
El Monte
Montbello
Whittier
Santa Fe Springs
Downey
Monterey Park
Paramount La Mirada Compton
Cerritos Gardena
Carson Torrance Lakewood
Rancho Palos Verdes
San Pedro
Long Beach
US
66 US
101
US
101
US
101
10 INTERSTATE
210

INTERSTATE
210

INTERSTATE
10 INTERSTATE
10 INTERSTATE
605

INTERSTATE
710

INTERSTATE
605

INTERSTATE
105

INTERSTATE
5 INTERSTATE
5 INTERSTATE
5 INTERSTATE
5 INTERSTATE
405

INTERSTATE
405

INTERSTATE
90 CALIFORNIA
91 CALIFORNIA
47 CALIFORNIA
110

CALIFORNIA
110

CALIFORNIA
107

CALIFORNIA
1 CALIFORNIA
1 CALIFORNIA
1 CALIFORNIA
1 CALIFORNIA
2 CALIFORNIA
23 CALIFORNIA
27 CALIFORNIA
118

CALIFORNIA
118

CALIFORNIA
126

CALIFORNIA
14 CALIFORNIA
14 CALIFORNIA
27 CALIFORNIA
2 CALIFORNIA
2 CALIFORNIA
2 CALIFORNIA
138

CALIFORNIA
138

CALIFORNIA
18 CALIFORNIA
90 CALIFORNIA 42

CALIFORNIA
213

CALIFORNIA
39 CALIFORNIA
60 CALIFORNIA
60 CALIFORNIA
57 CALIFORNIA
72 CALIFORNIA
134

CALIFORNIA
170

CALIFORNIA
19 CALIFORNIA
71 CALIFORNIA
30 CALIFORNIA
39 CALIFORNIA
California Aqueduct
P a c i f i c
O c e
a
n
North Hollywood Burbank
Glendale

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
1260 24
N
Regional and Local Vicinity
FIGURE 2.0-1
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021; Meridian Consultants, LLC - 2021 184-003-21
Project
Location

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
0 150 300 600
N
Project Site
163 of 2287
Site Map, Existing Conditions
FIGURE 2.0-2
302-001-20
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
500 100 200
Legend:

Project Site
N
164 of 2287

DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Downtown Specific Plan
FIGURE 2.0-3
184-003-21
SOURCE: City of Glendale, 2010

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
0 300 600 1200
N
165 of 2287

2.0 Project Description
Lucia Park Project 2.0-5 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

2.4 SURROUNDING LAND USES
Figure 2.0-1 displays the Project site and surrounding uses. The Project site is located in the Downtown area of the City, an area dominated by a mix of high-rise commercial office buildings as well as residential high-rise and one- to two-story buildings. The uses around the Project site are described below:

North: SR-134 Eastbound On-Ramp is directly adjacent to the north of the Project site. SR-134 runs in an east-west direction. The properties directly across SR-134 and the Westbound Off-Ramp are a four-level parking structure, an approximately 24-story commercial office building, and a high-rise residential building.

East: Maryland Avenue is located adjacent to the Project site to the east. Across Maryland Avenue is a two-level parking structure, which is on the eastern border of the Gateway District and the DSP boundary.

Further east are several three-story multiple-family buildings on sites zoned R 1250 (High Density Residential) with a land use designation of High Density.

South: An existing commercial office building and associated surface parking lot is located to the south of the Project site. Further south across Doran Street is a high-rise commercial building with a four-level parking podium. This property is also located within the Gateway District of the DSP.

West: Directly adjacent to the Project site to the west is Brand Boulevard. Brand Boulevard is a northsouth oriented roadway designated as a Major Arterial south of Glenoaks Boulevard. A surface parking lot, 14-story commercial office building, and a one-story commercial office building are located across Brand Boulevard to the east. These uses are also located within the Gateway District of the DSP.

2.5 ACCESS
Regional Vehicular Access
Regional access to the Project site is provided by SR-134. SR-134 is an east-west freeway that extends from the Toluca Lake area of the City of Los Angeles to Pasadena. In the Project vicinity, five mainline freeway lanes (four mixed-flow lanes and one carpool lane) are provided on SR-134 in each direction.

Eastbound and westbound ramps are provided at Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard on SR-134 in the proposed Project vicinity.

Local Street Access
Local street access is provided by the following streets:

Brand Boulevard: Brand Boulevard is a north-south oriented roadway that borders the Project site to the west. Within the proposed Project study area, Brand Boulevard is designated as a Major Arterial south of Glenoaks Boulevard, and as a Minor Arterial north of Glenoaks Boulevard in the City of Glendale Circulation Element. Two to three through travel lanes are generally provided in each direction on Brand Boulevard within the proposed Project study area.
166 of 2287

2.0 Project Description
Lucia Park Project 2.0-6 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Maryland Avenue: Maryland Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway that borders the Project site to the east. Within the proposed Project study area, Maryland Avenue is designated as an Urban Collector south of Doran Street, and as a Local Street north of Doran Street in the City of Glendale Circulation Element. One through travel lane is generally provided in each direction on Maryland Avenue within the proposed Project study area.

Louise Street: Louise Street is a north-south oriented roadway located east of the Project site. Within the proposed Project study area, Louise Street is designated as an Urban Collector south of Glenoaks Boulevard, and as a Neighborhood Collector north of Glenoaks Boulevard in the City of Glendale Circulation Element. One through travel lane is generally provided in each direction on Louise Street within the proposed Project study area.

Goode Avenue: Goode Avenue is an east-west oriented roadway located north of the Project site.

Specifically, Goode Avenue is a one-way westbound roadway between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard. Within the proposed Project study area, Goode Avenue is designated as a Major Arterial in the City of Glendale Circulation Element. Two through travel lanes are generally provided on Goode Avenue within the proposed Project study area. A separate exclusive left-turn lane is provided on Goode Avenue at the Central Avenue intersection. Goode Avenue connects the SR-134 Freeway Ramps in the westbound direction between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard.

Sanchez Drive: Sanchez Drive is an east-west oriented roadway located north of the Project site.

Specifically, Sanchez Drive is a one-way eastbound roadway between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard. Within the proposed Project study area, Sanchez Drive is designated as a Major Arterial in the City of Glendale Circulation Element. Two through travel lanes are generally provided on Sanchez Drive within the proposed Project study area. A separate exclusive right-turn lane is provided on Sanchez Drive at the Brand Boulevard intersection. Sanchez Drive connects the SR-134 Freeway Ramps in the eastbound direction between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard.

Doran Street: Doran Street is an east-west oriented roadway located south of the Project site. Within the proposed Project study area, Doran Street is designated as an Urban Collector in the City of Glendale Circulation Element. One through travel lane is generally provided in each direction on Doran Street within the proposed Project study area.

Existing vehicular access to the Project site is provided via multiple driveways located along Brand Boulevard and Maryland Avenue. Along the east side of Brand Boulevard, vehicular access to the existing site is provided via one inbound-only driveway and one outbound-only driveway. Along the west side of Maryland Avenue, vehicular access to the existing site is available via one inbound-only driveway, two outbound-only driveways, and one full access driveway.
167 of 2287

2.0 Project Description
Lucia Park Project 2.0-7 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Public Transit
Public transit service within the proposed Project area is currently provided by the City (Glendale Beeline), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro), and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Transit Commuter Express. The proposed 294-unit Project is located within onehalf mile of the following existing bus routes or planned bus routes, as shown in Figure 3.0-5: Existing Transit Routes in Project Site Vicinity in Section 3.0 of this SCEA.

Glendale Beeline Route 1: Glendale Beeline Route 1 operates weekday and weekend services from Glendale Transportation Center (GTC) to Stocker Square via North on Central Avenue and South on Brand Boulevard. Weekday service is from 5:50 AM to 7:45 PM, and weekend service is from 9:00 AM and 6:24 PM. This route does not have service during select holidays. The roadways on this route near the proposed Project site are Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard.10,11 Glendale Beeline Route 1, provides service every 10 minutes between 7:05 AM and 8:40 AM in the morning and 3:44 PM and 7:08 PM in the evenings on weekdays with a stop located approximately 0.2 miles southwest of the Project site. 12 Glendale Beeline Route 7: Glendale Beeline Route 7 operates weekday and Saturday services from Riverside Rancho to Glendale Community College (GCC) via Western Avenue, Glenoaks Boulevard, Stocker Street, and Glendale Avenue. Weekday service is from 6:18 AM to 6:34 PM, and Saturday service is from 9:00 AM to 5:29 PM. This route does not have service on Sundays and during select holidays. The roadways on this route near the proposed Project site are Brand Boulevard and Glenoaks Boulevard.13,14 The nearest stop is located approximately 0.25 miles north of the Project site.15 Glendale Beeline Route 11: Glendale Beeline Route 11 operates weekday services from Glendale Transportation Center (GTC) to Downtown Glendale via Central Avenue, Brand Boulevard, Wilson Street, and Colorado Street. Weekday service is from 6:05 AM to 9:43 AM and 2:28 PM to 6:39 PM. This route does not have service on weekends and during select holidays. The roadways on this route near the proposed 10 See Traffic Impact Study (Appendix E).
11 Transportation Glendale, CA website, https://www.glendaletransit.com/tools/system-map/beeline-timetables-route-maps, Accessed August 2021.
12 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021. 13 See Traffic Impact Study (Appendix E).
14 Transportation Glendale, CA website, https://www.glendaletransit.com/tools/system-map/beeline-timetables-route-maps, Accessed August 2021.
15 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 7 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42234/637642105269230000. Accessed December 2021. 168 of 2287

2.0 Project Description
Lucia Park Project 2.0-8 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Project site are Central Avenue, Brand Boulevard, and Doran Street.16,17 The nearest stop is located approximately 275 feet south of the Project site.18
Metro 92: Metro 92 line operates weekday, weekend, and holiday service from Sylmar to Downtown Los Angeles via Glendale Boulevard, Brand Boulevard, and Glenoaks Boulevard. Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday and Holiday service services are from 4:08 AM to 4:59 PM. The roadway on this route near the proposed Project site is Brand Boulevard.19,20 The nearest stop is located approximately 0.1 miles north of the Project site.21
Metro 501: Metro 501 Express line operates weekday, weekend, and holiday services from Pasadena to North Hollywood via SR-134. Weekday service is from 5:00 AM to 10:32 PM, and weekend and holiday service is between 6:00 AM and 10:15 PM. The roadway on this route near the proposed Project site is SR-134.
22,23 The nearest stop is located approximately 400 feet west of the Project site.24 LADOT Transit Commuter Express 549: Commuter Express 549 operates weekday services from San Fernando Valley to Pasadena via Ventura Blvd, Burbank Blvd and SR-134 Freeway. No service on Saturdays, Sundays, or select holidays. Weekday service is from 5:55 AM to 7:21 PM. The roadway on this route near the Project site is SR-134.25,26 The nearest stop is located approximately 400 feet west of the Project site.27
As discussed further in Section 3.0 of this SCEA, one of the criteria to be considered a transit priority project is the project site must be located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan, such as the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. 28 PRC Section 21064.3 defines “major transit stop” as “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes 16 See Traffic Impact Study (Appendix E).
17 Transportation Glendale, CA website, https://www.glendaletransit.com/tools/system-map/beeline-timetables-route-maps, Accessed August 2021.
18 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 11 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/48123/637606608810930000. Accessed December 2021. 19 See Traffic Impact Study (Appendix E).
20 Metro website, https://media.metro.net/documents/7e32ca23-131e-45b2-8086-9604d6f9ce0e.pdf, Accessed August 2021. 21 Metro website, https://media.metro.net/documents/7e32ca23-131e-45b2-8086-9604d6f9ce0e.pdf, Accessed August 2021. 22 See Traffic Impact Study (Appendix E).
23 Metro website, https://media.metro.net/documents/f1f33eab-7226-40eb-9e1b-618300fe6653.pdf, accessed August 2021. 24 Metro website, https://media.metro.net/documents/f1f33eab-7226-40eb-9e1b-618300fe6653.pdf, accessed August 2021. 25 See Traffic Impact Study (Appendix E).
26 LADOT Transit, Commuter Express 549, website https://www.ladottransit.com/comexp/routes/549/549.html, accessed August 2021.
27 LADOT Transit, Commuter Express 549, website https://www.ladottransit.com/comexp/routes/549/549.html, accessed August 2021.
28 PRC, “California Legislative
Information,”https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum= 21155, accessed September 2021.
169 of 2287

2.0 Project Description
Lucia Park Project 2.0-9 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” A high-quality transit corridor is “[a] corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours” (PRC Section 21155(b)).29 Per Appendix M of the CEQA Guidelines, an “existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor” may include a planned and funded stop that is included in an adopted regional transportation improvement program. 30 Central Avenue qualifies as both an existing and bus transit corridor and the Project site is located within

0.3 miles of Central Avenue. The Glendale Beeline Route 1 currently provides service every 10 minutes between 7:05 AM and 8:40 AM in the morning and 3:44 PM and 7:08 PM in the evenings on weekdays along Central Avenue and Central Avenue qualifies as an existing high quality transit corridor based on this service.31,
32 Central Avenue is also identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2: SCAG 2045 Planned High Quality Transit Corridors. 33,34,35 Central Avenue
is identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS because Central Avenue is included in the route for the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line. The North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Project was approved by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) in May 2021.36 This North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line is scheduled to be operation by 2024. The proposed Project is located approximately 0.3 miles from the proposed Lexington Drive station, at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue, for the 29 PRC, “California Legislative
Information,”https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum= 21155, accessed September 2021.
30 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines, Appendix M: Performance Standards for Infill Projects Eligible for Streamlined Review, 2021.
31 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
32 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
33 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 34 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021.
35 PRC, “California Legislative
Information,”https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum= 21155, accessed September 2021.
36 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, Metro Board Approves Proposed Project for North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project, May 27, 2021, https://www.metro.net/about/metro-boardapproves-proposed-project-for-north-hollywood-to-pasadena-bus-rapid-transit-corridor-project/, Accessed January 2022.
170 of 2287

2.0 Project Description
Lucia Park Project 2.0-10 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit BRT Corridor Project as shown in Figure 3.0-1. 37 For
these reasons, the proposed Project is within 0.5 miles of a high quality transit corridor.

As discussed above, the existing Glendale Beeline 1 bus route also travels on Central Avenue with a stop at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue, as shown in Figure 3.0-3: Glendale Beeline Route 1, where the Lexington Drive station is proposed for the North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line and also located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the Project site. Glendale Beeline 1 is an existing major bus route due to the current service it provides.38 Therefore, because the proposed Project is within the 0.5 miles of this planned major bus stop, the intersection of the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT station identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and Glendale Beeline 1, the proposed Project is within a transit priority area (TPA). Additionally, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Glendale TIA Guidelines) as shown in Figure 3.0-4: City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation: Future High Quality Transit Areas in Section 3.0 of this SCEA.39 Therefore, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per the Glendale TIA Guidelines. There are also numerous bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site as discussed above and shown in Figure 3.0-5.

Utilities
Water and electricity to the Project site are currently provided by Glendale Water and Power (GWP).

The GWP is a municipal utility that provides approximately 34,000 potable and recycled water service connections and electricity to approximately 89,000 customers. 40 Wastewater generated by the City is
processed at the Los Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant (LAGWRP) facility and the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP) which processes the solid waste from the wastewater.41 The LAGWRP service area includes the east San Fernando Valley communities that are within and outside of the Los Angeles City limits. Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) is the natural gas purveyor to the Project site, which delivers to 21.8 million consumers through 5.9 million meters in more than 500 communities. 42 37 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor Project, https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena-corridor/. Accessed November 2021. 38 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
39 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 40 City of Glendale, Glendale Water and Power, About Us, website https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/glendale-water-and-power/about-us. Accessed November 2021. 41 City of Glendale, Urban Water Management Plan (2020), https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/62412/637623898692530000. Accessed August 2021. 42 Southern California Gas Company, Company Profile, About SoCalGas, website https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/companyprofile, Accessed November 2021. 171 of 2287

2.0 Project Description
Lucia Park Project 2.0-11 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

2.6 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed Project includes the redevelopment of the easterly half of the Project site as shown in Figure 2.0-4: Proposed Site Plan. Demolition of the existing two-story office and the parking structure on the eastern portion as well as the surface parking lots on the southwestern and northeastern portions of the Project site is proposed to allow the construction of a new 24-story residential building with four (4) levels of subterranean parking and two (2) levels of above-ground parking. The existing six-story Chase Building on the northwestern portion of the Project site would remain with the parking for this building provided in the two (2) levels of above-ground parking in the residential building. The proposed residential building would contain 294 units, as shown in Figure 2.0-5: Proposed Project Rendering.

The overall Project site is approximately 63,760 square feet (1.46 acres) in size. The proposed Project includes approximately 462,260 square feet of total building area with a FAR of 7.25. The 294 residential units would include 247 one-bedroom units and 47 two-bedroom units. The proposed residential building would have a maximum height of 265.5 feet to the top of the roof shade structure with varied massing and open terrace spaces. Level 21 would contain outdoor terraces at a height of approximately 218.5 feet; Level 19 with outdoor terraces would be at a height of approximately 197.5 feet; Level 17 would contain an outdoor terrace at a height of approximately 176.5 feet; Levels 6, 7, and 8 would contain outdoor terraces at approximately 61 feet, 71.5 feet, and 82 feet, respectively; Level 5 with a dog park would be at approximately 50.6 feet; and Level 4 would contain the residential units, community spaces, outdoor and private terraces, and pool would be at a height of approximately 38 feet.

The proposed Project would contain four subterranean levels for residential parking and storage, as shown in Figure 2.0-6: Floor Plan — Levels B1–B4. The ground floor plan would include a residential lobby, mailroom, storage, trash, breakroom, utility, substation, 6,994 square feet of public accessible open space (6,376 square feet is required) and 1,595 square feet of landscaping (1,594 square feet is required), and parking garage access, which would contain storage, a valet staging area, and bicycle parking, as shown in Figure 2.0-7: Floor Plan — Level 1. Levels 2 and 3 would include parking and storage space, as shown in Figures 2.0-8: Floor Plan — Level 2 and 2.0-9: Floor Plan — Level 3. Level 4 would include residential units, community spaces, outdoor and private terraces, and a pool, as shown in Figure 2.0-10: Floor Plan — Level 4. Level 5 would include residential units and a dog park while Levels 6, 7, 8, 17, and 19 would contain residential units and outdoor terraces. Typical floor plans for these and other floors provided for the proposed residential building are in Figures 2.0-11: Floor Plan — Level 5-13, 2.0-12: Floor Plan — Levels 14-18, 2.0-13: Floor Plan — Levels 19-22, and 2.0-14: Floor Plan — Level 23–Roof. Photovoltaic arrays would be located on the roof as shown in Figure 2.0-14.

Figures 2.0-15: Sections — East-West, and 2.0-16: Sections — North-South show the cross section of the building. A summary of the development proposed on the Project site is provided in Table 2.0-1:

Proposed Project Development Summary.
172 of 2287

2.0 Project Description
Lucia Park Project 2.0-12 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 2.0-1

PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
Level Uses
Basement 1-4 Residential Automobile parking (373 parking spaces) and storage 1 Residential lobby, mailroom, storage, trash, breakroom, improved landscaping, and parking garage access which would contain storage, a valet staging area and bicycle parking (96 long term and 19 short term parking spaces) 2-3 Commercial automobile parking (129 parking spaces) and storage 4 Residential units (11 units), community spaces, outdoor and private terraces, and a pool 5 Residential units (12 units) and dog park
6-8 Residential units (17 units per floor) and outdoor terrace 9-13 Residential units (17 units per floor)
14-16 Residential units (18 units per floor)
17 Residential units (16 units) and outdoor terrace
18 Residential units (15 units)
19 Residential units (13 units) and outdoor terraces
20 Residential units (13 units)
21 Residential units (12 units) and outdoor terrace
22 Residential units (12 units)
23 Roof terraces and mechanical building operations
24 Roof terraces and building operations
Roof Photovoltaic arrays
173 of 2287

ENTRY / EXIT

COMMERCIAL

ENTRY / EXIT

RESIDENTIAL
Proposed Site Plan
FIGURE 2.0-4
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
40200 80
N
174 of 2287
Proposed Project Rendering
FIGURE 2.0-5
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021
175 of 2287
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL
LEVEL: B3
LEVEL: B1 LEVEL: B2
LEVEL: B4
184-003-21
Floor Plan – Level B1-B4
FIGURE 2.0-6
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021
176 of 2287

PROGRAM LEGEND

LOBBY W/ SUPPORT

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

BICYCLE PARKING

EXISTING BUILDING

LANDSCAPE
PL PL
PL
PL PL
Floor Plan – Level 1
FIGURE 2.0-7
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
40200 80
N
184-003-21
177 of 2287
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE
Floor Plan – Level 2
FIGURE 2.0-8
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
40200 80
N
178 of 2287
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE
Floor Plan – Level 3
FIGURE 2.0-9
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
40200 80
N
179 of 2287
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
Floor Plan – Level 4
FIGURE 2.0-10
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
40200 80
N
180 of 2287
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
LEVEL: 5 LEVEL: 6
LEVEL: 7 & 8 LEVEL: 9 - 13
Floor Plan – Level 5-13
FIGURE 2.0-11
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80 160
N
181 of 2287
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
LEVEL: 17 LEVEL: 18
LEVEL: 14 LEVEL: 15 & 16
PL
PL
PL
PL PL
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80 160
N
Floor Plan – Level 14-18
FIGURE 2.0-12
182 of 2287
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
LEVEL: 21 LEVEL: 22
LEVEL: 19 LEVEL: 20
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
0 40 80 160
N
Floor Plan – Level 19-22
FIGURE 2.0-13
183 of 2287
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL
PL PL
PL
PL PL
LEVEL: 23 LEVEL: 24
ROOF
Floor Plan – Level 23-Roof
FIGURE 2.0-14
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021
N

PROGRAM LEGEND

EXISTING BUILDING

VEHICLE PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL / STORAGE

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

OPEN SPACE
184 of 2287
EAST-WEST SECTION 1 PARALLEL TO FREEWAY 134 EAST-WEST SECTION 2 PARALLEL TO FREEWAY 134 Sections – East-West
FIGURE 2.0-15
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021
N

LOBBY SUPPORT

COMMERCIAL PARKING

RESIDENTIAL PARKING

CIRCULATION

MECHANICAL

COMMUNITY

RESIDENTIAL

PROGRAM LEGEND
185 of 2287

NORTH-SOUTH SECTION PARALLEL TO BRAND
Section – North-South
FIGURE 2.0-16
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021
N
186 of 2287

2.0 Project Description
Lucia Park Project 2.0-26 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Figure 2.0-17: Open Space Diagram shows the proposed Project would provide a total of 15,844 square feet of common open space for the Project site, 6,994 square feet of publicly accessible open space, and 1,595 square feet of landscape area on Level 1. The location of the publicly accessible open space and landscape area is shown in Figure 2.0-18: Publicly Accessible Open Space and Landscape Diagram. A total of 41,625 square feet of residential development open space (34, 633 square feet of public open space and 6,992 square feet of private open space) and 7,064 square feet of landscape area would be provided on several levels of the proposed residential building (Levels 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, 19, 21, 23, and 24) as shown in Figures 2.0-7 through 2.0-14 and in Figure 2.0-19: Residential Common and Private Open Space and Landscape Diagram.

The exterior of the proposed residential building would consist of predominantly white and blue metal panels, blue and white metal louvers, limestone cladding, transparent glazing and glazing with operable windows aluminum frame. The scale, massing, and setbacks for the proposed Project would comply with the requirements in the DSP Streetscape Standards for Brand Boulevard as a Primary Street Frontage and Maryland Avenue as a Mixed Use Residential Street Frontage, as shown in Figures 2.0-20: North and East Elevation and 2.0-21: South and West Elevation.

Vehicular access to the Project site will be provided via two driveways along the west side of Maryland Avenue. The northern Maryland Avenue driveway would provide access to the two above-grade levels of the garage only. The southern Maryland Avenue driveway would provide access to the four subterranean levels of the parking garage. Each driveway would accommodate full vehicular access (i.e., left-turn and right-turn ingress and egress turning movements).

A total of 502 vehicle parking spaces would be provided in the four subterranean levels and two above ground levels. The 373 vehicle parking spaces for the residential units would include 30 residential guest parking spaces, 247 residential parking spaces for the one-bedroom units, and 94 residential parking spaces (including 47 tandem parking spaces, which is allowed per GMC) for the two-bedroom units. The residential parking spaces would be provided in the four subterranean levels of the proposed residential building. The Chase Building on site would be allocated 129 vehicle parking spaces to be provided in the two above ground levels. The proposed residential building would also provide a total of 115 bicycle parking spaces (96 long term and 19 short term). Parking for the proposed Project would comply with the DSP and GMC standards.

As mentioned above, solar photovoltaic arrays would be located on the roof. Two-hundred and forty-two (242) solar panels are proposed, which would occupy 6,856 square feet in area. Each panel would produce 300 watts, equating to approximately 220,825 kilowatt-hours annually. In addition, the proposed Project would comply with CALGreen building standards by incorporating eco-friendly building materials, systems, and features wherever feasible, including Energy Star appliances, water saving/low flow fixtures, non-VOC paints/adhesives, drought tolerant planting, and high-performance building envelopment. The proposed Project would be designed and constructed to incorporate environmentally sustainable design features in compliance with the Greener Glendale Plan. On November 4, 2021, the 187 of 2287

2.0 Project Description
Lucia Park Project 2.0-27 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 City’s Sustainability Commission approved a motion (Motion 5a) to recommend the City Council hire a consultant to assist in the preparation of reach code(s) that include building electrification.43 The City has not yet prepared a draft reach code and no reach code has been adopted by the City that would be applicable to the proposed Project.

2.7 APPROVAL ACTIONS
The proposed Project would require approval of the following discretionary actions by the City:
• Design Review pursuant to GMC Chapter 30.47; and
• Development Agreement.

The City requires construction of affordable housing or payment of an In-Lieu fee. The proposed Project would be required to meet the City’s affordable housing requirements. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Development Agreement, which includes the option to pay an In-Lieu fee for affordable housing.

2.8 CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the proposed Project is projected to take approximately 35 months, with construction anticipated to begin in August 2022 and continue through June 2025.44 Construction activities would fall into four principal phases: (1) demolition; (2) grading; (3) site improvements, including paving; and (4) building construction.

The existing two-story office building, the, parking structure, and surface parking lots would be demolished in the first phase. Approximately 76,000 cubic yards of soil would be excavated for construction of the subterranean garage and exported during construction.

2.9 RELATED PROJECTS
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h), this SCEA includes an evaluation of the potential cumulative impacts. The guidance provided under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (h) is as follows:

When assessing whether a cumulative effect requires an EIR, the lead agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project’s incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental 43 City of Glendale Sustainability Commission, November 4, 2021, https://gec.eco/commission-watch-sustainability-november4-2021/. Accessed December 2021. 44 The proposed Project would be subject to a proposed Development Agreement requesting a six (6) year term. While the construction could start as early as August 2022, it could start as late as July 2028 depending on when the building permits are issued. The most conservative analysis of construction impacts would be to assume construction would begin August 2022 through June 2025 as emissions would be higher in earlier years. Thus, this SCEA analyzes construction impacts between August 2022 through June 2025.
188 of 2287

2.0 Project Description
Lucia Park Project 2.0-28 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.

A lead agency may determine in an initial study that a project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable and thus is not significant. When a project might contribute to a significant cumulative impact, but the contribution will be rendered less than cumulatively considerable through mitigation measures set forth in a mitigated negative declaration, the initial study shall briefly indicate and explain how the contribution has been rendered less than cumulatively considerable.

A lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program (including, but not limited to, water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding that the project complies with the specified plan or mitigation program addressing the cumulative problem, an EIR must be prepared for the project.

The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.

Based on this guidance, an adequate discussion of potential cumulative impacts can be based on either:
(1) a list of past, present, and probable future producing related impacts; or (2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, Statewide plan, or related planning document that describes conditions contributing to the cumulative effect (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1)(A)-(B)). The lead agency may also blend the “list” and “plan” approaches to analyze the severity of impacts and their likelihood of occurrence. Accordingly, all proposed, recently approved, under construction, or reasonably foreseeable projects that could produce a related or cumulative impact on the local environment, when considered in conjunction with the proposed Project, were identified for evaluation.

Table 2.0-2: Related Projects List identifies the 17 related projects identified within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project site. The locations of these related projects are shown in Figure 2.0-22: Related Projects.

An analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with these related projects and the proposed Project are provided for each environmental topic in Section 3.0: SCEA Criteria of this SCEA. 189 of 2287

2.0 Project Description
Lucia Park Project 2.0-29 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 2.0-2

RELATED PROJECTS LIST
Project ID Title Address
Description
Land Use Size Status
1 Next on Lex 275 W. Lexington
Drive
Apartments
Commercial
489 DU
8,140 GSF
Constructed
and occupied
2 Orange/Milford Project 413 N. Brand
Boulevard
Apartments
Commercial
228 DU
5,000 GSF
Under
construction
3 aLoft Hotel 1100-1108 N. Brand
Boulevard Hotel 85 Rooms Constructed and occupied
4 429 N. Kenwood Street
Residential Project
429-503 N. Kenwood
Street Apartments 21 DU Entitlements expired
5 Hotel Louise 145 N. Louise Street Hotel 147 Rooms Constructed and occupied
6 352-358 W. Milford Street
Affordable Housing Project
352-358 W. Milford
Street
Affordable Family
Housing
Condominiums
32 DU
(5) DU
Under
construction
7 601-611 N. Brand Boulevard
Mixed-Use Project
601-611 N. Brand
Boulevard
Hotel
Commercial
857 Rooms
7,500 GSF
Proposed
8 361 Myrtle Street
Residential Project 361 Myrtle Street CondominiumsSingle-Family Homes 12 DU
(2) DU
Under
construction
9 a 534 N. Kenwood Street
Residential Project
534 N. Kenwood
Street
Apartments
Single Family Home
11 DU
1 DU
--
10 373 W. Doran Street
Residential Project 373 W. Doran Street Condominiums 5 DU Under construction 11 344 W. Milford Street
Residential Project 344 W. Milford Street ApartmentsSingle-Family Home 6 DU
(1) DU
Constructed
and occupied
12 520 N. Central Avenue
Residential Project
520 N. Central
Avenue Apartments 99 DU Under construction
13b 340 N. Central Avenue
Office Project
340 N. Central
Avenue Office 14,229 GSF --
14 515-523 N. Central Avenue
Hotel Project
515-523 N. Central
Avenue Hotel 142 Rooms In plan check
15 135 W. Glenoaks Boulevard
Hotel Project
135 W. Glenoaks
Boulevard Hotel 219 Rooms Proposed
16 400 N. Maryland Avenue
Affordable Housing Project
400 N. Maryland
Avenue Affordable Housing 28 DU In process
17 314-324 W. Doran Street
Affordable Housing Project
314-324 W. Doran
Street Affordable Housing 33 DU In plan check
Notes:

DU = dwelling units
GSF = gross square footage
a This project is currently in litigation.
b This project was denied and a new project is being designed. While evaluated in the Transportation Impact Analysis (See Appendix E), it is not included in the related projects and cumulative analysis presented in this SCEA.

Source: Transportation Impact Analysis (See Appendix E). 190 of 2287
11'-4"
106'-10"
207'
89'-6"
20'-3"
28' 179'
20'-9"
32'
126'-3"
Open Space Diagram
FIGURE 2.0-17
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
3517.50 70
N

REQUIRED OPEN SPACE
= 63,760 x 20%
= 12,752 SQFT

PROVIDED OPEN SPACE
15,844 SQFT
191 of 2287
E
H
J
C
F
A
D
G
B
open space
publicly accessible open space

REQUIRED OPEN SPACE
= 63,760 x 20%
= 12,752 SQFT

PROVIDED OPEN SPACE
= 15,844 SQFT
88'
83'
28'
7'
21'
40'

REQUIRED LANDSCAPE
= 6,376 x 25%
= 1,594 SQFT

REQUIRED SHADE TREES
= 10

PROVIDED SHADE TREES
= 10

PROVIDED PLANTING

AT GRADE
= 1,459 SQFT
REQUIRED 75% PLANTING

AT GRADE
= 1,595 x 75%
= 1,196 SQFT

PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM landscape
= 12,752 x 50%
= 6,376 SQFT

REQUIRED PUBLICLY

ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE
= 6,994 SQFT

PROVIDED PUBLICLY

ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE
= 1,595 SQFT
A - 311 SQFT
B - 118 SQFT
C - 346 SQFT
D - 78 SQFT
E - 154 SQFT
F - 225 SQFT
G - 110 SQFT
H - 117 SQFT
J - 136 SQFT
TOTAL: 1,595 SQFT
publicly accessible open space
open space
Publicly Accessible Open Space and Landscape Diagram
FIGURE 2.0-18
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021
192 of 2287

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

OPEN SPACE PROVIDED
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
LEVEL 6
LEVEL 7
LEVEL 17
LEVEL 19
LEVEL 21
LEVEL 23
LEVEL 24
TOTAL
TOTAL
(SF)
6,034
18,941
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
41,625
COMMON
(SF)
6,034
11,949
1,228
438
366
731
2,300
731
9,118
1,738
34,633

PRIVATE
(SF)
-
6,992
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,992
REQUIRED - - 41,160

RESIDENTIAL

COMMON AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM
32'
88' 89'
38'
178'
7'
residential common open space
open space

LANDSCAPE DIAGRAM
A
B
C
D
E
F
open space landscape
residential common open space

REQUIRED LANDSCAPE OF

COMMON OPEN SPACE
= 34,633 x 20%
= 6,927 SQFT

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE

ON GROUND FLOOR
= 1,595 SQFT
A - 234 SQFT
B - 234 SQFT
C - 145 SQFT
D - 132 SQFT
E - 113 SQFT
F - 268 SQFT
TOTAL : 1,126 SQFT
Residential Common and Private Open Space and Landscape Diagram FIGURE 2.0-19
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021
N
193 of 2287
2 71
2 72
3 73
North and East Elevation
FIGURE 2.0-20
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021

NORTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION
194 of 2287
4 78
2 75
3 76
South and West Elevation
FIGURE 2.0-21
184-003-21
SOURCE: John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects - 2021

SOUTH ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION
195 of 2287
Related Projects
FIGURE 2.0-22
184-003-21
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2021; Linscott, Law & Greenspan, engineers - 2021

N NOT TO SCALE
196 of 2287
Lucia Park Project 3.0-1 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022

3.0 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

3.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
Through the “Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008,” known as Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), the State legislature created an additional type of environmental review document called a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA). The intent of a SCEA is to encourage projects that would implement regional plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., by building housing near public transit) by providing for streamlined environmental review of "Transit Priority Projects" that are consistent with an adopted Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The SCEA provides complete environmental analysis by evaluating the potential effects of a Project in an Initial Study, with additional information specific to an SCEA as described below.

SB 375 sought to integrate transportation and land use planning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by directing the State’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) that prepare regional transportation plans to include in those plans a “sustainable communities strategy” to achieve greenhouse gas emission targets set by the California Air Resources Board.1,2 The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the MPO for the County of Los Angeles (along with the Counties of Imperial, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Ventura). On September 3, 2020, SCAG's Regional Council adopted the 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020–2045 RTP/SCS), which outlines strategies to meet or exceed the greenhouse gas emission targets set by CARB.

3.2 TRANSIT PRIORITY PROJECT CRITERIA
SB 375 provides CEQA streamlining provisions for projects that are consistent with an adopted applicable SCS and meet certain other criteria. Cities acting as lead CEQA agency within the SCAG region can now prepare a SCEA as the environmental CEQA Clearance for "transit priority projects" that are consistent with SCAG's 2020–2045 RTP/SCS. A transit priority project is a project that meets the following four criteria:

1. Is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the Project area in the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS;

2. Contains at least 50 percent residential use, based on total building square footage or, if the Project contains between 26 percent and 50 percent nonresidential uses, a floor area ratio of not less than 0.75;

3. Provides a minimum net density of at least 20 units per acre; and

4. Is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan.
1 Stats. 2008, ch. 728, Section 1; Stats. 2009, ch. 354, Section 5. 2 Gov. Code, Section 65080, subd. (b)(2)(B).
197 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-2 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 As shown in Table 3.2-1: Transit Priority Analysis and the analysis for each criterion following this table, the proposed Project meets the qualifications for a transit priority project.

TABLE 3.2-1

TRANSIT PRIORITY ANALYSIS
Yes No

1. Is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the Project area in the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS?
X

3. Provides a minimum net density of at least 20 units per acre? X

4. Is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan? X
Consistency with Criterion 1: Project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the Project area in the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS.

PRC Section 21155(a) states that a SCEA is only applicable for a Transit Priority Project that is consistent with the general use designations, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the Project area in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) prepared by the applicable metropolitan planning organization, in this case - SCAG.

SCAG is the applicable MPO for the Project site and SCAG developed the SCS applicable to the Project site: SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS: A Plan for Mobility, Accessibility, Sustainability, and a High Quality of Life, adopted by the SCAG Regional Council on September 3, 2020. The RTP/SCS is the culmination of a multiyear effort involving stakeholders from across the SCAG Region. The 2020–2045 RTP/SCS is intended to balance the Southern California region’s future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals.

SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Applicable Policies Specified for the Project area
The proposed Project does not conflict with applicable goals and policies in the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, as demonstrated by the analysis presented in Table 5.11-1: Consistency Analysis 2020-2045 RTP/SCS of this SCEA. Goals and policies not applicable to the proposed Project include those not identified by SCAG for implementation by local jurisdictions. The proposed Project’s consistency with all actions/strategies identified for implementation by local jurisdictions is assessed in Section 5.11: Land Use. Provided below is a summary of the proposed Project’s consistencies.

The proposed Project would not conflict, and would be consistent with, applicable 2020-2045 RTP/SCS goals to maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region, ensure travel safety 198 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-3 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 and reliability, preserve, and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system, protect the environment, encourage energy efficiency, and facilitate the use of alternative modes of transportation.

As discussed further below, the Project site is served by mass transit and is within 0.5 miles of a highquality transit corridor and within a TPA (see below for further discussion). The proposed Project would provide residents with convenient access to mass transit and opportunities for walking and biking. The location of the proposed Project encourages a variety of transportation options and access.

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

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

Job Centers
Job Centers are areas with denser employment than their surroundings, representing areas with local employment peaks rather than places with the most jobs. When growth is concentrated in Job Centers, the length of vehicle trips for residents can be reduced. The area surrounding the Project site would be considered a Job Center. As discussed below, the Project site is located in Downtown Glendale within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a TPA as defined by CEQA. Additionally, the proposed Project would develop a new residential use within walking distance to numerous employment opportunities, including the six-story office building on-site. Additionally, the Project site is located adjacent to the SR-134 with convenient freeway access and is within one-half mile of numerous bus routes (see below for further discussion). The location of the proposed Project encourages a variety of transportation options, such as walking and biking. Thus, the proposed Project would reduce VMT and promote alternatives to driving. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the growth concentrated in Job Centers across the SCAG region.

Transit Priority Areas
TPAs are Priority Growth Areas located within one-half mile of existing or planned ‘major’ transit stops in the region. A ‘major’ transit stop is defined as a site containing an existing or planned rail or bus rapid 199 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-4 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. The proposed Project is located approximately 0.3 miles from the proposed Lexington Drive station, at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue, for the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Corridor Project as shown in Figure 3.0-1: North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Map.3 The North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Project was approved by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) in May 2021.4 This North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line is scheduled to be operation by 2024 and qualifies Central Avenue as a planned high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2: SCAG 2045 Planned High Quality Transit Corridors.5,6 The existing Glendale Beeline 1 bus route also travels on Central Avenue with a stop at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue, as shown in Figure 3.0-3: Glendale Beeline Route 1, also located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the Project site.7 Glendale Beeline 1 is an existing major bus route as it provides service every 10 minutes between 7:05 AM and 8:40 AM in the morning and 3:44 PM and 7:08 PM in the evenings on weekdays with a stop located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the Project site.8 Therefore, because the proposed Project is within the 0.5 miles of this planned major bus stop, the intersection of the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT station identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and Glendale Beeline 1, the proposed Project is within a transit priority area (TPA). Additionally, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (Glendale TIA Guidelines) as shown in Figure 3.0-4: City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation: Future High Quality Transit Areas.9 Therefore, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per the Glendale TIA Guidelines (see discussion in Consistency with Criterion 4, below, for additional discussion on proposed Project Transit Priority Project designation).10 There are also numerous bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site as shown in Figure 3.0-5: Existing Transit Routes in Project Site Vicinity. The location of 3 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor Project, https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena-corridor/. Accessed November 2021. 4 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, Metro Board Approves Proposed Project for North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project, May 27, 2021, https://www.metro.net/about/metro-board-approvesproposed-project-for-north-hollywood-to-pasadena-bus-rapid-transit-corridor-project/, Accessed June 2022. 5 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021. 6 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 7 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
8 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
9 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 10 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 200 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-5 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 the proposed Project encourages a variety of mobility options, such as walking, biking and the use of public transportation since the proposed Project is located within an urban center and nearby multiple mass transit stops. These multimodal travel options for future residents of the proposed Project would reduce the need for use of single occupancy vehicles. Thus, the proposed Project would reduce VMT and promote alternatives to driving. As such, the proposed Project’s location in a TPA would be consistent with SCAG’s strategy to focus infill development in established communities with access to high-quality transportation.

High Quality Transit Area
HQTAs are corridor-focused Priority Growth Areas located within one-half mile of an existing or planned fixed guideway transit stop or a bus transit corridor where buses pick up passengers at a frequency of 15 minutes or less during peak commuting hours.

Central Avenue qualifies as both an existing and bus transit corridor and the Project site is located within

The proposed Project would develop a new residential use within walking distance to numerous services, retail, and employment opportunities. The location of the proposed Project encourages a variety of transportation options, such as walking and biking (see below and Section 5.1 of this SCEA for more discussion on the North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Project and bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site). Thus, the proposed Project would reduce VMT, promote alternatives to driving, and aim to improve air quality. Furthermore, the proposed Project would also provide approximately 115 11 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
12 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021. 13 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 14 PRC, “California Legislative
Information,”https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=21155, accessed September 2021.
201 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-6 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 bicycle parking spaces (96 long term and 19 short term). For these reasons, the proposed Project would be consistent with SCAG’s HQTA strategy.

Neighborhood Mobility Areas
Neighborhood mobility area (NMAs) focus on creating, improving, restoring, and enhancing safe and convenient connections to surrounding community land uses. NMAs are Priority Growth Areas with residential to non-residential land use connections, high roadway intersection densities and low-tomoderate traffic speeds. NMAs can encourage safer, multimodal, short trips in existing and planned neighborhoods and reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicles. NMAs support the principles of center focused placemaking. The area surrounding the proposed Project would be considered an NMA. As discussed above, the proposed Project is located 0.3 northeast of a planned major bus stop, the intersection of the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT station identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the existing Glendale Beeline 1 stop at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue.15,16 Additionally, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per the Glendale TIA Guidelines as shown in Figure 3.0-4.17 Therefore, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743. The proposed Project qualifies as a transit priority project because Central Avenue qualifies as both an existing and bus transit corridor and the Project site is located within 0.3 miles of Central Avenue. As discussed above, the current service provided by Glendale Beeline Route 1 along Central Avenue qualifies Central Avenue as an existing high quality transit corridor based on this service.18,19 Central Avenue is also identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2 Central Avenue is identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the RTP because Central Avenue is included in the route for the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line (see discussion in Consistency with Criterion 4, below, for additional discussion on the transit priority project designation for the proposed Project).20 The Project site’s location near mass transit, walking distance to services, employment opportunities, and the availability of bike parking located on the Project site would promote a variety of transportation options, allowing residents to connect to surrounding destinations. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the strategy of Neighborhood Mobility Areas by creating more walkability within the Project site and surrounding area. 15 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor Project, https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena-corridor/. Accessed November 2021. 16 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
17 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 18 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
19 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021. 20 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 202 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-7 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Livable Corridors
The Livable Corridor strategy encourages local jurisdictions to plan and zone for increased density at nodes along key corridors, and to “redevelop” single-story under-performing retail with well-designed, higher density housing and employment centers. The Livable Corridors strategy aims to encourage density through transit improvements, active transportation improvements, and land use policies such as mixeduse zoning. The area surrounding the Project site would be considered a Livable Corridor. As discussed above, the proposed Project’s location encourages the use of alternative transportation, including walking and bicycling opportunities. As discussed above, the proposed Project is located 0.3 northeast of a planned major bus stop, the intersection of the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT station identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and Glendale Beeline 1 at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue. Additionally, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per the Glendale TIA Guidelines as shown in Figure 3.0-4.21 Therefore, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743. The proposed Project qualifies as a transit priority project because Central Avenue qualifies as both an existing and bus transit corridor and the Project site is located within 0.3 miles of Central Avenue. The current service provided by Glendale Beeline Route 1, as discussed above, along Central Avenue qualifies Central Avenue as an existing high quality transit corridor.22,23 Central Avenue is also identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2. Central Avenue is identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the RTP because Central Avenue is included in the route for the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line (see discussion in Consistency with Criterion 4, below, for additional discussion on the transit priority project designation for the proposed Project).24 There are also numerous bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site as shown in Figure 3.0-5. The Project site is located in the DSP area of the City surrounded by numerous commercial uses and would promote the use of alternative transportation or future employment within walking or biking distance from residential uses. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the strategy of Livable Corridors.

Use Designation, Density, and Building Intensity
Use Designation, Density, and Building Intensity standards applicable to the Project site are contained in the Glendale General Plan and Glendale Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Downtown Specific Plan and the applicable use, density and building intensity standards are in the DSP. The Project Site is located in the DSP Gateway District, which allows for the tallest and densest buildings in the City. Gateway District which is characterized by high-rise development 21 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 22 City of Glendale, Beeline Route 1 Timetables and Route Map, https://www.glendaletransit.com/home/showpublisheddocument/42220/637606455056530000. Accessed September 2021.
23 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021. 24 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 203 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-8 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 and home to numerous corporate headquarters and businesses whose multi-storied towers are visible from the various viewpoints throughout the City and SR-134. The focus of the area is the continued promotion and location of corporate headquarters, new hotels, mixed-use and residential buildings, complementary/accessory service, and retail businesses at the street level, as well as the introduction of appropriate night-time entertainment uses. Per Chapter 3 of the DSP, residential development is permitted in the Gateway District.25 Density in the DSP districts is governed by floor area ratios (FAR), and not by dwelling units to the acre (DU/AC). The maximum permitted FAR by right in the Gateway District is 7.25 and the density of the proposed Project is 7.25. The Project is, therefore, consistent with the applicable use designation and building intensity standards.

Additionally, one of the criteria to be considered a transit priority project is the project site must be located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan, such as the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.26 A high-quality transit corridor is “[a] corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours” (PRC Section 21155(b)).27 Per Appendix M of the CEQA Guidelines, an “existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor” may include a planned and funded stop that is included in an adopted regional transportation improvement program.28 The proposed Project qualifies as a transit priority project because Central Avenue qualifies as both an existing and bus transit corridor and the Project site is located within 0.3 miles of Central Avenue. Central Avenue is also identified as a planned high-quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2 (see discussion in Consistency with Criterion 4, below, for additional discussion on proposed Project Transit Priority Project designation).29
PRC Section 21099 defines a “transit priority area” as an area within 0.5 miles of a major transit stop that is “existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” As discussed above, the proposed Project is located 0.3 northeast of a planned major bus stop, the intersection of the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT station identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and Glendale Beeline 1 at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue. Additionally, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743 per 25 City of Glendale, Downtown Specific Plan, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/plans-for-downtown-glendale/downtown-specific-plan, Accessed December 2021. 26 PRC, “California Legislative
Information,”https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=21155, accessed September 2021.
27 PRC, “California Legislative
Information,”https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=21155, accessed September 2021.
28 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines, Appendix M: Performance Standards for Infill Projects Eligible for Streamlined Review, 2021.
29 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 204 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-9 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 the Glendale TIA Guidelines as shown in Figure 3.0-4.30 Therefore, the proposed Project is considered within a TPA under SB 743. There are also numerous bus routes within the vicinity of the Project site as shown in Figure 3.0-5. Furthermore, the Project site is within walking distance of many community services and amenities.

Based on the City’s current household demographics the average residents per unit is 2.6.31 Based on an average of 2.6 residents per unit, the proposed Project would generate approximately 76532 new residents. As shown in Table 3.2-2: SCAG Population Projections for the City of Glendale, Los, Angeles County, and SCAG Region, the City had an estimated permanent population of 201,200, 74,500 total dwelling units, and 117,000 employees based on the regional growth projections in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS in 2016,33 and an estimated population of 203,834 and 76,804 total dwelling units in 2021.34 SCAG estimates the population of the City will increase to 214,100 residents, 82,300 dwelling units, and 125,900 employees by 2045, an increase of 12,900 residents, 7,800 dwelling units, and 8,900 employees from 2016 to 2045.35 The proposed Project would account for approximately 5.9 percent of the anticipated increase in residents from 2016 to 2045, and approximately 7.5 percent of the anticipated increase in residents from 2021 to 2045.36,37 The addition of approximately 765 people would be well within the SCAG population forecasts for the City.

As presented above, the proposed Project would be consistent with Criterion 1. 30 City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, Attachment A: High-Quality Transit Maps, City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation Future High Quality Transit Areas (October 2020). 31 State of California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates (2021), https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. Accessed August 2021. 32 294 units * 2.6 (average persons per household) = 765. 33 SCAG Connect SoCal, Demographics & Growth Forecast Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed August 2021. 34 State of California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates (2021), https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. Accessed August 2021. 35 SCAG Connect SoCal, Demographics & Growth Forecast Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed August 2021. 36 765 Project residents / 12,900 (the increase in residents in Glendale between 201,200 [2016] and 214,100 [2045]) = 0.059. 37 765 Project residents / 10,266 (the increase in residents in Glendale between 203,834 [2021] and 214,100 [2045]) = 0.075. 205 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-10 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 TABLE 3.2-2

SCAG POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE CITY OF GLENDALE, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND SCAG REGION
Population
Region 2016 2045 % Growth (2016-2045)
Glendale City 201,200 214,100 12,900
Los Angeles
County 10,110,000 11,674,000 1,564,000
SCAG Region 18,832,000 22,504,000 3,672,000
Source: SCAG Connect SoCal, Demographics & Growth Forecast Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed August 2021.

Consistency with Criterion 2: Based on total building square footage, the Project contains at least 50 percent residential use, and if Project contains between 26 percent and 50 percent
nonresidential uses, a floor area ratio of not less than 0.75.

The proposed Project includes approximately 462,260 square feet of total building area of which there would be approximately 255,396 square feet of residential floor area, which is equivalent to approximately 55 percent. The total building area includes the at-grade and above-grades parking levels, as required for the FAR calculation per the Zoning Code. The existing bank building (45,125 square feet) is to be maintained, and no other commercial uses are proposed within the new residential building. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with Criterion 2 since the proposed Project would contain more than 50 percent residential use.
206 of 2287
North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Map
FIGURE 3.0-1
184-003-21
SOURCE: METRO - 2020
N
207 of 2287
San Bernardino
County
Riverside
County
Orange
County
Ventura
County
Los Angeles
County
San Diego County
Kern County
101
101
241
57 91
60 60
126
170
18 91
126
33 210
215
405
15 215
10 5
10 10
210
5 605
710
110
105
5 5
5 10
15 15
10 °
San Bernardino
County
Riverside
County
Imperial
County

ARIZONA
San Diego
County
62 8
10 10
40 40
Pacific
Ocean
SCAG 2045 Planned High Quality Transit Corridors
FIGURE 3.0-2
184-003-21
SOURCE: SCAG - 2019

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
0 10 20 40
N Major Transit Stops (2045) High Quality Transit Corridors (HQTCs) (2045) 208 of 2287
Galleria
Adult
Rec.

Center
Central
Library
& Park
H

STOCKER
SQUARE
Alex
Theatre
SSA
12 4
4 5 4
6 6
6 5
5 11
11 7
7 3
8 8
3 90
90 92
92 92
94 94
94 603
603
603
180
180
501
501
501
501
180
Gardena Av

LB DNARB S

VA CIFICAP S

VA CIFICAP N

E MOUNTAIN ST

W KENNETH ST
E Glenoaks Bl

ETHEL ST
W Glenoaks Bl

W WILSON AV E WILSON AV

E BROADWAY

W BROADWAY

E CHEVY CHASE DR

ACACIA AV

RD ESAHC YVEHC S

DR OGUDREV

GLENDALE BL

S GLENDALE AV

N GLENDALE AV

LOS FELIZ BL

W COLORADO ST E COLORADO ST

VINE ST

W LOMITA AV

W WINDSOR RD

SAN FERNANDO RD
E Stocker St

W DRYDEN ST E DRYDEN ST

E FAIRVIEW AV

ARDEN AV

W CALIFORNIA AV

W LEXINGTON DR

W MILFORD ST

E LEXINGTON DR

E DORAN ST

W LAUREL ST
MAGNOLIA AV vA lartneC S
vA lartneC N
N
LEGEND
A
Route 1
Other Beeline Routes
Timepoint
Bus Stop
Landmark
Metro Route
LADOT Route
#
Civic
Center
Pacific
Community
Center & Park
Roosevelt
MS
Fashion
Center
Salem
Lutheran Hoover HS
Incarnation
ES
Americana Memorial
Verdugo
Jobs
Center
#
549
#
549
Holy
Family
5 134
A
B
C

GLENDALE

TRANSPORTATION
CENTER
Edison ES
6 6
Glendale Beeline Route 1
FIGURE 3.0-3
184-003-21
SOURCE: Transportation City of Glendale, 2020
209 of 2287
City of Glendale SB 743 Implementation:

Future High Quality Transit Areas
FIGURE 3.0-4
184-003-21
SOURCE: Transportation City of Glendale, 2020

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES
0 0.5 1 2
N
Glendale
Future High Quality Transit Areas
Potential Future High Quality Transit Areas (Glendale Streetcar) 210 of 2287
184-003-21
Existing Transit Routes in Project Site Vicinity
FIGURE 3.0-5
SOURCE: Linscott, Law & Greenspan, engineers – 2021
211 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-16 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Consistency with Criterion 3: The Project includes a minimum net density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre.

The Project site includes 63,760 square feet (1.46 acres). The proposed Project includes 294 dwelling units, which results in a density of 201 dwelling units per acre. As such, the proposed Project is consistent with Criterion 3 in that it would exceed a net density of 20 units per acre.

Consistency with Criterion 4: The Project site is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS.

A major transit stop is defined as “[a] site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods” and is included in the applicable regional transportation plan (PRC Sections 21064.3 and 21155(b)).

A high-quality transit corridor is “[a] corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours” (PRC Section 21155(b)).38 Per Appendix M of the CEQA Guidelines, an “existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor” may include a planned and funded stop that is included in an adopted regional transportation improvement program.39 Central Avenue qualifies as both an existing and bus transit corridor and the Project site is located within

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-17 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 Central Avenue is also identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as shown in Figure 3.0-2: SCAG 2045 Planned High Quality Transit Corridors.42,43,44 Central Avenue is identified as a future high quality transit corridor in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS because Central Avenue is included in the route for the planned North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line. The North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT Corridor Project was approved by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) in May 2021.45 This North Hollywood to Pasadena BRT line is scheduled to be operation by 2024.

The proposed Project is located approximately 0.3 miles from the proposed Lexington Drive station, at the intersection of Lexington Drive and Central Avenue, for the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit BRT Corridor Project as shown in Figure 3.0-1.46 For these reasons, the proposed Project is within

0.5 miles of a high quality transit corridor.

In addition, the Project site is well served by regional and local public transit, specifically the Glendale Beeline, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro), and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Transit Commuter Express. The Project site is within a half mile of numerous bus stops along Central Avenue, Brand Boulevard, Western Avenue, Glenoaks Boulevard, Stocker Street, Glendale Avenue, Wilson Street, Colorado Street, and Doran Street as shown in Figure 5.0-5. For these reasons, the proposed Project is consistent with this Criterion 4.

3.3 INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES FROM PRIOR EIRS PRC Section 21151.2 requires that a Transit Priority Project incorporate all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria from prior applicable EIRs. There are three prior EIRs applicable to the Project site:

1. SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR, September 2020.

2. City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR, June 2018.

3. City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR, October 2006.

To comply with PRC Section 21151.2, the City has reviewed all mitigation measures contained in the SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR, City of Glendale South Glendale Community Plan EIR, City of Glendale Downtown Specific Plan EIR and determined their applicability to the proposed Project. For each such applicable mitigation measure, the City considered whether to incorporate the prior mitigation 42 SCAG, Transportation System Transit Technical Report, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal_transit.pdf?1606002122. Accessed December 2021. 43 Personal communication with Stephen G. Fox, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), January 2021. 44 PRC, “California Legislative
Information,”https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum=21155, accessed September 2021.
45 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, Metro Board Approves Proposed Project for North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project, May 27, 2021, https://www.metro.net/about/metro-board-approvesproposed-project-for-north-hollywood-to-pasadena-bus-rapid-transit-corridor-project/, Accessed June 2022. 46 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, North Hollywood to Pasadena Transit Corridor Project, https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena-corridor/. Accessed November 2021. 213 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-18 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment June 2022 measures as stated in those EIR's or an equally or more effective City mitigation measure or federal, State, regional, or City regulation.

The SCAG 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR identified mitigation measures designed to help avoid or minimize significant environmental impacts. Mitigation measures in the Program EIR are categorized into two categories: (1) Mitigation measures to be implemented by SCAG in its role as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the SCAG Region; and (2) mitigation measures that may be considered by Lead Agencies in conjunction with evaluation and consideration of individual projects. This table addresses category (2): mitigation measures that may be considered by Lead Agencies in conjunction with evaluation and consideration of individual projects.

The tables below include the mitigation measures from each of these prior applicable EIRs and identifies which measures have been incorporated into the proposed Project. Measures incorporated into the proposed Project are also identified within Section 5.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Analysis of this SCEA:
• Table 3.3-1: Mitigation Measures from the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR Incorporated into the Proposed Project
• Table 3.3-2: Mitigation Measures from the 2020–2045 RTP/SCS Program EIR Not Incorporated into the Proposed Project
• Table 3.3-3: Mitigation Measures from the South Glendale Community Plan EIR Incorporated into the Proposed Project
• Table 3.3-4: Mitigation Measures from the South Glendale Community Plan EIR Not Incorporated into the Proposed Project
• Table 3.3-5: Mitigation Measures from the Downtown Specific Plan EIR Incorporated into the Proposed Project
• Table 3.3-6: Mitigation Measures from the Downtown Specific Plan EIR Not Incorporated into the Proposed Project
214 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-19 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-1
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Air Quality
Violation of air quality
standards.

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. (i) On Caltrans projects, Caltrans Standard Specifications 10-Dust Control, 17-Watering, and 18-Dust Palliative shall be incorporated into project specifications.
(j) Require contractors to assemble a comprehensive inventory list (i.e., make, model, engine year, horsepower, emission rates) of all heavy-duty off-road (portable and mobile) equipment (50 horsepower and greater) that could be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. Prepare a plan for approval by the applicable air district demonstrating achievement of the applicable percent reduction for a CARB approved fleet. Daily logging of the operating hours of the equipment should also be required.
(k) Ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained.
(l) Minimize idling time to 5 minutes or beyond regulatory requirements— saves fuel and reduces emissions.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as SCAG
EIR PMM-AQ-1 as identified in the analysis of
this topic in Section 5.0 of this SCEA.

The proposed Project complies with this
measure. Demolition, grading and construction
activities must comply with provisions of the
SCAQMD District Rule 403, including the
following:
• Apply water to disturbed areas of the
site three times a day
• Require the use of a gravel apron or
other equivalent methods to reduce
mud and dirt trackout onto truck exit
routes
• Appoint a construction relations officer
to act as a community liaison
concerning on-site construction activity
including resolution of issues related to
PM generation
• Limit soil disturbance to the amounts
analyzed in this air quality analysis
• All materials transported off-site shall
be securely covered
• Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers
according to manufacturers’
specifications to all inactive
construction areas (previously graded
areas inactive for ten days or more)
• Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to
be reduced to 15 mph or less
• Architectural coatings and solvents
applied during construction activities
shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113,
which governs the VOC content of
architectural coatings
215 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-20 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-1
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (m) Provide an operational water truck on-site at all times. Use watering trucks to minimize dust; watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the Project work areas. Sweep paved streets at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried on to the roadway.
(n) Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators.
(o) Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts as a result of traffic flow interference from construction activities. The plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation, and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Minimize obstruction of throughtraffic lanes. Provide a flag person to guide traffic properly and ensure safety at construction sites. Project sponsors should consider developing a goal for the minimization of community impacts.
(p) As appropriate require that portable engines and portable engine-driven equipment units used at the Project work site, with the exception of onroad and off-road motor vehicles, obtain CARB Portable Equipment Registration with the State or a local district permit. Arrange appropriate consultations with the CARB or the District to determine registration and permitting requirements prior to equipment operation at the site.
(q) Require projects to use Tier 4 Final equipment or better for all engines above 50 horsepower (hp). In the event that construction equipment cannot meet to Tier 4 Final engine certification, the Project representative or contractor must demonstrate through future study with written findings supported by substantial evidence that is approved by SCAG before using other technologies/strategies. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, construction equipment with Tier 4 Interim or reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment and/or limiting the number of construction equipment operating at the same time. All equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended maintenance schedule and
specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their contractor(s) should make available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction unless the individual project can demonstrate that Tier 4 engines would not be required to mitigate emissions below significance thresholds. Project sponsors should also consider including ZE/ZNE technologies where Item “i” is not incorporated into the
proposed Project because it is specifically
applicable to Caltrans projects.
216 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-21 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-1
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project appropriate and feasible.
(r) Projects located within the South Coast Air Basin should consider applying for South Coast AQMD “SOON” funds which provides funds to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially available lowemission heavy-duty engines to achieve near-term reduction of NOx emissions from in-use off-road diesel vehicles.
(s) Projects located within AB 617 communities should review the applicable Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) for additional mitigation that can be applied to individual projects.
(t) Where applicable, projects should provide information about air quality related programs to schools, including the Environmental Justice Community Partnerships (EJCP), Clean Air Ranger Education (CARE), and Why Air Quality Matters programs.
(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).
(v) As applicable for airport projects, the following measures should be considered:
i) Considering operational improvements to reduce taxi time and auxiliary power unit usage, where feasible. Additionally, consider single engine taxing, if feasible as allowed per Federal Aviation Administration guidelines.
ii) Set goals to achieve a reduction in emissions from aircraft operations over the lifetime of the proposed project.
iii) Require the use of ground service equipment (GSE) that can operate on battery-power. If electric equipment cannot be obtained, require the use of alternative fuel, the cleanest gasoline equipment, or Tier 4, at a minimum.
(w) As applicable for port projects, the following measures should be considered:
i) Develop specific timelines for transitioning to zero emission cargo handling equipment (CHE).
ii) Develop interim performance standards with a minimum amount of CHE replacement each year to ensure adequate
progress.
iii) Use short side electric power for ships, which may include Item “r” is not incorporated into the proposed
Project because SCAQMD “SOON” funds would
not be included as part of the proposed Project.

Item “s” is not incorporated into the proposed
Project because the Project site is not located
within an AB 617 community.

Item “t” is not incorporated into the proposed
Project because it is specifically applicable to
school projects.

Item “v” is not incorporated into the proposed
Project because it is specifically applicable to
airport projects.

Item “w” is not incorporated into the proposed
Project because it is specifically applicable to
port projects.
217 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-22 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-1
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project tugboats and other ocean-going vessels or develop incentives to gradually ramp up the usage of shore power.
iv) Install the appropriate infrastructure to provide shore power to operate the ships. Electrical hookups should be appropriately sized.
v) Maximize participation in the Port of Los Angeles’ Vessel Speed Reduction Program or the Port of Long Beach’s Green Flag Initiation Program in order to reduce the speed of vessel transiting within 40 nautical miles of Point Fermin.
vi) Encourage the participation in the Green Ship Incentives. vii) Offer incentives to encourage the use of on-dock rail. (x) As applicable for rail projects, the following measures should be considered:
i) Provide the highest incentives for electric locomotives and then locomotives that meet Tier 5 emission standards with a floor on the incentives for locomotives that meet Tier 4 emission standards.
(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 Item “x” is not incorporated into the proposed
Project because it is specifically applicable to
rail projects.
218 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-23 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-1
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project purchased.
v) Provide recommended schedule (e.g., every year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration units.
vi) Identify the responsible entity such as future residents themselves, Homeowner’s Association, or property managers for ensuring enhanced filtration units are replaced on time. vii) Identify, provide, and disclose ongoing cost-sharing strategies, if any, for replacing the enhanced filtration units.
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.
(aa) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities (bb) The following criteria related to diesel emissions shall be implemented on by individual project sponsors as appropriate and feasible:
i) Diesel nonroad vehicles on site for more than 10 total days shall have either (1) engines that meet EPA on road emissions standards or (2) emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%.
ii) Diesel generators on site for more than 10 total days shall be equipped with emission control technology verified by EPA or CARB to reduce PM emissions by a minimum of 85%.
iii) Nonroad diesel engines on site shall be Tier 2 or higher. iv) 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. v) Emission control technology shall be operated, maintained, and serviced as recommended by the emission control technology manufacturer.
vi) Diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators on site shall be fueled with ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) or a Item “aa” is not incorporated into the proposed
Project as Glendale is not identified as a lowincome and/or minority community. 219 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-24 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-1
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project biodiesel blend approved by the original engine manufacturer with sulfur content of 15 ppm or less.
vii) The construction contractor shall maintain a list of all diesel vehicles, construction equipment, and generators to be used on site. The list shall include the following:
(1) Contractor and subcontractor name and address, plus contact person responsible for the vehicles or equipment. (2) Equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment
serial number, engine manufacturer, engine model year,
engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, engine
serial number, and expected fuel usage and hours of
operation.
(3) For the emission control technology installed: technology type, serial number, make, model, manufacturer,
EPA/CARB verification number/level, and installation date and hour-meter reading on installation date.
viii) The contractor shall establish generator sites and truck-staging zones for vehicles waiting to load or unload material on site.

Such zones shall be located where diesel emissions have the least impact on abutters, the general public, and especially sensitive receptors such as hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. ix) The contractor shall maintain a monthly report that, for each on road diesel vehicle, 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
(c) Quantity of fuel, including sulfur content (percent by weight)
(cc) Project should exceed Title-24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency 220 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-25 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-1
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Standards (California Building Standards Code). The following measures can be used to increase energy efficiency:
i) Install programmable thermostat timers
ii) Obtain Third-party HVAC commissioning and verification of energy savings (to be grouped with exceedance of Title 24). iii) Install energy efficient appliances (Typical reductions for energy-efficient appliances can be found in the Energy Star and Other Climate Protection Partnerships Annual Reports.)
iv) Install higher efficacy public street and area lighting v) Limit outdoor lighting requirements
vi) Replace traffic lights with LED traffic lights
vii) Establish on-site renewable or carbon neutral energy systems – generic, solar power and wind power
viii) Utilize a combined heat and power system
ix) Establish methane recovery in Landfills and Wastewater Treatment Plants.
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.
xii) Provide traffic calming measures, such as:
(1) Marked crosswalks
(2) Count-down signal timers
(3) Curb extensions
(4) Speed tables
(5) Raised crosswalks
(6) Raised intersections
(7) Median islands
Item “cc vi” is not incorporated into the
proposed Project because the proposed project
would not result in substantial adverse effects
related to aesthetics or transportation (see
Appendix E) that would require replacement of
traffic lights.

Item “cc ix” is not incorporated into the
proposed Project because the Project site is not
a landfill or wastewater treatment plant.

Item “cc xii” is not incorporated into the
proposed Project because the proposed project
would not result in substantial adverse effects
221 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-26 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-1
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (8) Tight corner radii
(9) Roundabouts or mini-circles
(10) On-street parking
(11) Chicanes/chokers
xiii) Create urban non-motorized zones
xiv) Provide bike parking in non-residential and multi-unit residential projects
xv) Dedicate land for bike trails
xvi) Limit parking supply through:
(1) Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking
requirements
(2) Creation of maximum parking requirements
(3) Provision of shared parking
xvii)Require residential area parking permit
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 and finding requirement.
related to transportation (see Appendix E) that
would require traffic calming measures.

Item “cc xiii” is not incorporated into the
proposed Project because non-motorized zones
would not be included as part of the proposed
Project.it is not applicable to individual private
development projects.

Item “cc xv” is not incorporated into the
proposed Project because dedicated bike trails
would not be included as part of the proposed
Project.

Item “cc xvii” is not incorporated into the
proposed Project because the proposed Project
would not provide residential streets and
permits would not be required. All 373 parking
spaces would be provided within four
subterranean levels for the residential use
proposed on the site. The amount of parking
supplied for the proposed Project would be
consistent with the GMC.
222 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-27 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-1
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Geology and Soils
Earthquake or other
seismic activity. Unstable
geologic unit or soil,
expansive soils.

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 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.
(d) Consistent with the CBC and local regulatory agencies with oversight of development associated with the Plan, ensure that, prior to preparing project designs, new and abandoned wells are identified within construction areas to ensure the stability of nearby soils.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as SCAG
EIR PMM-GEO-1 as identified in the analysis of
this topic in Section 5.0 of this SCEA.

The proposed Project complies with this
measure and would not exacerbate geologic
impacts related to earthquake or other seismic
activity because no known active faults cross the
site, nor is the site located in a currently
established Alquist-Priolo (AP) Special Studies
Zone. Further, the proposed Project already
substantially conforms with this Mitigation
Measure as it is subject to regulatory compliance
measures, which are capable of avoiding or
reducing the significant effects on the potential
for projects to result in the exposure of people
and infrastructure to the effects of earthquakes,
seismic related ground- failure, liquefaction,
and seismically induced landslides, that are in
the jurisdiction and responsibility of public
agencies, regulatory agencies, and/or Lead
Agencies. Regulatory compliance measures
include submitting a geology/soils report prior
to any issuance of permit, which provides design
recommendations for the proposed
grading/construction along with an evaluation
by the project geologist to confirm that the
proposed habitable structures are located within
the shadow zone of the fault study exploration.

In addition, during construction, the Project
engineering geologist shall observe all
excavations that expose the natural alluvial soils
and bedrock to verify the conclusions of the
fault investigation.

Item “d” is not incorporated because there are
no new oil wells proposed or abandoned oil wells
on the Project site.
223 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-28 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-1
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Noise
Expose people to noise in
excess of local standards.

Excessive groundborne
vibration or noise levels.

Substantial permanent
increase in noise level.

Substantial temporary
increase in noise levels.

PMM NOISE-1: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects that physically divide a community, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Install temporary noise barriers during construction. (b) Include permanent noise barriers and sound-attenuating features as part of the Project design. Barriers could be in the form of outdoor barriers, sound walls, buildings, or earth berms to attenuate noise at adjacent sensitive uses.
(c) Schedule construction activities consistent with the allowable hours pursuant to applicable general plan noise element or noise ordinance (d) Post procedures and phone numbers at the construction site for notifying the Lead Agency staff, local Police Department, and construction contractor (during regular construction hours and off-hours), along with permitted construction days and hours, complaint procedures, and who to notify in the event of a problem.
(e) Notify neighbors and occupants within 300 feet of the Project construction area at least 30 days in advance of anticipated times when noise levels are expected to exceed limits established in the noise element of the general plan or noise ordinance.
(f) Designate an on-site construction complaint and enforcement manager for the Project.
(g) Ensure that construction equipment are properly maintained per manufacturers' specifications and fitted with the best available noise suppression devices (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds silencers, wraps). All intake and exhaust ports on power equipment shall be muffled or shielded.
(h) Use hydraulically or electrically powered tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) for project construction to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust should be used; this This mitigation measure is incorporated as SCAG
EIR PMM NOISE-1 as identified in the analysis of
this topic in Section 5.0 of this SCEA.
224 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-29 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-1
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project 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 re-pavement is planned
(l) Projects that require pile driving or other construction noise above 90 dBA in proximity to sensitive receptors, should reduce potential pier drilling, pile driving and/or other extreme noise generating construction impacts greater than 90 dBA; a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures should be completed under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant.
(m) Use land use planning measures, such as zoning, restrictions on development, site design, and buffers to ensure that future development is compatible with adjacent transportation facilities and land uses;
(n) Monitor the effectiveness of noise reduction measures by taking noise measurements and installing adaptive mitigation measures to achieve the standards for ambient noise levels established by the noise element of the general plan or noise ordinance.
(o) Use equipment and trucks with the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible) for project construction. (p) Stationary noise sources can and should be located as far from adjacent sensitive receptors as possible and they should be muffled and enclosed 225 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-30 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-1
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project 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 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.

Source: 2020 - 2045 SCAG/RTP SCS FEIR
226 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-31 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Aesthetics
Scenic Vistas PMM AES-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 address potential aesthetic impacts to scenic vistas, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Use a palette of colors, textures, building materials that are graffitiresistant, and/or plant materials that complement the surrounding landscape and development.
(b) Use contour grading to better match surrounding terrain. Contour edges of major cut-and-fill to provide a more natural looking finished profile. (c) Design new corridor landscaping to respect existing natural and manmade features and to complement the dominant landscaping of the surrounding areas.
(d) Replace and renew landscaping along corridors with road widenings, interchange projects, and related improvements.
(e) Retain or replace trees bordering highways, so that clear-cutting is not evident.
(f) Provide new corridor landscaping that respects and provides appropriate transition to existing natural and man-made features and is complementary to the dominant landscaping or native habitats of surrounding areas.
(g) Reduce the visibility of construction staging areas by fencing and screening these areas with low contrast materials consistent with the surrounding environment, and by revegetating graded slopes and exposed earth surfaces at the earliest opportunity;
(h) Use see-through safety barrier designs (e.g., railings rather than walls) This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because PRC Section 21099, enacted by Senate
Bill 743, states that “aesthetic and parking
impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or
employment center project on an infill site within
a transit priority area shall not be considered
significant impacts on the environment.”
Furthermore, the City has determined, based on
the analysis of this topic in Section 5.1 of this
SCEA that the proposed Project would not have an
adverse effect on scenic vistas.

Visual Character PMM AES-2: 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 address potential aesthetic impacts that substantially degrade visual character, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Minimize contrasts in scale and massing between the Projects and surrounding natural forms and development, minimize their intrusion into important viewsheds, and use contour grading to better match This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because PRC Section 21099, enacted by Senate
Bill 743, states that “aesthetic and parking
impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or
employment center project on an infill site within
a transit priority area shall not be considered
significant impacts on the environment.”
Furthermore, the City has determined, based on
the analysis of this topic in Section 5.1 of this
227 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-32 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project surrounding terrain in accordance with county and city hillside ordinances, where applicable.
(b) Design landscaping along highway corridors to add significant natural elements and visual interest to soften the hard-edged, linear transportation corridors.
(c) Require development of design guidelines for projects that make elements of proposed buildings/facilities visually compatible or minimize visibility of changes in visual quality or character through use of hardscape and softscape solutions. Specific measures to be addressed include setback buffers, landscaping, color, texture, signage, and lighting criteria.
(d) Design projects consistent with design guidelines of applicable general plans.
(e) Require that sites are kept in a blight/nuisance-free condition. Remove blight or nuisances that compromise visual character or visual quality of Project areas including graffiti abatement, trash removal, landscape management, maintenance of signage and billboards in good condition, and replace compromised native vegetation and landscape. (f) Where sound walls are proposed, require sound wall construction and design methods that account for visual impacts as follows:
i) use transparent panels to preserve views where sound walls would block views from residences;
ii) use landscaped earth berm or a combination wall and berm to minimize the apparent sound wall height;
iii) construct sound walls of materials whose color and texture complements the surrounding landscape and development.
(g) Design sound walls to increase visual interest, reduce apparent height, and be visually compatible with the surrounding area; and landscape the sound walls with plants that screen the sound wall, preferably with either native vegetation or landscaping that complements the dominant landscaping of surrounding areas.

SCEA that the proposed Project would not have an
adverse effect on the visual character of the site
and the surrounding area.

Light, glare, shade PMM AES-3: 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 address potential aesthetic impacts that substantially degrade visual character, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because PRC Section 21099, enacted by Senate
Bill 743, states that “aesthetic and parking
impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or
employment center project on an infill site within
a transit priority area shall not be considered
significant impacts on the environment.”
228 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-33 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (a) Use lighting fixtures that are adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector and that prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties.
(b) Restrict the operation of outdoor lighting for construction and operation activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or as otherwise required by applicable local rules or ordinances. (c) Use high pressure sodium and/or cut-off fixtures instead of typical mercury-vapor fixtures for outdoor lighting.
(d) Use unidirectional lighting to avoid light trespass onto adjacent properties.
(e) Design exterior lighting to confine illumination to the Project site, and/or to areas which do not include light sensitive uses. (f) Provide structural and/or vegetative screening from light-sensitive uses.
(g) Shield and direct all new street and pedestrian lighting away from lightsensitive off-site uses. (h) Use nonreflective glass or glass treated with a nonreflective coating for all exterior windows and glass used on building surfaces. (i) Architectural lighting shall be directed onto the building surfaces and have low reflectivity to minimize glare and limit light onto adjacent properties.

Furthermore, the City has determined, based on
the analysis of this topic in Section 5.1 of this
SCEA that the proposed Project would not result
in adverse light, glare, or effects.

Agricultural and Forest Resources
Conversion of farmland to
nonagricultural uses.

Conversion of forest land.

PMM AG-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 address potential adverse effects on agricultural resources, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Require project sponsors to mitigate for loss of farmland by providing permanent protection of in-kind farmland in the form of easements, fees, or elimination of development rights/potential.
(b) Project relocation or corridor realignment to avoid Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local or Statewide Importance. (c) Maintain and expand agricultural land protections such as urban growth boundaries.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.2 that the
proposed Project would not result in potential
adverse effects to agriculture and forest
resources.
229 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-34 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (d) Provide for mitigation fees to support a mitigation bank that invests in farmer education, agricultural infrastructure, water supply, marketing, etc. that enhance the commercial viability of retained agricultural lands.
(e) Minimize severance and fragmentation of agricultural land by constructing underpasses and overpasses at reasonable intervals to provide property access.
(f) Use berms, buffer zones, setbacks, and fencing to reduce conflicts between new development and farming uses and protect the functions of farmland.

Zoning for Ag use,
Williamson Act Contract
PMM AG-2: Project level mitigation measures can and should be considered by Lead Agencies as applicable and feasible. Measures to reduce substantial adverse effects on Williamson Act contracts to the maximum extent practicable, as determined appropriate by each Lead Agency, may include the following, or other comparable measures:
(a) Project relocation or corridor realignment to avoid lands in Williamson Act contracts.
(b) Establish conservation easements consistent with the recommendations of the Department of Conservation, or 20-year Farmland Security Zone contracts (Government Code Section 51296 et seq.), 10-year Williamson Act contracts (Government Code Section 51200 et seq.) or use of other conservation tools available from the California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.2 that the
proposed Project would not result in substantial
adverse effects on Williamson Act contracts.

Loss of forest land or
conversion to nonforest
PMM AG-3: Project level mitigation measures can and should be considered by Lead Agencies as applicable and feasible. Measures to reduce substantial adverse effects, through the conversion of Farmland to maximum extent practicable, as determined appropriate by each Lead Agency, may include the following, or other comparable measures:
(a) Minimize construction related impacts to agricultural and forestry resources by locating materials and stationary equipment in such a way as to prevent conflict with agriculture and forestry resources This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.2 that the
proposed Project would not result in substantial
adverse effects to agriculture and forest resources
Conversion of Farmland PMM AG-4: Project level mitigation measures can and should be considered by Lead Agencies as applicable and feasible. Measures to reduce substantial adverse effects, through the conversion of Farmland, to the maximum extent practicable, as determined appropriate by each Lead Agency, may include the following, or other comparable measures:
(a) Design proposed projects to minimize, to the greatest extent feasible, the loss of the highest valued agricultural land.

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-35 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (b) Redesign project features to minimize fragmenting or isolating Farmland. Where a project involves acquiring land or easements, ensure that the remaining non-Project area is of a size sufficient to allow economically viable farming operations. The Project proponents shall be responsible for acquiring easements, making lot line adjustments, and merging affected land parcels into units suitable for continued commercial agricultural management.
(c) Reconnect utilities or infrastructure that serve agricultural uses if these are disturbed by project construction. If a project temporarily or permanently cuts off roadway access or removes utility lines, irrigation features, or other infrastructure, the Project proponents shall be responsible for restoring access as necessary to ensure that economically viable farming operations are not interrupted.

Other changes PMM AG-5: Project level mitigation measures can and should be considered by Lead Agencies as applicable. Measures to reduce substantial adverse effects, through the conversion of Farmland, to the maximum extent practicable, as determined appropriate by each Lead Agency, may include the following, or other comparable measures:
(a) Manage project operations to minimize the introduction of invasive species or weeds that may affect agricultural production on adjacent agricultural land. Where a project has the potential to introduce sensitive species or habitats or have other spill-over effects on nearby agricultural lands, the Project proponents shall be responsible for acquiring easements on nearby agricultural land and/or financially compensating for indirect effects on nearby agricultural land.

Easements (e.g., flowage easements) shall be required for temporary or intermittent interrupt ion in farming activities (e.g., because of seasonal flooding or groundwater seepage). Acquisition or compensation would be required for permanent or significant loss of economically viable operations.

Biological Resources
Candidate, sensitive, or
special status species.

PMM BIO-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 threatened and endangered species, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Require project design to avoid occupied habitat, potentially suitable habitat, and designated critical habitat, wherever practicable and feasible.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.4 that the
proposed Project would not result in substantial
adverse effects to any candidate, sensitive, or
special status species.
231 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-36 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (b) Where avoidance is determined to be infeasible, provide conservation measures to fulfill the requirements of the applicable authorization for incidental take pursuant to Section 7 or 10(a) of the federal ESA, Section 2081 of the California ESA to support issuance of an incidental take permit, and/or as identified in local or regional plans. Conservation strategies to protect the survival and recovery of federally and state-listed endangered and local special status species may include:
i. Impact minimization strategies
ii. Contribution of in-lieu fees for in-kind conservation and mitigation efforts
iii. Use of in-kind mitigation bank credits
iv. Funding of research and recovery efforts
v. Habitat restoration
vi. Establishment of conservation easements
vii. Permanent dedication of in-kind habitat
(c) Design projects to avoid desert native plants protected under the California Desert Native Plants Act, salvage and relocate desert native plants, and/or pay in lieu fees to support off-site long-term conservation strategies.
(d) Temporary access roads and staging areas will not be located within areas containing sensitive plants, wildlife species or native habitat wherever feasible, so as to avoid or minimize impacts to these species.
(e) Develop and implement a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (environmental education) to inform project workers of their responsibilities to avoid and minimize impacts on sensitive biological resources.
(f) Retain a qualified botanist to document the presence or absence of special status plants before project implementation.
(g) Appoint a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities that may occur in or adjacent to occupied sensitive species’ habitat to facilitate avoidance of resources not permitted for impact. (h) Appoint a qualified biologist to monitor implementation of mitigation measures.
(i) Schedule construction activities to avoid sensitive times for biological resources (e.g., steelhead spawning periods during the 232 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-37 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project winter and spring, nesting bird season) and to avoid the rainy season when erosion and sediment transport is increased.
(j) Develop an invasive species control plan associated with project construction.
(k) If construction occurs during breeding seasons in or adjacent to suitable habitat, include appropriate sound attenuation measures required for sensitive avian species and other best management practices appropriate for potential local sensitive wildlife. (l) Conduct pre-construction surveys to delineate occupied sensitive species’ habitat to facilitate avoidance.
(m) Where projects are determined to be within suitable habitat and may impact listed or sensitive species that have specific field survey protocols or guidelines outlined by the USFWS, CDFW, or other local agency, conduct preconstruction surveys that follow applicable protocols and guidelines and are conducted by qualified and/or certified personnel.
(n) Project design should address the protection of habitat on both sides of a freeway to improve effectiveness of the crossings. (o) Project sponsors shall consider the impacts of nitrogen deposition on sensitive species.

Riparian or other sensitive
natural community.

Wetlands. Species
movement. Local policies
or ordinances protection
biological resources.

PMM BIO-2: 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 riparian habitats and other sensitive natural communities, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Consult with the USFWS and NMFS where such state-designated sensitive or riparian habitats provide potential or occupied habitat for federally listed rare, threatened, and endangered species afforded protection pursuant to the federal ESA.
(b) Consult with the USFS where such state-designated sensitive or riparian habitats provide potential or occupied habitat for federally listed rare, threatened, and endangered species afforded protection pursuant to the federal ESA and any additional species afforded protection by an adopted Forest Land Management Plan or Resource Management Plan for the four national forests in the six-county area: Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino.
(c) Consult with the CDFW where such state-designated sensitive or riparian habitats provide potential or occupied habitat for state-listed rare, This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.4 that the
proposed Project would not result in substantial
adverse effects to riparian or other sensitive
natural communities, wetlands, or species
movement.
233 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-38 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project threatened, and endangered species afforded protection pursuant to the California ESA, or Fully Protected Species afforded protection pursuant to the State Fish and Game Code.
(d) Consult with the CDFW pursuant to the provisions of Section 1600 of the State Fish and Game Code as they relate to Lakes and Streambeds. (e) Consult with the USFWS, USFS, CDFW, and counties and cities in the SCAG region, where state-designated sensitive or riparian habitats are occupied by birds afforded protection pursuant to the MBTA during the breeding season.
(f) Consult with the CDFW for state-designated sensitive or riparian habitats where furbearing mammals, afforded protection pursuant to the provisions of the State Fish and Game Code for fur-beaming mammals, are actively using the areas in conjunction with breeding activities.
(g) Require project design to avoid sensitive natural communities and riparian habitats, wherever practicable and feasible. Where practicable and feasible, require upland buffers that sufficiently minimize impacts to riparian corridors.
(h) Where avoidance is determined to be infeasible, develop sufficient conservation measures through coordination with local agencies and the regulatory agency (i.e., USFWS or CDFW) to protect sensitive natural communities and riparian habitats and develop appropriate compensatory mitigation, where required.
(i) Appoint a qualified wetland biologist to monitor construction activities that may occur in or adjacent to sensitive communities. (j) Appoint a qualified wetland biologist to monitor implementation of mitigation measures.
(k) Schedule construction activities to avoid sensitive times for biological resources and to avoid the rainy season when erosion and sediment transport is increased.
(l) When construction activities require stream crossings, schedule work during dry conditions and use rubber-wheeled vehicles, when feasible.

Have a qualified wetland scientist determine if potential project impacts require a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration to CDFW during the planning phase of projects. m)
(m) Consult with local agencies, jurisdictions, and landowners where such state-designated sensitive or riparian habitats are afforded protection pursuant an adopted regional conservation plan.
234 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-39 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (n) Install fencing and/or mark sensitive habitat to be avoided during construction activities.
(o) Salvage and stockpile topsoil (the surface material from 6 to 12 inches deep) and perennial native plants, when recommended by the qualified wetland biologist, for use in restoring native vegetation to areas of temporary disturbance within the Project area. Salvage of soils containing invasive species, seeds and/or rhizomes will be avoided as identified by the qualified wetland biologist. p)
(p) Revegetate with appropriate native vegetation following the completion of construction activities, as identified by the qualified wetland biologist.
(q) Complete habitat enhancement (e.g., through removal of nonnative invasive wetland species replacement with more ecologically valuable native species).
(r) Use Best Management Practices (BMPs) at construction sites to minimize erosion and sediment transport from the area. BMPs include encouraging growth of native vegetation in disturbed areas, using straw bales or other silt-catching devices, and using settling basins to minimize soil transport.

Wetlands. Species
movement.

PMM BIO-3: 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 wetlands, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency.
(a) Require project design to avoid federally protected aquatic resources consistent with the provisions of Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA, wherever practicable and feasible.
(b) Where the lead agency has identified that a project, or other regionally significant project, has the potential to impact other wetlands or waters, such as those considered Waters Of the State of California under the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Dischargers of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, not protected under Section 404 or 401 of the CWA, seek comparable coverage for these wetlands and waters in consultation with the SWRCB, applicable RWQCB, and CDFW. (c) Where avoidance is determined to be infeasible, develop sufficient conservation measures to fulfill the requirements of the applicable authorization for impacts to federal and State protected aquatic resource to support issuance of a permit under Section 404 of the CWA as administered by the USACE. The use of an authorized Nationwide This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.4 that the
proposed Project would not result in substantial
adverse effects to agriculture and forest
resources.
235 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-40 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Permit or issuance of an individual permit requires the Project applicant to demonstrate compliance with the USACE’s Final Compensatory Mitigation Rule. The USACE reviews projects to ensure environmental impacts to aquatic resources are avoided or minimized as much as possible. Consistent with the administration’s performance standard of “no net loss of wetlands” a USACE permit may require a project proponent to restore, establish, enhance, or preserve other aquatic resources in order to replace those affected by the proposed project.

This compensatory mitigation process seeks to replace the loss of existing aquatic resource functions and area. Project proponents required to complete mitigation are encouraged to use a watershed approach and watershed planning information. The new rule establishes performance standards, sets timeframes for decision making, and to the extent possible, establishes equivalent requirements and standards for the three sources of compensatory mitigation:
i) Permittee-responsible mitigation
ii) Contribution of in-kind in-lieu fees
iii) Use of in-kind mitigation bank credits
iv) Where avoidance is determined to be infeasible and
(d) Where avoidance i s determined to be infeasible and proposed projects’ impacts exceed an existing Nationwide Permit (NWP) and/or California SWRCB-certified NWP, or applicable County Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), the lead agency should provide USACE and SWRCB (where applicable) an alternative analysis consistent with the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternatives in this order of priorities:
i) Avoidance
ii) Impact Minimization
iii) On-site alternatives
iv) Off-site alternatives
(e) Require review of construction drawings by a certified wetland delineator as part of each project-specific environmental analysis to determine whether aquatic resources will be affected and, if necessary, perform formal wetland delineation.

Species movement. Local
policies or ordinances
protection biological
PMM BIO-4: 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 wildlife movement, as applicable and feasible. Such This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.4 that the
236 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-41 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project resources. HCP, NCCP or
other conservation plans.
measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Consult with the USFS where impacts to migratory wildlife corridors may occur in an area afforded protection by an adopted Forest Land Management Plan or Resource Management Plan for the four national forests in the six-County area: Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino.
(b) Consult with counties, cities, and other local organizations when impacts may occur to open space areas that have been designated as important for wildlife movement related to local ordinances or conservation plans.
(c) Prohibit construction activities within 500 feet of occupied breeding areas for wildlife afforded protection pursuant to Title 14 § 460 of the California Code of Regulations protecting fur-bearing mammals, during the breeding season.
(d) Conduct a survey to identify active raptor and other migratory nongame bird nests by a qualified biologist at least two weeks before the start of construction at Project sites from February 1 through August 31. (e) Prohibit construction activities with 300 feet of occupied nest of birds afforded protection pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, during the breeding season.
(f) Ensure that suitable nesting sites for migratory nongame native bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or trees with unoccupied raptor nests should only be removed prior to February 1 or following the nesting season.
(g) When feasible and practicable, proposed projects will be designed to minimize impacts to wildlife movement and habitat connectivity and preserve existing and functional wildlife corridors.
(h) Conduct site-specific analyses of opportunities to preserve or improve habitat linkages with areas on- and off-site.
(i) Long linear projects with the possibility of impacting wildlife movement should analyze habitat linkages/wildlife movement corridors on a broad scale to avoid critical narrow choke points that could reduce function of recognized movement corridor.
(j) Require review of construction drawings and habitat connectivity mapping by a qualified biologist to determine the risk of habitat fragmentation.
proposed Project would not result in substantial
adverse effects on wildlife movement.
237 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-42 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (k) Pursue mitigation banking to preserve habitat linkages and corridors (opportunities to purchase, maintain, and/or restore off-site habitat). (l) When practicable and feasible design projects to promote wildlife corridor redundancy by including multiple connections between habitat patches.
(m) Evaluate the potential for installation of overpasses, underpasses, and culverts to create wildlife crossings in cases where a roadway or other transportation project may interrupt the flow of species through their habitat. Retrofitting of existing infrastructure in Project areas should also be considered for wildlife crossings for purposes of mitigation. (n) Install wildlife fencing where appropriate to minimize the probability of wildlife injury due to direct interaction between wildlife and roads or construction.
(o) Where avoidance is determined to be infeasible, design sufficient conservation measures through coordination with local agencies and the regulatory agency (i.e., USFWS or CDFW) and in accordance with the respective counties and cities general plans to establish plans to mitigate for the loss of fish and wildlife movement corridors and/or wildlife nursery sites. The consideration of conservation measures may include the following measures, in addition to the measures outlined in MM-BIO-1(b), where applicable:
i) Wildlife movement buffer zones
ii) Corridor realignment
iii) Appropriately spaced breaks in center barriers
iv) Stream rerouting
v) Culverts
vi) Creation of artificial movement corridors such as freeway under- or overpasses
vii) Other comparable measures
(p) Where the lead agency has identified that a RTP/SCS project, or other regionally significant project, has the potential to impact other open space or nursery site areas, seek comparable coverage for these areas in consultation with the USFWS, CDFW, NMFS, or other local jurisdictions.
238 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-43 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (q) Incorporate applicable and appropriate guidance (e.g., FHWA-HEP-16- 059), as well as best management practices, to benefit pollinators with a focus on native plants.
(r) Implement berms and sound/sight barriers at all wildlife crossings to encourage wildlife to utilize crossings. Sound and lighting should also be minimized in developed areas, particularly those that are adjacent to or go through natural habitats.
(s) Reduce lighting impacts on sensitive species through implementation of mitigation measures such as, but not limited to:
i) Use high pressure sodium and/or cut-off fixtures instead of typical mercury-vapor fixtures for outdoor lighting.
ii) Design exterior lighting to confine illumination to the Project site
iii) Provide structural and/or vegetative screening from lightsensitive uses. iv) Use reflective glass or glass treated with a nonreflective coating for all exterior windows and glass used on buildings surfaces
v) Architectural lighting shall be directed onto the building surfaces and have low reflectivity to minimize glare and limit light onto adjacent properties
(t) Reduce noise impacts to sensitive species through implementation of mitigation measures such as, but not limited to:
i) Install temporary noise barriers during construction. ii) 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.
iii) Ensure that construction equipment are properly maintained per manufacturers’ specifications and fitted with the best available noise suppression devices (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds silencers, wraps). All intake and exhaust ports on power equipment shall be muffled or shielded.
iv) 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 239 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-44 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project 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.

PMM BIO-5: 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 conflicts with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Consult with the appropriate local agency responsible for the administration of the policy or ordinance protecting biological resources.
(b) Prioritize retention of trees on-site consistent with local regulations.

Provide adequate protection during the construction period for any trees that are to remain standing, as recommended by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.4 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not conflict with
local policies and ordinances protecting biological
resources.
240 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-45 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (c) If specific Project area trees are designated as “Protected Trees,” “Landmark Trees,” or “Heritage Trees,” obtain approval for encroachment or removals through the appropriate entity, and develop appropriate mitigation measures at that time, to ensure that the trees are replaced. Mitigation trees shall be locally collected native species, as directed by a qualified biologist.
(d) Appoint an ISA certified arborist to monitor construction activities that may occur in areas with trees are designated as “Protected Trees,” “Landmark Trees,” or “Heritage Trees,” to facilitate avoidance of resources not permitted for impact. Before the start of any clearing, excavation, construction, or other work on the site, securely fence off every protected tree deemed to be potentially endangered by said site work. Keep such fences in place for duration of all such work. Clearly mark all trees to be removed. e) f) g)
(e) Establish a scheme for the removal and disposal of logs, brush, earth, and other debris that will avoid injury to any protected tree. Where proposed development or other site work could encroach upon the protected perimeter of any protected tree, incorporate special measures to allow the roots to breathe and obtain water and nutrients.

Minimize any excavation, cutting, filing, or compaction of the existing ground surface within the protected perimeter. Require that no change in existing ground level occur from the base of any protected tree at any time. Require that no burning or use of equipment with an open flame occur near or within the protected perimeter of any protected tree.
(f) Require that no storage or dumping of oil, gas, chemicals, or other substances that may be harmful to trees occur from the base of any protected trees, or any other location on the site from which such substances might enter the protected perimeter. Require that no heavy construction equipment or construction materials be operated or stored within a distance from the base of any protected trees. Require that wires, ropes, or other devices not be attached to any protected tree, except as needed for support of the tree. Require that no sign, other than a tag showing the botanical classification, be attached to any protected tree.
(g) Thoroughly spray the leaves of protected trees with water periodically during construction to prevent buildup of dust and other pollution that would inhibit leaf transpiration, as directed by the certified arborist. (h) If any damage to a protected tree should occur during or as a result of work on the site, the appropriate local agency will be immediately notified of such damage. If, such tree cannot be preserved in a healthy state, as determined by the certified arborist, require replacement of 241 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-46 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project any tree removed with another tree or trees on the same site deemed adequate by the local agency to compensate for the loss of the tree that is removed. Remove all debris created as a result of any tree removal work from the property within two weeks of debris creation, and such debris shall be properly disposed of in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. Design projects to avoid conflicts with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources (i) Where avoidance is determined to be infeasible, sufficient conservation measures to fulfill the requirements of the applicable policy or ordinance shall be developed, such as to support issuance of a tree removal permit. The consideration of conservation measures may include:
i) Avoidance strategies
ii) Contribution of in-lieu fees
iii) Planting of replacement trees
iv) Re-landscaping areas with native vegetation post-construction v) Other comparable measures developed in consultation with local agency and certified arborist.

HCP, NCCP or other
conservation plans.

PMM BIO-6: 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 on HCPs and NCCPs, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Consult with the appropriate federal, state, and/or local agency responsible for the administration of HCPs or NCCPs.
(b) Wherever practicable and feasible, the Project shall be designed to avoid lands preserved under the conditions of an HCP or NCCP. b) Where avoidance is determined to be infeasible, sufficient conservation measures to fulfill the requirements of the HCP and/or NCCP, which would include but not be limited to applicable authorization for incidental take pursuant to Section 7 or 10(a) of the federal Endangered Species Act or Section 2081 of the California ESA, shall be developed to support issuance of an incidental take permit or any other permissions required for development within the HCP/NCCP boundaries. The consideration of additional conservation measures would include the measures outlined in SMM-BIO-2, where applicable.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.4 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
substantial adverse effect on Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs) and Natural Community
Conservation Plans (NCCPs).
242 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-47 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Cultural Resources
Paleontological resources,
unique geological features
PMM CULT-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:
(c) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, conduct a record search during the Project planning phase at the appropriate Information Center to determine whether the Project area has been previously surveyed and whether historical resources were identified.
(d) During the Project planning phase, retain a qualified architectural historian, defined as an individual who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) in Architectural History, to conduct historic architectural surveys if a built environment resource greater than 45 years in age may be affected by the Project or if recommended by the Information Center. (e) Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) including, but not limited to, projects for which federal funding or approval is required for the individual project. This law requires federal agencies to evaluate the impact of their actions on resources included in or eligible for listing in the National Register. Federal agencies must coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Officer in evaluating impacts and developing mitigation. These mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to the following:
i) Employ design measures to avoid historical resources and undertake adaptive reuse where appropriate and feasible. If resources are to be preserved, as feasible, carry out the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. If resources would be impacted, impacts should be minimized to the extent feasible.
ii) Where feasible, noise buffers/walls and/or visual
buffers/landscaping should be constructed to preserve the contextual setting of significant built resources.
(f) If a project requires the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of an eligible historical resource, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties should be used to the maximum extent possible to ensure the historical significance of the resource is This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined that the
mitigation measure South Glendale Community
Plan EIR MM 4.4-4 identified below in Section 5.5
in this SCEA would apply to the proposed Project
and this measure is equal to or more effective
than SCAG EIR PMM CULT-1.

South Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-4
states the City shall evaluate the likelihood of the
Project site to contain archaeological 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.
243 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-48 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project not impaired. The application of the standards should be overseen by an architectural historian or historic architect meeting the SOI PQS. Prior to any construction activities that may affect the historical resource, a report, meeting industry standards, should identify and specify the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities and be provided to the Lead Agency for review and approval. (g) If a project would result in the demolition or significant alteration of a historical resource eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or local register, recordation should take the form of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), or Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) documentation, and should be performed by an architectural historian or historian who meets the SOI PQS. Recordation should meet the SOI Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering, which defines the products acceptable for inclusion in the HABS/HAER/HALS collection at the Library of Congress. The specific scope and details of documentation should be developed at the Project level in coordination with the Lead Agency.
(h) During the Project planning phase, obtain a qualified archaeologist, defined as one who meets the SOI PQS for archaeology, to conduct a record search at the appropriate Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine whether the Project area has been previously surveyed and whether resources were identified.
(i) Contact the NAHC to request a Sacred Lands File search and a list of relevant Native American contacts who may have additional information.
(j) During the Project planning phase, obtain a qualified archaeologist or architectural historian (depending on applicability) to conduct archaeological and/or historic architectural surveys as recommended by the qualified professional, the Lead Agency, or the Information Center.

In the event the qualified professional or Information Center will make a recommendation on whether a survey is warranted based on the sensitivity of the Project area for archaeological resources. Survey shall be conducted where the records indicate that no previous survey has been conducted, or if survey has not been conducted within the past 10 years. If tribal resources are identified during tribal outreach, consultation, or the record search, a Native American representative traditionally affiliated with the Project area, as identified by the NAHC, shall be given the opportunity to provide a representative or monitor to assist with archaeological surveys.
244 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-49 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (k) If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified through survey, and impacts to these resources cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation should be performed by a qualified archaeologist prior to any construction-related ground disturbing activities to determine significance. If resources determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and avoidance is not possible, appropriate resource-specific mitigation measures should be established by the lead agency, in consultation with consulting tribes, where appropriate, and undertaken by qualified personnel. These might include a Phase III data recovery program implemented by a qualified archaeologist and performed in accordance with the OHP’s Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format and Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs. Additional options can include 1) interpretative signage, or 2) educational outreach that helps inform the public of the past activities that occurred in this area. Should the Project require extended Phase I testing, Phase II evaluation, or Phase III data recovery, a Native American representative traditionally affiliated with the Project area, as indicated by the NAHC, shall be given the opportunity to provide a representative or monitor to assist with the archaeological assessments.

The long-term disposition of archaeological materials collected from a significant resource should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s), where relevant; this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository, transfer to the tribe, or respectful reinternment in an area designated by the tribe. (l) In cases where the Project area is developed and no natural ground surface is exposed, sensitivity for subsurface resources should be assessed based on review of literature, geology, site development history, and consultation with tribal parties. If this archaeological desktop assessment indicates that the Project is located in an area sensitive for archaeological resources, as determined by the Lead Agency in consultation with a qualified archaeologist, the Project should retain an archaeological monitor and, in the case of sensitivity for tribal resources, a tribal monitor, to observe ground disturbing operations, including but not limited to grading, excavation, trenching, or removal of existing features of the subject property. The archaeological monitor should be supervised by an archaeologist meeting the SOI PQS (m) Conduct construction activities and excavation to avoid cultural resources (if identified). If avoidance is not feasible, further work may be needed to determine the importance of a resource. Retain a qualified archaeologist, and/or as appropriate, a qualified architectural historian who should make recommendations regarding the work necessary to assess significance. If the cultural resource is determined to be 245 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-50 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project significant under State or federal guidelines, impacts to the cultural resource will need to be mitigated.
(n) Stop construction activities and excavation in the area where cultural resources are found until a qualified archaeologist can determine whether these resources are significant, and tribal consultation can be conducted, in the case of tribal resources. If the archaeologist determines that the discovery is significant, its long-term disposition should be determined in consultation with the affiliated tribe(s); this could include curation with a recognized scientific or educational repository reinternment in an area designated by the tribe.

Human remains PMM CULT-2: 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 human remains, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains during construction or excavation activities associated with the Project, in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, cease further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has investigation of the cause of death is required.
(b) If any discovered remains are of Native American origin, as determined by the county Coroner, an experienced osteologist, or another qualified professional:
i) Contact the County Coroner to contact the NAHC to designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD should make a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. This may include obtaining a qualified archaeologist or team of archaeologists to properly excavate the human remains. In some cases, it is necessary for the Lead Agency, qualified archaeologist, or developer to also reach out to the NAHC to coordinate and ensure notification in the event the Coroner is not available.
ii) If the NAHC is unable to identify a MLD, or the MLD fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission, or the land owner or his representative rejects the recommendation of the MLD and the mediation by This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.5 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
potentially significant impact to human remains.

As discussed in Section 5.5, in accordance with the
State’s Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, in
the event of discovery or recognition of any
human remains at the Project site, no further
excavation or disturbance of the site or any
nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent remains shall occur until the Los Angeles
County Coroner has determined, in accordance
with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460)
of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government
Code, that the remains are not subject to the
provisions of Section 27491 of the Government
Code or any other related provisions of law
concerning investigation of the circumstances,
manner, and cause of any death, and the
recommendations concerning the treatment and
disposition of the human remains have been made
to the person responsible for the excavation, or to
his or her authorized representative, in the
manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the PRC.

The coroner shall make his or her determination
within two working days from the time the person
responsible for the excavation, or his or her
authorized representative, notifies the coroner of
the discovery or recognition of the human
remains. If the coroner determines that the
remains are not subject to his or her authority and
if the coroner recognizes the human remains to be
those of a Native American or has reason to
246 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-51 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the
landowner, obtain a culturally affiliated Native American monitor, and an archaeologist, if recommended by the Native American monitor, and rebury the Native American human
remains and any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity, on the property and in a location that is not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
believe that they are those of a Native American,
he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24
hours, the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC). Additionally, the proposed Project would
implement South Glendale Community Plan
mitigation measure MM 4.4-8 related to human
remains.

Pursuant to AB 52, the City provided notification
to the following two tribes on October 14, 2021 -
Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. The Fernandeno
Tataviam Band of Mission Indians deferred
consultation for the proposed Project to the
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe. The City provided
notification to the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe on
November 1, 2021, requesting responses no later
than 30 days after receipt of the letter. As of
December 8, 2021, neither the Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians nor Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe have
responded to the notification for consultation. As
such, consultation has been deemed complete.

Geology and Soils
Paleontological resources PMM GEO-2: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a) (2) and 15 126.4(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 paleontological resources. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Ensure compliance with the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Antiquities Act, Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code (PRC), adopted county and city general plans, and other federal, State, and local regulations, as applicable and feasible, by adhering to and incorporating the performance standards and practices from the 2010 Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) standard procedures for the assessment and mitigation of paleontological resources.
(b) Obtain review by a qualified paleontologist (e.g., who meets the SVP standards for a Principal Investigator or Project Paleontologist or the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) standards for a Principal Investigator), to determine if the Project has the potential to require ground disturbance of parent material with potential to contain unique This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.7 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
potentially significant impact to paleontological
resources.

In addition, the proposed Project would be
consistent with the Section 5097.5 of the Public
Resources Code which addresses the discovery and
handling of paleontological resources. In addition,
the proposed Project would be consistent with the
Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code which
addresses the discovery and handling of
paleontological resources. In addition, the
proposed Project would implement project
specific mitigation measure MM-PALEO-1 as
identified in Section 5.7 of this SCEA.
247 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-52 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project paleontological or resources, or to require the substantial alteration of a unique geologic feature. The assessment should include museum records searches, a review of geologic mapping and the scientific literature, geotechnical studies (if available), and potentially a pedestrian survey, if units with paleontological potential are present at the surface.
(c) Avoid exposure or displacement of parent material with potential to yield unique paleontological resources.
(d) Where avoidance of parent material with the potential to yield unique paleontological resources is not feasible:
i) All on-site construction personnel receive Worker Education and Awareness Program (WEAP) training prior to the
commencement of excavation work to understand the
regulatory framework that provides for protection of
paleontological resources and become familiar with diagnostic characteristics of the materials with the potential to be encountered.
ii) A qualified paleontologist prepares a Paleontological Resource Management Plan (PRMP) to guide the salvage, documentation and repository of unique paleontological resources
encountered during construction. The PRMP should adhere to and incorporate the performance standards and practices from the 2010 SVP Standard procedures for the assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources. If unique paleontological resources are encountered during construction, use a qualified paleontologist to oversee the implementation of the PRMP.
iii) Monitor ground disturbing activities in parent material, with a moderate to high potential to yield unique paleontological resources using a qualified paleontological monitor meeting the standards of the SVP or the BLM to determine if unique paleontological resources are encountered during such
activities, consistent with the specified or comparable protocols.
iv) Identify where ground disturbance is proposed in a geologic unit having the potential for containing fossils and specify the need for a paleontological monitor to be present during ground disturbance in these areas
(e) Avoid routes and project designs that would permanently alter unique geological features.
248 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-53 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (f) Salvage and document adversely affected resources sufficient to support ongoing scientific research and education.
(g) Significant recovered fossils should be prepared to the point of curation, identified by qualified experts, listed in a database to facilitate analysis, and deposited in a designated paleontological curation facility. (h) Following the conclusion of the paleontological monitoring, the qualified paleontologist should prepare a report stating that the paleontological monitoring requirement has been fulfilled and summarize the results of any paleontological finds. The report should be submitted to the lead CEQA and the repository curating the collected artifacts and should document the methods and results of all work completed under the PRMP, including treatment of paleontological materials, results of specimen processing, analysis, and research, and final curation arrangements.

Greenhouse Gases
GHG Emissions, plan
consistency.

PMM GHG-1: In accordance with provisions of sections 15091(a) ( 2 ) and 15126.4(a)(1)( B ) of the State CEQ A Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a project can and should consider mitigation measures to reduce substantial adverse effects related to greenhouse gas emissions, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Integrate green building measures consistent with CALGreen (California Building Code Title 24), local building codes and other applicable laws, into project design including:
i) Use energy efficient materials in building design, construction, rehabilitation, and retrofit.
ii) Install energy-efficient lighting, heating, and cooling systems (cogeneration); water heaters; appliances; equipment; and control systems.
iii) Reduce lighting, heating, and cooling needs by taking advantage of light-colored roofs, trees for shade, and sunlight. iv) Incorporate passive environmental control systems that account for the characteristics of the natural environment. v) Use high-efficiency lighting and cooking devices.
vi) Incorporate passive solar design.
vii) Use high-reflectivity building materials and multiple glazing.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.8 of this SCEA, the GHG emissions
generated by the project would not result in
substantial adverse effects related to greenhouse
gas emissions and the Project would not conflict
with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation for
the purposes of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

The proposed Project would reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and improve air quality by
concentrating residential uses within one-half
mile of a high-quality transit corridor and within a
transit priority area. The proposed Project would
provide new housing near public transit, which
would encourage the use and productivity of the
existing public transportation system. The Project
would comply with the California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen), and would
incorporate eco-friendly building materials,
systems, and high-performance building
envelope. In addition, the proposed Project would
comply with the Greener Glendale Plan, which
incorporates twelve (12) measures in addition to
the mandatory Green Building Standards for new
construction projects. As such, the Project’s
location, land use characteristics, and design
render it consistent with statewide and regional
climate change mandates, plans, policies, and
249 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-54 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project viii) Prohibit gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment. ix) Install electric vehicle charging stations.
x) Reduce wood burning stoves or fireplaces.
xi) Provide bike lanes accessibility and parking at residential developments.
(b) Reduce emissions resulting from projects through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines.
(c) Include off-site measures to mitigate a project’s emission (d) Measures that consider incorporation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during design, construction, and operation of projects to minimize GHG emissions, including but not limited to:
i) Use energy and fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment; ii) Deployment of zero- and/or near zero emission technologies; iii) Use lighting systems that are energy efficient, such as LED technology;
iv) Use the minimum feasible amount of GHG-emitting
construction materials;
v) Use cement blended with the maximum feasible amount of flash or other materials that reduce GHG emissions from cement production;
vi) Incorporate design measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste management through encouraging solid waste
recycling and reuse;
vii) Incorporate design measures to reduce energy consumption and increase use of renewable energy;
viii) Incorporate design measures to reduce water consumption; ix) Use lighter-colored pavement where feasible;
x) Recycle construction debris to maximum extent feasible; xi) Plant shade trees in or near construction projects where feasible; and
xii) Solicit bids that include concepts listed above.
recommendations. The Project will not conflict
with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission
of greenhouse gases.
250 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-55 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (e) Measures the encourage transit use, carpooling, bike-share and carshare programs, active transportation, and parking strategies, including but not limited to the following:
i) Promote transit-active transportation coordinated strategies; ii) Increase bicycle carrying capacity on transit and rail vehicles; iii) Improve or increase access to transit;
iv) Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and day care;
v) Incorporate affordable housing into the Project;
vi) Incorporate the neighborhood electric vehicle network; vii) Orient the Project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
viii) Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; ix) Provide traffic calming measures;
x) Provide bicycle parking;
xi) Limit or eliminate park supply through;
(1) Elimination (or reduction) of minimum parking
requirements
(2) Creation of maximum parking requirements
(3) Provision of shared parking.
xii) Unbundle parking costs;
xiii) Provide parking cash-out programs;
xiv) Implement or provide access to commute reduction program; (f) Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into project designs, maintaining these facilities, and providing amenities incentivizing their use; and planning for and building local bicycle projects that connect with the regional network;
(g) Improving transit access to rail and bus routes by incentives for construction of transit facilities within developments, and/or providing dedicated shuttle service to transit stations; and h)
251 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-56 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (h) Adopting employer trip reduction measures to reduce employee trips such as vanpool and carpool programs, providing end-of-trip facilities, and telecommuting programs including but not limited to measures that:
i) Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs; ii) Provide transit passes;
iii) Shift single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride-matching services;
iv) Provide incentives or subsidies that increase that use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle;
v) Provide on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms;
vi) Provide employee transportation coordinators at employment sites;
vii) Provide a guaranteed ride home service to users of nonauto modes.
(i) Designate a percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles or high-occupancy vehicles, and provide adequate passenger loading and unloading for those vehicles;
(j) Land use siting and design measures that reduce GHG emissions, including:
i) Developing on infill and brownfields sites;
ii) Building compact and mixed-use developments near transit; iii) Retaining on-site mature trees and vegetation, and planting new canopy trees;
iv) Measures that increase vehicle efficiency, encourage use of zero and low emissions vehicles, or reduce the carbon content of fuels, including constructing or encouraging construction of electric vehicle charging stations or neighborhood electric vehicle networks, or charging for electric bicycles; and v) Measures to reduce GHG emissions from solid waste
management through encouraging solid waste recycling and reuse.
(k) Consult the SCAG Environmental Justice Toolbox for potential measures to address impacts to low-income and/or minority communities. The 252 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-57 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project measures provided above are also intended to be applied in low income and minority communities as applicable and feasible.
(l) Require at least five percent of all vehicle parking spaces include electric vehicle charging stations, or at a minimum, require the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric vehicles and trucks to plug-in.
(m) Encourage telecommuting and alternative work schedules, such as:
i) Staggered starting times
ii) Flexible schedules
iii) Compressed work weeks
(n) Implement commute trip reduction marketing such as:
i) New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options
ii) Event promotions
iii) Publications
(o) Implement preferential parking permit program
(p) Implement school pool and bus programs
(q) Price workplace parking, such as:
i) Explicitly charging for parking for its employees;
ii) Implementing above market rate pricing;
iii) Validating parking only for invited guests;
iv) Not providing employee parking and transportation allowances; and
v) Educating employees about available alternatives.

Hazards
Routine transport, use or
disposal of hazardous
materials, reasonably
foreseeable upset,
accident. Hazardous
emissions near a school
PMM HAZ-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 the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Where the construction or operation of projects involves the transport of hazardous material, provide a written plan of proposed routes of This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.9 of this SCEA, the proposed Project
would not have a substantial adverse effect on the
environment as the types and amounts of
hazardous materials that would be used in
connection with the proposed Project would be
typical of those used during construction of
253 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-58 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project travel demonstrating use of roadways designated for the transport of such materials.
(b) Specify Project requirements for interim storage and disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation. Storage and disposal strategies must be consistent with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Specify the appropriate procedures for interim storage and disposal of hazardous materials, anticipated to be required in support of opera t ions and maintenance activities, in conformance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, in the business plan for projects as applicable and appropriate.
(c) Submit a Hazardous Materials Business/Operations Plan for review and approval by the appropriate local agency. Once approved, keep the plan on file with the Lead Agency (or other appropriate government agency) and update, as applicable. The purpose of the Hazardous Materials Business/Operations Plan is to ensure that employees are adequately trained to handle the materials and provides information to the local fire protection agency should emergency response be required. The Hazardous Materials Business/Operations Plan should include the following:
i) The types of hazardous materials or chemicals stored and/or used on-site, such as petroleum fuel products, lubricants, solvents, and cleaning fluids.
ii) The location of such hazardous materials.
iii) An emergency response plan including employee training information.
iv) A plan that describes the way these materials are handled, transported and disposed.
(d) Follow manufacturer’s recommendations on use, storage, and disposal of chemical products used in construction.
(e) Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks. (f) Properly contain and remove grease and oils during routine maintenance of construction equipment.
(g) Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals. (h) Prior to shipment remove the most volatile elements, including flammable natural gas liquids, as feasible.
(i) Identify and implement more stringent tank car safety standards. residential developments and would include
vehicle fuels, paints, oils, and transmission fluids.

Similarly, the types and amounts of hazardous
materials used during operation of the proposed
residential and commercial uses would be typical
of such developments and would include cleaning
solvents, pesticides for landscaping, painting
supplies, and petroleum products. In addition, all
potentially hazardous materials would be used,
stored, and disposed of in accordance with
manufacturers’ instructions and handled in
compliance with applicable federal, state, and
local regulations. Any associated risk would be
reduced through compliance with these standards
and regulations. Therefore, significant impacts
would not occur, and no mitigation beyond
compliance with regulatory requirements is
applicable.
254 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-59 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (j) Improve rail transportation route analysis, and modification of routes based on that analysis.
(k) Use the best available inspection equipment and protocols and implement positive train control.
(l) Reduce train car speeds to 40 miles per hour when passing through urbanized areas of any size.
(m) Limit storage of crude oil tank cars in urbanized areas of any size and provide appropriate security in storage yards for all shipments. (n) Notify in advance county and city emergency operations offices of all crude oil shipments, including a contact number that can provide realtime information in the event of an oil train derailment or accident. (o) Report quarterly hazardous commodity flow information, including classification and characterization of materials being transported, to all first response agencies (49 Code Fed. Regs. 15.5) along the mainline rail routes used by trains carrying crude oil identified.
(p) Fund training and outfitting emergency response crews that includes the cost of backfilling personnel while in training.
(q) Undertake annual emergency responses scenario/field based training including Emergency Operations Center Training activations with local emergency response agencies.

Upset and accident PMM HAZ-2: 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 hazards related to the reasonably foreseeable upsets and accidents involving the release of hazardous materials, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:

Require implementation of safety standards regarding transport of hazardous materials, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Removal of the most volatile elements, including flammable natural gas liquids, prior to shipment;
(b) More stringent tank car safety standards;
(c) Improved rail transportation route analysis, and modification of routes based on that analysis;
(d) Utilization of the best available inspection equipment and protocols, and implementation of positive train control;
This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.9 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in
hazards related to the accidental release of
hazardous materials.
255 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-60 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (e) Reduced train car speeds to 40 miles per hour when passing through urbanized areas of any size;
(f) Limitations on storage of hazardous materials tank cars in urbanized areas of any size and provide appropriate security in storage yards for all shipments;
(g) Advance notification to county and city emergency operations offices of all crude oil and hazardous materials shipments, including a contact number that can provide real-time information in the event of an oil train derailment or accident;
Quarterly hazardous commodity flow information, including classification and characterization of materials being transported, to all first response agencies (49 Code Fed. Regs. 15.5) along the mainline rail routes used by trains carrying hazardous materials.

Schools PMM HAZ-3: 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 the release of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of schools, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Where the construction and operation of projects involves the transport of hazardous materials, avoid transport of such materials within onequarter mile of schools, when school is in session, wherever feasible. (b) Where it is not feasible to avoid transport of hazardous materials, within one-quarter mile of schools on local streets, provide notifications of the anticipated schedule of transport of such materials.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.9 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in
substantial adverse effects related to release of
hazardous materials near schools.

Hazardous materials sites,
Government Code section
65962.5.

PMM HAZ-4: 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 projects that are located on a site which is included on the Cortese List, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) For any listed sites or sites that have the potential for residual hazardous materials as a result of historic land uses, complete a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, including a review and consideration of data from all known databases of contaminated sites, during the process of planning, environmental clearance, and construction for projects. (b) Where warranted due to the known presence of contaminated materials, submit to the appropriate agency responsible for hazardous materials/wastes oversight a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.9 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
substantial adverse effects related to hazardous
materials sites.
256 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-61 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project report if warranted by a Phase I report for the Project site. The reports should make recommendations for remedial action, if appropriate, and be signed by a Registered Environmental Assessor, Professional Geologist, or Professional Engineer.
(c) Implement the recommendations provided in the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment report, where such a report was determined to be necessary for the construction or operation of the Project, for remedial action.
(d) Submit a copy of all applicable documentation required by local, state, and federal environmental regulatory agencies, including but not limited to permit applications, Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments, human health and ecological risk assessments, remedial action plans, risk management plans, soil management plans, and groundwater management plans.
(e) Conduct soil sampling and chemical analyses of samples, consistent with the protocols established by the U.S. EPA to determine the extent of potential contamination beneath all underground storage tanks (USTs), elevator shafts, clarifiers, and subsurface hydraulic lifts when on-site demolition or construction activities would potentially affect a particular development or building.
(f) Consult with the appropriate local, state, and federal environmental regulatory agencies to ensure sufficient minimization of risk to human health and environmental resources, both during and after construction, posed by soil contamination, groundwater contamination, or other surface hazards including, but not limited to, underground storage tanks, fuel distribution lines, waste pits and sumps.
(g) Obtain and submit written evidence of approval for any remedial action if required by a local, state, or federal environmental regulatory agency. (h) Cease work if soil, groundwater, or other environmental medium with suspected contamination is encountered unexpectedly during construction activities (e.g., identified by odor or visual staining, or if any underground storage tanks, abandoned drums, or other hazardous materials or wastes are encountered), in the vicinity of the suspect material. Secure the area as necessary and take all appropriate measures to protect human health and the environment, including but not limited to, notification of regulatory agencies and identification of the nature and extent of contamination. Stop work in the areas affected until the measures have been implemented consistent with the guidance of the appropriate regulatory oversight authority.
(i) Soil generated by construction activities should be stockpiled on-site in a secure and safe manner. All contaminated soils determined to be 257 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-62 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project hazardous or nonhazardous waste must be adequately profiled (sampled) prior to acceptable reuse or disposal at an appropriate offsite facility. Complete sampling and handling and transport procedures for reuse or disposal, in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and policies.
(j) Groundwater pumped from the subsurface should be contained on-site in a secure and safe manner, prior to treatment and disposal, to ensure environmental and health issues are resolved pursuant to applicable laws and policies. Utilize engineering controls, which include impermeable barriers to prohibit groundwater and vapor intrusion into the building.
(k) As needed and appropriate, prior to issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permit, submit for review and approval by the Lead Agency (or other appropriate government agency) written verification that the appropriate federal, State, and/or local oversight authorities, including but not limited to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), have granted all required clearances and confirmed that the all applicable standards, regulations, and conditions have been met for previous contamination at the site.
(l) Develop, train, and implement appropriate worker awareness and protective measures to assure that worker and public exposure is minimized to an acceptable level and to prevent any further environmental contamination as a result of construction. (m) If asbestos-containing materials (ACM) are found to be present in building materials to be removed, submit specifications signed by a certified asbestos consultant for the removal, encapsulation, or enclosure of the identified ACM in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not necessarily limited to: California Code of Regulations, Title 8; Business and Professions Code; Division 3; California Health and Safety Code Section 25915-25919.7; and other local regulations.
(n) Where projects include the demolitions or modification of buildings constructed prior to 1978, complete an assessment for the potential presence or lack thereof of ACM, lead based paint, and any other building materials or stored materials classified as hazardous waste by State or federal law.
(o) Where the remediation of lead-based paint has been determined to be required, provide specifications to the appropriate agency, signed by a certified Lead Supervisor, Project Monitor, or Project Designer for the stabilization and/or removal of the identified lead paint in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not necessarily limited to: California Occupational Safety and Health Administration's 258 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-63 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (Cal OSHA's) Construction Lead Standard, Title 8 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 1532.1 and Department of Health Services (DHS) Regulation 17 CCR Sections 35001-36100, as may be amended. If other materials classified as hazardous waste by State or federal law are present, the Project sponsor should submit written confirmation to the appropriate local agency that all State and federal laws and regulations should be followed when profiling, handling, treating, transporting, and/or disposing of such materials.

Emergency response plan PMM HAZ-5: 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 which may impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Continue to coordinate locally and regionally based on ongoing review and integration of projected transportation and circulation conditions. (b) Develop new methods of conveying projected and real time information to citizens using emerging electronic communication tools including social media and cellular networks;
(c) Continue to evaluate lifeline routes for movement of emergency supplies and evacuation.

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

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

PMM HYD-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 from violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Complete, and have approved, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to initiation of construction.
(b) Implement Best Management Practices to reduce the peak stormwater runoff from the Project site to the maximum extent practicable. (c) Comply with the Caltrans storm water discharge permit as applicable; and identify and implement Best Management Practices to manage site erosion, wash water runoff, and spill control.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.10 of this SCEA,
that the Project would not result in substantial
adverse effects related to water quality, waste
discharge or groundwater.

The proposed Project conforms with this
Mitigation Measure as it is required to satisfy all
applicable requirements of Chapter 13.29,
Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention
Control and Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), of the GMC, at the time
of the construction to the satisfaction of the City
of Glendale Public Works Department. These
requirements include preparation of a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) containing
259 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-64 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (d) Complete, and have approved, a Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan, prior to occupancy of residential or commercial structures.
(e) Ensure adequate capacity of the surrounding stormwater system to support stormwater runoff from new or rehabilitated structures or buildings.
(f) Prior to construction within an area subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, obtain all required permit approvals and certifications for construction within the vicinity of a watercourse:
(g) Where feasible, restore or expand riparian areas such that there is no net loss of impervious surface as a result of the Project. (h) Install structural water quality control features, such as drainage channels, detention basins, oil and grease traps, filter systems, and vegetated buffers to prevent pollution of adjacent water resources by polluted runoff where required by applicable urban storm water runoff discharge permits, on new facilities.
(i) Provide operational best management practices for street cleaning, litter control, and catch basin cleaning are implemented to prevent water quality degradation in compliance with applicable storm water runoff discharge permits; and ensure treatment controls are in place as early as possible, such as during the acquisition process for rights-ofway, not just later during the facilities design and construction phase. (j) Comply with applicable municipal separate storm sewer system discharge permits as well as Caltrans' storm water discharge permit including long-term sediment control and drainage of roadway runoff. (k) Incorporate as appropriate treatment and control features such as detention basins, infiltration strips, and porous paving, other features to control surface runoff and facilitate groundwater recharge into the design of new transportation projects early on in the process to ensure that adequate acreage and elevation contours are provided during the right-of-way acquisition process.
(l) Upgrade stormwater drainage facilities to accommodate any increased runoff volumes. These upgrades may include the construction of detention basins or structures that will delay peak flows and reduce flow velocities, including expansion and restoration of wetlands and riparian buffer areas. System designs shall be completed to eliminate increases in peak flow rates from current levels.
structural treatment and source control measures
appropriate and applicable to the proposed
Project. The SWPPP will incorporate best
management practices (BMPs) by requiring
controls of pollutant discharges that utilize best
available technology (BAT) economically
achievable and best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT) to reduce pollutants.

Examples of BAT/BCT that may be implemented
during site grading and construction of the
proposed Project could include straw hay bales,
straw bale inlet filters, filter barriers, and silt
fences. Preparation of the SWPPP would be
incorporated as a condition of approval.

Implementation of BMPs such as fences, sandbag
barriers, and/or stabilization of the construction
entrance/exit would ensure that Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) water quality
standards are met during construction activities of
the proposed Project.
260 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-65 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project (m) Encourage Low Impact Development (LID) and incorporation of natural spaces that reduce, treat, infiltrate, and manage stormwater runoff flows in all new developments, where practical and feasible.

Depletion of groundwater
supply, interfere with
groundwater supply
PMM HYD-2: 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 from violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Avoid design that requires continual dewatering where feasible For projects requiring continual dewatering facilities, implement monitoring systems and long-term administrative procedures to ensure proper water management that prevents degrading of surface water and minimizes adverse impacts on groundwater for the life of the Project, Construction designs shall comply with appropriate building codes and standard practices including the Uniform Building Code.
(a) Maximize, where practical and feasible, permeable surface area in existing urbanized areas to protect water quality, reduce flooding, allow for groundwater recharge, and preserve wildlife habitat. Minimize new impervious surfaces, including the use of in-lieu fees and off-site mitigation.
(b) Avoid construction and siting on groundwater recharge areas, to prevent conversion of those areas to impervious surface.
(c) Reduce hardscape to the extent feasible to facilitate groundwater recharge as appropriate.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.10 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in
substantial adverse effects to groundwater supply.

The Project Site does not serve as a primary area
of groundwater recharge within the San Fernando
or Verdugo Basin, which are both located within
the City of Glendale. However, because the
Project site is more than 1 acre in size, it would
be subject to the requirements under Section

13.42.060 of the GMC to prepare and submit a
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
that would be administered throughout proposed
Project construction. The SWPPP would
incorporate BMPs to ensure that potential water
quality impacts from water driven erosion during
construction. Construction of the Project would
result in a minimal change to the amount of
impervious surface and drainage characteristics of
the site by adherence to the SWPPP.

Structures within 100-
year floodplain hazard
area, risk due to levee or
dam failure, seiche,
tsunami, or mud flow.

PMM HYD-4: 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 capable of avoiding or reducing the potential impacts of locating structures that would impede or redirect flood flows, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Ensure that all roadbeds for new highway and rail facilities be elevated at least one foot above the 100-year base flood elevation. Since alluvial fan flooding is not often identified on FEMA flood maps, the risk of alluvial fan flooding should be evaluated and projects should be sited to avoid alluvial fan flooding. Delineation of floodplains and alluvial fan boundaries should attempt to account for future hydrologic changes caused by global climate change.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.10 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
potentially significant impact related to flood
hazards.
261 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-66 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Land Use
Land use plans, policies,
and regulations.

PMM LU-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) Facilitate good design for land use projects that build upon and improve existing circulation patterns.
(b) Encourage implementing agencies to orient transportation projects to minimize impacts on existing communities by:
i) Selecting alignments within or adjacent to existing public rights of way.
ii) Design sections above or below-grade to maintain viable vehicular, cycling, and pedestrian connections between
portions of communities where existing connections are
disrupted by the transportation project.
iii) Wherever feasible incorporate direct crossings, overcrossings, or under crossings at regular intervals for multiple modes of travel (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles).
(b) Where it has been determined that it is infeasible to avoid creating a barrier in an established community, consider other measures to reduce impacts, including but not limited to:
i) Alignment shifts to minimize the area affected.
ii) Reduction of the proposed right-of-way take to minimize the overall area of impact.
iii) Provisions for bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle access across improved roadways.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.11 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result
substantial adverse effects related to physically
dividing a community, and will be designed to
facilitate good design based on the DSP, and that
takes into consideration existing circulation
patterns.

Physically divide a
community.

PMM LU-2: 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) When an inconsistency with the adopted general plan policy or land use regulation (adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an impact) is identified modify the transportation or land use project to eliminate This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.11 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in
substantial adverse effects related to creating a
physical division of the existing community.
262 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-67 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project the conflict; or determine if the environmental, social, economic, and engineering benefits of the Project warrant an amendment to the general plan or land use regulation.

Mineral Resources
Loss of availability of a
known mineral resource.

PMM MIN-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 the use of mineral resources that could be of value to the region, as applicable and feasible.

Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Provide for the efficient use of known aggregate and mineral resources or locally important mineral resource recovery sites, by ensuring that the consumptive use of aggregate resources is minimized and that access to recoverable sources of aggregate is not precluded, as a result of construction, operation, and maintenance of projects. (b) Where avoidance is infeasible, minimize impacts to the efficient and effective use of recoverable sources of aggregate through measures that have been identified in county and city general plans, or other comparable measures such as:
i) Recycle and reuse building materials resulting from demolition, particularly aggregate resources, to the maximum extent practicable.
ii) Identify and use building materials, particularly aggregate materials, resulting from demolition at other construction sites in the SCAG region, or within a reasonable hauling distance of the Project site.
iii) Design transportation network improvements in a manner (such as buffer zones or the use of screening) that does not preclude adjacent or nearby extraction of known mineral and aggregate resources following completion of the improvement and during long-term operations.
iv) Avoid or reduce impacts on known aggregate and mineral resources and mineral resource recovery sites through the evaluation and selection of Project sites and design features (e.g., buffers) that minimize impacts on land suitable for aggregate and mineral resource extraction by maintaining portions of MRZ-2 areas in open space or other general plan land use categories and zoning that allow for mining of mineral resources.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.11 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
potentially significant impact related to the use
of mineral resources that could be of value to the
region.
263 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-68 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Noise
Expose people to
excessive groundborne
vibration or noise.

PMM NOISE-2: 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, as applicable and feasible.

Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) For projects that require pile driving or other construction techniques that result in excessive vibration, such as blasting, determine the potential vibration impacts to the structural integrity of the adjacent buildings within 50 feet of pile driving locations.
(b) For projects that require pile driving or other construction techniques that result in excessive vibration, such as blasting, determine the threshold levels of vibration and cracking that could damage adjacent historic or other structure, and design means and construction methods to not exceed the thresholds.
(c) For projects where pile driving would be necessary for construction due to geological conditions, utilize quiet pile driving techniques such as predrilling the piles to the maximum feasible depth, where feasible.

Predrilling pile holes will reduce the number of blows required to completely seat the pile and will concentrate the pile driving activity closer to the ground where pile driving noise can be shielded more effectively by a noise barrier/curtain.
(d) Restrict construction activities to permitted hours in accordance with local jurisdiction regulation.
(e) Properly maintain construction equipment and outfit construction equipment with the best available noise suppression devices (e.g., mufflers, silences, wraps).
(f) Prohibit idling of construction equipment for extended periods of time in the vicinity of sensitive receptors.

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

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

Population, Housing and Employment
Displacement of housing
requiring replacement
housing elsewhere.

PMM POP-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 the displacement of existing housing, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Evaluate alternate route alignments and transportation facilities that minimize the displacement of homes and businesses. Use an iterative design and impact analysis where impacts to homes or businesses are This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.14 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
potentially significant impact related to
displacement of housing, since no residential uses
currently exist on site.
264 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-69 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project involved to minimize the potential of impacts on housing and displacement of people.
(b) Prioritize the use existing ROWs, wherever feasible. (c) Develop a construction schedule that minimizes potential neighborhood deterioration from protracted waiting periods between right-of-way acquisition and construction.
(d) Review capacities of available urban infrastructure and augment capacities as needed to accommodate demand in locations where growth is desirable to the local lead Agency and encouraged by the SCS (primarily TPAs, where applicable).
(e) When General Plans and other local land use regulations are amended or updated, use the most recent growth projections and RHNA allocation plan.

Public Services
Adverse effects associated
with new or physically
altered government
facilities for police
protection.

PMM PSP-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 of constructing new emergency response facilities, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Coordinate with emergency response agencies to ensure that there are adequate governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for emergency response services and that any required additional construction of buildings is incorporated into the Project description.
(b) Where current levels of services at the Project site are found to be inadequate, provide fair share contributions towards infrastructure improvements, as appropriate and applicable, to mitigate identified CEQA impacts.
(c) Project sponsors can and should develop traffic control plans for individual projects. Traffic control plans should include information on lane closures and the anticipated flow of traffic during the construction period. The basic objective of each traffic control plan (TCP) is to permit the contractor to work within the public right of way efficiently and effectively while maintaining a safe, uniform flow of traffic. The construction work and the public traveling through the work zone in vehicles, bicycles or as pedestrians must be given equal consideration when developing a traffic control plan.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.15 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result
substantial adverse effects related to emergency
response facilities for police protection because
the proposed Project would not result in a
significant change in the overall ratio of officers
to residents.
265 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-70 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Adverse effects associated
with new or physically
altered government
facilities for schools.

PMM PSS-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 of constructing new or physically altered school facilities, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Where construction or expansion of school facilities is required to meet public school service ratios, require
school district fees, as applicable.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.15 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in
substantial adverse effects related to the
construction of new or physically altered school
facilities, since the Project would be required to
pay the statutorily required school impact fees.

Adverse effects associated
with new or physically
altered government
facilities for Library
Services.

PMM PSL-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 of construction of new or altered library facilities, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Where construction or expansion of library facilities is required to meet public library service ratios, require library fees, as appropriate and applicable, to
mitigate identified CEQA impacts.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.15 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in
substantial adverse effects related to the
construction of library facilities with the payment
of the Public Use Facilities Development Impact
Fee Ordinance (GMC 4.10).

Recreation
Increase use and physical
deterioration of
recreational facilities.

PMM REC-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 on the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Prior to the issuance of permits, where projects require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities or the payment of equivalent Quimby fees, consider increasing the accessibility to natural areas and lands for outdoor recreation from the proposed Project area, in coordination with local and regional open space planning and/or responsible management agencies.
(b) Prior to the issuance of permits, where projects require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities or the payment of equivalent Quimby fees, encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on infrastructure and make better use of existing facilities, using strategies such as:

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.16 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in
substantial adverse effects related to the
construction of recreational facilities with the
payment of the Public Use Facilities Development
Impact Fee Ordinance (GMC 4.10).
266 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-71 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project i) Increasing the accessibility to natural areas for outdoor recreation
ii) Utilizing “green” development techniques
iii) Promoting water-efficient land use and development iv) Encouraging multiple uses, such as the joint use of schools v) Including trail systems and trail segments in General Plan recreation standards.

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

PMM TRA-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 transportation-related impacts, as applicable and feasible.

Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies should be incorporated into individual land use and transportation projects and plans, as part of the planning process. Local agencies should incorporate strategies identified in the Federal Highway Administration’s publication: Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (August 2012) into the planning process (FHWA 2012). For example, the following strategies may be included to encourage use of transit and nonmotorized modes of transportation and reduce vehicle miles traveled on the region’s roadways:
i) include TDM mitigation requirements for new developments; ii) incorporate supporting infrastructure for nonmotorized modes, such as, bike lanes, secure bike parking, sidewalks, and crosswalks;
iii) provide incentives to use alternative modes and reduce driving, such as, universal transit passes, road, and parking pricing; iv) implement parking management programs, such as parking cash-out, priority parking for carpools and vanpools;
v) develop TDM-specific performance measures to evaluate project-specific and system-wide performance;
vi) incorporate TDM performance measures in the decision-making process for identifying transportation investments;
This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.17 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
substantial adverse effects related to
transportation or circulation.

The proposed Project would provide a total of 129
spaces for commercial uses that would remain on
site in the two above ground levels and 373
parking spaces for the residential use proposed on
the site within four subterranean levels. The
amount of parking provided on site would not
result in overflow parking into the downtownadjacent neighborhoods during the operation of the proposed Project. The proposed Project would
comply with GMC 30.32.171 to develop a TDM
plan, pay dues to a designated transportation
management association, and include bicycle
facilities on-site. Additionally, the proposed
Project is located within one-half mile of a highquality transit corridor and within a TPA, as discussed above in Section 3.2. As such, the
proposed Project would promote active
transportation modes within the vicinity of the
Project site.
267 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-72 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project vii) implement data collection programs for TDM to determine the effectiveness of certain strategies and to measure success over time; and
viii) set aside funding for TDM initiatives.
ix) The increase in per capita VMT on facilities experiencing LOS F represents a significant impact compared to existing
conditions. To assess whether implementation of these specific mitigation strategies would result in measurable traffic congestion reductions, implementing actions may need to be further refined within the overall parameters of the proposed Plan and matched to local conditions in any subsequent
project-level environmental analysis.

Inadequate emergency
access. Impair or
interfere with Emergency
Response Plan or
Evacuation Plan.

PMM TRA-2: 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 which may substantially impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Prior to construction, project implementation agencies can and should ensure that all necessary local and State road and railroad encroachment permits are obtained. The Project implementation agency can and should also comply with all applicable conditions of approval. As deemed necessary by the governing jurisdiction, the road encroachment permits may require the contractor to prepare a traffic control plan in accordance with professional engineering standards prior to construction. Traffic control plans can and should include the following requirements:
i) Identification of all roadway locations where special construction techniques (e.g., directional drilling or night construction) would be used to minimize impacts to traffic flow.
ii) Development of circulation and detour plans to minimize impacts to local street circulation. This may include the use of signing and flagging to guide vehicles through and/or around the construction zone.
iii) Scheduling of truck trips outside of peak morning and evening commute hours.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.17 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
substantial adverse effects related to the
impairment or interference with an emergency
response plan or evacuation plan. Furthermore,
the proposed Project does not involve changes to
the existing street network.
268 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-73 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project iv) Limiting of lane closures during peak hours to the extent possible.
v) Usage of haul routes minimizing truck traffic on local roadways to the extent possible.
vi) Inclusion of detours for bicycles and pedestrians in all areas potentially affected by project construction.
vii) Installation of traffic control devices as specified in the California Department of Transportation Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones.
viii) Development and implementation of access plans for highly sensitive land uses such as police and fire stations, transit stations, hospitals, and schools. The access plans would be developed with the facility owner or administrator. To minimize disruption of emergency vehicle access, affected jurisdictions can and should be asked to identify detours for emergency vehicles, which will then be posted by the contractor. Notify in advance the facility owner or operator of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities and the locations of detours and lane closures.
ix) Storage of construction materials only in designated areas. x) Coordination with local transit agencies for temporary relocation of routes or bus stops in work zones, as necessary. xi) Ensure the rapid repair of transportation infrastructure in the event of an emergency through cooperation among public
agencies and by identifying critical infrastructure needs necessary for: a) emergency responders to enter the region, b) evacuation of affected facilities, and c) restoration of utilities. xii) Enhance emergency preparedness awareness among public agencies and with the public at large.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Reduce effects on TCRs. PMM TCR-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 on tribal cultural resources, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.18 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
substantial adverse effects to tribal cultural
resources because the proposed Project would
comply with the State’s Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 and South Glendale Community
Plan EIR MM 4.4-8. Pursuant to AB 52, the City
269 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-74 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria;
(b) Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource; protecting the traditional use of the resource; and protecting the confidentiality of the resource; (c) Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places; and protecting the resource.
provided notification to the following two tribes
on October 14, 2021 - Fernandeno Tataviam Band
of Mission Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians. The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission
Indians deferred consultation for the proposed
Project to the Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe. The City
provided notification to the Gabrielino-Tongva
Tribe on November 1, 2021.

Utilities and Service Systems
Landfill capacity, solid
waste diversion.

PMM USSW-2: 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 the generation of solid waste, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:

Integrate green building measures with CALGreen (California Building Code Title 24) into project design, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Reuse and minimization of construction and demolition (C&D) debris and diversion of C&D waste from landfills to recycling facilities. (b) Inclusion of a waste management plan that promotes maximum C&D diversion.
(c) Source reduction through (1) use of materials that are more durable and easier to repair and maintain, (2) design to generate less scrap material through dimensional planning, (3) increased recycled content, (4) use of reclaimed materials, and (5) use of structural materials in a dual role as finish material (e.g., stained concrete flooring, unfinished ceilings, etc.).
(d) Reuse of existing structure and shell in renovation projects. (e) Development of indoor recycling program and space.
(f) Discourage the siting of new landfills unless all other waste reduction and prevention actions have been fully explored. If landfill siting or expansion is necessary, site landfills with an adequate landfill-owned, undeveloped land buffer to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the landfill in neighboring communities.
(g) Discourage exporting of locally generated waste outside of the SCAG region during the construction and implementation of a project.

The Project would generate solid waste requiring
approximately 0.02 percent of the currently
available daily capacity at the Scholl Canyon
Landfill Facility and thus would be easily
accommodated.
270 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-75 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Encourage disposal within the county where the waste originates as much as possible. Promote green technologies for long-distance transport of waste (e.g., clean engines and clean locomotives or electric rail for waste-by-rail disposal systems) and consistency with SCAQMD and Connect SoCal policies can and should be required.
(h) Encourage waste reduction goals and practices and look for opportunities for voluntary actions to exceed the 80 percent waste diversion target.
(i) Encourage the development of local markets for waste prevention, reduction, and recycling practices by supporting recycled content and green procurement policies, as well as other waste prevention, reduction, and recycling practices.
(j) Develop ordinances that promote waste prevention and recycling activities such as: requiring waste prevention and recycling efforts at all large events and venues; implementing recycled content procurement programs; and developing opportunities to divert food waste away from landfills and toward food banks and composting facilities. (k) Develop and site composting, recycling, and conversion technology facilities that have minimum environmental and health impacts. (l) Integrate reuse and recycling into residential industrial, institutional, and commercial projects.
(m) Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services.
(n) Implement or expand city or county-wide recycling and composting programs for residents and businesses. This could include extending the types of recycling services offered (e.g., to include food and green waste recycling) and providing public education and publicity about recycling services.

Require new or expanded
entitlements for
wastewater treatment.

PMM-USWW-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 on utilities and service systems, particularly for construction of wastewater facilities, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
• During the design and CEQA review of individual future projects, implementing agencies and projects sponsors shall determine whether sufficient wastewater capacity exists for the proposed projects. There CEQA determinations must ensure that the proposed development can be served by its existing or planned treatment capacity. If adequate capacity does not exist, project This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.19 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in
substantial adverse effects related to wastewater
treatment facilities because the proposed Project
construction water generation would be
sufficiently accommodated as part of the
remaining 10 MGD treatment capacity of the
LAGWRP. The proposed Project would generate
approximately 0.04 MGD over existing uses. Given
that the LAGWTP is currently operating below
271 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-76 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project sponsors shall coordinate with the relevant service provider to ensure that adequate public services and utilities could accommodate the increased demand, and if not, infrastructure improvements for the appropriate public service or utility shall be identified in each project’s CEQA documentation. The relevant public service provider or utility shall be responsible for undertaking project-level review as necessary to provide CEQA clearance for new facilities.
capacity, the additional wastewater generated by
the proposed Project would not result in the
plant’s exceeding capacity.

Require new or expanded
entitlements for water
supply.

PMM USWS-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 ensure sufficient water supplies, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
a) Reduce exterior consumptive uses of water in public areas, and should promote reductions in private homes and businesses, by shifting to droughttolerant native landscape plantings, using weather-based irrigation systems, educating other public agencies about water use, and installing related water pricing incentives.
b) Promote the availability of drought-resistant landscaping options and provide information on where these can be purchased. Use of reclaimed water especially in median landscaping and hillside landscaping can and should be implemented where feasible.
c) Implement water conservation best practices such as low-flow toilets, water-efficient clothes washers, water system audits, and leak detection and repair.
d) For projects located in an area with existing reclaimed water conveyance infrastructure and excess reclaimed water capacity, use reclaimed water for nonpotable uses, especially landscape irrigation. For projects in a location planned for future reclaimed water service, projects should install dual plumbing systems in anticipation of future use. Large developments could treat wastewater on site to tertiary standards and use it for nonpotable uses on site.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.19 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
potentially significant impact to water supply. In
addition, the Project would be consistent with the
State Water Code (Section 10910-10915, the
California Green Building Code, and the City’s
2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)
which addresses water supply within the City.

Wildfire
Due to slope or winds
exacerbate wildfire risks.

PMM WF-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 wildfire risk, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) Launch fire prevention education for local cities and counties such that local fire agencies, homeowners, as well as commercial and industrial businesses are aware of potential sources of fire ignition and the related This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.20 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
potentially significant impact related to wildfire
risk because the Project site is not located in or
near a State Responsibility Area of land classified
as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
272 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-77 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-2
MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE 2020–2045 RTP/SCS PROGRAM EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic 2020-2045 RTP/SCS PEIR Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project procedures to curb or lessen any activities that might initiate fire ignition.
(b) Ensure structures in high fire risk areas are built to current state and federal standards which serve to greatly increase the chances the structure will survive a wildfire and also allow for people to shelter-inplace. (c) Improve road access for emergency response and evacuation so people can evacuate safely and timely when necessary.
(d) Improve, and educate regarding, local emergency communications and notifications with residents and businesses.
(e) Enforce defensible space regulations to keep overgrown and unmanaged vegetation, accumulations of trash and other flammable material away from structures.
(f) Provide public education about wildfire risk and fire prevention measures, and safety procedures and practices to allow for safe evacuation and/or options to shelter-in-place
Require installation or
maintenance of
associated infrastructure.

PMM WF-2: 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 wildfire risk, as applicable and feasible. Such measures may include the following or other comparable measures identified by the Lead Agency:
(a) New development or infrastructure activity within very high hazard severity zones or SRAs shall be required to
i) Submit a fire protection plan including the designation of fire watch staff;
ii) Maintain water and other fire suppression equipment designated solely for firefighting on site for any construction and maintenance activities iii) Locate construction and maintenance equipment in designated “safe areas” such that they do not discharge combustible materials; and iv) Designate trained fire watch staff during project construction to reduce risk of fire hazards.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the City has determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.20 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
potentially significant impact related to wildfire
risk because the Project site is not located in or
near a State Responsibility Area of land classified
as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Source: 2020 - 2045 SCAG/RTP SCS FEIR
273 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-78 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-3

MM 4.2-1: The following policies shall be incorporated into the SGCP to reduce construction related emissions associated with future development projects implemented under the proposed SGCP.

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

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

This mitigation measure is incorporated as South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.2-1 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.
274 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-79 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-3

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE SOUTH GLENDALE COMMUNITY PLAN EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic South Glendale Community Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Operational Emissions 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 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.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.2-2 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.
275 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-80 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-3

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE SOUTH GLENDALE COMMUNITY PLAN EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic South Glendale Community Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Sensitive Receptors 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.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.2-3 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Objectionable Odors 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 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.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.2-4 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.3 of this SCEA.

Biological Resources
Candidate, sensitive, or
special status species.

Riparian or other sensitive
natural community.

Wetlands. Species
movement. Local policies
or ordinances protection
biological resources. HCP,
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 This mitigation measure is incorporated as South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.3-1 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.4 of this SCEA.
276 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-81 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-3

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE SOUTH GLENDALE COMMUNITY PLAN EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic South Glendale Community Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project NCCP or other
conservation plans
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.

Cultural Resources
Historical resources,
archaeological resources
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.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-1 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.5 of this SCEA.

Cultural Resources 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 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 This mitigation measure is incorporated as South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-3 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.5 of this SCEA.
277 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-82 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-3

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE SOUTH GLENDALE COMMUNITY PLAN EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic South Glendale Community Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project 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.

Human Remains MM 4.4-8: Should subsurface archaeological and tribal cultural resources be discovered during construction of future projects under the SGCP, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the significance of the find accordingly. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the NAHC, who will then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American. If tribal cultural resources are determined to be significant, the tribal monitor and archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City, appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources qualifying as historical resources.

Methods of avoidance may include, but shall not be limited to, project redesign, or identification of protection measures such as capping or fencing.

If it is demonstrated that resources cannot be avoided, with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), the tribal monitor and qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of CEQA Section 21083.2.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-8 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.5 of this SCEA.

Geology and Soils
Paleontological resources,
unique geological
resources.

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.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-5 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.5 of this SCEA.

Greenhouse Gases
GHG Emissions, plan
consistency.

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 This mitigation measure is incorporated as SGCP
EIR Policy GHG-2 as identified in the analysis of
this topic in Section 5.8 of this SCEA.
278 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-83 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-3

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE SOUTH GLENDALE COMMUNITY PLAN EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic South Glendale Community Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project 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.

GHG Emissions, plan
consistency.

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.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as SGCP
EIR Policy GHG-3 as identified in the analysis of
this topic in Section 5.8 of this SCEA.

Noise
Expose people to noise in
excess of local standards.

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 developerinstalled noise walls to protect exterior use area, and/or use of upgraded acoustical doors and windows in dwelling units to reduce interior noise.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.11-1 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.13 of this SCEA.

Expose people to noise in
excess of local standards.

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.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.11-2 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.13 of this SCEA.

Substantial permanent
increase in noise level.

Substantial temporary
increase in noise levels.

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.

This mitigation measure is incorporated as South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.11-5 as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

5.13 of this SCEA.

Source: South Glendale Community Plan EIR
279 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-84 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-4

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE SOUTH GLENDALE COMMUNITY PLAN EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic South Glendale Community Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Cultural Resources
Historical Resources MM 4.4-2: The City shall require a current historical survey by a qualified historian or architectural historian meeting the secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History for future projects under review after the year 2022 that could impact buildings or structures 45 years old or older. Potential resources shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the national, State, or local registers prior to the City’s approval of project plans. The historic survey shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.5 of this SCEA,
that a historic resources survey would be
conducted based on the proposed Project. The
Historic Resources Technical Report is included as
Appendix F to this SCEA.

Archaeological and Tribal
Cultural Resources
MM 4.4-3: The City shall require that archaeological and tribal monitors be retained during ground disturbing activities that can disturb previously undisturbed soils that may have the potential to impact archaeological and tribal cultural resources qualifying as historical resources or unique archaeological resources, as determined by a qualified archaeologist (following Standard of Interior Qualifications) and local Native American tribal monitors in consultation with the City. Historically built environments have not been subject to CEQA guidelines and could possess unknown cultural resources previously undiscovered. Additionally, current construction practices often require foundations to be set at a depth below that historically used for seismic stability. This new practice can result in previously undisturbed soils that contain archaeological deposits. Native American monitors shall be retained for projects that have a high potential to impact unknown and sensitive tribal cultural resources, as determined by the City in coordination with the qualified archaeologist.

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

In addition, the proposed Project shall comply
consistent with the Section 5097.5 of the Public
Resources Code which addresses the discovery and
handling of paleontological resources. In addition,
the proposed Project would implement South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-4 and
project specific Mitigation Measure MM-CULT-1 as
identified in Section 5.5 of this SCEA.

Paleontological Resources MM 4.4-6: Prior to any grading a City-certified paleontologist shall be retained, at the applicant’s expense, to observe grading activities over formations where paleontological resources have greater possibility of being discovered. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference, establish procedures for paleontologist resource surveillance, and establish, This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.5 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
280 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-85 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-4

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE SOUTH GLENDALE COMMUNITY PLAN EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic South Glendale Community Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project in cooperation with the applicant, procedures for temporarily halting and/or redirecting work to permit identification and evaluation of paleontological resources. If unanticipated discoveries are found, the paleontologist shall evaluate the resources in cooperation with the Project applicant, for significance evaluation and proper management of the paleontological resources. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, then the Project shall be required to perform data recovery, professional identification, and other special studies; submit materials to its designee and provide a comprehensive final report including appropriate records for the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
potentially significant impact to paleontological
resources.

In addition, the proposed Project shall comply
with the Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources
Code which addresses the discovery and handling
of paleontological resources. In addition, the
proposed Project would implement South
Glendale Community Plan EIR MM 4.4-5 and
project specific Mitigation Measure MM-PALEO-1
as identified in Section 5.7 page 5.0-60 of this
SCEA.

Human Remains MM 4.4-7: Regulations and procedures of the discovery of human remains must be included in all archaeological-related programs and ground disturbance information for future projects. All references to the inadvertent discovery of human remains shall promote preservation and proper coordination with applicable Native American tribes in a timely manner.

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

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

Greenhouse Gases
GHG Emissions, plan
consistency.

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-1: The City shall update the Greener Glendale Plan for community and municipal operations and establish GHG reduction goals that are consistent with California’s established goals of 40 percent below baseline emissions by 2030 and 80 percent below baseline emissions by 2050; this update shall be evaluated against potential environmental impacts and qualified under CEQA as a Climate Action Plan. The updated plan shall include quantifiable and feasible measures that the City can implement to achieve established GHG reduction targets;
This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.8 of this SCEA, it is not applicable to
individual private development projects.
281 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-86 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-4

Policy GHG-4: The City shall continue to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of new policies, programs, and regulations that contribute to achieving the City’s long-term GHG emissions reduction goals.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.8 of this SCEA, it is not applicable to
individual private development projects.

Noise
Operational Noise Levels MM 4.11-3: Future projects implemented under the SGCP that result in substantial increase in operational noise levels shall implement measures, such as but not limited to, specification of quieter equipment, implementation of acoustical panels or enclosures around exposed noise producing equipment, relocate noise producing equipment into an acoustically-isolated space, relocate noise producing equipment further from noise-sensitive property boundary, and/or apply appropriate silencers (i.e. mufflers, baffles, or other noise reducing modifications) to noisy equipment.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated,
because the City determined, based on the
analysis of this topic in Section 5.13 of this SCEA,
that the proposed Project would not result in a
substantial increase in operational noise levels.

Expose people to noise in
excess of local standards.

Expose people to
excessive groundborne
vibration or noise.

MM 4.11-4: Future projects implemented under the SGCP that exceed groundborne thresholds outlined in Code Section 8.36.210 shall be required to use alternative methods to pile driving, such vibratory or pre-augured pile. When located near sensitive receptors, vibration sensitive land uses, or older fragile buildings, vibration monitoring shall be implemented.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because the proposed Project substantially
implements this measure. The proposed Project
will comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance which
regulates noise levels associated with
construction and operation of the Project site.

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

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

MM 4.15-1: Brand Boulevard & Glenoaks Boulevard: The addition of a second northbound left-turn lane is proposed in order to fully mitigate the impact at this intersection. The proposed turn lane would replace an existing concrete, landscaped median that measures roughly 11 feet wide and 160 feet long.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.17 of this SCEA, the intersection at
Brand Boulevard and Glenoaks Boulevard is not
282 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-87 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-4

Conflict with measures of
effectiveness for
performance of the
circulation system.

MM 4.15-2: Glendale Avenue & Monterey Road: The eastbound approach of this intersection along Monterey Road consists of a left-turn lane, through lane, and right-turn lane. The proposed mitigation would restripe the through lane as a through/right-turn lane to accommodate high right-turn volumes at this location. This mitigation can be implemented within the existing ROW.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.17 of this SCEA, the intersection at
Glendale Avenue and Monterey Road is not located
near the Project site or impacted by the proposed
Project.

Conflict with measures of
effectiveness for
performance of the
circulation system.

MM 4.15-3: Harvey Drive & Wilson Avenue: A full mitigation of this impact would require widening the westbound approach along Wilson Avenue to add a second right-turn lane to accommodate high right-turn volumes at this location, specifically in the AM peak hour. This mitigation can be implemented within the existing ROW.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.17 of this SCEA, the intersection at
Harvey Drive and Wilson Avenue is not located
near the Project site or impacted by the proposed
Project.

Conflict with measures of
effectiveness for
performance of the
circulation system.

MM 4.15-4: Central Avenue & Colorado Street: The northbound approach of this intersection consists of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. Fully mitigating this intersection would require restriping the northbound approach within the existing ROW to two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one through/right-turn lane. The existing receiving lanes on the west leg of this intersection can accommodate this modification.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.17 of this SCEA, the intersection at
Central Avenue and Colorado Street is not located
near the Project site or impacted by the proposed
Project.

Conflict with measures of
effectiveness for
performance of the
circulation system.

MM 4.15-5: Central Avenue & Los Feliz Road: The southbound approach of this intersection consists of one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and a right-turn lane. Fully mitigating this intersection would require restriping the southbound approach within the existing ROW to two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. There are currently two receiving lanes on the east leg of the intersection to accommodate this modification.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.17 of this SCEA, the intersection at
Central Avenue and Los Feliz Road is not located
near the Project site or impacted by the proposed
Project (see Appendix E).

Conflict with measures of
effectiveness for
performance of the
circulation system.

MM 4.15-6: Pacific Avenue & SR-134 WB Ramps: The westbound approach of this intersection consists of a one-lane off-ramp from the WB SR-134 freeway, which widens to two lanes (a through/left-turn lane and a right-turn lane) at the intersection. There is currently a raised concrete pad on the north side of the westbound approach that is assumed to be within Caltrans ROW.

The proposed mitigation at this location would widen the westbound approach in the Caltrans ROW to add a second westbound right-turn lane.

While this mitigation would widen the existing 50-foot pedestrian crossing distance at this location, additional improvements, such as an enhanced This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.17 of this SCEA, the intersection at
Pacific Avenue and SR-134 WB Ramps is not
located near the Project site or impacted by the
proposed Project (see Appendix E).
283 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-88 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-4

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE SOUTH GLENDALE COMMUNITY PLAN EIR NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic South Glendale Community Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project crosswalk, could be installed to help mitigate any negative effects on the pedestrian environment at this location.

Conflict with measures of
effectiveness for
performance of the
circulation system.

MM 4.15-7: Pacific Avenue & SR-134 EB Ramps: There are two modifications that can be made at this intersection within the existing right-of-way to fully mitigate this impact. On the northbound approach, an existing through lane would be restriped as a through/right-turn lane. The eastbound approach (the SR-134 off-ramp) would be widened within the existing Caltrans ROW to add a right-turn lane. While this mitigation would widen the existing 35-foot pedestrian crossing distance at this location, additional improvements, such as an enhanced crosswalk, could be installed to help mitigate any negative effects on the pedestrian environment at this location.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.17 of this SCEA, the intersection at
Pacific Avenue and SR-134 EB Ramps is not located
near the Project site or impacted by the proposed
Project (see Appendix E).

Conflict with measures of
effectiveness for
performance of the
circulation system.

MM 4.15-8: SR-134 WB Ramps & Monterey Road: The northbound approach of this intersection consists of a one-lane off-ramp from the WB SR-134 freeway, which widens to two lanes (a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane) at the intersection. The mitigation proposed at this location would widen the off-ramp at the intersection in incorporate a second left-turn lane. There is currently additional Caltrans ROW adjacent to the ramp to make this modification. This configuration would require space for two receiving lanes on the west leg of the intersection, which could be accommodated by removing existing median paint and restricting on-street parking along Monterey Road for approximately 225 feet.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.17 of this SCEA, the intersection at
Monterey Road and SR-134 WB Ramps is not
located near the Project site or impacted by the
proposed Project (see Appendix E).

Conflict with measures of
effectiveness for
performance of the
circulation system.

MM 4.15-9: Central Avenue & Goode Avenue: The westbound approach of this intersection includes a through/right-turn lane that is approximately 20 feet wide. In order to partially mitigate this intersection, this through/rightturn lane would be restriped as a 10-foot through lane and a 10-foot rightturn lane. In order to fully mitigate the impact, the southbound approach would also need to be widened to add a new through lane. The full mitigation is considered infeasible due to physical constraints.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.17 of this SCEA, the intersection at
Central Avenue and Goode Avenue is not located
near the Project site or impacted by the proposed
Project (see Appendix E).

Conflict with measures of
effectiveness for
performance of the
circulation system.

MM 4.15-10: Verdugo Road & Broadway: The impact at this intersection would be partially mitigated if the existing northbound through/right-turn lane was restriped as a right-turn only lane. In order to fully mitigate the impact at this location, the southbound approach and the westbound approach would also both need to be widened to add a new left-turn lane on both legs. The full mitigation is not feasible due to physical constraints.

This mitigation measure is not incorporated
because, based on the analysis of this topic in
Section 5.17 of this SCEA, the intersection at
Verdugo Road and Broadway is not located near
the Project site or impacted by the proposed
Project (see Appendix E).

Source: South Glendale Community Plan EIR
284 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-89 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-5

MM 4.2-2(a): Project applicants shall require by contract specifications that all diesel-powered equipment used be retrofitted with after-treatment products (e.g., engine catalysts) to the extent that they are readily available in the South Coast Air Basin. Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of Glendale prior to issuance of a grading permit.

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

5.3 of this SCEA.

Violation of air quality
standards.

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 low-NOX diesel fuel to the extent that it is readily available and cost effective (up to 125 percent of the cost of California Air Resources Board diesel) in the South Coast Air Basin (this does not apply to dieselpowered 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.

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

5.3 of this SCEA.

Violation of air quality
standards.

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.

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

5.3 of this SCEA.

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

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

5.3 of this SCEA.

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

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

5.3 of this SCEA.
285 of 2287

3.0 Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Criteria Lucia Park Project 3.0-90 City of Glendale
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment January 2022 TABLE 3.3-5

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Topic Downtown Specific Plan Project Level Mitigation Measure Applicability to Proposed Project Electricity use during
construction
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.

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

5.3 of this SCEA.

Violation of air quality
standards.

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:
(a) Application of soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (b) Quick replacement of ground cover in disturbed areas (c) Watering of exposed surfaces three times daily
(d) Watering of all unpaved haul roads three times daily (e) Covering all stockpiles with tarp
(f) Reduction of vehicle speed on unpaved roads
(g) Post signs on-site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less (h) Sweep streets adjacent to the Project site at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads (i) Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas
(j) 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
(k) Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.
(l) Pave roads and road shoulders that have exposed soil (m) Suspend all excavating and grading operations when winds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph
This mitigation measure is incorporated as
Downtown Specific Plan EIR MM 4.2-2(g) as
identified in the analysis of this topic in Section

Glendale City CouncilJune 14, 2022

Glendale City Council
June 14, 2022