Glendale City Council
April 11, 2023

City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) 227 of 638
II. Officers or owners/investors of Applicant Entity. Please also disclose the following persons or entities related to the applicant entity: CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign + Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
III. Contractor of Applicant(s) Seeking Entitlement*
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
* “Contractor of Applicant Seeking Entitlement” means “a person who has, or has been promised, a contract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract with an applicant seeking entitlement. “Contractor of applicant seeking entitlement,” includes not only the contracting party but also the CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the contracting party.

Please list the names and addresses of all of these parties.

IV. Subcontractor of Applicant(s) Seeking Entitlement** Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
** “Subcontractor of Applicant Seeking Entitlement” means “a person who has, or has been promised, a subcontract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or perform other work with a ‘contractor an applicant seeking entitlement.”

City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) 228 of 638
“Subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement,” includes not only the subcontracting party, but also the CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the subcontracting party. Please list the name and addresses of all of these parties.

V. Disclosure. The Applicant Seeking Entitlement has made campaign or officeholder contributions in the preceding 12 months to City of Glendale elected officials as follows:

Elected Official Name of Individual or Entity Date of Contribution Dan Brotman Alen Malekian / Malekian & Associates May 2022 I hereby certify, on behalf of the above-named applicant(s) and owner(s)/lessor(s), that the applicant seeking entitlement has made the campaign contributions as set forth above. I also certify that the names of all contractors of applicant and all subcontractors of applicant, as of today’s date, are fully set forth above. I further acknowledge that the applicant has a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if the applicant selects additional or substitute architects, design professionals, contractors or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change. I hereby certify that I have been legally authorized by the applicant/owner/lessor to submit this disclosure form and certify to the content hereof.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 06/29/2022
Executed on __________
_________________________, California Glendale
Applicant’s Signature____ __________, Print Applicant’s Full Name ___________________________________ Alen Malekian, AIA Applicant’s Address _____________________________________________________________________ 2255 Honolulu Ave. #1A Montrose, CA 91020 Applicant’s Contact Phone Number ________________________________________________________ 818-249-5522 Applicant’s Email Address _______________________________________________________________ [email protected]

City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) 229 of 638
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Toledo, Milca
To: Shahnazarian, Renia
Cc: Mavandi, Shahnaz
Subject: 424-434 W. Milford St. (Case#PDBP2212648)// Public Comment (2) Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:02:53 AM
From: Kazuko Ferrer <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 10:50 AM
To: Toledo, Milca <[email protected]>
Subject: Case#PDBP2212648. 424-430 Milford st
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

To whom it may concern,
I'm writing this in regards to above project on Milford st. 400 block of Milford street may seem quiet, but it gets very busy. There are lots of cars need to park on street, which gets very challenging for residents sometimes due to the restriction of parking spaces. We have elementary school on the street, and lots of parking spaces were blocked and reserved for school, and not available for residents. Building new 43 units with only 36 parking spaces on our street would create more traffic, congestion and inconvenience for all residents and school.

Thank you for your consideration,
Regards,
K Inoue
Milford street resident
230 of 638
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 8:07 AM
To: Toledo, Milca <[email protected]>
Subject: Demolishion of 424, 430, 434 W. Milford
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

I strongly oppose the demolition of the existing three houses on 424, 430, 434 W. Milford and the building of a fourstory apartment complex. For one thing, the neighborhood does not have the infrastructure to handle this. The neighborhood is already maxed out with the massive complexes already built and being built nearby, as well as the school on our street which is already during school days causing parking and congestion issues as they are overflowing their parking and traffic lanes. We residents that start work at 5 am and finish around 5 pm already have to deal with circling the block for sometimes 30 mins to find parking because of all the derelict and overflow parking from the other complexes in the area. Let alone on the supposed "street sweeping" days you could be talking about 40 mins to an hour to find parking, if our street has been swept in the last decade then they did it at 70 mph and while blind. After working five days a week, all those hours, and paying the rent and taxes we do, the last thing we should have to deal with at the end of the day is finding parking. Yet after all these parking issues here we see in the proposal that they are intending to build this monstrosity building with fewer than unit parking spaces, on top of all the other infrastructure issues this will cause. Once again as is the case in this state the cart is being put before the horse. Here we are being told all the time, to save water, save electricity, save resources, and yet with another massive monstrosity of an apartment complex you are not adding any new energy sources, or water sources and you are not widening streets or adding freeways. We don't have water, electricity, or roads for this Milford is maxed out. Pacific is already a nightmare with traffic jams, let alone trying to get to 134 which is only a block away. Have you been on the 134 going into Glendale or near the brand exit on a normal day? Let alone the speeding that goes on Milford st, I am ready to buy a ticket booth and charge admission for the drag strip that is Milford. Day and night, during school days also, easily people are doing 100 mph, you can tell without seeing by the loud exhaust and woosh you hear, as well as running stop signs and not yielding to pedestrians. From what the neighbors tell me they have asked for speed bumps for years and nothing, yet here comes a massive complex. The road maintenance is another, our street already looks like the grand canyon, and yet there would be more wear and 231 of 638 tear on the road from this project and the complex. What is this war on single-family homes, why does it have to be these beautiful 100-year-old homes? There is for one thing a dilapidated abandoned house on the corner of Milford and Pacific with a large empty lot next to it, and it has been that way for years. Why not build something less massive there, instead of destroying these beautiful homes? Also, I thought the state had passed some laws that made it easier to use and turn commercial property into residential. I see all kinds of unused commercial buildings and spaces around Glendale, which are also closer to major roads and infrastructure. There is an abandoned restaurant on central near 134, why not build this monstrosity there? This is more poor planning when unused spaces are not being used first. Plus destroying 100-year-old single-family homes in a single-family style neighborhood is not creating a community but is destroying it when replacing them with ugly socialist-style apartment complexes, no matter how fancy they look, are still lipstick on a pig. I could maybe get behind this if it was a townhouse or a single or maybe a two-story complex but a four-story with inadequate parking, if there are not two parking spaces per unit it is inadequate. As a future homeowner, why would I ever want to consider Glendale, there I would be investing in a house only to one day wake up and have a monstrosity of a complex planted next door to me. I'm sick of the destruction of our neighborhood with these monstrosities, and affordability is a joke with all the taxes, Fees\taxes over regulation in this state.

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
232 of 638
9b

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Public Hearing on Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission’s denial of Design Review Case No. PDR-000838-2023 located at 1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardena Avenue.

1. Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Project, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) due to significant and unavoidable project impacts from (i) the demolition of the existing historic house at 1642 S. Central Avenue, and (ii) construction generated noise and vibration impacts and making findings in support thereof; and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

2. Motion approving the Project Design Review Application (DR Case No.

PDR2017612) as proposed.

3. Motion approving the Project Design Review Application (DR Case No.

PDR2017612) with conditions.

4. Motion to sustain the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision to not certify the FEIR and deny the Project Design Review Application.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for April 11, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This hearing is to consider an appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission’s (HPC) February 16, 2023 denial of a Design Review Application and decision to not certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for a new five-story, 31-unit, affordable rental housing project on a 9,958 square-foot lot zoned SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use), with three units reserved for very low income households and a concession to reduce the total amount of parking spaces by two parking spaces (16 parking spaces provided in a one-level subterranean garage; 18 parking spaces required), per Gov.

Code Density Bonus Incentive (the “Project”).
233 of 638
2 b 9
On January 19, 2023, the HPC initially reviewed the Project and voted to “Return for Redesign” to not include the demolition of the house at 1642 South Central Avenue that was built in 1913.

On January 26, 2023, the applicant resubmitted a Project Design Review application without any changes to the project.

On February 16, 2023, the HPC denied the Project and did not certify the FEIR.

On February 26, 2023, the applicant filed an appeal requesting the City Council to reverse the HPC’s denial of the Project Design Review Application, and to certify the FEIR, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations due to significant and unavoidable project impacts from (i) the demolition of the existing historic house at 1642 S. Central Avenue, and (ii) construction generated noise and vibration impacts and making findings in support thereof; and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Housing: The Project (as proposed) can contribute to the health of the City through an economically viable infill project that would provide an increase in residential units (31 units total; 3 reserved for very low income households) to help meet housing demand in the City and better meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements for the region.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council certify the FEIR and either approve the project as proposed, approve the project with conditions, approve one of the Project Alternatives described and analyzed in the FEIR.

If the City Council certifies the FEIR for one of the Project alternatives not involving demolition of 1642 S. Central, that alternative will not require adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) based on significant and unavoidable impacts regarding historic resources; however, will be require adoption of SOC based on significant and unavoidable impacts concerning construction generated noise and vibration impacts.

BACKGROUND
Appellant: Aram Alajajian
Status of Appellant 1: Applicant
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 5640-029-014
Zone: SFMU (San Fernando Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) Zone Land Use Element: Mixed Use
234 of 638
3 b 9
Existing Site Characteristics: The northwest portion of the property is developed with a single family Craftsman style dwelling constructed in 1913 (“1642 S. Central”). The southeast portion of the property is developed with a smaller single family house built circa 1923 (“1608 Gardena”) and a garage/accessory building also built in 1923 (Garage). The subject lot is zoned SFMU (San Fernando Commercial/Residential Mixed Use), is approximately 9,958 square-feet, and is located at the southeast corner of South Central Avenue and Gardena Avenue in the Tropico neighborhood and South Glendale Community Plan (SGCP) area. The properties to the immediate north and west of the Project site are developed with industrial uses, single-family residences are located to the south, and the Larry Zarian Transportation Center to the west.

An Historic Context Statement for the South Glendale Community Plan Area (“Context Statement”) was prepared in 2014 by Historic Resources Group (HRG). This Context Statement identified a theme of Early Development & Town Settlement (1872-1919) for properties associated with the early history of Glendale and Tropico. The 1913 construction date of the Craftsman home located at 1642 S. Central places it within the Early Development & Town Settlement historical context theme for its association with development in the former City of Tropico.

The 1608 Gardena residence and the garage, both built circa 1923, are associated with development during the Pre-World War II Automobile Suburbs (1919-1944). In 2018, HRG prepared the South Glendale Historic Resources Survey (“Survey”) and identified the Craftsman house located at 1642 S. Central property as appearing eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (Status Code 5S3). The Survey found the 1642 S. Central Craftsman house to be “an increasingly rare example of early residential development in Tropico,” which links it to the broad cultural, social, and historic heritage predating Tropico’s annexation into the City of Glendale. According to the Survey, the house located at 1642 S. Central is considered an excellent example of the Craftsman style, possessing many of the style’s character-defining features and including other, more rare, stylistic elements; this residence reflects the creative impulses of early designers working in what at the time was a relatively new style, along with the aesthetic tastes and social goals of early Glendale area residents.

The Survey recognized a difference between earlier Craftsman-style properties built before 1919 and those built in subsequent years until the style fell out of popular use around 1925. The earlier buildings, such 1642 S. Central, displayed greater stylistic experimentation and a wider range of character defining features, while the later ones, like 1608 Gardena, typically reflect a more standardized expression of the style. The Survey did not include 1608 Gardena or the Garage as part of its assessment because, although located on the same lot, these buildings do not possess the level of Craftsman detail that would warrant their inclusion. Based on the registration requirements established in the Context Statement, and the methodology of the Survey, Planning 235 of 638
4 b 9
Staff has determined that 1608 Gardena and the Garage do not contribute to the historic character of the property and have not acquired any historic significance in their own right.

Based on the Survey findings and staff’s assessment of the entire site, 1642 South Central Avenue is a historic resource, and its demolition will cause a substantial adverse change to the environment as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. The demolition of the 1608 Gardena and the Garage will not create a significant impact because they neither contribute to the significance of 1642 S. Central nor are they individually eligible for historic designation.

On August 10, 2018, the prior property owner submitted a Demolition Clearance Request to clear the entire property in anticipation of a future project. The Director of Community Development denied the request because the potential project involved the demolition of a historic resource and would therefore require preparation of an EIR to assess environmental impacts. The owner appealed this decision to City Council, and on June 11, 2019, the City Council upheld the Director’s decision denying the Demolition Clearance request and directed the applicant to prepare an EIR.

Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: The project site is surrounded by IMU-R zoned properties with commercial/industrial uses to the north and west, SFMU zoned properties with commercial uses to the east, single-family residences to the south, and the Larry Zarian Transportation Center to the west.

Zoning Existing Uses
North IMU-R – (Industrial/CommercialResidential Mixed Use) Zone Commercial/Industrial South SFMU – Commercial/Residential
Mixed Use
Single-family residential
East SFMU – Commercial/Residential
Mixed Use
Commercial
West SFMU – Commercial/Residential
Mixed Use, and T - Transportation
Larry Zarian Transportation
Center
Project Site SFMU – Commercial/Residential
Mixed Use
Multi-family residential
Environmental Determination: As required by the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal Code Regs §15082(a)(1)), the City issued a Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental 236 of 638
5 b 9
Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Project on June 10, 2021. The Project DEIR was circulated for public review and comment from March 24, 2022, through April 22, 2022, and based on public comments, the City prepared a Partially Recirculated Draft EIR (PR-DEIR) to expand upon the DEIR’s noise and vibration impact analysis.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087 and 15088.5(d), the PR-DEIR was circulated for a 30-day public comment period beginning on August 12, 2022. Public comments were received during the public review periods for both the DEIR and PRDEIR, and responses to each comment were included in the FEIR.

The FEIR was prepared pursuant to the City of Glendale’s Procedures for Preparation and Processing of Environmental Documents (Glendale CEQA Guidelines, 2016), Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines (15 Cal Code Regs §15000 et seq.). The FEIR was published on the City’s website on December 2, 2022. The FEIR (which includes the DEIR and PR-DEIR) and proposed Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are attached as Exhibit 1.

The FEIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The scope of the FEIR includes environmental issues determined to be potentially significant by the Notice of Preparation (NOP), responses to the NOP, consulting staff, and the City of Glendale. The NOP identified potentially significant impacts on the following issue areas associated with the implementation of the proposed Project, which are discussed in detail in the FEIR:
• Cultural Resources • Noise and Vibration
The FEIR addresses the issues referenced above and identifies significant environmental impacts. In addition, the FEIR recommends feasible mitigation measures and project alternatives, that were selected because they meet most of the Project objectives, while reducing the Project’s significant environmental effects.

Summary of Project Impacts
As summarized in Chapter 1 of the FEIR, the proposed Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable project-related and/or cumulative impacts.

Cultural Resources
• The proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
237 of 638
6 b 9
Noise and Vibration
• Construction of the proposed Project would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City of Glendale Noise Ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies.
• Construction of the proposed Project would generate excessive ground-borne vibration levels.

Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Under the No Project Alternative, the two residential dwellings on the lot located at 1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardena, and the existing garage, would be retained in their current configuration and would not be disturbed; no construction would occur on site and the current residential uses would continue. No new residential uses would be added. The existing physical features of the Project site, including the character-defining features of the historic resource, would not change and no modifications, repairs, or restoration would be made.

The No Project Alternative assumes that the Project would not be approved and would result in a “no build” scenario wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.

If the No Project Alternative were to proceed, no changes would be implemented and none of the impacts associated with the Project would occur. However, incremental changes would be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site as nearby projects are approved, constructed, and occupied. With no change to existing site conditions under the No Project Alternative, land use activity on the Project site would not contribute to cumulative impacts beyond existing levels. There would be no construction or operational impacts related to noise and vibration compared to the Project. Since the No Project Alternative would retain all the character-defining features of the subject property and not demolish or make any modifications to the historic resource, it would not cause any material impairment to the historic resource.

Compared to the Project, which would demolish all buildings on site and result in material impairment to the historic resource, the No Project Alternative would not result in any project-level impacts and would not contribute to any impacts related to historic architectural resources. The No Project Alternative would not require construction activities and would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise and vibration.

Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed five-story multi-family five-story residential building containing 31 units of rental housing, including three very-low income units, and a one-level subterranean garage would not be constructed.

Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. 238 of 638
7 b 9
Alternative 2: Reduced Density and Relocation on Site
The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative (“Alternative 2”) would relocate 1642 S. Central Avenue residential building within the Project site, demolish 1608 Gardena, and the garage, and construct a reduced number of residential units on the remaining site area. The house located at 1642 S. Central would be moved to the north within the existing project site, with a 10-foot setback from South Central Avenue. This relocation would leave a remaining buildable area of approximately 4,433 square feet (0.1017 acre) on the Project site. For SFMU zoned properties, the maximum allowable density is 100 units per acre. The remaining buildable area would allow for 10.178 units (11 units). At a 35 percent density bonus, Alternative 2 would add four additional units to accommodate a reduced maximum allowable density project of fifteen (15) residential units, including approximately fourteen (14) marketrate and one (1) very low-income units instead of the Proposed Project’s thirty-one (31) units. Alternative 2 would provide an estimated eight subterranean parking spaces. The approximate 15 unit and 8 parking space configuration is the maximum allowable density by the Zoning Code and the potential amount of parking spaces that could be constructed at the remaining buildable area to satisfy other various code requirements, such as, compliant interior/exterior circulation within/and around the building, landscaping, open space, driveway ramps and turning radius within the garage. Alternative 2 would require construction of similar improvements, including grading and construction of the footings, connections for utilities, however the construction activities would be of shorter duration.

The on-site relocation and restoration of the historic building would involve various restoration activities that would be required to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (CEQA Guidelines section 15331). As such, depending on other features of the Project, the on-site relocation and building restoration may be eligible for categorical exemption under CEQA.

Alternative 2 would result in fewer environmental impacts compared to the Project given the reduced scale and shorter duration of the construction. Alternative 2 would also be consistent with the SFMU and Mixed-Use District General Development Standards. The 15-unit building with a one-level subterranean garage would have a smaller building footprint than the 31-unit Project but would still result in short-term impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geology/soils, water quality, and traffic. Similar to the Project, these short-term construction impacts from this Alternative would be less than significant and typical of small in fill land development projects where compliance with existing codes and other regulatory standards ensure these types of impacts are below impact thresholds. As previously noted, Alternative 2 would require a shorter construction duration but would not result in a significant reduction in construction noise compared to the Project.

As noted in the FEIR, the site preparation and grading construction phases generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving equipment is the noisiest construction 239 of 638
8 b 9
equipment. This work would still be required but the timing would be shortened due to the reduced size of the proposed building. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control and Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control would ensure that construction noise and vibration is reduced to the lowest feasible level. However, impacts related to construction noise and vibration would remain significant and unavoidable because of the close proximity of a sensitive receptor.

Alternative 2 would preserve the on-site location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and character-defining features of 1642 S. Central. While the historic house would be preserved, as with the Project, this alternative would modify the setting of the historic resource. This alternative would, however, eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact that would result from the demolition of 1642 S. Central Avenue.

Alternative 3: Reduced Density and No Relocation (keep the historic house located at 1642 South Central Avenue in its existing location on the project site) The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative (“Alternative 3”) would result in fewer environmental impacts compared to the Project because it would retain the historic house located at 1642 S. Central at its original location, as well as lead to a significantly smaller building (eleven residential units versus 31 units), and a shorter construction duration. Like Alternative 2, the approximate eleven unit and eight parking space configuration is the maximum allowable density by the Zoning Code and the potential amount of parking spaces that could be constructed at the remaining buildable area to satisfy other various code requirements, such as, compliant interior/exterior circulation within/and around the building, landscaping, open space, driveway ramps and turning radius within the garage. Due to the approximately 1/3 size of this Alternative compared to the Project and shorter duration of construction, this Alternative would result in reduced environmental impacts compared to the Project. Alternative 3 would also be consistent with the SFMU and Mixed-Use District General Development Standards. The eleven-unit building with a one-level subterranean garage would have a smaller building footprint compared to the Project but would still result in some short-term, but less than significant impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geology/soils, water quality, and traffic. Similar to the Project, these short-term construction impacts would be less than significant and typical of small land development projects.

Alternative 3 would result in reduced construction duration compared to the Project.

However, the site preparation and grading construction phases, which generate the highest noise levels, would still be required. The timing of this work would be shortened due to the reduced size of the proposed building. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1:

Construction Noise Control and Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control would ensure that construction noise and vibration is reduced to the maximum amount feasible. However, impacts related to construction noise and vibration would remain significant and unavoidable because of the close proximity of a sensitive receptor.
240 of 638
9 b 9
Alternative 3 would preserve the existing location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and character-defining features of the house located at 1642 S. Central. The retention of the house at its existing location would eliminate the Project’s significant impact resulting from the demolition of the resource although it would still alter the immediate setting, such alteration is not a significant impact that materially impairs the ability of the house to convey its historicity: The residential dwelling at 1642 S. Central Avenue would remain an excellent example of a Craftsman style house and would remain eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines require that an alternative, other than the project and the no-project alternative, be chosen as the Environmentally Superior Alternative from the alternatives included in the EIR. Alternatives are chosen based on their feasibility, ability to meet project objectives some or all of the project objectives, and because the alternative eliminate or lessen significant and unavoidable impacts.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e) (2), if the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then an EIR is required to identify another environmentally superior alternative from among the alternatives evaluated if the Project has significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that best avoids or lessens any significant effects of the Project, even if the alternative would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives. The No Project Alternative is considered the overall environmentally superior alternative because it would represent a continuation of existing conditions on the Project site and would not result in any significant impacts associated with implementation of the Project. The No Project Alternative, however, would not meet any of the project objectives.

Alternative–2 - Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) - would be the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives evaluated because Alternative 2 would eliminate the significant and unavoidable adverse impact associated with demolition of 1642 S. Central Avenue. The construction noise and vibration impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, although they would be lessened when compared to the Project. This alternative would also meet more of the Project objectives of adding affordable housing and meeting the City’s affordable housing goals, although not to the same extent as the Project since Alternative 3 would yield twenty (20) fewer new units than the Proposed Project.

Project History:

November 4, 2020 Density Bonus Housing Plan Case No. PDBP2005164 and Design Review Application PDR 2017612 were submitted.
241 of 638
10 b 9
June 10, 2021 Notice of Preparation for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

March 24, 2022 Project DEIR was circulated for public review and comment for 30 days beginning March 24, 2022, through April 22, 2022 (Exhibit 4).

August 22, 2022 A Partially Recirculated Draft EIR (PR-DEIR) was subsequently prepared to address public comments and
expand upon the analysis in the DEIR, particularly pertaining to potential noise and vibration impacts (Exhibit 3).

December 2, 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was published on the City’s website (Exhibit 1).

January 19, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) initially reviewed the Project and voted to “Return for Redesign” to not include the demolition of the house at 1642 South Central Avenue that was built in 1913.

January 26, 2023 Applicant resubmitted a Project Design Review application without any changes to the project.

February 16, 2023 HPC denied the Project and did not certify the FEIR.

February 26, 2023 Appeal was filed by the applicant requesting the City Council to reverse the HPC’s denial, approve the Project Design Review Application and certify the FEIR (Exhibit 9).

ANALYSIS
Summary of HPC Discussions
On February 16, 2023, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the materials and exhibits relative to the Design Review application and FEIR. Since 1642 South Central Avenue was found to be an increasingly rare example of early residential development in Tropico, HPC did not support the Project because it involves demolition of a historic resource. HPC denied certification of the FEIR and denied the Design Review application with a preference that the Project be redesigned with a reduced amount of density that would preserve 1642 South Central Avenue at its existing location on the site (e.g., Alternative 3). Soon after, and within 15 days the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision, the applicant submitted an appeal.

Summary of HPC’s Comments:
• Do motions #5 and #6 outlined by the February 16, 2023 staff report (both with the determination of Return for Redesign) include the certification of the FEIR.
242 of 638
11 b 9
o No. Motions #5 and #6 do not require the certification of the FEIR. Similar to HPC’s January 19, 2023 “Return for Redesign” determination for the Design Review application, a CEQA determination is not required prior to returning a project for redesign, because such redesign may require modifications to the environmental review.
• Who created the alternatives provided within the FEIR? o The alternatives were selected by the EIR consultant in consultation with city staff. The methodology used to select alternatives to the Project for detailed CEQA analysis focused on developing a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts - while still meeting most of the Project’s basic objectives. The EIR identified the demolition of 1642 South Central Avenue residence and all its character-defining features as a significant and unavoidable impact. As a result, project alternatives have been designed to avoid or substantially lessen this impact while still meeting most of the Project’s basic objectives. • Correct the grammar of bullet point three of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1. o The mitigation measure was amended to read, “The construction contractor shall place noise- and vibration-generating construction equipment, with exception to of equipment needed to complete shoring activities associated with the construction of the subterranean garage, away from sensitive uses.

All construction staging areas shall be located away from sensitive uses.” An Errata to the FEIR with all amended language are provided as Exhibit 8. • What is meant by vibration distance contours described within mitigation measures?
o The term vibration distance contour is used to describe the distance between the construction boundary and nearest off-site buildings to analyze potential construction vibration damage caused by various construction equipment. • What established (vibration) standard will be utilized by staff for vibration analysis refinement outlined by Mitigation Measure M-NO-2? o While the Glendale Municipal Code provides thresholds for the potential for vibration annoyance, and not vibration damage, the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual for vibration damage will be used as part of staff’s review.
• As proposed, the Project is to construct a 31-unit residential building with three units (11 percent) reserved for very low income households. Will the 243 of 638
12 b 9
remaining four percent be offset by an in lieu fee to satisfy the city’s Inclusionary requirements?
o Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) 30.35, the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (the “IZO”) requires a housing development (a rental development project of eight (8) or more dwelling units proposed to be constructed in the City) to provide fifteen percent (15%) of the units as affordable to low-income households. This Project is subject to the IZO and is required to provide four (4) affordable units to low income households (15 percent of 23 base density units (3.45 rounded up to 4)). Per GMC 30.35.060, developers of housing development projects may choose to pay a fee, or a combination of payment of a fee and the provision of units, in-lieu of providing all inclusionary units on site. While the Project proposes to reserve three units for low income households, the applicant has proposed to pay an in-lieu fee to meet remaining portion of the IZO requirement.
• The project was resubmitted for the HPC’s second review without any changes. Question was presented to the applicant if they were opposed to staff’s recommended condition #1 to provide greater articulation at street facades.
o Applicant expressed its desire to not change the design at the street facades and maintain the aesthetic as proposed.
• HPC Commissioner Jurca was troubled that the noise/vibration and EIR consultants were not available during the second meeting. o The applicant has indicated that LSA, the consultant who authored the Noise and Vibration Study, will be present for the City Council meeting. The EIR consultant SWCA will be present at the City Council meeting. • Mitigation Measure M-NO-2 requires a “Vibration Analysis Refinement” which states, “Once the specific construction equipment list becomes available, potential vibration damage distance contours shall be refined.” HPC Commissioner Jurca requested clarification as to why this is not deferred mitigation.
o Mitigation measures should describe the specific actions that will be taken to reduce or avoid an impact. It is ordinarily inappropriate to defer formulation of a mitigation measure to the future. 14 Cal Code Regs §15126.4(a)(1)(B). This rule is not absolute, and the courts have recognized exceptions to it in a number of situations. POET, LLC v State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 CA4th 681, 735. The CEQA Guidelines (as amended in 2018) acknowledge these exceptions, explaining that mitigation measures may specify performance standards for mitigating a significant impact when it is impractical or infeasible to specify the specific details of mitigation during the EIR review process, provided the lead agency commits to implement the 244 of 638
13 b 9
mitigation, adopts the specified performance standard, and identifies the types of actions that may achieve compliance with the performance standard. 14 Cal Code Regs §15126.4(a)(1)(B).
o Vibration Analysis Refinement is not considered deferred mitigation here because the analysis is required to be completed as part of the Building & Safety plan check review, and the project proponent is required to monitor construction activities in order to avoid or reduce any potential project-related construction vibration damage to adjacent buildings and/or structures and to ensure that any such damage is documented and repaired. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit, the property owner is required to submit the construction vibration monitoring plan to the City for approval.

Mitigation measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control ensures the vibration damage thresholds for construction projects do not exceed Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) thresholds and are evaluated for compliance prior to any permit issuance. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure MNO-2 is not deferred mitigation. • If this project were to be appealed to the City Council, HPC requested that staff provide a full explanation of the reasons for making changes to the Noise and Vibration Study in the Partially Recirculation Environmental Impact Report.
o The City received two comments during the public comment period on the DEIR. These comments expressed concerns about the potential construction noise and vibration impacts on the dwelling (a converted garage) located to the southeast (1616 Gardena Avenue) of the Project. The comments brought new information to the attention of the Project proponent and City that implicated the need for additional construction noise and vibration impacts analysis in the Draft EIR. In response, the City has prepared and circulated a PR-DEIR in order to provide revised construction noise and vibration impact analysis.

The PR-DEIR included revisions to Section 3.2 Noise and Vibration, Chapter 4 Alternatives, and the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program of the Draft EIR, to reflect the updated Noise and Vibration Study Report. These revisions are introduced in Chapter 1 of this PR-DEIR and are provided as Section 3.2 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 4 Alternatives, to follow the document numbering convention of the Draft EIR. Revised Section 3.2 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 4 Alternatives replace the corresponding sections of the Draft EIR in their entirety. In addition, updates to Section 1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures are presented after Section 3.2 Noise and Vibration. Appendix D has been replaced with the updated Noise and Vibration Study Report (2022). No changes were made to the following chapters of the Draft EIR: Chapter 1 Introduction, Chapter 2 Project Description, Chapter 3.1 Cultural Resources, Chapter 5 Cumulative Impact Analysis, and Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations.
245 of 638
14 b 9
• HPC Commissioner Jurca commented her opinion that the cumulative impact analysis in the FEIR is inadequate.
o By way of background, an EIR must discuss a cumulative impact if the project’s incremental effect combined with the effects of other projects is “cumulatively considerable.” CEQA Guidelines section 15130(a). The CEQA Guidelines define cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” CEQA Guidelines section 15355.

Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. CEQA Guidelines section 15355(b). This determination is based on an assessment of the project’s incremental effects “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” CEQA Guidelines section 15065(a)(3). The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR implement the provisions of Pub Res Code section 21083(b)(2), which specifies that the Guidelines must include criteria requiring public agencies to find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if its possible effects “are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.”
o Further, a cumulative impact is an impact created by the combination of the project reviewed in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. 14 Cal Code Regs §15130(a)(1).(Emphasis added). The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the incremental effect of the project when added to other past, present, and probable future projects. 14 Cal Code Regs §§15065(a)(3), 15130(b)(1)(A), 15355(b).

An EIR need not discuss cumulative impacts that do not result in part from the project. 14 Cal Code Regs §15130(a)(1). If a project does not make some contribution to a cumulative environmental effect, the cumulative effect cannot be characterized as a cumulative impact of that project. o Here, the Project EIR considered projects within a geographic radius of the project (e.g., the Tropico area) for purposes of determining whether the Project would create any cumulative impacts in combination with any other past present, or future projects. The geographic area surrounding the Project is relevant because this Project’s significant cultural resource impact is based on the proposed demolition of a 1919 City of Tropico era Craftsman home, accordingly it is appropriate to assess the impact of the proposed demolition in combination with related projects, e.g., those that also demolish Craftsman homes from this geographic era or period of significance. o In response to community concerns about the loss of Craftsman-style residences over the years, the City produced the Craftsman Survey in 2007, 246 of 638
15 b 9
which identified potentially historic properties in high- and moderate-density multi-family zones (the subject Property was not included because the SFMU zone was not surveyed). In 2017-2019, the South Glendale Historic Resource Survey was completed, which identified potentially historic properties (of all styles and types, including the subject Property) in the portion of the city south of the 134 Freeway. Based on staff review of the City’s permit database, no Craftsman buildings identified as potentially eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources in either survey, and therefore considered as historic resources under CEQA, have been demolished. The only known demolition of a Craftsman-style building in the last fifteen years occurred in northwest Glendale in 2018, when an owner illegally demolished a previously unidentified Craftsman, which unauthorized demolition led the City to adopt strong demolition deterrence policies. In conclusion, no Craftsman building identified in surveys or by City staff or community members has been demolished in at least fifteen years, marking the Project as a singular demolition request that cannot be viewed as having a cumulatively considerable impact on cultural resources that involved or which will involve the demolition of a historic Craftsman style residence. • HPC opined Alternative #3 (Reduced Density and retain 1642 South Central Avenue in its existing location on the project site) was preferred; HPC Commissioner Jurca opined that Public Resourced Code (PRC) section 21001 mandates selection of the less environmentally impactful alternative. o The HPC member’s reference to PRC section 21001 was incomplete. PRC section 21001 states, in whole that: “The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects. The Legislature further finds and declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” (Emphasis added). o Based on the complete reading of the statute, the legislative body is not “mandated” to select project alternatives that substantially lessen significant environmental effects where there are specific environmental, social, or other conditions that make such election infeasible.
o Here, the applicant has indicated they have specific evidence supporting why development of Alternative #3 would be economically infeasible, even though Alternative #3 would preserve the historic resource.
247 of 638
16 b 9
o Additionally, the Project applicant points out that as a Density Bonus, transit oriented, housing project located directly across the street from the Larry Zarian Transportation Center - Glendale’s main transit hub, the Project fits exactly into the City’s General Plan Housing Element goals to provide more housing and affordable housing near transit. The proposed Project would yield 31 residential dwelling units including very low income units.

Furthermore, the applicant explains that the HPC did not consider the goals and policies of the Housing Element 2021-2029 (Exhibit 11). o It is appropriate for the decision-making body to consider specific economic, social, or other conditions. The Project has been identified to assist with citywide Housing Element Goals 1 and 3 – which include:

Goal 1: A city with a wide range of housing types to meet the needs of current and future residents.
▪ Policy 1.2: Maintain adequate capacity to accommodate the City’s unmet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for all income categories throughout the planning period.
▪ Policy 1.3: Promote the dispersion of affordable housing throughout the City while recognizing the potential for the integration of market rate and affordable units within individual projects.
▪ Policy 1.4: Encourage higher-density residential development in proximity to public transportation, jobs, services, and activity centers.

Goal 3: A city with increased opportunities for affordable and special needs housing development.
▪ Policy 3.2: Promote the development of extremely low, very low, low and moderate income housing by allowing developers density bonuses or other financial incentives for providing units for low and moderate income residents. The unit mix and location of affordable housing units in density bonus projects must be approved by the City and included in an affordable housing agreement.

The Project will assist the City in meeting General Plan Housing Element Policies

1.2, 1.3, and 3.2 and the state mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) because, if approved, the Project would add 31 units to the housing stock with a mix of market rate and very low income households. The base underlying density for this 9,958 square-foot SFMU zoned lot is 22.86 units (23 units) maximum. The applicant is requesting a 35% density bonus (8 additional dwelling units) above the maximum density to reach 31 dwelling units total. Further, Policy 1.4 encourages higher density residential development in proximity of public transportation, jobs, services and activity centers. The Project meets all these policy goals because it is located across the street 248 of 638
17 b 9
from a multi/modal mass transit center, Larry Zarian Transportation Center, that is serviced by Metro buses, Glendale Beeline, Metrolink, Amtrak and Greyhound.

Applicability of No Net Loss Law
Furthermore, the Housing Element identified the Project site for 31 units with three units reserved for very low income households. California Government Code Section 65863, (Statutes of 2018 (Senate Bill 1333)), (No Net Loss Law), effective January 1, 2019, specifies that if the City were to approve this project at a lower density, such as by Alternatives 2 or Alternative 3, then the City must either make findings that the Housing Element’s remaining sites have sufficient capacity to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA by each income level, or identify and make available sufficient sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA for each income category.

Specifically, the No Net Loss Law effective, applies to all jurisdictions, including charter cities and applies to the current and subsequent Housing Element planning periods. Responsibilities and Requirements under No Net Loss Law can be divided into three statutory areas of responsibility for jurisdictions to consider when making land-use decisions related to sites and capacity identified in the Housing Element to accommodate the RHNA:
• Maintaining Sites (Government Code section 65863(a))
• Jurisdiction Actions Relating to Zoning (Government Code section 65863(b)(1))
• Approval of Development at a Lower Density (Government Code section 65863(b)(2))
Maintaining Sites
A jurisdiction must ensure their Housing Element sites inventory continues to have capacity at all times to accommodate the RHNA by income group throughout the planning period. Action by the jurisdiction to modify development standards in a way that would result in a lower density, limit or stop development on sites identified in the inventory, exchange sites in the inventory, or downzone sites would trigger No Net Loss unless the jurisdiction can make the required findings or identify alternative sites.

If, at any time during the planning period, the jurisdiction finds that there is a shortfall of sites to accommodate its remaining RHNA, the jurisdiction must take immediate action to correct the shortfall by amending its Housing Element sites inventory to either include sites previously unidentified with capacity to accommodate the shortfall, or sites that have been rezoned to correct for the shortfall. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the No Net Loss law.
249 of 638
18 b 9
The lack of sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s RHNA represents a fundamental alteration to the jurisdiction’s ability to meet Housing Element Law.

Therefore, the amended inventory must (1) demonstrate sites to address the shortfall meet the adequate site requirements of Housing Element Law, pursuant to Government Code section 65585(b), and (2) be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) for review to ensure compliance with state Housing Element Law. (Cal. Gov’t Code §65580 et seq.) (Housing Element Law).

Jurisdiction Actions
Jurisdiction actions include downzoning or other actions taken by a jurisdiction to reduce a parcel’s allowable residential density. This can be done through a change in zoning or an imposition of density limitations that preclude that ability to achieve densities assumed in the Housing Element sites inventory. If the parcel to be downzoned is identified in the Housing Element, a jurisdiction must make written findings, supported by substantial evidence, that:
• The reduction is consistent with the jurisdiction’s adopted general plan, including the Housing Element. For example, this finding could be made if downzone does not change the land use and zoning designation. • The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s remaining share of the RHNA for the planning period. The finding must include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s RHNA at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the Housing Element to accommodate that need by income level.

If a jurisdiction cannot make these findings, it may take action to reduce the residential density of a parcel only if it identifies or rezones additional sufficient adequate sites with an equal or greater residential density in the jurisdiction so that there is sufficient residential unit capacity appropriate to accommodate the RHNA by income level. Actions to identify additional sites or rezone must occur before or concurrently with any action or approval to reduce a parcel’s density. Sites identified or rezoned must meet the following criteria:
• Must be considered an adequate site pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2.
250 of 638
19 b 9
• If the capacity to be replaced was on a site that was zoned by-right pursuant to Government Code section 65863.2 (h) and (i), then the replacement site must also satisfy those requirements.

These actions would represent a fundamental alteration to the Housing Element; therefore, the Housing Element sites inventory must then be amended and, pursuant to Government Code section 65585(b), be submitted to the HCD for review to ensure the compliance with state Housing Element Law, prior to, or concurrently with, any action or approval to reduce a parcel’s density.

Approval of Development at a Lower Density
A jurisdiction must make written findings or identify additional site capacity if a development is allowed with a lower density than what was assumed in the sites inventory of the Housing Element. A lower residential density sometimes results from a jurisdiction either approving a development with residential units less than what was assumed for the site or affordable to a different income category than the site was assumed to accommodate.

At the time of approval, the following written findings must be made, and supported by substantial evidence in the record:
• Remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the jurisdiction’s remaining RHNA for the planning period by income category.
• The findings should include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s RHNA at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the Housing Element, to accommodate that need by income level.

If the approval of a development at a lower residential density results in the remaining sites capacity becoming inadequate to accommodate the RHNA by income category, a jurisdiction has up to 180 days from the approval to identify, or rezone, “sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites” to accommodate the remaining RHNA for each income category. Sites identified or rezoned must meet the following criteria:
• Must be considered an adequate site pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2.
• If the capacity to be replaced was on a site that was zoned by-right pursuant to Government Code section 65863.2 (h) and (i), then the replacement site must also satisfy those requirements.
251 of 638
20 b 9
A jurisdiction must report in the jurisdiction’s Annual Progress Report (APR) any sites that have been identified or rezoned to accommodate the resulting shortfall due to the approval of a development at a lower density. APRs are required to be sent to the Department by all jurisdictions by April 1, pursuant to Government Code section 65400.

For more information on completing this section of the APR.

Failure to Comply with No Net Loss Law
In addition to violating of the No Net Loss Law, the failure to ensure that there are sufficient adequate sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA by income category throughout the entire planning period is also a violation of the Housing Element Law.

This is because the Housing Element will also fail to identify adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA by income category. As a result, pursuant to Government Code section 65585 (i) and (j), the Department may revoke a jurisdiction’s Housing Element compliance and/or refer the violation to the Attorney General. In addition, a third party may file an action to challenge the jurisdiction in court.

Applicability to this Project
The proposed project at 1642 S. Central Avenue was included in the Housing Element Update at a density of 31 units, including 3 lower income units, and 28 above moderate units. Should the Council not approve the project or approve the project at a lower density, the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the jurisdiction’s remaining RHNA for the planning period by income category because the Glendale’s certified Housing Element has a surplus of 203 Lower income units and 763 above moderate income units. The Council would have to include this finding in a decision to deny the project or approve it at a reduced density.

Appeal Process and Analysis of the Applicant/Appellant’s Appeal Pursuant to GMC Section 30.62.010, “All appeals shall be de novo, in that an independent reexamination of the matter shall be made.” The applicant requests the City Council to reexamine the Project taking into consideration the City’s housing goals and policies, as well as other socio-economic and environmental considerations.

The appellant contends that the Historic Preservation Commission failed to recognize the importance of creating much needed market rate and affordable housing units within proximity of Larry Zarian Transportation Center.

Staff’s Response:

The appellant believes the HPC focused entirely on the demolition of 1642 South Central Avenue and failed to analyze or consider whether the Project benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects. If the City Council, as lead agency, decides to certify 252 of 638
21 b 9
the FEIR and approve the Project as proposed (or conditioned), CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires the decisionmaker to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations with factual findings demonstrating that the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project outweigh it’s the significant unavoidable environmental impacts on construction noise/vibration and cultural resources. Findings supporting the required Statement of Overriding Considerations are set forth in the Resolution certifying the FEIR that are presented in conjunction with this Staff Report.

If the Council, as Lead Agency, finds the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, which here are limited to 1) the temporary construction period (noise and vibration), and 2) loss of one Craftsman house, then the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable”.

The appellant contends that the project complies with all development standards for the SFMU zone and is compliant with the State of California requirements for a Density Bonus Housing project.

Staff’s Response:

The Project will occupy the majority of site and will generally follow the rectangular shape of the lot. The building footprint complies with the street front, street side and interior setbacks required by the SFMU zone and will be configured with zero setbacks from the northern (South Central Avenue), western (Gardena Avenue) and eastern property lines, and will be located approximately 5 feet from the southern interior property line. The building is designed with a 62’-6” (height) and five-story configuration, and is consistent with development standards for SFMU zoned properties – which allows 75 feet (height)/6 stories when not abutting a single or multi-family residential zones. The Project is located across the street from a major transit stop (Larry Zarian Transportation Center) across Gardena Avenue, and therefore GMC Section 30.36.090 (C) (1) allows for a half (0.5) parking space requirement per unit.

Appellant further contends the Project’s modern design is appropriate for the site and neighborhood context.

Staff’s Response:

The proposed building has been designed in modern/contemporary style and is cladded with a variety of quality finishes, such as smooth cement plaster, corrugated metal siding, metal panel siding (at corresponding balconies), and windows and doors constructed of anodized aluminum material. The overall mass and scale of the proposed five-story building is consistent with existing mixed-use zoning, including the adjacent industrial uses to the north and west, residential single-family uses to the south, and the Larry Zarian Transportation Center to the west. The ground level at the Gardena Avenue façade is set back seven feet from the street and improved with layered landscaping to introducing a human scale design which enhances the pedestrian experience from the street. The massing at the northeastern façade facing South Central Avenue is broken into separate volumes which includes recessed 253 of 638
22 b 9
volumes to accommodate the stair/elevator tower, as well as the outdoor garden terrace at the second floor level that is open to the sky. The upper floor levels include a series of recessed balconies that reduce the appearance of long continuous segments of building walls along Gardena Avenue. Additional articulation at the street facing facades is recommended to break-up the mass and provide a better overall appearance.

The appellant contends that the HPC tried to impose language and mitigation measures as part of the FEIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that are unachievable and beyond standard practice for noise/vibration mitigation.

Staff’s Response:

The CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(1)(B) acknowledge there are exceptions to the rule that mitigation should not be “deferred” in that mitigation measures may specify performance standards for mitigating a significant impact when it is impractical or infeasible to specify the specific details of mitigation during the EIR review process, (e.g., when certain site conditions are unknown, when the exact type of equipment available to perform a task is unknown), provided the lead agency commits to implement the mitigation, adopts the specified performance standard, and identifies the types of actions that may achieve compliance with the performance standard. The proposed mitigation measures meet these standards and are not inappropriately “deferred”.

During the HPC’s initial review (January 19, 2023), the HPC expressed concerns with the timing and certainty of implementing the FEIR’s mitigation measures for construction noise and vibration. HPC Commissioner Jurca objected to several measures because they included the term “where feasible”, “whenever feasible” and “to the extent feasible”.

By definition, mitigation measures have a statutory “feasibility” requirement. Staff provided an Errata (Attachment 8) to identify minor clarifications and changes to the MMRP to remove the terms “where feasible”, “whenever feasible” and “to the extent feasible” and identify specific timing of mitigation. The table below reflects the edits to the mitigation measures in the MMRP to address Commissioner Jurca’s comment.

These edits clarify and amplify the purpose of the proposed mitigation. 254 of 638
23 b 9
255 of 638
24 b 9

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
As required by the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal Code Regs §15082(a)(1)), the City issued a Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Project on June 10, 2021. The Project DEIR was circulated for public review and comment from March 24, 2022, through April 22, 2022, for a 30-day period to reach out to the following stakeholders:

Outreach was undertaken to the following stakeholders:
- Residents
- Parties and/or individuals that expressed interest
The Planning Division utilized the following outreach methods:
- Circulate the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (PR-DEIR) for public review and comment for a 30-day period.
- Conduct public hearings with the Historic Preservation Commission regarding the Project on January 19, 2023, and February 16, 2023.
- Issue public notices via mailer and email.
- Publish public notices with Los Angeles County Clerk, State of California – Office of Planning & Research and on the Planning Division website.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with certifying the FEIR, adopting the MMRP and Statement of Overriding Considerations and approving the Design Review request.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744, Exhibit 9 is attached and contains the names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest or more in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item.

ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has the following options in considering the Project:
1: Reverse the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision to deny the Project and adopt the resolution certifying the FEIR for the proposed Project (31 units), adopt findings supporting a Statement of Overriding Considerations in light of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts from (i) the demolition of the existing historic house at 1642 S.

Central Avenue, and (ii) temporary construction-generated noise and vibration impacts 256 of 638
25 b 9
and making findings in support thereof; adopt the MMRP; and approve the Design Review application as proposed.
2: Reverse the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision to deny the Project and adopt the resolution certifying the FEIR for the proposed Project (31) units, adopt findings supporting a Statement of Overriding Considerations in light of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts from (i) the demolition of the existing historic house at 1642 S.

Central Avenue, and (ii) temporary construction-generated noise and vibration impacts and making findings in support thereof; adopt the MMRP; and approve the Design Review application as proposed with amended conditions. 3: Sustain the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision to deny the FEIR and to deny the Design Review application with direction to resubmit a new application for HPC’s review with Project Design Alternative 2 (reduced density and relocation of 1642 S. Central Avenue on the Project site) with conditions and provide the statutorily required No Net Loss Findings.
4: Sustain the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision to deny the FEIR and to deny the Design Review application with direction to resubmit a new application for HPC’s review with Project Design Alternative 3 (reduced density alternative) which retains 1642 South Central Avenue at its existing location with conditions and provide the statutorily required No Net Loss Findings.
5: The City Council may also consider any other alternatives to design review submission not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Dennis Joe, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:

Jay Platt, Principal Urban Designer
Erik Krause, Deputy Director of Community Development
Jason Bradford, Director of Finance
Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Gillian van Muyden, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
257 of 638
26 b 9

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS

1. Final Environmental Impact Report

2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

3. Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report

4. Draft Environmental Impact Report
Note: Attachments 1-4 and supporting documents can be reviewed online at:
www.glendaleca.gov/environmental

5. Reduced Plans

6. Photos of Existing Property

7. Location Map

8. Errata to Final Environmental Impact Report

9. Conflict of Interest Statement and Campaign Disclosure Form

10. Housing Element 2021-2029 can be viewed online at:
https://www.glendaleplan.com/housing-element-update

11. Appeal Form (completed by the appellant)

12. HPC Draft Statement of Overriding Considerations
258 of 638
1 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE CERTIFYING A FINAL ENIVONRMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH 2021060219,

RELATED MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED

PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1642 SOUTH CENTRAL AVENUE, GLENDALE, CA 91204,

AND ADOPTING FINDINGS SUPPORTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale, as the lead agency, has caused preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the proposed demolition of the two residential buildings (1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardena Avenue) and a detached garage, and construction of a new 40,240-square-foot, fivestory, 31-unit (three of the residential units would be reserved for very low-income households), affordable rental housing project (the “Project”) located at 1642 South Central Avenue, Glendale, CA 91204; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") for the Project was prepared and circulated on June 10, 2021, through July 12, 2021 for a 30-day period pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., and State and City Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto; and
WHEREAS, notice was duly provided to the public, government agencies and all other interested parties that they may submit written comments on the Draft EIR to the City on or before July 12, 2021; and
WHEREAS, a Partially Recirculated Draft EIR (PR-DEIR) was prepared to address public comments and expand upon the analysis in the DEIR. Consistent with the requirements of Sections 15087 and 15088.5(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the PR-DEIR was circulated for public review and comment from August 12, 2022, for public review for a period of 30 days.

WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project, State Clearinghouse No.

SCH 2021060219, (“Final EIR”) was prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, was released on December 5, 2022, and incorporated the Draft EIR, PR-DEIR and included written responses to the comments made during the CEQA review period; and WHEREAS, after due notice, on December 15, 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter at which it reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR as well as supplemental responses and information; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission returned the Project to the applicant for redesign, and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2023 the Project returned to the Historic Preservation Commission for consideration of the Final EIR and consideration of the design review application and the Historic Preservation Commission voted not to certify the FEIR and did not approve the design review application; and
WHEREAS, the Project applicant filed an appeal to the City Council, and on April 11, 2023, 259 of 638
2 the City Council conducted a de novo hearing of the design review application and request to certify the Project FEIR, and after reviewing all the Project materials, appeal application, receiving staff and consultant presentations, and hearing public testimony, and after having considering all the materials and testimony, the City Council finds and determines that the (i) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines, (ii) the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, and (iii) the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Glendale as the lead agency; and WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that the economic, social, legal and technological benefits of the Project, which include a region-wide social, environmental and economic benefit of providing more housing, including affordable housing, in close proximity to a major transit hub – the Larry Zarian Transportation Center – outweigh the Project’s temporary significant and unavoidable environmental impact from construction noise and vibration, and outweigh the Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental impact on cultural resources due to the demolition of a historic resource, and on that basis the adverse environmental impacts are considered acceptable pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a).

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

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth herein above are true and correct and are incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. Each and all of the Findings and Determinations contained in this document are based upon competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and the Final EIR. The Findings and Determinations constitute the independent Findings and Determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by the City Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect.

SECTION 3. The FEIR and MMRP were circulated for public review and notice of the hearing on their adoption was completed as required by law.

SECTION 4. The following Findings are hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale as required by Public Resources Code §§21081, 21081.5 and 21081.6, and CEQA Guidelines §§15091 through 15093, in conjunction with the approval of the Project. The Final EIR identified significant impacts associated with the Project. Approval of a project with significant impacts requires that findings be made by the Lead Agency. Significant impacts of the Project would have a residual significant impact that requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires the City Council to make one or more of the following written findings:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. c. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation 260 of 638
3 measure or project alternative identified in the Final EIR.

These Findings accomplish the following: (a) they address the significant environmental effects identified in the FEIR for the Project; (b) they incorporate all mitigation measures associated with these significant impacts identified in the FEIR; (c) they indicate whether a significant effect is avoided or reduced by the adopted mitigation measures to a less-than-significant level or remains significant and unavoidable, either because there are no feasible mitigation measures or because, even with implementation of mitigation measures, a significant impact will occur, or because such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency; and (d) they address the feasibility of all project alternatives and mitigation measures identified in the FEIR.

For any effects which will remain significant and unavoidable, a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” is adopted.

The City Council of the City of Glendale hereby adopts and incorporates, as conditions of approval, the mitigation measures set forth in the Findings below to reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project, as well as certain less-than-significant impacts. In adopting these mitigation measures, the City Council intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR, except to the extent such mitigation measures are specifically rejected or specifically modified by these Findings. In the comments on the Draft EIR, a number of measures were suggested by various commenters as proposed additional mitigation measures. With respect to the measures that were proposed in the comments, and not incorporated into the FEIR, the responses to comments in the FEIR explain why the proposed mitigation measures are not recommended by the Final EIR for adoption. The City Council hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons stated in the responses to comments contained in the FEIR as its grounds for rejecting adoption of these proposed mitigation measures.

Section 5. Project Description
The Project site is located at 1642 South Central Avenue, within the Tropico neighborhood of the City of Glendale (APN 5640-029-014). The Project site is a 0.23-acre rectangular parcel and is bounded to the north by South Central Avenue, to the west by Gardena Avenue, to the east by an industrial building constructed in 1985, and to the south by a single-family residence constructed in 1947.

The Project site is zoned SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and developed with two residential buildings (1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardena Avenue) and a detached garage.

The residence located at 1642 South Central Avenue was constructed in 1913, and a second residence located on the same lot but with the address of 1608 Gardena Avenue was constructed in 1920. The Project would demolish both residential dwelling units and the garage and construct a new 40,240-square-foot, five-story, 31-unit, rental housing building. Parking would be provided in a 16- space one-level subterranean garage. Per Government Code Section 65915 and Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.36 (Density Bonus Incentives), three of the residential units would be reserved for very low-income households.

Section 6. CEQA Process
Notice of Preparation
In accordance with Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. Preparation of an Initial Study was conducted during October 2020 identifying potentially significant impacts involving Noise and Cultural Resources. As a result, the City issued a Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Project on June 10, 2021. The State 261 of 638
4 Clearinghouse assigned this project State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2021060219. The Notice of Preparation circulated for public review and comment for a 30-day period beginning on June 10, 2021.

Environmental Impact Report
The City supervised and reviewed the preparation of the Draft EIR, the Partially-Recirculated Draft EIR, and the FEIR in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines. The FEIR is a full-disclosure informational document intended to inform and assist public agency decision- makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of the project. Possible ways to minimize significant effects are identified in the FEIR, and reasonable alternatives to the project are evaluated. This document assesses the environmental impacts, including unavoidable adverse impacts and cumulative impacts that may result from approval of the Project.

Written or oral comments from the public were received. All comments and responses to those comments are included in the FEIR.

Each and all of the Findings and Determinations contained in this document are based upon competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and FEIR. The Findings and Determinations constitute the independent Findings and Determinations of the City in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by the City, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect.

All summaries of information and the findings to follow are based on the FEIR, the Project (and every component thereof), and/or other evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding if not based in part on that fact.

The summaries of information below are only summaries. Cross-references to the FEIR and other evidence in the record have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the FEIR and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. In addition, unless noted or stated otherwise, the rationale for the findings is that set forth in the FEIR (including the responses to comments) or elsewhere in the administrative record.

Section 7. Findings on Significant and Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the Draft EIR, Partially-Recirculated Draft EIR, and FEIR.

An initial study was prepared to determine the extent of project-specific and cumulative impacts in certain resource topic areas would require additional analysis in the EIR, and which topic areas would not require analysis or less extensive analysis because the Project would have no impact, less-than-significant impacts, or less-than-significant impacts with mitigation included. The topic areas where additional analysis was not required include:
262 of 638
5 • Aesthetics (all topics)
• Agricultural and Forest Resources
(all topics)
• Air Quality (all topics)
• Biological Resources (all topics)
• Cultural Resources
• Energy (all topics)
• Geology and Soils (all topics)
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions (all topics)
• Hydrology and Water Quality (all topics)
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(all topics)
• Land Use and Planning (all topics)
• Mineral Resources (all topics)
• Noise (aviation-related topics)
• Population and Housing (all topics)
• Public Services (all topics)
• Recreation (all topics)
• Transportation (all topics)
• Tribal Cultural Resources (all topics)
• Utilities and Service Systems (all topics)
• Wildfire (all topics)
263 of 638
6 Pursuant to and in accordance with Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, the EIR examined the potential for adverse effects to result from project implementation. In summary, implementation of the proposed Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable project-related and/or cumulative impacts:
■ Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1-Implementation of the proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
■ Noise/Vibration
Impact NO-1—Implementation of the proposed Project would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City of Glendale Noise Ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies
Impact NO-2—Implementation of the proposed Project would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

The findings, impacts, and mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project are noted below.

Impact C-CR-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines
The City commissioned the development of the South Glendale Historic Context (2014 Context) and Historic Resources Survey (2019 Survey) for the South Glendale Community Plan (SGCP) area to aid in identifying potential historic resources. The Project site was included in the 2019 Survey, which assigned the residential building located at 1642 South Central Avenue a California Historical Resource Status Code 5S3, meaning it appears individually eligible for local designation through survey evaluation. The 2019 Survey determined the 1642 South Central Avenue is eligible for its architecture as a Craftsman-style residence and for its association as a circa 1910 residence within the City of Tropico. It is identified as a historic resource since it is a rare surviving example of residential architecture from the period before the town was annexed into the City of Glendale (1918), and for the quality of its Craftsman-style design. The house and garage located at 1608 Gardena Avenue were built in 1920 and 1923, respectively, and were not identified in the South Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resources Survey as potentially historic. These two buildings were built in the City of Glendale after the 1918 annexation of Tropico, and are modest examples of Craftsman-style design, lacking in the abundance of design features that make the house located at1642 South Central Avenue a significant example of the Craftsman style.

The EIR’s analysis was conducted and completed in accordance with the practices described in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation, including standards for identifying, evaluating, and documenting resources. Applicable national, state, and local level 264 of 638
7 criteria were considered, as well as the context-driven methods and framework used by the 2014 Context and the 2019 Survey.

Criteria A/1/1 (Events): The residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue is not individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) but is individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. The property does not have an important association with events or patterns that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state, or local history. However, as previously identified by the 2019 Survey, the residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue is associated with Early Development and Town Settlement, 1872-1918, because it was constructed in 1913, before the township of Tropico was annexed into the City of Glendale in 1918. The secondary residence and garage at 1608 Gardena Avenue were constructed in 1920 and 1923, respectively (post-dating the City of Tropico). Therefore, the house located at 1642 South Central Avenue is individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 1 and conversely the property as a whole is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria A/1. The later addition of the residence and garage at 1608 are not part of the original historic context for the historic property and were not built during the period of significance for the residence located at 1642 South Central although the buildings are all on the same lot.

Criteria B/2/2 (Person): Research to date did not reveal the subject property to have an association with the lives of significant persons in our past. The numerous known owners and occupants associated with the property during the historic period (prior to 1971) do not appear to have made significant contributions to national, state, or local history. Therefore, the subject property is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP, the CRHR, or the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criteria B/2/2.

Criteria C/3/3 (Design/Construction): Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.1 The residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue, built in 1913, is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR because its design and construction are not outstanding example of the Craftsman design and construction technique that would be considered distinctive, the work of a master, or possessing of high artistic value. However, it is individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it retains the majority of Craftsman CDFs, such as horizontal massing; wood shingle cladding; front porch with battered stone piers, with square wood posts; wood-framed casement and double-hung windows; and low-pitched gable roofs with exposed beams and rafter tails.

Although the residential building was expanded in 1923, the addition is in keeping in its materials and design. Thus, the property is an intact and good, example of early Craftsman architecture.

Conversely, 1920 residential building located at 1608 Gardena and its detached garage were constructed after 1918 and are not associated with the town of Tropico, and therefore they do not meet Criterion 1, and do not have the architectural character required for a post-1919 building to qualify under Criterion 3. Based on these factors, the 1608 Gardena residence and its detached garage are not individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources as they do not “embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represent the work of a master.”
1 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 2002), 17. 265 of 638 8 Criteria D/4/4 (Information Potential): The property has not yielded, nor does it appear to possess potential to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Therefore, the subject property is not individually eligible under Criteria D/4 for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR.

Based on the analysis contained in this EIR and supporting studies, the residential building located at 1642 South Central Avenue is individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with Early Development and Town Settlement as a residence in the City of Tropico; it is also individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3 as a distinctive and exemplary example of the Craftsman style.

As such, the property is considered a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA.

The Project proposes to demolish all the buildings on site and redevelop the whole site with new fivestory, 31-unit residential housing project. The character-defining features, listed under Architectural Context, are the distinctive qualities and characteristics of 1642 South Central Avenue that convey the building’s historic and architectural significance and justify its eligibility for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. The proposed demolition of all onsite buildings would materially alter the physical characteristics of the 1642 South Central Avenue and would therefore cause a substantial adverse impact to an historical resource and result in a significant impact.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-CR-1: Documentation of Historical Resource, would lessen the impact of the proposed demolition and new construction by documenting and presenting the house’s history and character-defining features architecture as a Craftsman-style residence and for its association as a 1913 residence within the City of Tropico. However, implementation of these mitigation measures would not reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

M-CR-1: Documentation of Historical Resource
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the Project applicant shall undertake Historic American Building/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABS/HALS) documentation of the building features. The documentation shall be undertaken by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History, History, or Architecture (as appropriate) to prepare written and photographic documentation of 1642 South Central Avenue. The specific scope of the documentation shall be reviewed and approved by City of Glendale staff (City staff) but shall include the following elements:

Measured Drawings – A set of measured drawings shall be prepared that depict the existing size, scale, and dimension of the historic resource. City staff will accept the original architectural drawings or an as-built set of architectural drawings (e.g., plans, sections, elevations). City staff will assist the consultant in determining the appropriate level of measured drawings.

Historic American Buildings/Historic American Landscape Survey-Level Photographs – Either Historic American Buildings/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABS/HALS) standard large-format or digital photography shall be used. The scope of the digital photographs shall be reviewed by City staff for concurrence, and all digital photography shall be conducted according to the latest National Park Service (NPS) standards. The photography shall be undertaken by a qualified professional with demonstrated experience in HABS/HALS photography. Photograph views for the data set shall include contextual views; views of each side of the building and interior views, 266 of 638
9 including any original interior features, where possible; oblique views of the building; and detail views of character-defining features.

All views shall be referenced on a photographic key. This photographic key shall be on a map of the property and shall show the photograph number with an arrow to indicate the direction of the view. Historic photographs shall also be collected, reproduced, and included in the data set.

The Project applicant shall transmit such documentation to the Glendale Public Library, the Glendale Historical Society, the Community Development Department, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The HABS/HALS documentation scope will determine the requested documentation type for the Project site and the Project applicant will conduct outreach to identify other interested groups. All documentation will be reviewed and approved by City staff before any demolition or site permit is granted for the affected historical resource.

Findings This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure M-CR-1 would reduce this impact, but not to a less than significant level, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The City Council finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A to this Resolution).

Noise and Vibration
Impact NO-1 Construction of the proposed Project would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the City of Glendale Noise Ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies.

The EIR’s analysis evaluates the noise and vibration impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. Two types of noise and vibration impacts were considered: short-term, temporary impacts resulting from construction, and impacts due to long-term operational changes in the noise environment.

Given that the Municipal Code does not include standard criteria for construction noise impact assessment, the guidelines in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) are used in this analysis.

Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
The Project would be constructed in one development phase that would take approximately 18 months. Short-term noise impacts would be associated with demolition of the existing structures, excavation, grading, and construction of the Project. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site; however, once Project construction is done, these noise levels would no longer occur.

Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the Project. The first type is related to noise generated by trucks transporting construction equipment and materials, by hauling activities, and by vehicles carrying construction workers commuting to the Project site. These transportation activities would incrementally raise noise levels on roads leading to the site. It is expected that larger trucks used in equipment delivery would generate higher noise levels than 267 of 638
10 vehicles carrying workers commuting to the Project site. The single-event noise from equipment trucks passing at a distance of 50 feet from a sensitive noise receptor would reach a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax. However, heavy equipment used for grading and construction activities would be moved on-site just one time and would remain on-site for the duration of each construction phase.

The total number of daily vehicle trips associated with hauling during the grading phase is estimated to be approximately 14 and would be minimal compared to existing traffic volumes on the affected streets. The daily traffic noise level change associated with these trips would not be perceptible.

Therefore, construction-related traffic impacts would be short term and would not result in a significant off-site noise impact.

The second type of potential short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each with its own mix of equipment and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and therefore the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

The site preparation and grading phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving equipment is the noisiest construction equipment (see Table 3.2.9). Additionally, this phase would be the longest of the phases expected to occur near the Project site boundary. The three loudest pieces of equipment used during the site preparation and grading phase would likely be an excavator, grader, and dozer, as no pile driving is proposed. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

Table 3.2.9 Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels (Lmax) Type of Equipment
Suggested Maximum Sound
Levels for Analysis (dBA Lmax
at 50 feet)
Impact Equipment
Excavators with Hoe Ram 85
Impact Pile Driver 101
Non-Impact Equipment
Air Compressors 80
Bore/Drill Rigs 85
Cement and Mortar Mixers 80
Concrete/Industrial Saws 90
Concrete Truck 82
Concrete Boom Pump 82
Cranes 85
Excavators 85
Generator Sets 82
Type of Equipment
Suggested Maximum Sound
Levels for Analysis (dBA Lmax
at 50 feet)
268 of 638
11 Graders 85
Pavers 85
Plate Compactors 83
Pressure Washers 85
Pumps 81
Rollers 85
Rough Terrain Forklifts 85
Rubber-Tired Dozers 85
Scrapers 85
Skid Steer Loaders 80
Tie Back Drill 85
Tower Crane 85
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 84
Welders 73
Notes:

A Based on highest anticipated noise level, assuming 100 percent use during any 1-hour period. dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Source: Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook, August 2006, Table 9.1, p. 91.

As shown in Table 3.2.10, during the construction of the Project, it is expected that the average noise levels at the nearest noise-sensitive use, the single-family home to the south at 1616 Gardena Avenue, would range from 69 dBA Leq to 83 dBA Leq. These noise levels depend on construction phase and are based on an average distance of 85 feet from the center of construction activities.

Therefore, the noise impacts would not exceed the 90 dBA Leq 1-hour construction noise level criteria established by the FTA for residential uses based on the average condition. When construction activities occur near the property line, noise levels could approach 104 dBA Leq. For the single-family homes further to the south on El Bonito Avenue, construction noise levels would be reduced due to additional distance and shielding from existing intervening structures. While construction-related impacts are short term and would no longer occur once Project construction is completed, they have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels by more than 5 dBA, a typical threshold of perceptibility in an outdoor environment, in the Project area. 269 of 638
12 Table 3.2.10: Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Surrounding Residences Receptor
(Location)
Composite
Noise Level
(dBA Leq) at
50 feet1
Average
Distance
(feet)
Range of
Composite
Construction
Noise Levels
(dBA Leq)
Exceed 90
dBA Leq
Threshold?
Result in a 5
dBA Increase
Over
Ambient
Condition
1616 Gardena
Avenue
76 -88 85 69-83 No Yes
335 El Bonito
Avenue
175 63-77 No Yes
337 El Bonito
Avenue
120 66-80 No Yes
339 El Bonito
Avenue
170 63-77 No Yes
343 El Bonito
Avenue
150 64-78 No Yes
Source: 1642 S. Central Avenue Project –Noise and Vibration Study, LSA, July 2022. See EIR Appendix D. 1 The composite construction noise level represents the range of noise levels with the grading phases as compared to other phases. dBA Leq = average A-weighted hourly noise level
Compliance with the time restrictions in the City’s Noise Ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter 8.36, would ensure that construction noise does not disturb the residential uses during hours when ambient noise levels are likely to be lower (i.e., at night). Although construction noise would be higher than the ambient noise in the Project vicinity during the day, construction noise would cease to occur once Project construction is completed. In addition to compliance with appropriate construction times, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure M-NO-1, Construction Noise Control.

M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control
Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:
• Grading and construction contractors shall use equipment that generates lower vibration levels, such as rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment.
• Construction haul truck and materials delivery traffic shall avoid Local Streets and Urban and Community and Neighborhood
Collectors as defined in the City’s Circulation Element. • The construction contractor shall place noise- and vibration-generating construction equipment, with the exception of equipment needed to completed shoring activities associated with the construction of the subterranean garage, away from sensitive uses. All construction staging areas shall be located away from sensitive uses. 270 of 638 13 • The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators.
• The construction contractor shall ensure that a minimum 12-foot-high barrier, such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains, shall be erected between on the proposed Project site and adjacent to the sensitive receptors to minimize the amount of noise during construction. A 12-foot-high construction noise barrier would provide an approximately 12 dBA reduction to the closest residential receptors to the south.
• All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for the “noise disturbance coordinator”.

Construction noise would be higher than the daytime ambient noise in the Project vicinity and exceed daytime construction thresholds. However, the construction noise and threshold exceedance would cease to occur once Project construction is completed. In addition to compliance with appropriate construction times, the implementation of Mitigation Measure MNO-1 would reduce construction noise to the greatest extent feasible; however, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Findings This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure M-NO-1 would reduce this impact, but not to a less than significant level, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The City Council finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A to this Resolution). 271 of 638
14 Impact NO-2: Construction of the proposed Project would generate excessive groundborne vibration levels. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Construction Vibration Impacts
Construction activities related to the Project, including excavation activities where the highest levels of vibration are anticipated, would not include vibration of foundations, utilities that are connected to existing structures, or tunneling operations. To provide an example of construction vibration levels expected for a project of this size, Table 3.2.11 shows the PPV values and vibration levels (in terms of VdB) from construction vibration sources from 25 feet away. A large bulldozer would generate approximately 0.089 PPV inches/sec or 87 VdB of groundborne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Table 3.2.11. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPVref at 25 ft (in/sec) A Lv (VdB) B
Impact Pile Driver (typical) 0.644 104
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Notes:

A PVref – reference Peak Particle Velocity. PPV is appropriate for evaluating potential damage to buildings.

B RMS VdB re 1 μin/sec.
ft = feet, in/sec = inches per second
μin/sec = microinches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity in decibel
Source: Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

In order to assess the potential for vibration impacts, the analysis utilizes the distance between the nearest off-site buildings and the Project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or within 5 feet of the Project boundary) because vibration damage impacts occur at the buildings.

Table 3.2.12 presents a summary of potential vibration impacts of the Project construction. Based on the information in Table 3.2.12, vibration has the potential to cause damage to the commercial building to the north at 1638 South Central Avenue and the residential building to the south at 1616 Gardena Avenue if large construction equipment operates within 15 feet of the building façade.

Additionally, vibration has the potential to cause annoyance to residential uses if large construction equipment operates within 110 feet of the building façade. 272 of 638
15 Table 3.2.12 Summary of Construction Vibration Levels Land Use Address Equipment
Reference
Reference
Vibration
Level (PPV)
at 25 ft
Distance
(ft)1
Maximum
Vibration
Level (PPV)
Exceed
Damage
Criteria
of 0.2
PPV
in/sec?
Exceed
Annoyance
Criteria of

0.01 PPV
in/sec?
Commercial 1638 S. Central
Avenue
Large
Bulldozers

0.089 5 0.995 Yes No1
Residential 1616 Gardena
Avenue
8 0.492 Yes Yes
Residential 335 El Bonito
Avenue
92 0.013 No Yes
Residential 337 El Bonito
Avenue
37 0.049 No Yes
Residential 339 El Bonito
Avenue
87 0.014 No Yes
Residential 343 El Bonito
Avenue
75 0.017 No Yes
Source: Compiled by LSA (2022).

Note: Due to the associated indoor uses at the commercial use to the north, construction activities are not expected to cause annoyance. ft = foot/feet FTA = Federal Transit Administration in/sec = inch/inches per second PPV = particle velocity
As the residences listed in Table 3.2.12 fall within the 110-foot contour for annoyance and the commercial use to the north at 1638 South Central Avenue and the residential use to the east at 1616 Gardena Avenue fall within the potential damage contour, there would be a potentially significant groundborne vibration impact at these two locations. With implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control, vibration damage would be avoided.

M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control
Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:
• Prepare a Monitoring Plan. The property owner shall undertake a monitoring program to avoid or reduce Project-related construction vibration damage to adjacent buildings and/or structures and to ensure that any such damage is documented and repaired. The monitoring program shall apply to all potentially affected buildings and/or structures adjacent to the Project site. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit, the property owner shall submit the construction vibration monitoring plan to the City for approval. The monitoring plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components, as applicable:
o Vibration Analysis Refinement. Once the specific construction 273 of 638 16 equipment list becomes available, potential vibration distance contours shall be refined.
o Vibration Monitoring. To ensure that construction vibration levels do not exceed the established standard, an acoustical consultant shall monitor vibration levels at each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties when heavy construction occurs in close proximity. Based on direction from the acoustical consultant, vibratory construction activities that generate vibration levels in excess of the standard shall be prohibited.
o Alternative Construction Techniques. Should construction vibration levels be observed in excess of the established standard, the contractor(s) shall halt construction and put alternative construction techniques into practice. Following incorporation of the alternative construction techniques, vibration monitoring shall recommence to ensure that vibration levels at each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties are not exceeded. o Periodic Inspections. A historic architect or qualified historic preservation professional (for effects on historic buildings and/or structures) and/or structural engineer (for effects on non-historic buildings and/or structures) shall conduct regular periodic inspections as specified in the vibration monitoring plan of each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties during vibration-generating construction activity on the Project site.

Should damage to any building and/or structure occur, the building(s) and/or structure(s) shall be remediated to their preconstruction condition at the conclusion of vibration-generating activity on the site.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-2 would avoid construction vibration damage. However, vibration levels could exceed the applicable annoyance criteria at nearby residences, even with the use of standard construction best practices. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable and would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation.

Findings This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure M-NO-1 would reduce this impact, but not to a less than significant level, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The City Council finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A to this Resolution).

Section 8. Findings on Project Alternatives Considered in the Environmental Impact Report.

The Alternatives chapter of the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d), which requires the analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing significant adverse environmental effects of the proposed project. The Alternatives section contains an analysis of the effects of the following alternatives:

1. No Project Alternative

2. Reduced Density and Relocation on Site

3. Reduced Density and keep the residential building located at 1642 South Central Avenue in its existing location on the project site 274 of 638
17 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines states the purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project alternative analysis is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project’s environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline.

Under the No Project Alternative, the two residential dwellings at 1642 South Central Avenue and at 1608 Gardena and the existing garage would be retained in their current configuration and would not be disturbed; no construction would occur on site and the current residential uses would continue.

No new residential or commercial uses would be added. Therefore, the existing physical features on the Project site, including the character-defining features of the historical resource, would not change and The analysis of the No Project Alternative assumes that the Project would not be approved and would result in a “no build” alternative wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.

If the No Project Alternative were to proceed, no changes would be implemented, and none of the impacts associated with the Project would occur. However, incremental changes would be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site as nearby projects are approved, constructed, and occupied. With no change to existing site conditions under the No Project Alternative, land use activity on the Project site would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts beyond existing levels. There would be no construction or operational impacts related to noise and vibration compared to the Project.

Since the No Project Alternative would retain all the character-defining features of the subject property and not demolish or make any modifications to the historical resource, it would not cause material impairment to that resource. Compared to the Project, which would demolish all buildings on site and result in material impairment to the historical resource, the No Project Alternative would not result in any project-level impacts and would not contribute to any impacts related to historic architectural resources.

The No Project Alternative would not require construction activities and would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise and vibration.

Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed Project containing 31 units of rental housing, including three very-low income units, and a one-level subterranean garage would not be constructed.

Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives.

Findings: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then an EIR is required to identify another environmentally superior alternative from among the alternatives evaluated if the Project has significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that best avoids or lessens any significant effects of the Project, even if the alternative would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives. The No Project Alternative is considered the overall environmentally superior alternative because it would represent a continuation of existing conditions on the Project site and would not result in any significant impacts associated with implementation of the Project. The No Project Alternative, however, would not meet any of the project objectives. This Alternative is Infeasible, as set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A). 275 of 638
18 Alternative 2: Reduced Density and Relocation on Site The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would result in fewer environmental impacts compared to the Project given the reduced size (15 residential units versus 31 units) and shorter construction duration. The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would also be consistent with the SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and Mixed-Use District General Development Standards. The 15-unit building with a one-level subterranean garage would have a smaller building footprint than the 31-unit Project but would still result in short-term impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geology/soils, water quality, and traffic. Similar to the Project, these short-term construction impacts from this Alternative would be less than significant and typical of small land development projects where compliance with existing codes and other regulatory standards ensure these types of impacts are below impact thresholds.

The Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would require a shorter construction duration.

However, the Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would not result in significantly reduced construction noise compared to the Project. The site preparation and grading construction phases generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving equipment is the noisiest construction equipment. These two construction phases would still be required, although the timing would be shortened due to the reduced size of the proposed building. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control and Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control would ensure that construction noise and vibration is reduced to the maximum amount feasible. However, impacts related to construction noise and vibration would remain significant and unavoidable.

Finding: The Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would preserve the on-site location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and character-defining features of the historical resource within the Tropico neighborhood. While the historic resource would be preserved, as with the Project, the Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would modify the setting of the historic resource. This alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable historical architectural resources impact associated with demolition of 1642 South Central Avenue.

The Reduced Density Alternative would meet most of the Project objectives.

However, it would not fulfill the Project objectives to the same extent as the Project because fewer new residential units would be built, and it would not maximize the potential residential units on the Project site. Specific Economic, Legal, Social, Technological, or Other Considerations Make This Alternative Feasible, as set forth above and in Exhibit A to this Resolution.

Alternative 3: Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would retain the historic residence located at 1642 South Central Avenue in its existing location on the Project site and demolish the residence at 1608 Gardena Avenue and the existing garage. The remaining buildable area, consisting of approximately 3,383 square feet (0.007 acre) could accommodate 11 residential units, including 8 market-rate and 3 very low-income units. The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would provide eight (8) subterranean parking spaces.

Similar to the Project, the Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would require construction of similar improvements, including grading and construction of the footings, connections for utilities, however the construction activities would be of shorter duration. This Alternative would also require restoration and preservation of the historic resource, and protection from any adverse impacts from construction of the new building. As a consequence, mitigation measures requiring 276 of 638 19 construction monitoring would be required, as would the post-construction restoration and rehabilitation of the historic home pursuant to Secretary of Interior Standards.

The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would result in fewer environmental impacts compared to the Project given the reduced size (11 residential units versus 31 units) and shorter construction duration. Due to the approximately 1/3 size of this Alternative compared to the Project and shorter duration of construction, this Alternative would result in reduced environmental impacts compared to the Project. The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would also be consistent with the SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and Mixed-Use District General Development Standards. The 11-unit building with a one-level subterranean garage would have a smaller building footprint compared to the Project but would still result in short-term impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geology/soils, water quality, and traffic. Similar to the Project, these short-term construction impacts would be less than significant and typical of small land development projects.

The Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would result in reduced construction duration compared to the Project. However, the site preparation and grading construction phases, which generate the highest noise levels, would still be required. The timing of these phases would be shortened due to the reduced size of the proposed building. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control and Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control would ensure that construction noise and vibration is reduced to the maximum amount feasible. However, impacts related to construction noise and vibration would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would preserve the existing location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and character-defining features of the historical resource within the Tropico neighborhood. The preservation of location of the historic resource at its existing location on site would eliminate the Project’s significant impact from demolition of the resource. The residential dwelling at 1642 South Central Avenue would remain a good example of a Craftsman style house and would remain eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3.

The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative meet all of the Project objectives set forth in Section 4.4 of the EIR. However, it would not fulfill the project objectives to the same extent as the Project because fewer new residential units would be built, and it would not maximize the potential residential units on the Project site.

Finding: Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives evaluated. The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable historical architectural resources impact associated with demolition of 1642 South Central Avenue. The construction noise and vibration impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. This alternative would also meet more of the Project objectives of adding affordable housing and meeting the City’s affordable housing goals, although not to the same extent as the Project since fewer new units would be built. Specific Economic, Legal, Social, Technological, or Other Considerations Make This Alternative Feasible, as set forth above and in Exhibit A to this Resolution.

8. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The City Council hereby adopts the “Statement of Overriding Considerations” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Attachment "A" in support of this Resolution.

9. Mitigation Monitoring Program: The City Council hereby adopts the “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as 277 of 638 20 Attachment "B” in support of this Resolution.

10. Section 21081.6(a)(2) of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e) require that the public agency shall specify the location of the custodian of the documents or other materials that constitute the record upon which its decision is based. Accordingly, the record and custodian of documents is the Glendale Planning Department, 633 East Broadway, Room 103, Glendale, California, 91206-4386.

Adopted this _____________ day of __________________________, 2023. ___________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Dr. Susie Abajian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _____________ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2023, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
____________________
City Clerk
278 of 638
21 ATTACHMENT "A"
I. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) for the 1642 South Central Avenue Project (the “Project”) has identified significant and unavoidable impacts which will result from implementation of the Project. These significant and unavoidable impacts are identified in the findings adopted by the City Council pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.

CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are unavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. Those reasons are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations.

The City Council finds that the economic, social, and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR and in the record. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that each one of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other benefits, warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project:
1) The Project will allow for a new 40,240-square-foot, five-story, 31-unit (27, one bedroom units and 4, two bedroom units), affordable rental housing project in the Tropico Neighborhood and South Glendale Community Plan (SGCP) area that is within walking distance of high quality transit service and in a transit priority area. 2) Development of 10% affordable (three units total), one- and two-bedroom units, to serve low-income families will provide necessary housing stock to address the Los Angeles’ regional housing affordability crisis and meets the need of providing affordable units that address social equity and fair share housing needs.
3) The Project is consistent with regional policies focused on supplying housing to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and implements smart growth near existing commercial services and high quality transit services which improves access to jobs and promotes transportation mobility.
4) The Project will be constructed near existing high quality transit services encouraging transit use – thus minimizing carbon footprint consistent with the Greener Glendale Plan and regional greenhouse gas reduction targets, as established by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB).
5) The Project architecture will contribute to a positive neighborhood character by constructing a contemporary building that contains, balconies, rooftop open space, articulations and landscape treatment which will increase visual interest, as envisioned in the Comprehensive Design Guidelines.
279 of 638
22 6) The Project will introduce additional residents to the Tropico Neighborhood and SGCP area, thereby contributing to the economic vitality of the South Glendale and viability of the commercial businesses.

The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons stated above constitutes a separate and independent basis of justification for the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and each is able to independently support the Statement of Overriding Considerations and override the unavoidable environmental effects of the Project. In addition, each reason is independently supported by substantial evidence contained in the administrative record. 280 of 638
ATTACHMENT "B"

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTION PROGRAM
281 of 638
1642 South Central Avenue
Project
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
NOVEMBER 2022

PREPARED FOR
City of Glendale

PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
282 of 638
November 2022 1 1642 South Central Avenue Project
■
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Introduction
Where a CEQA document has identified significant environmental effects, Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires adoption of a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of a project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.”
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required for the 1642 South Central Avenue Project (Project), as set forth in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The City of Glendale (City) is the Lead Agency that must adopt the MMRP for development and operation of the project. This report will be kept on file with the City of Glendale Community Development Department, East Broadway, Glendale, California.

The CEQA Statutes and Guidelines provide direction for clarifying and managing the complex relationships between a Lead Agency and other agencies with implementing and monitoring mitigation measures. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(d), “each agency has the discretion to choose its own approach to monitoring or reporting; and each agency has its own special expertise.” This discretion will be exercised by implementing agencies at the time they undertake any of portion of the project, as identified in the MND.

Purpose of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The intent of the MMRP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures. Additionally, for the purposes of public disclosure and to assist in monitoring compliance, the MMRP identifies actions necessary to comply with relevant regulatory requirements discussed in the MND. The MMRP is intended to be used by City staff and others responsible for project implementation.

A lead agency may rely on compliance with applicable laws and regulations in determining that a proposed project will result in a less than significant impact. (See San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 49, 525 [holding the City properly relied on compliance with building codes and related regulations in determining the proposed project would not result in potential safety hazards].) As a standard condition of approval, the City requires applicants comply with federal and state laws and regulations as well as standard City requirements that are applicable to a proposed project.

The timing is the point(s) at which the mitigation
measure/standard/regulatory requirement must be monitored for compliance. In many cases, the first step in compliance will be to initiate compliance with the subject mitigation measure/standard/regulatory requirement. 283 of 638
November 2022 2 1642 South Central Avenue Project
■ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Roles and Responsibilities
The project applicant is responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing the mitigation measures, standards, regulatory requirements contained within the MMRP, as directed by the City. The City is responsible for overall administration and enforcement of the MMRP.

Changes to Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Any substantive change in the MMRP shall be reported in writing. Modifications to the requirements of the MMRP may be made by the City subject to one of the following findings, documented by evidence included in the public record:
• The requirement included in the adopted MND and the MMRP is no longer required because the significant environmental impact identified in the IS/MND has been found not to exist, or to occur at a level which makes the impact less than significant as a result of changes in the project, changes in environment conditions, or other factors;
OR,
• The modified or substitute mitigation measure provides a level of environmental protection equal to, or greater than that afforded by the mitigation measure included in the IS/MND and the MMRP; and,
• The modified or substitute mitigation measure or measures do not have significant adverse effects on the environment in addition to, or greater than those which were considered by the responsible hearing bodies in their decisions on the IS/MND and the proposed project; and, • The modified or substitute mitigation measures are feasible, and the City or, where applicable, other public agencies, through measures included in the MMRP or applicable regulations, can ensure implementation.

Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation measures, including a determination whether further environmental review is required (see CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162-15164), shall be maintained in the project file with this MMRP and shall be made available to the public upon request.

Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Mitigation Measures
Adopted as Conditions of Approval
Responsibility
for
Implementation Mitigation
Schedule
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
Schedule
and
Verification
of
Compliance
Section 3.1, Cultural Resources (Historic Architectural Resources)
Mitigation Measure M-CR-1: Documentation of Historical City of Glendale Resource
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the Project applicant shall undertake Historic American Building/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABS/HALS) documentation of the building features. The documentation shall be undertaken by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards Project
applicant and
qualified
architectural
historian
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permits for
construction
Date:
284 of 638
3 ■ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Responsibility
for
Adopted as Conditions of Approval Implementation
Mitigation Monitoring/
Schedule Reporting Responsibility
Schedule and
Verification of
Compliance
for Architectural History, History, or Architecture (as appropriate) to prepare written and photographic documentation of 1642 South Central Avenue. The specific scope of the documentation shall be reviewed and approved by City staff but shall include the following elements:

Measured Drawings. A set of measured drawings shall be prepared that depict the existing size, scale, and dimension of the historic resource. The Project applicant shall submit original architectural drawings or an as-built set of architectural drawings (e.g., plans, sections, elevations). City staff will assist the consultant in determining the appropriate level of measured drawings.

Historic American Buildings/Historic American Landscape Survey-Level Photographs. Either Historic American
Buildings/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABS/HALS) standard large-format or digital photography shall be used. The scope of the digital photographs shall be reviewed by City staff for concurrence, and all digital photography shall be conducted according to the latest National Park Service (NPS) standards. The photography shall be undertaken by a qualified professional with demonstrated experience in HABS/HALS photography. Photograph views for the data set shall include contextual views; views of each side of the building and interior views, including any original interior features, where possible; oblique views of the building; and detail views of character-defining features.

All views shall be referenced on a photographic key. This photographic key shall be on a map of the property and shall show the photograph number with an arrow to indicate the direction of the view. Historic photographs shall also be collected, reproduced, and included in the data set.

The Project applicant shall transmit such documentation to the Glendale Public Library, the Glendale Historical Society, the Community Development Department, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The HABS/HALS documentation scope will determine the requested documentation type for the Project site and the Project applicant will conduct outreach to identify other interested groups. All documentation will be reviewed and approved by City staff before any demolition or site permit is granted for the affected historical resources.

Initials:

Date:

Initials:
285 of 638
4 ■ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures
Adopted as Conditions of Approval
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Mitigation
Schedule
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
Schedule
and
Verification
of
Compliance
Section 3.2, Noise and Vibration
Project City of Glendale
Applicant and
their
construction
contractor
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permits for
construction
Date:

Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control
Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:
• Grading and construction contractors shall use equipment that generates lower vibration levels, such as rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment.
• Construction haul truck and materials delivery traffic shall avoid Local Streets and Urban and Community and
Neighborhood Collectors as defined in the City’s
Circulation Element.
• The construction contractor shall place noise- and
vibration-generating construction equipment with the
exception of equipment needed to completed shoring
activities associated with the construction of the
subterranean garage, away from sensitive uses. All
construction staging areas away from sensitive uses.
• The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators. • The construction contractor shall ensure that a minimum 12-foot-high barrier, such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains, shall be erected between on the proposed project site and adjacent to the sensitive
receptors to minimize the amount of noise during
construction. A 12-foot-high construction noise barrier would provide approximately 12 dBA reduction to the
closest residential receptors to the south.

All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for the “noise disturbance coordinator.

Initials:
286 of 638
5 ■ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures
Adopted as Conditions of Approval
Responsibility
for
Implementation
Mitigation
Schedule
Monitoring/
Reporting
Responsibility
Schedule and
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:
• Prepare a Monitoring Plan. The property owner shall
undertake a monitoring program to avoid or reduce
project-related construction vibration damage to adjacent buildings and/or structures and to ensure that any such damage is documented and repaired. The monitoring
program shall apply to all potentially affected buildings and/or structures adjacent to the project site. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit, the property owner shall submit the construction vibration monitoring plan to the City for approval. The monitoring plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components, as
applicable:
o Vibration Analysis Refinement. Once the specific
construction equipment list becomes available,
potential vibration damage distance contours shall
be refined.
o Vibration Monitoring. To ensure that construction
vibration levels do not exceed the established
standard, an acoustical consultant shall monitor
vibration levels at each affected building and/or
structure on adjacent properties when heavy
construction occurs in close proximity. Based on
direction from the acoustical consultant, vibratory
construction activities that generate vibration levels
in excess of the standard shall be prohibited.
o Alternative Construction Techniques. Should
construction vibration levels be observed in excess
of the established standard, the contractor(s) shall
halt construction and put alternative construction
techniques into practice. Following incorporation of
the alternative construction techniques, vibration
monitoring shall recommence to ensure that
vibration levels at each affected building and/or
structure on adjacent properties are not exceeded.

Project
Applicant and
their
construction
contractor
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permits for
construction
City of Glendale
Date:

Initials:
287 of 638
c:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\cc_04112023_motions_9b2.pdf

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________________, that the City Council hereby approves the Project Design Application (DR Case No. PDR 2017612) for a proposed 31 unit housing project, including three units reserved for very low income households and a concession to reduce the amount of parking spaces by two spaces (16 parking spaces provided in a one-level subterranean parking garage) per Density Bonus Law, for a project to be located at 1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardenia Avenue, as more particularly described in the April 11, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development and subject to any Council comments or recommendations thereon.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
288 of 638
c:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\cc_04112023_motions_9b3.pdf

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________________, that the City Council hereby approves, with conditions, the Project Design Application (DR Case No. PDR 2017612) for a proposed 31 unit housing project, including three units reserved for very low income households and a concession to reduce the amount of parking spaces by two spaces (16 parking spaces provided in a one-level subterranean parking garage) per Density Bonus Law, for a project to be located at 1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardenia Avenue, as more particularly described in the April 11, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development and subject to any Council comments or recommendations thereon.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
289 of 638
c:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\cc_04112023_motions_9b4.pdf

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________________, that the City Council hereby sustains the Historic Preservation Commission decision to not certify the Final Environmental Impact Report; to not adopt the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program; to not adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and to not approve the Project Design Application (DR Case No. PDR 2017612) for a proposed 31 unit housing project, including three units reserved for very low income households and a concession to reduce the amount of parking spaces by two spaces (16 parking spaces provided in a one-level subterranean parking garage) per Density Bonus Law, for a project to be located at 1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardenia Avenue, as more particularly described in the April 11, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development and subject to any Council comments or recommendations thereon.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
290 of 638
1642 South Central Avenue Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH# 2021060219
NOVEMBER 2022

PREPARED FOR
City of Glendale

PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
291 of 638
Contents

CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................1-1 Purpose...................................................................................................................................1-1 Proposed Project Summary ....................................................................................................1-1 Organization of the Final EIR ................................................................................................1-1 Environmental Review Process..............................................................................................1-2 Public Decision-Making Process............................................................................................1-3 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures......................................................................1-3

1.1 1.2

1.3 1.4

1.5 1.6
Chapter 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report .......................2-1 Overview of Chapter 2 ...........................................................................................................2-1 Organization and Table of Comment Letters .........................................................................2-1 Comments and Responses......................................................................................................2-1

2.1 2.2

2.3 2.3.1 Letter from The Glendale Historical Society, John Schwab-Sims, dated April 22, 2022..............................................................................................................................2-1

2.3.2 Letter from the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, represented by Ronald Giang of Mitchel Tsai, dated April 22, 2022 .................................................2-24 Chapter 3. Response to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report..................................................................................................................3-1

3.1 3.2

3.3 Overview of Chapter 3 ...........................................................................................................3-1 Organization and Table of Comment Letters .........................................................................3-1 Comments and Responses......................................................................................................3-1

3.3.1 Letter from the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, represented by Ronald Giang of Mitchel Tsai, dated September 13, 2022...........................................3-1 Chapter 4. Revisions to Draft EIR and PR-DEIR...........................................................................4-1 Section 1.0 Introduction .........................................................................................................4-1 Section 2.3 Description of Project..........................................................................................4-1 Section 3.2 Cultural Resources ..............................................................................................4-1

4.1 4.2

4.3 Chapter 5. Report Preparers.............................................................................................................5-1 Lead Agency...........................................................................................................................5-1 Consultants.............................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 5.2
Tables
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts Identified in the Draft EIR and PR-DEIR..................................1-5 Table 2-1. Comment Letters Received on the 1642 South Central Avenue Project Draft EIR.................2-1 Table 3-1. Comment Letters Received on the 1642 South Central Avenue Project PR-DEIR .................3-1 Appendices
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, June 10, 2021 Appendix B: Initial Study
Appendix C: Historic Resources Assessment, prepared by SWCA, August 2021 Appendix D: Noise and Vibration Study, prepared by LSA, July 2022 Appendix E: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1919 and 1925
November 2022 i 1642 South Central Avenue Project
292 of 638
Contents
This page intentionally left blank.

November 2022 ii 1642 South Central Avenue Project
293 of 638
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE
The City of Glendale (City), the Lead Agency for the 1642 South Central Avenue Project (Project), prepared this Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, §15000 et seq.).

As required by State CEQA Guidelines §15132, this Final EIR includes the following information:
a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR; d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and,
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY
The Project site is located at 1642 South Central Avenue, within the Tropico neighborhood of the City of Glendale (APN 5640-029-014). The Project site is a 0.23-acre rectangular parcel and is bounded to the north by South Central Avenue, to the west by Gardena Avenue, to the east by an industrial building constructed in 1985, and to the south by a single-family residence constructed in 1947.

The Project site is zoned SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and has been developed with two residential buildings (1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardena Avenue) and a detached garage.

The residence located at 1642 South Central Avenue was constructed in 1913, and a second residence located on the same lot but with the address of 1608 Gardena Avenue was constructed in 1920.

The Project would demolish both residential buildings and the garage and construct a new 40,240-squarefoot, five-story, 31-unit, rental housing building. Parking would be provided in a 16-space one-level subterranean garage. In accordance with Government Code §65915 and Glendale Municipal Code §30.36 (Density Bonus Incentives), three of the residential units would be reserved for very-low-income households.

1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR
The Final EIR includes the following chapters:
 Chapter 1 contains an overview of the environmental review process and introduction to the Final EIR.
 Chapter 2 contains a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; copies of comments received on the Draft EIR; and responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and communication process.

November 2022 1-1 1642 South Central Avenue Project
294 of 638

1. Introduction



Chapter 3 contains a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Partially Recirculated Draft EIR (PR-DEIR); copies of comments received on the PR-DEIR; and responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and communication process.

Chapter 4 contains the revisions to the non-recirculated portions of the Draft EIR and the PRDEIR, based on comments received during and after the public review period and based on staffinitiated text changes.

Chapter 5 contains a list of report preparers.

It should be noted that while this Final EIR separates the comments received on the Draft EIR and PRDEIR, the responses have been crafted based on the most updated information, which could pull from the Draft EIR or the PR-DEIR or a combination of the two, depending on the content of the comment.

Specifically, comments related to noise and vibration, alternatives, and the environmental topics covered by the PR-DEIR are responded to using the updated information and revised analyses contained in the PR-DEIR. Comments related to all other topic areas are responded to using the analyses and information included in the Draft EIR. Therefore, both the Draft EIR and PR-DEIR are referenced in the responses to the comments included in Chapters 2 and 3.

1.4 Environmental Review Process
CEQA Guidelines §15080 to 15097 set forth the EIR process, which includes multiple phases involving notification and input from responsible agencies and the public. The main steps in this process are described below.

On June 10, 2021, the City published an NOP (Appendix A) that announced its intent to solicit public comments on the scope of the environmental analysis and to prepare and distribute an EIR on the 1642 South Central Avenue Project. The City mailed the NOP to the State Clearinghouse and relevant state and regional agencies; occupants of adjacent properties; property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the Project site; and other potentially interested parties, including neighborhood organizations and others that have requested such notice. Publication of the NOP initiated a 30-day public review and comment period that ended on July 12, 2021. During the NOP public scoping period, the City received a total of two comments: one from the Native American Heritage Commission and one from the Glendale Historic Society. The NOP and comments received during the public review and comment period are contained in Appendix A.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(d) and 15088.5(f)(3), the City notified all responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and individuals that the Draft EIR had been completed and was available for public review and comment. The City published the Draft EIR for a 30-day public review and comment period, from March 24, 2022, until April 22, 2022. The City received two comments during the public comment period. Following the release of the Draft EIR, new information was obtained regarding an occupied residence that is closer to the Project site than was assumed in the Draft EIR’s analysis of construction noise and vibration impacts. Using this new information, the analysis of construction noise and vibration impacts showed different results, compared with those presented in the Draft EIR, including two new significant impacts not identified in the Draft EIR. These changes were determined to meet the CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 criteria concerning disclosure of a new significant environmental impact and a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Therefore, the City determined that the portions of the Draft EIR related to noise and vibration should be revised and that the partial revision to the Draft EIR (Partially Recirculated Draft EIR (PR-DEIR) should be recirculated for public comment.

November 2022 1-2 1642 South Central Avenue Project
295 of 638

1. Introduction
The City published the PR-DEIR for a 30-day public review and comment period from August 15, 2022 to September 14, 2022. The PR-DEIR contained revisions to Section 3.2, Noise and Vibration; Chapter 4, Alternatives; and the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) of the Draft EIR, which were affected by the changes made in the updated Noise and Vibration Study Report (Appendix D). The City received one comment during the PR-DEIR public comment period.

1.5 PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
As part of the City’s demolition clearance and design review process involving historical resources, the Final EIR will be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) in a publicly noticed meeting, and then certified as a Final EIR, if deemed adequate. Prior to considering certification of the Final EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15090, and approving the Project, the HPC will consider the information in the Final EIR in their deliberations on whether to approve, modify, or deny the Project or aspects of the Project. If the Historic Preservation Commission certifies the Final EIR and approves the Project, their certification action must include written Findings of Fact that identify significant Projectrelated impacts that would result from the Project; discuss mitigation measures or alternatives that have been adopted to reduce significant impacts to less-than-significant levels; and explain reasons for rejecting mitigation measures or alternatives if any are infeasible for legal, social, economic, technological, or other reasons.

The HPC must also adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as part of the adoption of the CEQA findings and project approvals. The MMRP identifies the measures included in the Project or imposed by the decision-makers as conditions of approval, the entities responsible for carrying out the measures, and the timing of implementation. If significant unavoidable impacts would remain after all feasible mitigation measures are implemented, the approving body, if it elects to approve the Project, must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration that makes factual findings and determinations concerning how the Project benefits would outweigh the significant environmental impacts.

1.6 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 1-1 below summarizes the impacts and associated mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and PR-DEIR.

The table has four columns: the identified impact under each significance threshold; the level of significance prior to implementation of mitigation; mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the level of impacts; and the level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures. The levels of significance of impacts before and after implementation of applicable mitigation measures are identified as follows:


No Impact (NI) – No adverse changes (or impacts) to the environment are expected.

Less Than Significant (LTS) – Impact that would not exceed the defined significance criteria or would be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with existing local, state, and federal laws and regulations.


Less Than Significant with Mitigation (LTSM) – Impact that is significant but reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the identified mitigation measure(s).

Significant and Unavoidable (SU) – Impact that exceeds the defined significance criteria and cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with existing November 2022 1-3 1642 South Central Avenue Project
296 of 638

1. Introduction
local, state, and federal laws and regulations, and for which there are no feasible mitigation measures that would bring the level to LTSM.

November 2022 1-4 1642 South Central Avenue Project
297 of 638

1. Introduction
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts Identified in the Draft EIR and PR-DEIR Level of
Significance
Level of
Significance
After Impact Mitigation and Improvement Measures Before Mitigation Mitigation
Legend: NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than significant or negligible impact, no mitigation required; S = Significant; LTSM = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact; SU = Significant and unavoidable adverse impact, no feasible mitigation; N/A = Not Applicable Section 3.1, Cultural Resources (Historic Architectural Resources) CR-1: The proposed Project would cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines.

S Mitigation Measure M-CR-1: Documentation of Historical Resource SU Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the Project applicant shall undertake Historic American Building/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABS/HALS) documentation of the building features. The documentation shall be undertaken by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History, History, or Architecture (as appropriate) to prepare written and photographic documentation of 1642 South Central Avenue. The specific scope of the documentation shall be reviewed and approved by City staff but shall include the following elements:

Measured Drawings – A set of measured drawings shall be prepared that depict the existing size, scale, and dimension of the historic resource. The Project applicant shall submit original architectural drawings or an as-built set of architectural drawings (e.g., plans, sections, elevations). City staff will assist the consultant in determining the appropriate level of measured drawings.

Historic American Buildings/Historic American Landscape Survey-Level Photographs – Either Historic American Buildings/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABS/HALS) standard large-format or digital photography shall be used. The scope of the digital photographs shall be reviewed by City staff for concurrence, and all digital photography shall be conducted according to the latest National Park Service (NPS) standards. The photography shall be undertaken by a qualified professional with demonstrated experience in HABS/HALS photography. Photograph views for the data set shall include contextual views; views of each side of the building and interior views, including any original interior features, where possible; oblique views of the building; and detail views of characterdefining features.

All views shall be referenced on a photographic key. This photographic key shall be on a map of the property and shall show the photograph number with an arrow to indicate the direction of the view. Historic photographs shall also be collected, reproduced, and included in the data set.

The Project applicant shall transmit such documentation to the Glendale Public Library, the Glendale Historical Society, the Community Development Department, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The HABS/HALS documentation scope will determine the requested documentation type for the Project site and the Project applicant will conduct outreach to identify other interested groups. All documentation will be reviewed and approved by City staff before any demolition or site permit is granted for the affected historical resources.

C-CR-1: The proposed Project, LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A in combination with related projects, would
not materially alter, in an adverse manner,
November 2022 1-5 1642 South Central Avenue Project
298 of 638

1. Introduction
Level of
Significance
Before
Level of
Significance
After Impact Mitigation and Improvement Measures
Mitigation Mitigation
Legend: NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than significant or negligible impact, no mitigation required; S = Significant; LTSM = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact; SU = Significant and unavoidable adverse impact, no feasible mitigation; N/A = Not Applicable the physical characteristics of historical
resources that justify their eligibility for
inclusion in the California Register of
Historical Resources, resulting in a
cumulative impact.

Section 3.2, Noise and Vibration
NO-1: Construction of the proposed Project
would generate a substantial temporary
increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the City of Glendale Noise
Ordinance or applicable standards of other
agencies.

S Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control SU Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:



Grading and construction contractors shall use equipment that generates lower vibration levels, such as rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment.

Construction haul truck and materials delivery traffic shall avoid Local Streets and Urban, Community and Neighborhood Collectors as defined in the city’s Circulation Element residential areas whenever feasible.

The construction contractor shall place noise- and vibration-generating construction equipment, with exception of equipment needed to complete shoring activities associated with the construction of the subterranean garage, away from sensitive uses and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses whenever feasible.


The construction contractor shall only use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators where feasible.

The construction contractor shall ensure that a minimum 12-foot-high barrier, such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains, shall be erected between on the proposed project site and adjacent to the sensitive receptors to minimize the amount of noise during construction. A 12-foot-high construction noise barrier would provide approximately 12 dBA reduction to the closest residential receptors to the south.
 All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for the “noise disturbance coordinator.

NO-2: Construction of the proposed Project
would generate excessive groundborne
vibration levels.

S Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control SU November 2022 1-6 1642 South Central Avenue Project
299 of 638

1. Introduction
Level of
Significance
Before
Level of
Significance
After Impact Mitigation and Improvement Measures
Mitigation Mitigation
Legend: NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than significant or negligible impact, no mitigation required; S = Significant; LTSM = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact; SU = Significant and unavoidable adverse impact, no feasible mitigation; N/A = Not Applicable Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:
 Maintaining Buffer Distances. Maintain a safe distance between the operation of vibration generating construction equipment and the potentially affected building and/or structure to avoid damage to the extent possible as presented in Table I, based on site constraints; and


Alternative Construction Equipment. To the extent feasible, the construction contractor shall use alternative construction techniques or equipment, such as hand excavation to avoid or reduce unnecessary construction vibration.

Prepare a Monitoring Plan. The property owner shall undertake a monitoring program to avoid or reduce project-related construction vibration damage to adjacent buildings and/or structures and to ensure that any such damage is documented and repaired. The monitoring program shall apply to all potentially affected buildings and/or structures adjacent to the project site. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit, the property owner shall submit the construction vibration monitoring plan to the City for approval. The monitoring plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components, as applicable:
o Vibration Analysis Refinement. Once the specific construction equipment list becomes available, potential vibration damage distance contours shall be refined.
o Vibration Monitoring. To ensure that construction vibration levels do not exceed the established standard, an acoustical consultant shall monitor vibration levels at each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties when heavy construction occurs in close proximity. Based on direction from the acoustical consultant, vibratory construction activities that generate vibration levels in excess of the standard shall be prohibited. o Alternative Construction Techniques. Should construction vibration levels be observed in excess of the established standard, the contractor(s) shall halt construction and put alternative construction techniques into practice, to the extent feasible. Following incorporation of the alternative construction techniques, vibration monitoring shall recommence to ensure that vibration levels at each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties are not exceeded. o Periodic Inspections. A historic architect or qualified historic preservation professional (for effects on historic buildings and/or structures) and/or structural engineer (for effects on non-historic buildings and/or structures) shall conduct regular periodic inspections as specified in the vibration November 2022 1-7 1642 South Central Avenue Project
300 of 638

1. Introduction
Level of
Significance
Before
Level of
Significance
After Impact Mitigation and Improvement Measures
Mitigation Mitigation
Legend: NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than significant or negligible impact, no mitigation required; S = Significant; LTSM = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact; SU = Significant and unavoidable adverse impact, no feasible mitigation; N/A = Not Applicable monitoring plan of each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties during vibration generating construction activity on the project site.

Should damage to any building and/or structure occur, the building(s) and/or structure(s) shall be remediated to their pre-construction condition at the conclusion of vibration-generating activity on the site.

NO-3: Operation of the proposed project
would generate a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the Project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan, or
applicable standards of other agencies.

LTS
LTS
No mitigation measures are required. N/A
C-NO-1: Construction noise and vibration as LTS
a result of the proposed Project, combined
with construction noise and vibration from
cumulative projects in the vicinity, would
cause a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels. Operation of the
proposed Project, combined with operation
noise from cumulative projects in the vicinity,
would not cause a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity.

See Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control and Mitigation Measure M-NO2: Construction Vibration Control, above.

November 2022 1-8 1642 South Central Avenue Project
301 of 638

1. Introduction
This page intentionally left blank.

November 2022 1-9 1642 South Central Avenue Project
302 of 638
CHAPTER 2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

2.1 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER 2
Chapter 2 of this Final EIR presents copies of comments on the Draft EIR received in written form during the public review period from March 24, 2022, until April 22, 2022, and provides the City’s responses to those comments. Each comment letter is numbered, and the subjects within each comment letter are identified by brackets and numbers. Comment letters are followed by responses, which are numbered to correspond with the bracketed comment letters.

The City’s responses to comments on the Draft EIR represent a good-faith, reasonable effort to address the environmental issues identified by the comments. Under the CEQA Guidelines, the City is not required to respond to all comments on the Draft EIR, but only to those comments that raise environmental issues (refer to CEQA Guidelines §15088[a]). Case law under CEQA recognizes that the City need only provide responses to comments that are commensurate in detail with the comments themselves. In the case of specific comments, the City has responded with specific analysis and detail; in the case of a general comment, the reader is referred to a related response to a specific comment, if possible. The absence of a specific response to every comment does not violate CEQA if the response would merely repeat other responses.

It should be noted that while the comments below were received on the Draft EIR, the responses have been crafted based on the most updated information per environmental topic, which could pull from the Draft EIR, the PR-DEIR, or a combination of the two, depending on the content of the comment.

2.2 ORGANIZATION AND TABLE OF COMMENT LETTERS
The City received a total of two comment letters from organizations and individuals. Table 2-1, Comment Letters Received on the Draft EIR provides a list of all comment letters received and the identification number for each letter.

Table 2-1. Comment Letters Received on the 1642 South Central Avenue Project Draft EIR Agency/Entity/Individual Name of Commenter Date of Comment Letter No.

The Glendale Historical Society John Schwab-Sims
Ronald Giang
April 22, 2022
April 22, 2022
1 Attorneys for the Southwest Regional 2
Council of Carpenters

2.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

2.3.1 Letter from The Glendale Historical Society, John SchwabSims, dated April 22, 2022 1-1 The comment introduces the Glendale Historical Society.

The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required.

November 2022 2-1 1642 South Central Avenue Project
303 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-2 The comment states, “Both the property’s garage and the residence at 1608 Gardena Avenue must be considered contributing resources. The subject property is a single parcel with three contributing resources.” The commenter cites correspondence for a recent project to support this claim but does not provide a copy of the letter for reference. The commenter goes on to provide examples of guidance from National and state guidance documents that they believe are relevant to the property analysis.

Response: The full quote excerpted from National Register Bulletin 16A states the following regarding the identification of contributing and non-contributing resources:
“The physical characteristics and historic significance of the overall property provide the basis for evaluating component resources. Related information about each resource, such as date, function, association, information potential, and physical characteristics, to the significance of the overall property to determine whether or not the resource contributes.

A contributing building, site, structure, or object adds to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities, or archaeological values for which a property is significant because:
 It was present during the period of significance, relates to the documented significance of the property, and possess historic integrity, or is capable of yielding important information about the period; or
 It independently meets the National Register criteria.

A non-contributing building, site, structure, or object does not add to the historic architectural qualities, historic associations, or archeological values for which a property is significant because:



It was not present during the period of significance or does not relate to the documented significance of the property;
Due to alterations, disturbances, additions, or other changes, it no longer possesses historic integrity or is capable of yielding important information about the period; or It does not independently meet the National Register Criteria.”1 Based upon this guidance published by the National Park Service under National Register Bulletin No. 16A, it is clear that it is not always the case that all resources on a single, shared parcel contribute to a property’s historical significance. Specifically, a contributing resource must “add to the historic associations, historic architectural qualities” and be “present during the period significance, [relate] to the documented significance of the property, and possess historic integrity, or is capable of yielding important information.” Based upon this guidance, the commenter’s assessment that the garage and residence at 1608 Gardena Avenue “must be considered contributing resources” is incorrect and conclusory.

As outlined in the Draft EIR, the residence addressed 1642 South Central Avenue is considered individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under Criterion 1 for its associations with the development of the City of Tropico and has an identified period of significance (POS) of 1913, which corresponds to its time of construction and relationship with the development of that early community. Additionally, 1642 South Central Avenue is considered individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under Criterion 3 as an excellent example of Craftsman 1 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1997. “Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Forms, Part A.” Available online at: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16A-Complete.pdf November 2022 2-2 1642 South Central Avenue Project
304 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report architecture. The 2021 Historic Resources Assessment prepared by SWCA (HRA) appended to the Draft EIR states that “Under the City of Glendale Criterion 1 findings of significance …, the duplex at 1642 South Central Avenue is a rare intact example a residence constructed before Glendale annexed Tropico” (Appendix C). Therefore, the period of significance for this finding is 1913, the year 1642 South Central Avenue was constructed.

Under the City of Glendale Criterion 3 findings of significance, the HRA states that the building at 1642 South Central embodies the distinctive characteristics of Craftsman architecture.

Therefore, the period of significance for this finding is 1913-1923, which reflects the year of construction (1913) and the addition (1923).” The commenter notes this POS range was identified in the HRA; however, the HRA assessment of the POS for 1642 South Central is not in fact a “range” but two separate dates. A POS “range” was not reflected in the Draft EIR, which correctly states that the POS for the building under this criterion is 1913. This has been clarified in the Final EIR. The relevant POS is 1913, which accounts for the original design and construction of the building. The 1923 addition is somewhat consistent with, and relates back to, the original 1913 construction of 1642 South Central Avenue residence. However, the 1923 addition is modest in both scale and design and is not historically significant in its own right, nor does it significantly contribute to the building’s Craftsman architecture. Its construction, therefore, is not meaningful in a manner that warrants the expansion of the 1913 POS.

Using the established guidance quoted above from National Register Bulletin No. 16A, the residence and garage at 1608 Gardena Avenue and the garage building are neither presumptively contributors, nor do they otherwise qualify as contributors to 1642 South Central Avenue, because they are not related to the historical significance of 1642 South Central Avenue. The 1608 Gardena Avenue residence and garage buildings, although on the same lot, were constructed in 1920 and 1923, respectively, after the POS for 1642 South Central Avenue and after Tropico was annexed by the City of Glendale in 1918. As such, 1608 Gardena Avenue and the garage building they do not contribute to 1642 South Central Avenue under Glendale Register Criterion

1. With regard to Glendale Register Criterion 3, neither the garage nor the residence at 1608 Gardena Avenue appears to “relate to the documented significance” of 1642 South Central Avenue as an excellent example of Craftsman architecture. The significance of 1642 South Central Avenue under Criterion 3 is embodied through many of its character-defining features that are associated with the style. The residence and garage at 1608 Gardena Avenue do not relate specifically to 1642 South Central Avenue’s ability to convey its historical significance as an excellent example of Craftsman architecture. The demolition and removal of 1608 Gardena and the garage buildings do not materially impact 1642 South Central Avenue’s ability to convey its historicity.

Moreover, as outlined in the HRA and Draft EIR, the residence and garage at 1608 Gardena Avenue do not embody the Craftsman style in a significant manner. Their design and architectural style are different and independent from 1642 South Central Avenue, despite sharing the same parcel. As such, the residence and garage at 1608 Gardena Avenue do not contribute to 1642 South Central Avenue as an excellent example of Craftsman architecture, and do not qualify as eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under Criterion 3.

Therefore, the Project site contains three buildings, one of which (1642 South Central Avenue) is considered a historic resource. The building at 1608 Gardena and the garage are non-contributing to the identified significance of 1642 South Central Avenue as an example of Craftsman November 2022 2-3 1642 South Central Avenue Project
305 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report architecture and for its associations with the early development of Tropico and are not considered individual historic resources.
1-3 The comment states, “The property’s appropriate period of significance is between 1913 and 1923. Note that the category is a period rather than a year of significance” and “A single year for a period of significance when the property and its improvements evolved is excessively restrictive and two separate years, a decade apart would not meet the most basic requirements for identification of a period of significance.”
Response: A “Period of significance” as defined in the Glendale Municipal Code section 30.25, and the National Register Bulletin No. 16A, is the span of time during which events and activities significant in the history and development of a [designated or pending historic district overlay zone] historic resource occurred. As illustrated in the Draft EIR and clarified in the Response to Comment 1-2 above, the POS identified for 1642 South Central Avenue is identified as 1913, which is based on the construction (e.g., “development”) of the original building on the Project site. The POS is not required to reflect a range, as suggested by the commenter, rather than the initial construction date unless subsequent changes to the site are historically significant in their own right. The commenter does not provide any evidence to support its contention that a POS range is mandated. Construction dates are often used as the POS for resources that are found significant for their architecture and design. For example, a POS related to Criteria C/3/3, which focuses on specific design or construction date, often identifies the POS solely as the date of construction. If significant alterations or additions to an original site are made over time, these too may be seen as significant if they expand upon or add to the historical meaning of the original construction. However, this is not the case for 1642 South Central Avenue.

The HRA does state that the POS for the residence at 1642 South Central Avenue is 1913-1923; however, this “range” is incorrect. The correct POS of 1913 is stated within the Draft EIR and corresponds with the significance of 1642 South Central Avenue under both Glendale Register Criteria 1 and 3. Under Criterion 3, this POS is specific to the development of the resource and its embodiment of the Craftsman style of the subject residence only and does not extend writ large to the entirety of the property, as outlined in the Response to Comment 1-2. The garage and residence buildings at 1608 Gardena Avenue were found to be not significant under Criteria 3/C/3 and have no association with the 1642 South Central Avenue building as an excellent example of early Craftsman architecture in the region. Furthermore, the POS of 1642 South Central Avenue under Glendale Register Criterion 1 as an example of early development in the City of Tropico is identified as also identified as1913, which is when the building was constructed and reflective of this specific period of development. While an argument could be made for an expanded POS to capture all associations with the City of Tropico, this would extend to the period preceding the 1918 annexation by the City of Glendale. Both the garage and 1608 Gardena Avenue were constructed in 1923 and 1920, respectively, and are outside of the POS associated with the City of Tropico. In this instance under Criterion 1, both the garage and 1608 Gardena Avenue have no historical associations with 1642 South Central Avenue.

Therefore, the residence at 1608 Gardena and garage buildings do not appear to fall within specific City of Glendale Criteria for significance. The FEIR identifies 1913 as the POS for 1642 South Central Avenue, and its eligibility for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 1 for its associations with the early development of Tropico (1913) and Criterion 3 as an excellent example of Craftsman architecture (1913). This clarification is reflected in Chapter 4 below.

November 2022 2-4 1642 South Central Avenue Project
306 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-4 The comment provides a chronology of construction of 1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardena Avenue on the project site.

Response: Please refer to the Response to Comment 1-3. The comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required. 1-5 The comment states the entire property is significant. The commentator also takes issue with the unit counts for the property and suggests there should be three: two for the duplex (main residence) and one for the 1608 Gardena Ave residence and that these numbers should be considered in the Alternatives Analysis.

Response: Please refer to the Response to Comment 1-2 regarding significance, contributing features, and the number of units on site. The number of residential units on the property does not have bearing on the historic significance but has been corrected in Chapter 4 below. 1-6 The comment states that the Noise and Vibration Study Report (June 2020) does not accurately account for sensitive land uses in the project area because residential properties are closer to the project site than as stated in the report. The comment describes the proximity of 1616 Gardena Ave adjacent to the southern property boundary and question the assumptions regarding construction methodology to minimize noise and vibration impacts.

Response: In response to this comment on the Draft EIR, the City prepared an updated Noise and Vibration Study (Appendix D) to analyze the Project’s proximity to an additional sensitive receptor. The City recirculated the PR-DEIR on August 15, 2022 with the updated Noise and Vibration Study that accounts for new information - a converted garage used as a residential unit adjacent to the Project. As outlined in the Noise and Vibration Study and PR-DEIR Section

3.2.2.3, Surrounding Land Uses and Sensitive Receptors, land uses are considered noise “sensitive receptors” where low noise levels are necessary to preserve their intended goals such as relaxation, education, health, and general state of well-being. Noise-sensitive receptors include residents, hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, churches, hotels, and motels. The updated analysis accounts for the nearest sensitive receptor within 3 feet of the southern property line of the Project site.
1-7 The comment states that the Draft EIR does not include mitigation measures which require limitations on construction activities to reduce vibration damage. The comment requests a revision of technical reports to reflect existing conditions and surrounding sensitive receptors.

Response: Section 3.2.4, Impact Analysis, of the PR-DEIR analyzes construction vibration impacts under Impact NO-2. Table 3.2.12 of the PR-DEIR presents a summary of potential vibration impacts of the Project construction. Vibration has the potential to cause damage to the commercial building to the north at 1638 South Central Avenue and the residential building to the south at 1616 Gardena Avenue, if large construction equipment operates within 15 feet of the building façade. Additionally, vibration has the potential to cause annoyance to residential uses if large construction equipment operates within 110 feet of the building façade. As recommended in the Noise and Vibration Study, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure M-NO-2 Construction Vibration Control. However, impacts related to construction vibration would remain significant and unavoidable even with this mitigation measure applied. 1-8 Comment states that lack of explanation of methodology for constructing foundation pilings leaves impacts on adjacent properties unresolved. Comment states that 1616 Gardena Ave and “other properties” should be considered sensitive receptors to noise and vibration impacts.

November 2022 2-5 1642 South Central Avenue Project
307 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Response: As noted in the Response to Comment 1-6, residences surrounding the Project site are considered sensitive receptors to both noise and vibration impacts. In order to assess the potential for vibration impacts, the vibration analysis in the DEIR and the PR-DEIR uses the distance between the nearest off-site buildings and the Project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or within 5 feet of the Project boundary). As there is a converted garage located within 5 feet of the Project boundary, vibration damage impacts could occur. As noted in Response to Comment 1-7, impacts from the Project related to construction vibration would remain significant and unavoidable even with mitigation measures applied. 1-9 The comment states that the residence at 343 El Bonito Avenue was not considered for noise and vibration effects. The comment notes the residence may contribute to a previously unevaluated historic district and that the proposed project should have a larger study area.

Response: Please refer to the Responses to Comments 1-6 and 1-7. Residences surrounding the Project site are considered sensitive receptors to both noise and vibration impacts and all sensitive receptors were considered in both the noise and vibration impact analysis in the PR-DEIR. Please refer to the Response to Comment 1-19 below for further discussion related to the unidentified historic district.
1-10 The comment criticizes the location and methodology of the noise measurements taken for the noise and vibration analysis.

Response: The Noise and Vibration Study uses industry standard accepted methodology for conducting noise studies (Appendix D). It includes an overview of the existing sensitive land uses in the Project area and explanation of the selection of the noise measurement locations. The commenter has not provided any information or evidence supporting why the location and methodology are inadequate. The long-term noise measurements were taken at locations representative of the surrounding ambient noise environment, to quantify the range of noise levels experienced in the Project vicinity and by sensitive receptors. The long-term noise measurements captured data in order to calculate the daytime and nighttime equivalent continuous sound level (Leq) and the Average Daily Noise Level (dBA CNEL) at each location, which incorporate the nighttime hours. Sources that dominate the existing noise environment include traffic on adjacent roadways, train traffic on the existing rail line to the east, parking lot activities, and operations from the commercial and industrial uses.
1-11 The comment requests revisions to the mitigation measures within the Draft EIR, including the addition of specific actions, performance standards, and enforceable actions.

Response: Section 3.2.4, Impact Analysis of the PR-DEIR contains the updated Mitigation Measure M-NO-1 Construction Noise Control and Mitigation Measure M-NO-2 Construction Vibration Control. These mitigation measures include specific, enforceable measures (actions) to reduce construction noise and vibration that the City Department of Building and Safety would verify prior to the issuance of demolition permits. The commenter has not provided evidence showing why these mitigation measures, as drafted, are inadequate. 1-12 The comment requests the inclusion of a construction noise and vibration monitor on-site during construction and an engineered noise wall.

Response: Mitigation Measure M-NO-1 Construction Noise Control requires the installation of a minimum 12-foot-high barrier during construction between the Project site and adjacent sensitive receptors to the south. The barrier would be composed of plywood or flexible sound control curtains. This mitigation measure would also provide the nearby residents contact information for November 2022 2-6 1642 South Central Avenue Project
308 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report the “noise disturbance coordinator” for the Project. Further, the commenter has not provided any evidence why constructing an engineered noise wall is necessary to provide feasible mitigation.

With respect to Project operations post construction, the noise impact from project operations is not considered significant. Accordingly, it is not necessary to require mitigation in the form of an engineered noise wall following project completion, and noise controls are part of the mitigation required during the construction phase.
1-13 The comment further requests revisions to the mitigation measures within the Draft EIR.

Response: Please refer to the Response to Comment 1-11 regarding updated Mitigation Measure M-NO-1 Construction Noise Control and Mitigation Measure M-NO-2 Construction Vibration Control. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1 and Mitigation Measure M-NO-2 would reduce construction noise and vibration impacts to the greatest extent feasible; however, the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
1-14 The comment questions the enforceable elements of the mitigation measures and the role the noise disturbance coordinator would play.

Response: Please refer to the Response to Comment 1-11 regarding updated Mitigation Measure M-NO-1 Construction Noise Control and Mitigation Measure M-NO-2 Construction Vibration Control. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1 and Mitigation Measure M-NO-2 would reduce construction noise and vibration impacts to the greatest extent feasible; however, the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
1-15 The comment cites City Municipal Code §8.36.210 related to vibration and questions the enforcement of vibration mitigation measures.

Response: As noted in Section 3.2.3.3, Local Regulations and Guidelines, of the PR-DEIR, the City prohibits operation of any device that creates a vibration that is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property. The City defines the “vibration perception threshold” in Municipal Code §8.36.020 as “…the minimal ground or structure borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation of moving objects. The perception shall be presumed to be a motion velocity of 0.01 in./sec. over the range of one to one hundred Hz.” As stated in Section

3.2.1.2, Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration, of the PR-DEIR, the typical background level in residential areas is about 50 vibration decibels (VdB), and most people cannot detect levels below about 65 VdB, and generally do not consider levels below 70 VdB, or approximately 0.1 PPV, to be an annoyance.

Mitigation Measure M-NO-2 requires the creation of a Vibration Monitoring Plan to be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits. The monitoring program would apply to all potentially affected buildings and/or structures adjacent to the Project site.

The monitoring program would include periodic vibration monitoring by an acoustical consultant and by a historic architect or qualified historic preservation professional. If construction vibration levels in excess of the established standard are observed, the contractor would implement alternative construction techniques.
1-16 The comment notes the proximity to nearby residences and questions the impact conclusions of the Draft EIR.

November 2022 2-7 1642 South Central Avenue Project
309 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Response: Please refer to the Responses to Comments 1-6 and 1-7; residences surrounding the Project site are considered sensitive receptors to both noise and vibration impacts. The PR-DEIR addresses all sensitive receptors and has updated the noise and vibration analysis and the mitigation measures.
1-17 The comment questioned the number of HVAC units and requested the correction of the technical reports and Draft EIR conclusions to reflect actual as-built conditions.

Response: Both the PR-DEIR and the Noise and Vibration Study were revised and the revised study states that 31 HVAC units would be distributed across the project’s rooftop, approximately 30 to 140 feet from the closest sensitive receptor. The Project would include screening walls around the HVAC units; the operational noise would be below the existing quietest nighttime ambient noise levels. The Project would have less-than-significant impacts related to operational noise.
1-18 The comment notes the residences at 331, 335 and 343 El Bonito Ave date to the City of Tropico era and provide excerpts from the South Glendale Survey regarding the establishment of historic districts and associated integrity criteria.

Response: This comment contains an informational discussion and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required. 1-19 The comment proposes that the residences at 331, 335 and 343 El Bonito Avenue, with 339 El Bonito as a non-contributor, should be considered a historic district and that “the identified probable historic district on the north side of the 300 block of El Bonito Avenue should be analyzed for effects, if any can be reasonably expected as part of the proposed project’s revised future environmental review.”
Response: It is the City’s responsibility to identify and adopt historic districts. It is outside the scope of this project to evaluate and establish historic properties or districts outside of the proposed Project area. However, it is acknowledged here that the three properties were surveyed as part of the 2019 South Glendale Historic Resources Survey (Survey). Each property was identified as being individually eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (California Historic Resource Status Code 5S3).

These findings are generally reflected in the HRA and the Draft EIR, which notes, “A few properties in the area were similarly identified as individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historical Resources…” on page 3.1-21 of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR goes further, stating that no historic district was identified as part of the Survey, the same document which surveyed the residential properties along El Bonito Avenue and provided the California Historical Resource Status Codes noted above. The Draft EIR also notes that the condition of the overall neighborhood is altered and lacks cohesiveness as a historic district.

The Survey specifically examined Potential Historic Districts and Planning Areas as well as individual buildings, and this El Bonito area was not identified as one of them. The Survey identified several potential historic districts: East Doran Street, Carr Drive/Broadway, Garfield/Windsor, Roads End, Columbia Drive, and a proposed extension to the existing Cottage Grove Historic District.2 While it may be possible that the three residences along El Bonito Avenue may constitute a historic district, the three buildings that are identified by the 2 Historic Resources Group (HRG), 2019. City of Glendale, South Glendale Historic Context Statement, prepared for the City of Glendale Planning Division.

November 2022 2-8 1642 South Central Avenue Project
310 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report commenters as potential contributors to the district are all individually eligible and already considered historical resources for the purposes of environmental review under CEQA. 1-20 Comment provides brief discussion of architectural style and integrity concerns of the Bonita Ave residences and reasserts that lack of integrity does not preclude the properties from being assembled into a historic district and requests that the historic district be considered in future environmental review.

Response: Please refer to Response to Comment 1-19 regarding the potential El Bonito Historic District.

The Draft EIR notes that the setting of the neighborhood surrounding the Project area has been altered overtime “with the introduction of small industrial buildings, taller multi-family residential buildings, and the Larry Zarian Transit Center Parking lots, which together significantly transformed the neighborhood’s original single family residential character” (page

3.1-14 to 3.1-15). This is true also of the individually eligible resources along El Bonito Avenue and any potential historic district, of which the surrounding area was noted as “too altered for consideration as a cohesive historic district” (page 3.1-21). Using guidance under CEQA, “This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (a)).

As previously noted, the existing environmental setting, which serves as the baseline, contains a mixture of property types, uses, and periods of construction. These conditions define the surrounding blocks and contribute to the dense, dynamic, and intensive urban environment.

Therefore, individually eligible residential properties at 331, 335, and 343 El Bonito would not be significantly impacted by the Project.

While the Project would introduce a new, taller element within the vicinity of these resources, this new building would be in-keeping with the existing conditions of the surrounding, mixeduse, and dense urban environment and would not further detract from the integrity of setting of any historical resource. As such, the eligibility of the three individual resources along El Bonito Avenue for listing in the Glendale Register would not be affected. Specific to the commenter’s concerns about a potential historic district, which would include these same three resources as contributors, the Project would not change the already altered integrity of setting such that the El Bonito Avenue resources would not qualify as eligible for listing in the Glendale Register.

Specific to a potential historic district along El Bonita Avenue, the sense of place related to the early community of Tropico would be characterized by the current streetscape along the north block face, which continues to evoke the sense of an early twentieth century neighborhood.

Beyond this block face, the altered character of the broader neighborhood is firmly apparent as the existing condition. As such, the Project would not alter the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood beyond the established baseline and the broader integrity of setting would remain unchanged from a current, altered state. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b), any nearby district or its surrounding environment would not be “materially impaired” by the project, thus resulting in less-than-significant impacts. The existing finding of “significant unavoidable impacts” to historical resources would remain. 1-21 The comment states that the Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would modify the environmental setting and result in loss of some character-defining features.

Response: The comment does not identify which character-defining features would be “lost.” The commenter presumes that some features of the house may be lost during the move. While November 2022 2-9 1642 South Central Avenue Project
311 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report this may actually occur, it is not a given. If character-defining features were to be lost, standard preservation practice that conforms with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation would allow for the repair or replacement of any features damaged or lost during in the relocation process. The setting of the original house, already altered by the addition of the garage and house at 1608 Gardena, would be altered in a different manner by the implementation of the Reduced Density Alternative. Accordingly, moving the 1642 South Central Avenue house several feet on the existing lot has to be examined within the existing context of the already altered setting and therefore it should not be presumed that a significant impact on the environmental setting, would occur.
1-22 The comment questions the dismissal of the Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative and discusses why the alternative would meet the project objectives.

Response: As indicated in Chapter 4 below, there are two residential units currently on site; both 1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardena Avenue contain one residential unit.

The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would retain the historic resource located at 1642 South Central Avenue in its existing location on the Project site and demolish the residence at 1608 Gardena Avenue and the existing garage. Therefore, one residential unit would remain, and an additional 12 residential units would be constructed. As noted in Section 4.6.3.2 Impacts of the Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative of the PR-DEIR, this alternative would not fulfill the project objectives to the same extent as the Project because 20 fewer new residential units would be built. This Alternative would also require restoration and preservation of the historic resource, and protection from any adverse impacts from construction of the new building.

Consequently, mitigation measures requiring construction monitoring would be required, as would the post-construction restoration and rehabilitation of the historic home pursuant to Secretary of Interior Standards.

Ultimately, it was concluded that the Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would eliminate the Project’s significant impact from demolition of the resource but would not avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts related to construction noise and vibration.

This alternative would achieve the project objectives to a lesser extent due to the reduced residential unit count.
1-23 The comment suggests that offsite relocation alternatives should have been more fully considered and that feasibility should not be limited to owning an alternative site or even being in proximity to the original location.

Response: As stated by the comment letter, to be feasible, an off-site alternative must be “possible for the project proponent to acquire.” The property must also be suitable and able to provide a location where the character defining features of the historic resource can be preserved to the highest degree possible. For 1642 South Central Avenue, the character-defining features are those associated with its historical significance as an example of both its Craftsman architecture under Criterion 3, as well as its associations with the early development of Tropico under Criterion 1. With regard to relocated properties, as outlined under the NRHP Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properties, removing significant buildings from their original location is inappropriate when buildings have significance associations with events, patterns of development, and individuals.

However, buildings that are significant for their architecture and design, relocation is seen as a more appropriate approach, although still not recommended. Therefore, while the suggestion that 1642 South Central Avenue could be relocated outside the historic boundaries of Tropico may be November 2022 2-10 1642 South Central Avenue Project
312 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report physically feasible, it is not appropriate or serve as feasible mitigation of significant impacts since the significance of the property is tied directly to its association with the city of Tropico. The relocation of the residence would result in a loss of historical integrity and its ability to convey its historical significance under Criterion 1. Although it may be able to convey significance under Criterion 3 as an excellent example of Craftsman architecture, the relocation of the building would still result in a significant and substantial adverse change to 1642 South Central Avenue.

Moreover, there are no suitable properties with proximity to the Project site or within a neighborhood with similar characteristics that are owned by the Project applicant or the City that might serve as a relocation site.
1-24 The comment restates the position that financial infeasibility of the relocation alternative was not adequately supported, and the proposed build alternatives have been demonstrated to satisfy the project objectives, therefore they must each be considered feasible.

Response: Please refer to the Response to Comment 1-23. There are no suitable properties with proximity to the Project site or within a neighborhood with similar characteristics that are owned by the Project applicant or the City that might serve as a relocation site. 1-25 The comment states that the proposed alternatives satisfy the project objectives and therefore, they must each be considered feasible.

Response: The Historic Preservation Commission will consider the information and alternatives presented in the Final EIR in their deliberations and decide whether to approve, modify, or deny the Project or aspects of the Project or Project Alternatives. 1-26 The comment questions the analysis area and requests comparison to other projects throughout the City involving demolition of a Craftsman-era residence, including timelines and other inventory information.

Response: The substance of this comment appears to be questioning the cumulative impact analysis is the Draft EIR for historic resource impacts. The cumulative impacts are defined in 14 Cal Code Regs §15355(b) as the incremental impact of the project added to other "closely related" past, present, and future projects. The CEQA Guidelines also refer to a cumulative impact as the combination of the project's impacts with those of other projects causing "related impacts" 14 Cal Code Regs §15130(a)(1). Cases that have examined the scope of an EIR's discussion of cumulative impacts have focused not on whether related projects are included, but instead on whether the discussion adequately identifies all projects causing related impacts in the area that will be affected by the project. The context for analyzing the cumulative impact of this Project should be on whether there are other Craftsman homes in the Tropico area that were, are or will be slated for demolition. Within that appropriate context, the impacts of the Project within the cumulative radius or vicinity of the Project site would not combine with impacts of the Project because none of the cumulative projects impact historical resources. As noted in Draft EIR Section 3.1.5 Cumulative Impacts, “the significance of 1642 South Central Avenue is not premised on it possessing an intact and cohesive visual or functional relationship with nearby properties. Likewise, and reciprocally, the significance of nearby offsite historical resources is not premised on their having an intact and cohesive visual or functional relationship with the Project site.”
Although the City has a Master List of Historic District and Glendale Register Properties, and the City prepared a 2007 Craftsman Survey in high-density multi-family zones (that is therefore not City-wide), the appropriate context for examining impacts, as noted above, is within the former November 2022 2-11 1642 South Central Avenue Project
313 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report City of Tropico area.3 The suggested more widespread analysis is outside the scope of the cumulative analysis required by CEQA and is therefore not implicated for this project-level EIR. 3 City of Glendale, 2022. “Historic Districts.” Available online at:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/historic-preservation/historic-districts November 2022 2-12 1642 South Central Avenue Project
314 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-13 1642 South Central Avenue Project
315 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-14 1642 South Central Avenue Project
316 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-15 1642 South Central Avenue Project
317 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-16 1642 South Central Avenue Project
318 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-17 1642 South Central Avenue Project
319 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-18 1642 South Central Avenue Project
320 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-19 1642 South Central Avenue Project
321 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-20 1642 South Central Avenue Project
322 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-21 1642 South Central Avenue Project
323 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-22 1642 South Central Avenue Project
324 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-23 1642 South Central Avenue Project
325 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report

2.3.2 Letter from the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, represented by Ronald Giang of Mitchel Tsai, dated April 22, 2022
2-1 This comment introduces the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC).

Response: The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required.
2-2 The comment requests they be provided with any and all notices referring or related to the Project per provisions of CEQA [California Public Resources Code §21092.2 and 21167(f)] and the California Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code 65092).

Response: As outlined in Section 1.4, Environmental Review Process, above, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(d) and 15088.5(f)(3), the City notified all responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and individuals that the Draft EIR and PR-DEIR had been completed and was available for public review and comment. Copies of all prior notices and environmental documents are also available on the City’s website:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/currentprojects/environmental-review. 2-3
2-4
2-5
The commenter suggests requiring the use of local hires that meet certain training requirements.

The comment discusses the local economic and environmental benefits of establishing these requirements.

Response: This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR.

No further response is required.

The commenter elaborates on the benefits of establishing skilled and trained workforce requirements by stating it would yield sustainable economic development and would result in emissions reduction.

Response: This comment does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR or PRDEIR. No further response is required.

The commenter elaborates on the potential environmental benefits of requiring local workers such as emissions reduction from the shortened vehicle tripes and increased likelihood of workers commuting via transit, walking, or bicycling. The commenter also connects local hire mandates and skill training as a strategy to ultimately reduce vehicle miles traveled.

Response: This comment makes a statement about local hires having an impact on VMTs, but it does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. 2-6 The commenter suggests “the Project be built to standards exceeding the current 2019 California Green Building Code” to further promote environmental benefits.

Response: The building would be built to exceed the 2019 California Green Building Code. City Ordinance No. 5937 adopted the 2019 California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) as Volume IA of the Glendale Building and Safety Code 2020 and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code as Volume IX of the Glendale Building and Safety Code 2020.

These City standards will be updated to reflect the 2022 California Building Standards Code, November 2022 2-24 1642 South Central Avenue Project
326 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report which go into effect on January 1, 2023. The 2022 Glendale Building & Safety Code and local implementation of Reach Codes will require all new buildings to be electrical (non-gas appliances), include solar PV, and electrical vehicle charging facilities which would exceed the 2019 California Green Building Code.
2-7
2-8
The comment discusses the purpose and objectives of CEQA. The comment also discusses CEQA’s information disclosure requirements and states the courts must only use relevant, adequate, and supported studies in their review, and that the studies or analysis offer varied positions of support toward the proposed project.

Response: This comment contains a generalized discussion of CEQA and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required.

The commenter discusses the purpose of an EIR to inform both government officials and the public of the potential environmental impacts of a project and provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the information.

Response: As outlined in Section 1.4, Public Participation and Public Decision-Making Process, above, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(d) and 15088.5(f)(3), the City notified all responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and individuals that the Draft EIR and PRDEIR had been completed and was available for public review and comment. This comment contains a generalized discussion of CEQA and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required. 2-9 The commenter expresses concern over the increased risk of community spread COVID-19 during construction of the project and believes this should be reflected in the mandatory finding of significance. The commenter recommends additional CEQA mitigation measures be implemented to reduce risk. The commenter also requests other safe construction site work practices and suggests specific requirements to establish related to construction site design, testing procedures, and planning.

Response: Public health risks related to the transmission of COVID-19 through construction work are not an environmental topic analyzed under the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations). CEQA Guidelines §15131 states that economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment, and analysis of these effects is not required in an EIR. Although this comment is noted, it does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required. 2-10 The commenter reiterates that all construction workers should be required to undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification.

Response: This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required.
2-11 The comment discusses prior litigation related to CEQA and the importance of providing evidence to support impact findings.

Response: This comment contains a generalized discussion of CEQA and does not specifically address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required.

November 2022 2-25 1642 South Central Avenue Project
327 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-12 The commenter states the Draft EIR omits information in its Noise Analysis, specifically the updated dBA that would result from the mitigation measures.

Response: The City prepared an updated Noise and Vibration Study (Appendix D) to correct and analyze the proximity to sensitive receptors. As discussed in the PR-DEIR Section 3.2.4, Impact Analysis, construction noise would be higher than the daytime ambient noise in the Project vicinity and exceed daytime construction thresholds. The average noise levels at the nearest noise-sensitive use, the single-family home to the south at 1616 Gardena Avenue, would range from 69 dBA Leq to 83 dBA Leq. These noise levels depend on construction phase and are based on an average distance of 85 feet from the center of construction activities on the Project site.

Therefore, the noise impacts would not exceed the 90 dBA Leq 1-hour construction noise level criteria established by the Federal Transit Administration for residential uses based on the average condition. However, when construction activities occur near the property line, noise levels could approach 104 dBA Leq and exceed construction noise level criteria.

The implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1 would reduce construction noise to the greatest extent feasible. As noted within Mitigation Measure M-NO-1, a 12-foot-high construction noise barrier would provide an approximately 12 dBA reduction to the closest residential receptors to the south. However, Impact NO-1, related to construction noise impacts, would remain significant and unavoidable.
2-13 The comment states the Draft EIR fails to include analysis for transportation, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions, specifically the negative impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions caused by the increase in traffic.

Response: Section C, Air Quality and Section H, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Initial Study prepared for the Project analyzed the potential impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions (Appendix B). The Project is within the South Coast Air Quality Management District and is consistent with the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with air quality standards attainment because the population growth associated with the Project is included in the projections used in the formulation of the AQMP. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2016.3.2) concluded the Project would not exceed air quality thresholds for construction, area, or operational impacts. Impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions would be less than significant.

At the time of preparation of the Initial Study in 2020, project impacts related to transportation were measured and analyzed using estimated vehicle trips and levels of service standard. The City had not yet adopted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a method of measuring transportation impacts as required by Senate Bill 743. The City published the Transportation Analysis Guidelines on October 30, 2020, a VMT analysis as part of transportation analysis and environmental review for development projects in the City.4 The City’s updated Transportation Analysis Guidelines specify that projects that generate fewer than 145 daily vehicle trips and/or are located in a high-quality transit area can be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis. A high-quality transit area is defined as a located within a half mile of an existing transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor. The Project would generate less than 50 vehicle trips during both the AM and PM peak periods (Appendix B). In addition, the Project site is located approximately 315 feet east of the City’s Larry Zarian Transportation Center. The existing transportation center is 4 City of Glendale, 2020. “Transportation Analysis Guidelines.” Available online at:
https://www.glendaleplan.com/transportation-guidelines
November 2022 2-26 1642 South Central Avenue Project
328 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report defined as a high-quality transit stop as it is an existing rail corridor that carries both passenger trains (Amtrak and Metrolink) and freight trains (Union Pacific Railroad, formerly known as Southern Pacific Lines). Therefore, given the limited number of vehicle trips and the adjacency to high-quality transit, the Project can be presumed to cause a less-than significant transportation impact and would not require a detailed VMT analysis.
2-14 The comment discusses the required preparation of a General Plan and consistency with the General Plan.

Response: This comment contains a generalized background of State Planning and Zoning Law and CEQA consistency; it does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR or PRDEIR. No further response is required. 2-15 The commenter argues the Draft EIR fails to analyze the Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan, City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment targets, Sustainable Community Strategy, and Regional Transportation Plan.

Response: Section K, Land Use and Planning, of the Initial Study analyzed the Project’s potential conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (Appendix B). The proposed Project is consistent with the existing zoning designation of Commercial/Residential Mixed Use (SFMU) and the General Plan designation of Mixed Use. Section N of the Initial Study, Population and Housing, analyzed the project’s consistency with the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and determined that development of the Project site would not induce direct or indirect substantial population growth.
2-16 The commenter concludes the argument by requesting that the City revise and recirculate the Draft EIR for public comment to address these concerns.

Response: As summarized in PR-DEIR Section 1.2, CEQA Standards for Recirculation of EIR, CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 establishes that a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after it is released for public review but before certification. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect.

Following the release of the Draft EIR from March 24, 2022, until April 22, 2022, new information was obtained regarding an occupied residence that is closer to the Project site than was assumed in the Draft EIR’s analysis of construction noise and vibration impacts. These new information and updated analysis met the CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 criteria concerning disclosure of a new significant environmental impact and substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. The updated analysis resulted in two significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction and vibration that were not identified in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the City determined that the revised portions of the Draft EIR related to noise and vibration would be recirculated for public comment.

November 2022 2-27 1642 South Central Avenue Project
329 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-28 1642 South Central Avenue Project
330 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-29 1642 South Central Avenue Project
331 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-30 1642 South Central Avenue Project
332 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-31 1642 South Central Avenue Project
333 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-32 1642 South Central Avenue Project
334 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-33 1642 South Central Avenue Project
335 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-34 1642 South Central Avenue Project
336 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-35 1642 South Central Avenue Project
337 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-36 1642 South Central Avenue Project
338 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-37 1642 South Central Avenue Project
339 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-38 1642 South Central Avenue Project
340 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-39 1642 South Central Avenue Project
341 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-40 1642 South Central Avenue Project
342 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 2-41 1642 South Central Avenue Project
343 of 638

2. Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank.

November 2022 2-42 1642 South Central Avenue Project
344 of 638
CHAPTER 3. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE

PARTIALLY RECIRCULATED DRAFT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

3.1 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTER 3
Chapter 3 of this Final EIR presents the comment letter on the PR-DEIR received during the public review period from August 15, 2022, to September 14, 2022, and it provides the City’s responses to those comments. The comment letter is numbered and the subjects within the comment letter are identified by brackets and numbers. The responses are numbered to correspond with the bracketed comments.

The PR-DEIR included three primary components:
(1) An introduction to recirculation of an EIR;
(2) The revised Chapter 3, Noise and Vibration Noise and Chapter 4, Alternatives in their entirety; and
(3) A revised Noise and Vibration Study (2022) (Appendix D).

3.2 ORGANIZATION AND TABLE OF COMMENT LETTERS
As shown in Table 3-1, Comment Letters Received on the PR-DEIR, the City received one public comment letter on the PR-DEIR.

Table 3-1. Comment Letters Received on the 1642 South Central Avenue Project PR-DEIR Agency/Entity/Individual Name of Commenter Date of Comment Letter No.

Attorneys for the Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Ronald Giang September 13, 2022 R-1

3.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

3.3.1 Letter from the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, represented by Ronald Giang of Mitchel Tsai, dated
September 13, 2022
R1-1 This comment introduces the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC).

Response: The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required.

R1-2 The commenter requests they be provided with any and all notices referring or related to the Project per provisions of CEQA [California Public Resources Code §21092.2 and 21167(f)] and the California Planning and Zoning Law (California Government Code 65092).

Response: As outlined in Section 1.4 Public Participation and Public Decision-Making Process above, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(d) and 15088.5(f)(3), the City notified all November 2022 3-1 1642 South Central Avenue Project
345 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report responsible and trustee agencies, interested groups, and individuals that the Draft EIR and Partially Recirculated Draft EIR (PR-DEIR) had been completed and was available for public review and comment. Copies of all prior notices and environmental documents are also available on the City’s website: https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/current-projects/environmental-review. Per the commenter’s request, the commenter was added to the list of persons and agencies to which any and all notices referring or related to the Project would be provided.

R1-3 The comment suggests requiring the use of local hires that meet certain training requirements.

The comment discusses the local economic and environmental benefits of establishing these requirements. The commenter elaborates on the benefits of establishing skilled and trained workforce requirements by stating it would yield sustainable economic development and would result in emissions reduction.

Response: The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the specific adequacy of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required.

R1-4 The commenter suggests requiring the use of local hires that meet certain training requirements.

The comment discusses the local economic and environmental benefits of establishing these requirements. The commenter elaborates on the benefits of establishing skilled and trained workforce requirements by stating it would yield sustainable economic development and would result in emissions reduction.

Response: The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the specific adequacy of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required.

R1-5 The commenter states the Project should be built to standards exceeding the current 2019 California Green Building Code to mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts.

Response: See Response to Comment 2-6.

R1-6 The comment discusses the background purpose and objectives of CEQA. The comment also discusses CEQA’s information disclosure requirements and states the courts must only use relevant, adequate, and supported studies in their review, and that the studies or analysis offer varied positions of support toward the proposed project.

Response: The comment is an introductory statement and does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required.

R1-7 The commenter expresses concern over the increased risk of community spread COVID-19 during construction of the project and believes this should be reflected in the mandatory finding of significance. The commenter recommends that additional CEQA mitigation measures be implemented to reduce risk. The commenter also requests other safe construction site work practices and suggests specific requirements to establish related to construction site design, testing procedures, and planning.

Response: Public health risks related to the transmission of COVID-19 through construction work are not an environmental topic analyzed under the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations). CEQA Guidelines §15131 states that economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment, and analysis of these effects is not required in an EIR. Although this comment is noted, it does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required.

November 2022 3-2 1642 South Central Avenue Project
346 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report R1-8 The commenter reiterates that all construction workers should be required to undergo COVID-19 Training and Certification before working on project construction.

Response: Public health risks related to the transmission of COVID-19 through construction work are not an environmental topic analyzed under the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations). Although this comment is noted, it does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required.

R1-9 The comment states the PR-DEIR fails to support its findings with substantial evidence and notes “a determination that regulatory compliance will be sufficient to prevent significant adverse impacts must be based on a project-specific analysis of potential impacts and the effect of regulatory compliance.”
Response: This comment contains a generalized discussion of CEQA and does not state which section of the PR-DEIR fails to support its findings with substantial evidence. No further response is required.

R1-10 The comment states the Draft EIR failed to analyze transportation impacts and that the “CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3(b) require analysis of a Project’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) impacts as part of the environmental document’s transportation impacts analysis.” Response: Please refer to Comment 2-13 for further information related to the transportation analysis.

R1-11 The comment discusses the required preparation of a General Plan and consistency with the General Plan.

Response: This comment contains a generalized discussion of CEQA and does not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR or PR-DEIR. No further response is required.

R1-12 The commenter argues the Draft EIR fails to analyze the Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan, City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment targets, Sustainable Community Strategy, and Regional Transportation Plan.

Response: Please refer to Comment 2-15 for further information related to Project consistency with the General Plan and with regional land use plans.

R1-13 The commenter concludes the argument by requesting the City revise and recirculate the Draft EIR for public comment to address these concerns.

Response: As outlined in Section 1.4 Public Participation and Public Decision-Making Process above, CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 establishes that a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after it is released for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes the following:

1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

November 2022 3-3 1642 South Central Avenue Project
347 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.

4. The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v.

Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043)
The concerns expressed in the comment letter are addressed in the responses to comments and do not include significant new information requiring recirculation.

November 2022 3-4 1642 South Central Avenue Project
348 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 3-5 1642 South Central Avenue Project
349 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 3-6 1642 South Central Avenue Project
350 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 3-7 1642 South Central Avenue Project
351 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 3-8 1642 South Central Avenue Project
352 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 3-9 1642 South Central Avenue Project
353 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 3-10 1642 South Central Avenue Project
354 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 3-11 1642 South Central Avenue Project
355 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 3-12 1642 South Central Avenue Project
356 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 3-13 1642 South Central Avenue Project
357 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 3-14 1642 South Central Avenue Project
358 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 3-15 1642 South Central Avenue Project
359 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 3-16 1642 South Central Avenue Project
360 of 638

3. Responses to Comments on the Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report November 2022 3-17 1642 South Central Avenue Project
361 of 638
CHAPTER 4. REVISIONS TO DRAFT EIR AND PR-DEIR
In accordance with §15132(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this section of the Final EIR provides changes to the non-recirculated portions of the Draft EIR and PR-DEIR that have been made to clarify, correct, or supplement the environmental impact analysis for the Project. These changes represent additional information or revisions that do not significantly alter the proposed project, change the significance conclusions, or result in a conclusion that significantly more severe environmental impacts will result from the proposed Project.

Changes are identified below by the corresponding Draft EIR or PR-DEIR section and subsection, if applicable, and the page number. Additions are underlined, and deletions are shown in strikethrough format.

4.1 SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
The follow revision has been incorporated on page 1-1 of the Draft EIR.

The Project site is zoned SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and developed with two residential buildings (1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardena Avenue) and a detached garage.

Although previously converted to a duplex, the building at 1642 South Central Avenue is currently a single-family home.

4.2 SECTION 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The follow revision has been incorporated on page 2-5 of the Draft EIR.

The Project proposes to the demolish the two existing residential buildings dwellings and accessory building (garage) on the Project site and construct a new 40,240-square-foot, five-story building with 31 units of rental housing and a one-level subterranean garage.

4.3 SECTION 3.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The follow revision has been incorporated on page 3.1-14 of the Draft EIR.

Based on the construction of the residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue, The period of significance for 1642 South Central Avenue under GR Criterion 1 and 3 the property is therefore determined to be 1913, which corresponds to the building’s construction as a Craftsman style residence and its relationship with the development of the city of Tropico.

Related to the discussion of a potential El Bonito Historic District, the following revisions have been incorporated in the Historic District Consideration section on page 3.1-21 of the Draft EIR.

The project site is not within a designated historic district, a potential historic district or planning area identified by the 2019 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey (Survey).5 A few properties Three properties in the area, 343 El Bonito Avenue (built in 1912), 331 El Bonito (built in 1912), and 335 El Bonito Avenue (built in 1913), were all identified eligible for local listing or designation, receiving 5S3 designations. the overall neighborhood is too altered for consideration as a cohesive historic 5 Historic Resources Group (HRG), City of Glendale, South Glendale Historic Context Statement, prepared for the City of Glendale Planning Division, 2019.

November 2022 4-1 1642 South Central Avenue Project
362 of 638

4. Revisions to EIR
district The Survey specifically examined Potential Historic Districts and Planning Areas as well as individual buildings, and this El Bonito area was not identified as one of them. The Survey identified several potential historic districts: East Doran Street, Carr Drive/Broadway, Garfield/Windsor, Roads End, Columbia Drive, and a proposed extension to the existing Cottage Grove Historic District.

The collection of the three individually eligible 331, 335, and 343 El Bonito Avenue – all located on the north block face along with 339 El Bonito Avenue, are not within the Survey’s identified potential historic district or planning areas, and none of the property owners have requested initiation of an historic district. Accordingly, it is not therefore reasonably foreseeable that this area is or would be a future historic district. However, potential impacts to the three buildings as individually eligible resources are taken into consideration.

Supplemental analysis related to the adjacent historical resources has been incorporated into the Impact CR-1 section on Page 3.1-21 to 3.1-22 of the Draft EIR:

There is no evidence the Project would significantly impact the properties located at 331, 343, 335 El Bonito. The immediate setting of Project consists of a mix of single and multifamily residential buildings, light industrial, and commercial buildings, as well as the Larry Zarian Transit Center and its expansive surface parking lots. With the existing conditions of the dynamic and urban setting of the surrounding neighborhood as a baseline, the Project will not alter the immediate setting of these El Bonito residences, nor would the Project materially impair the eligibility or historicity of the El Bonito buildings. Therefore, the Project would not affect the eligibility for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources of the three residences at 331, 343, 335 El Bonito Avenue, resulting in less-than-significant impacts. However, an overall finding of significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources would remain with the demolition of 1642 South Central Avenue.

November 2022 4-2 1642 South Central Avenue Project
363 of 638
CHAPTER 5. REPORT PREPARERS

5.1 LEAD AGENCY
Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Glendale 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103
Glendale, CA 91206
Deputy Director of Community Development Erik Krause
Senior Planner Dennis Joe
Principal Urban Designer Jay Platt
Chief Assistant City Attorney Gillian van Muyden

5.2 CONSULTANTS
SWCA Environmental Consultants
51 West Dayton Street
Pasadena, CA 91105
Project Manager Ian Todd, AICP
Project Planner Kara Laurenson-Wright
Architectural Historian Dan Herrick
Architectural Historian Stephanie Cimino
Noise Carlos M. Ituarte-Villarreal
GIS Analyst Anna Belk
Technical Editor Heidi Orcutt-Gachiri
November 2022 5-1 1642 South Central Avenue Project
364 of 638
1642 South Central Avenue Project
Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
NOVEMBER 2022

PREPARED FOR
City of Glendale

PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
365 of 638
CHAPTER 1. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Where a CEQA document has identified significant environmental effects, Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires adoption of a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of a project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.”
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required for the 1642 South Central Avenue Project (Project), as set forth in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The City of Glendale (City) is the Lead Agency that must adopt the MMRP for development and operation of the project. This report will be kept on file with the City of Glendale Community Development Department, East Broadway, Glendale, California.

The CEQA Statutes and Guidelines provide direction for clarifying and managing the complex relationships between a Lead Agency and other agencies with implementing and monitoring mitigation measures. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(d), “each agency has the discretion to choose its own approach to monitoring or reporting; and each agency has its own special expertise.” This discretion will be exercised by implementing agencies at the time they undertake any of portion of the project, as identified in the MND.

1.2 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
The intent of the MMRP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures. Additionally, for the purposes of public disclosure and to assist in monitoring compliance, the MMRP identifies actions necessary to comply with relevant regulatory requirements discussed in the MND. The MMRP is intended to be used by City staff and others responsible for project implementation.

A lead agency may rely on compliance with applicable laws and regulations in determining that a proposed project will result in a less than significant impact. (See San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 49, 525 [holding the City properly relied on compliance with building codes and related regulations in determining the proposed project would not result in potential safety hazards].) As a standard condition of approval, the City requires applicants comply with federal and state laws and regulations as well as standard City requirements that are applicable to a proposed project.

The timing is the point(s) at which the mitigation measure/standard/regulatory requirement must be monitored for compliance. In many cases, the first step in compliance will be to initiate compliance with the subject mitigation measure/standard/regulatory requirement.

1.3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The project applicant is responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing the mitigation measures, standards, regulatory requirements contained within the MMRP, as directed by the City.

The City is responsible for overall administration and enforcement of the MMRP.

November 2022 1-1 1642 South Central Avenue Project
366 of 638
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

1.4 CHANGES TO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
Any substantive change in the MMRP shall be reported in writing. Modifications to the requirements of the MMRP may be made by the City subject to one of the following findings, documented by evidence included in the public record:
 The requirement included in the adopted MND and the MMRP is no longer required because the significant environmental impact identified in the IS/MND has been found not to exist, or to occur at a level which makes the impact less than significant as a result of changes in the project, changes in environment conditions, or other factors;
OR,



The modified or substitute mitigation measure provides a level of environmental protection equal to, or greater than that afforded by the mitigation measure included in the IS/MND and the MMRP; and,
The modified or substitute mitigation measure or measures do not have significant adverse effects on the environment in addition to, or greater than those which were considered by the responsible hearing bodies in their decisions on the IS/MND and the proposed project; and, The modified or substitute mitigation measures are feasible, and the City or, where applicable, other public agencies, through measures included in the MMRP or applicable regulations, can ensure implementation.

Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation measures, including a determination whether further environmental review is required (see CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162-15164), shall be maintained in the project file with this MMRP and shall be made available to the public upon request.

November 2022 1-2 1642 South Central Avenue Project
367 of 638
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table Schedule and
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Measures
Adopted as Conditions of Approval
Responsibility for Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting
Implementation Schedule Responsibility
Section 3.1, Cultural Resources (Historic Architectural Resources) Mitigation Measure M-CR-1: Documentation of Historical Resource Project applicant and qualified
architectural
historian
Prior to issuance of City of Glendale
demolition permits
for construction
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the Project applicant shall undertake Historic American Building/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABS/HALS) documentation of the building features. The documentation shall be undertaken by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History, History, or Architecture (as appropriate) to prepare written and photographic documentation of 1642 South Central Avenue. The specific scope of the documentation shall be reviewed and approved by City staff but shall include the following elements:

Date: _______
Initials: _______
Date: _______
Measured Drawings. A set of measured drawings shall be prepared that depict the existing size, scale, and dimension of the historic resource. The Project applicant shall submit original architectural drawings or an as-built set of architectural drawings (e.g., plans, sections, elevations). City staff will assist the consultant in determining the appropriate level of measured drawings.

Initials: _______
Historic American Buildings/Historic American Landscape Survey-Level Photographs. Either Historic American Buildings/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABS/HALS) standard large-format or digital photography shall be used. The scope of the digital photographs shall be reviewed by City staff for concurrence, and all digital photography shall be conducted according to the latest National Park Service (NPS) standards. The photography shall be undertaken by a qualified professional with demonstrated experience in HABS/HALS photography. Photograph views for the data set shall include contextual views; views of each side of the building and interior views, including any original interior features, where possible; oblique views of the building; and detail views of character-defining features.

All views shall be referenced on a photographic key. This photographic key shall be on a map of the property and shall show the photograph number with an arrow to indicate the direction of the view. Historic photographs shall also be collected, reproduced, and included in the data set.

The Project applicant shall transmit such documentation to the Glendale Public Library, the Glendale Historical Society, the Community Development Department, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The HABS/HALS documentation scope will determine the requested documentation type for the Project site and the Project applicant will conduct outreach to identify other interested groups. All documentation will be reviewed and approved by City staff before any demolition or site permit is granted for the affected historical resources.

November 2022 1-3 1642 South Central Avenue Project
368 of 638
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Schedule and
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Measures
Adopted as Conditions of Approval
Responsibility for Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting
Implementation Schedule Responsibility
Section 3.2, Noise and Vibration
Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control Project Applicant and their
construction
contractor
Prior to issuance of City of Glendale
demolition permits
for construction Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:

Date: _______
Initials: _______



Grading and construction contractors shall use equipment that generates lower vibration levels, such as rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment.

Construction haul truck and materials delivery traffic shall avoid Local Streets and Urban and Community and Neighborhood Collectors as defined in the city’s Circulation Element residential areas whenever feasible.

The construction contractor shall place noise- and vibration-generating construction equipment, with exception of equipment needed to complete shoring activities associated with the construction of the subterranean garage, away from sensitive uses. All and located construction staging areas shall be located away from sensitive uses. whenever feasible.


The construction contractor shall only use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators where feasible.

The construction contractor shall ensure that a minimum 12-foot-high barrier, such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains, shall be erected between on the proposed project site and adjacent to the sensitive receptors to minimize the amount of noise during construction. A 12-foot-high construction noise barrier would provide approximately 12 dBA reduction to the closest residential receptors to the south.

All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for the “noise disturbance coordinator.

November 2022 1-4 1642 South Central Avenue Project
369 of 638
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Schedule and
Verification of
Compliance
Mitigation Measures
Adopted as Conditions of Approval
Responsibility for Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting
Implementation Schedule Responsibility
Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control Project Applicant and their
construction
contractor
Prior to issuance of City of Glendale
demolition permits
for construction Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:

Date:_______
Initials: _______  Maintaining Buffer Distances. Maintain a safe distance between the operation of vibration generating construction equipment and the potentially affected building and/or structure to avoid damage to the extent possible as presented in Table I, based on site constraints; and


Alternative Construction Equipment. To the extent feasible, tThe construction contractor shall use alternative construction techniques or equipment, such as hand excavation to avoid or reduce unnecessary construction vibration.

Prepare a Monitoring Plan. The property owner shall undertake a monitoring program to avoid or reduce project-related construction vibration damage to adjacent buildings and/or structures and to ensure that any such damage is documented and repaired. The monitoring program shall apply to all potentially affected buildings and/or structures adjacent to the project site. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit, the property owner shall submit the construction vibration monitoring plan to the City for approval. The monitoring plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components, as applicable:
o Vibration Analysis Refinement. Once the specific construction equipment list becomes available, potential vibration damage distance contours shall be refined.
o Vibration Monitoring. To ensure that construction vibration levels do not exceed the established standard, an acoustical consultant shall monitor vibration levels at each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties when heavy construction occurs in close proximity.

Based on direction from the acoustical consultant, vibratory construction activities that generate vibration levels in excess of the standard shall be prohibited.
o Alternative Construction Techniques. Should construction vibration levels be observed in excess of the established standard, the contractor(s) shall halt construction and put alternative construction techniques into practice, to the extent feasible.

Following incorporation of the alternative construction techniques, vibration monitoring shall recommence to ensure that vibration levels at each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties are not exceeded.

November 2022 1-5 1642 South Central Avenue Project
370 of 638
1642 South Central Avenue Project
Partially Recirculated
Draft Environmental Impact Report
(SCH# 2021060219)
AUGUST 2022

PREPARED FOR
City of Glendale

PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
371 of 638

CONTENTS
Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background and Purpose of This Document............................................................................. 1

1.1.1 Proposed Project Summary ............................................................................................. 1

1.2 CEQA Standards for Recirculation of EIR ............................................................................... 1

1.2.1 1.2.2
Overview of Recirculation............................................................................................... 1 Basis for Partial Recirculation of the 1642 South Central Avenue Draft EIR................. 2

1.3 1.4
Summary of Revisions to Draft EIR ......................................................................................... 2 Recirculated Draft EIR Process................................................................................................. 3

1.4.1 1.4.2

1.4.3 Public Review Process..................................................................................................... 3 Limitation on Public Comments...................................................................................... 3 Final EIR ......................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 3. Environmental Impact Analysis........................................................................................ 5

3.2 Noise and Vibration................................................................................................................... 5

3.2.1 3.2.2

3.2.3 3.2.4

3.2.5 Environmental Setting..................................................................................................... 5 Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 9 Regulatory Framework.................................................................................................. 13 Impact Analysis............................................................................................................. 17 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................... 24

1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................................................................... 25 Chapter 4. Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 29 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 29 Alternatives Selection.............................................................................................................. 29 Requirements for Alternatives Analysis.................................................................................. 29 Project Objectives.................................................................................................................... 30 Summary of Significant Impacts............................................................................................. 31

4.1 4.2

4.3 4.4

4.5 4.5.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts............................................................................ 31

4.6 Selection and Analysis of Alternatives.................................................................................... 32

4.6.1 4.6.2

4.6.3 4.6.4
No Project Alternative................................................................................................... 32 Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative........................................................ 32 Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative......................................................... 34 Alternative Considered but Rejected............................................................................. 35

4.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative .................................................................................... 35 Figures
Figure 3.2.1. Long-term Noise Level Measurement Locations. ................................................................. 12 1642 South Central Avenue Project ii August 2022
372 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
Tables
Table 3.2.1. Representative Environmental Noise Levels ............................................................................ 6 Table 3.2.2. Definitions of Acoustical Terms............................................................................................... 7 Table 3.2.3. Summary of Long-Term Noise Level Measurements............................................................. 11 Table 3.2.4 FTA General Assessment Construction Noise Impact Criteria ............................................... 13 Table 3.2.5 FTA Vibration Threshold Guidelines for Potential Damage to Structures.............................. 14 Table 3.2.6. Indoor FTA Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria ............................................................. 14 Table 3.2.7 City of Glendale Interior and Exterior Noise Standards.......................................................... 15 Table 3.2.8 City of Glendale Municipal Code Exterior and Interior Noise Standards ............................... 16 Table 3.2.9 Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels (Lmax)......................................... 18 Table 3.2.10: Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Surrounding Residences....................................... 19 Table 3.2.11. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment.......................................................... 21 Table 3.2.12 Summary of Construction Vibration Levels .......................................................................... 22 Table 1.1. Summary of Project Impacts Identified in the PR-DEIR........................................................... 26 Appendices
Appendix D: Noise and Vibration Study, prepared by LSA, July 2022. 1642 South Central Avenue Project iii August 2022
373 of 638
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
On March 24, 2022, the City of Glendale (City) released the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 1642 South Central Avenue Project (Draft EIR). The Draft EIR evaluated the environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed residential building. The Draft EIR public review period ended on April 22, 2022.

Two comments were received by the City during the public comment period. The comments brought new information to the attention of the Project proponent and City and raised questions about the analysis of construction noise and vibration impacts in the Draft EIR. In response, the City has prepared a Partially Recirculated Draft EIR (PR-DEIR) in order to provide revised analysis of the impacts of construction noise and vibration in response to the new information in the comments. The PR-DEIR replaces Section

3.2 Noise and Vibration of the Draft EIR. The revised noise and vibration information is being recirculated for public comment pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

1.1.1 Proposed Project Summary
The Project site is located at 1642 South Central Avenue, within the Tropico neighborhood of the City of Glendale (APN 5640-029-014). The Project site is a 0.23-acre rectangular parcel and is bounded to the north by South Central Avenue, to the west by Gardena Avenue, to the east by an industrial building constructed in 1985, and to the south by a single-family residence constructed in 1947.

The Project site is zoned SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and developed with two residential buildings (1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardena Avenue) and a detached garage. The residence located at 1642 South Central Avenue was constructed in 1913, and a second residence located on the same lot but with the address of 1608 Gardena Avenue was constructed in 1920. The Project would demolish both residential dwelling units and the garage and construct a new 40,240-square-foot, fivestory, 31-unit, rental housing building. Parking would be provided in a 16-space one-level subterranean garage. Per Government Code Section 65915 and Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.36 (Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance), three of the residential units would be reserved for very low-income households.

1.2 CEQA STANDARDS FOR RECIRCULATION OF EIR

1.2.1 Overview of Recirculation
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 establishes that a lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after it is released for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. “Recirculation” simply means that the public is provided an opportunity to comment on the new or revised sections of the EIR.

As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes the following:
1642 South Central Avenue Project 1 August 2022
374 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis

1. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.

4. The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043)

1.2.2 Basis for Partial Recirculation of the 1642 South Central Avenue Draft EIR
Following the release of the Draft EIR, new information was obtained regarding an occupied residence that is closer to the Project site than was assumed in the Draft EIR’s analysis of construction noise and vibration impacts. Using this new information, the analysis of construction noise and vibration impacts shows different results compared to those presented in the Draft EIR, including two new significant impacts not identified in the Draft EIR. These changes were determined to meet the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 criteria concerning disclosure of a new significant environmental impact and substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Therefore, the City determined that the portions of the Draft EIR related to noise and vibration should be revised and the partial revision to the Draft EIR should be recirculated for public comment.

1.3 SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO DRAFT EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(g) requires that the PR-DEIR summarize the revisions made to the previously circulated Draft EIR.

This PR-DEIR includes revisions to Section 3.2 Noise and Vibration, Chapter 4 Alternatives, and the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program of the Draft EIR, which are affected by the changes made in the updated Noise and Vibration Study Report (Appendix D). These revisions are introduced in Chapter 1 of this PR-DEIR and are provided as Section 3.2 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 4 Alternatives, to follow the document numbering convention of the Draft EIR. Revised Section 3.2 Noise and Vibration and Chapter 4 Alternatives replace the corresponding sections of the Draft EIR in its entirety. In addition, updates to Section 1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures are presented after Section 3.2 Noise and Vibration. Appendix D has been replaced with the updated Noise and Vibration Study Report (2022).

No additional changes are made to the following chapters of the Draft EIR: Chapter 1 Introduction, Chapter 2 Project Description, Chapter 3.1 Cultural Resources, Chapter 5 Cumulative Impact Analysis, and Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations. Therefore, these sections have not been reproduced in this PR-DEIR.
1642 South Central Avenue Project 2 August 2022
375 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis

1.4 RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR PROCESS

1.4.1 Public Review Process
This PR-DEIR was published on August 15, 2022 and will be subject to review and comment by the public, as well as all responsible agencies and other interested parties, agencies, and organizations, for a period of 30 days. The public comment period will run from August 15, 2022 to September 14, 2022.

Comments on the PR-DEIR should be submitted to:

Attention: Dennis Joe, Senior Planner
City of Glendale
Community Development Department, Planning Division
633 East Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, California 91206
Email: [email protected]
The PR-DEIR is available for viewing or downloading at the Planning Department website, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/currentprojects/environmental-review. Due to COVID-19 pandemic limitations, in-person viewing opportunities at the Community Development Department office are available only by appointment.

1.4.2 Limitation on Public Comments
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(2) establishes that:

When the EIR is revised only in part and the lead agency is recirculating only the revised chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency may request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised chapters or portions. The lead agency need only respond to
(i) comments received during the initial circulation period that relate to chapters or portions of the document that were not revised and recirculated, and
(ii) comments received during the recirculation period that relate to the chapters or portions of the earlier EIR that were revised and recirculated.

The lead agency’s request that reviewers limit the scope of their comments shall be included either within the text of the revised DEIR or by an attachment to the revised DEIR.

Based on this statutory directive, the City requests that commenters limit their written comments to the new information regarding noise and vibration presented in this PR-DEIR.

1.4.3 Final EIR
When the public comment period for this PR-DEIR concludes on September 14, 2022, the City will prepare written responses to the comments received on both the Draft EIR and the PR-DEIR. The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR, the PR-DEIR, comments received on both the Draft EIR and PR-DEIR, and the responses to those comments.
1642 South Central Avenue Project 3 August 2022
376 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
As part of the City’s demolition clearance and design review process involving historical resources, the Final EIR will be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission in a publicly noticed meeting, and then certified as a Final EIR, if deemed adequate. The Historic Preservation Commission will consider the information in the Final EIR in their deliberations on whether to approve, modify, or deny the Project or aspects of the Project. If the Historic Preservation Commission approves the Project, their approval action must include findings that identify significant Project-related impacts that would result from the Project; discuss mitigation measures or alternatives that have been adopted to reduce significant impacts to lessthan-significant levels; and explain reasons for rejecting mitigation measures or alternatives if any are infeasible for legal, social, economic, technological, or other reasons.

The Historic Preservation Commission must also adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) as part of the adoption of the CEQA findings and project approvals. The MMRP identifies the measures included in the Project or imposed by the decision-makers as conditions of approval, the entities responsible for carrying out the measures, and the timing of implementation. If significant unavoidable impacts would remain after all feasible mitigation measures are implemented, the approving body, if it elects to approve the Project, must adopt a statement of overriding considerations that makes factual findings and determinations concerning how the Project benefits would outweigh the significant environmental impacts.
1642 South Central Avenue Project 4 August 2022
377 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

3.2 NOISE AND VIBRATION
This updated Noise and Vibration section describes the existing noise environment in the Project vicinity; evaluates the potential for construction-related and operational noise and vibration impacts associated with implementation of the Project to adversely affect sensitive land uses; and identifies mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential adverse impacts.

The analysis is based on long-term noise measurements at the Project site and review of applicable federal, state, and local noise-related regulations and standards. Noise calculations were prepared to quantitatively assess the noise increases that would be attributable to the Project. A Noise and Vibration Study was prepared for the Project; the updated study (2022) is shown in Appendix D.

3.2.1 Environmental Setting
This subsection introduces the key concepts and terms that are used in the evaluation of noise and describes the existing noise environment of the Project area.

3.2.1.1 Measurement of Sound
Sound pressure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise is sometimes defined as unwanted sound, and the terms “noise” and “sound” are used more or less interchangeably in this analysis. The human ear responds to a very wide range of sound intensities. The dB scale used to describe sound is a logarithmic rating system which accounts for the large differences in audible sound intensities.

When addressing the effects of noise on people, it is necessary to consider the frequency response of the human ear, or those frequencies that people hear the best. Noise-measuring instruments are therefore often designed to “weight” noises based on the way people hear. The frequency weighting most often used to evaluate environmental noise is “A weighting” because it best reflects how humans perceive noise. Measurements from instruments using this system, and associated noise levels, are reported in “A weighted decibels,” or dBA. Using this scale, a change in noise level of 3 dBA is perceived as barely perceptible, 5 dBA is perceived as readily perceptible, and 10 dBA is perceived as a doubling or halving of noise loudness.1 Therefore, a 70-dB sound level will sound about twice as loud as a 60-dB sound level.

People generally cannot detect differences of 1 to 2 dB in a complex acoustical environment.

A 5-dBA change is also required before any noticeable change in community response is expected.2 On this scale, a doubling of sound-generating activity (i.e., a doubling of the sound energy) causes a 3-dB increase in average sound produced by that source, not a doubling of the perceived loudness of the sound (which requires a 10-dB increase). For example, if existing traffic on a road is causing a 60-dB sound level at a nearby location, a doubling of the number of vehicles on this same road would cause the sound level at this same location to increase to 63 dB, i.e., a noise level change that is barely perceptible to most people.
1 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013, pp. 2-43 to 2-46 and Table 2-10, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/ programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf, accessed May 5, 2021. 2 Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Acoustics – Architecture, Engineering, the Environment, 1998, p. 63. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 5 August 2022
378 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
For any noise source, several factors affect the efficiency of noise transmission traveling from the source, which in turn affects the potential noise impact at offsite locations. Important factors include distance from the source, frequency of the noise, absorbency and roughness of the intervening ground (or water) surface, the presence or absence of obstructions and their absorbency or reflectivity, and the duration of the noise. Noise transmission is further discussed under “Attenuation of Noise.” Table 3.2.1 presents typical noise levels of some familiar noise sources and activities.

Table 3.2.1. Representative Environmental Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 100 feet
100
90 Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet
Diesel Truck going 50 mph at 50 feet Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noise Urban Area during Daytime
Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet
Commercial Area
70 60
Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Normal Speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet
Large Business Office
Quiet Urban Area during Daytime
Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime
Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime
50 40
Dishwasher in Next Room
Theater, Large Conference Room (background)
30 20
Library
Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) Broadcast/Recording Studio
10 0
Source: California Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013, p. 2-20.

Although a measured A-weighted noise level will adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, noise levels in populated communities typically vary by time. Several noise descriptors have been developed to characterize community noise by the total acoustical energy content of the noise over defined periods of time or by characterizing the loudest noise levels over a given time interval. Table 3.2.2 describes other noise metrics and terms used in this analysis. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 6 August 2022
379 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3.2.2. Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definition
Ambient Noise Level The all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time; usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant.

Decibel (dB) A unit of measurement that denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio.

A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter deemphasizes the very low- and very high-frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. (All sound levels in this report are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise.)
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level, Leq The equivalent sound level is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given sample period. An Leq is a single number representing the level of a constant sound containing the same amount of sound energy as the varying sound levels over a specific period. Thus, the Leq is the “energy average” noise level for the measurement time interval.

Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 5 dBA to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

ATTENUATION OF NOISE
Noise levels attenuate (decrease) with distance from the source. Transportation noise sources tend to be arranged linearly, such that roadway traffic attenuates at a rate of 3 to 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source. Point sources of noise, including stationary, fixed, and idle mobile sources, like idling vehicles or construction equipment, can attenuate at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source. The 1.5-dBA variation in attenuation rates for these two noise sources can result from groundabsorption effects, which occur as sound travels over soft surfaces such as soft earth or vegetation versus hard ground such as pavement or very hard-packed earth.3, 4 Meaningful reductions or attenuation of noise levels can also be accomplished by “shielding” a noise source or providing a barrier, which may be in the form of an intervening structure or terrain, between the source and receptor.5 With respect to the transmission of exterior noise to interior environments, noise attenuation effectiveness depends on exterior wall insulation, a window’s sound transmission class rating, and whether windows are closed or open. Sound transmission class ratings indicate how well wall, ceiling, floor, door, and 3 Caltrans, Division of Environmental Analysis, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013, pp. 2-27 to 2-28, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tenssep2013-a11y.pdf, accessed November 6, 2020. 4 U.S. Housing and Urban Development, The Noise Guidebook, 1985, p. 24, https://www.hudexchange.info/onecpd/assets/File/Noise-Guidebook-Chapter-4.pdf, accessed November 6, 2020. 5 Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, January 2006, Appendix A, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf, accessed November 6, 2020. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 7 August 2022
380 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
window assemblies attenuate airborne sound. Generally, the higher the sound transmission class rating, the more sound is attenuated.6

EFFECTS OF NOISE ON PEOPLE
Exposure to prolonged high noise levels has been found to have effects on human health, including physiological and psychological effects to humans.7 Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA.8 Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear, even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling.

As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear (the threshold of pain). A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium.

The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and is generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas. The human perception of noise level increases can be described in three categories:
 Inaudible/Not Perceptible: Changes in noise levels of less than 1 dB are inaudible to the human ear and often referred to as not perceptible.
 Potentially Audible/Barely Perceptible: A potentially audible impact refers to a 1 to 3 dB change in noise levels. This range of noise levels has been found to be noticeable in low-noise environments.
 Audible/Readily Perceptible: An audible impact refers to a noticeable increase in noise for humans. Audible increases in noise levels generally refer to a change of 3 dB or greater because this level has been found to be readily perceptible in exterior environments. For reference, a 10 dB increase is experienced by humans as a doubling of sound or perceived to be twice as loud.

Only readily perceptible changes in existing ambient or background noise levels are considered potentially significant.

3.2.1.2 Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration
Equipment that creates blows or impacts on the ground surface produces vibrational waves, called groundborne vibration, that radiate along the surface of the earth and downward into the earth, potentially resulting in effects that range from annoyance to structural damage. As vibrations travel outward from the source, they excite the particles of rock and soil through which they pass and cause them to oscillate by a few ten-thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch. Differences in subsurface geologic conditions and distance from the source of vibration will result in different vibration levels characterized by different frequencies and intensities. Vibration levels decrease with increasing distance. The maximum rate or 6 There is not a straightforward linear relationship between increasing STC and a reduction in exterior-to-interior noise because the amount of reduction varies considerably with the frequency range of noise. 7 World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise, Chapter 3, pp. 24-26, April 1999, http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/66217/1/a68672.pdf, accessed May 5, 2021. 8 Appendix D.
1642 South Central Avenue Project 8 August 2022
381 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
velocity of particle movement is the commonly accepted descriptor of the vibration “strength.” This is referred to as the peak particle velocity (PPV) and is typically measured in inches per second.

Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish with distance away from the source. When vibration encounters a building, the transfer of vibration from ground to the building foundation (referred to as “ground-to-foundation coupling”) will usually reduce the overall vibration level; however, under certain circumstances, the ground-to-foundation coupling may also amplify the vibration level due to structural resonances of the floors and walls. High levels of vibration can damage fragile buildings or interfere with the operation of sensitive equipment. Depending on the age of the structure and type of vibration (transient, continuous, or frequent intermittent sources), vibration levels as low as 0.5 to 2.0 inches per second PPV (in/sec PPV) can damage a structure.

EFFECTS OF GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION ON PEOPLE
Human response to vibration is difficult to quantify. Vibration can be felt or heard well below a level that would result in damage to a structure. Except for long-term occupational exposure, vibration levels rarely affect human health. Instead, most people consider vibration to be an annoyance that can affect concentration or disturb sleep. People may tolerate infrequent, short-duration vibration levels, but human annoyance to vibration becomes more pronounced if the vibration is continuous or occurs frequently.

Human response to vibration often is described as the root-mean-square (RMS) velocity level and is denoted in the decibel scale, or VdB. The typical background level in residential areas is about 50 VdB, and most people cannot detect levels below about 65 VdB, and generally do not consider levels below 70 VdB, or approximately 0.1 PPV, to be an annoyance.9 However, the duration of a vibration event has an effect on human response, as does its frequency. Generally, as the duration of a vibration event increases, the potential for adverse human response increases, particularly if the vibration event disturbs sleep. In addition, while people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration.

3.2.2 Existing Conditions

3.2.2.1 Noise Environment
This section describes the existing noise environment in the Project site vicinity. Noise monitoring was used to quantify existing noise levels at the Project site. In the City, vehicle traffic is the primary source of noise. Other significant local noise sources include train pass-bys and station operations, airport noise, industrial noise, and mechanical equipment noise.

The Project site is located approximately 315 feet east of an existing rail corridor that carries both passenger trains (Amtrak and Metrolink) and freight trains (Union Pacific Railroad, formerly known as Southern Pacific Lines). Noise associated with rail operations includes locomotive engines, wheel-to-rail and switch noise, horn sounding, station approach and disembark bell sounding, emergency signaling devices, and stationary bells located at the at-grade crossings at Chevy Chase Drive, West Broadway, and Doran Street.10 The historic Glendale Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, also referred to as the Larry Zarian Transportation Center, is located across Gardena Avenue from the Project site. It serves as a stop for Metrolink commuter and Amtrak passenger trains on the corridor, except for certain express rail 9 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, pp. 117-120, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impactassessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, accessed May 5, 2021. 10 South Glendale Community Plan: Final Program Environmental Impact Report, June 2018. https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/community-plans/sgcp-eir. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 9 August 2022
382 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
services. Passenger rail movements occur every day and multiple times per hour between 5:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M. through the Larry Zarian Transportation Center. Current passenger train operations have been reduced due to the current COVID-19 pandemic conditions and are estimated to be approximately half of typical operations.11 This reduction in activity is accounted for in the impacts analysis discussion in this section. Furthermore, the rail corridor may include the future operations of the proposed California HighSpeed Rail Project. These operations, while not captured in the existing noise measurements, are also accounted for in the impacts analysis.

3.2.2.2 Aircraft-Related Noise
The Project is approximately 7.25 miles southeast of Burbank Airport and 14.5 miles northeast of Los Angeles International Municipal Airport. As shown on the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission noise maps, the proposed Project is located well outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contours of these airports; therefore, noise-related impacts due to airport activities would not represent a significant source of existing noise.

3.2.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses and Sensitive Receptors
The Project site is surrounded primarily by residential, commercial, and industrial development. The areas adjacent to the Project site include the following uses:



North: Existing industrial warehouse uses opposite South Central Avenue, 65 feet away East: Existing Peak Auto Body repair shop, immediately adjacent (within 5–10 feet) South: Existing single-family homes, the closest of which is within 3 feet of the southern property line
 West: Existing parking lot associated with the Larry Zarian Transportation Center opposite Gardena Avenue, 55 feet away
Land uses are considered noise “sensitive receptors” where low noise levels are necessary to preserve their intended goals such as relaxation, education, health, and general state of well-being. Noise-sensitive receptors include residents, hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, churches, hotels, and motels.12 The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family homes immediately to the south.

3.2.2.4 Existing Noise Level Measurements
To assess existing noise levels, two long-term noise measurements were conducted at the Project site (Figure 3.2.1). The long-term noise measurements were recorded from June 9 through June 10, 2020.

The long-term noise measurements captured data in order to calculate the hourly Leq and CNEL at each location, which incorporate the nighttime hours. Sources that dominate the existing noise environment include traffic on adjacent roadways, train traffic on the existing rail line to the east, parking lot activities, and operations from the commercial and industrial uses. Table 3.2.3 summarizes the long-term noise level measurements taken at the Project site.
11 Metrolink, Coronavirus Updates, June 8, 2021. https://metrolinktrains.com/coronavirus-updates#June_8.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California 2017 General Plan Guidelines, 2017, p. 136, 12 http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf, accessed May 5, 2021. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 10 August 2022
383 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3.2.3. Summary of Long-Term Noise Level Measurements Daytime Noise
Levels.A
(dBA Leq)
Evening Noise
Level B
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime Noise
Levels C
Average Daily
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Site # Location
(dBA Leq)
Western edge of the Project site on
Gardena Avenue.

62.1–70.7

61.4–68.4

59.2–63.0

57.7–63.9

48.4–63.4

48.0–64.7

67.0 66.3
LT-1
LT-2 Northeast corner of the Project site,
across on S. Glendale Avenue.

Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels, Leq=equivalent continuous sound level, CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level A Daytime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

B Evening Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

C Nighttime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Source: 1642 S. Central Avenue Project –Noise and Vibration Study, LSA, July 2022. See EIR Appendix D. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 11 August 2022
384 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
Figure 3.2.1. Long-term Noise Level Measurement Locations. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 12 August 2022
385 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis

3.2.3 Regulatory Framework

3.2.3.1 Federal Regulations and Guidelines
This section identifies applicable federal regulations and guidelines related to noise and vibration.

U.S. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Noise Standards
The U.S. Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual13 establishes general methodology guidelines and impact criteria for assessment of construction noise impacts. It is not a regulation but does function as one of the few federal sources that suggest both a methodology and guidelines for assessing noise impacts from construction activities.

Table 3.2.4 describes the general noise assessment criteria for construction impacts. The general assessment criteria for construction noise identifies a 1-hour noise level of 90 dBA Leq for residential uses during daytime hours and a 1-hour noise level of 100 dBA Leq for commercial and industrial uses as the threshold for a potential noise impact. This provides reasonable criteria for assessing construction noise impacts based on the potential for adverse community reaction when the noise criteria are exceeded.

Table 3.2.4 FTA General Assessment Construction Noise Impact Criteria Maximum 1-Hour dBA Leq
Land Use
Day A
90 Night B
Residential 80
Commercial
Industrial
Notes:
100
100
100
100
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = average or constant sound level.

A Day = 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.

B Night = 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, Table 7-2, p. 179.

Vibration Standards
Although not a regulation, the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual also provides guidance on the evaluation of building damage and human response to different levels of construction-related groundborne vibration. It functions as one of the few federal sources that provide guidance on the evaluation and assessment procedures and impact criteria for groundborne vibration induced by construction equipment. Table 3.2.5 summarizes the FTA vibration guidelines used to assess the potential for damage to structures, based on vibration PPV levels, with the potential for damage based on building category types (i.e., the fragility or strength of a building structure). FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.3 in/sec in PPV is considered safe for buildings consisting of engineered concrete or masonry and would not result in any construction vibration damage. For non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, the construction building vibration damage criterion is 0.2 in/sec in PPV. 13 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 13 August 2022
386 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3.2.5 FTA Vibration Threshold Guidelines for Potential Damage to Structures Building Category Peak Particle Velocity (inches/second) I. Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber buildings (no plaster) II. Engineered concrete and masonry buildings (no plaster) III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings

0.50 0.30

0.20 IV. Buildings that are extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, Table 7-5, p. 186.

To avoid temporary annoyances for building occupants or interference with vibration-sensitive equipment inside special-use buildings during construction, the FTA recommends using the vibration criteria from the guidance manual for groundborne vibration assessments. Table 3.2.6 summarizes the FTA’s general assessment criteria used to evaluate potential interference to building operations by different levels of construction-generated groundborne vibration.

Table 3.2.6. Indoor FTA Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria Impact Levels
(VdB relative to 1 micro-inch/second) Land Use Category Frequent Events A Occasional Events B Infrequent Events C Category 1: Buildings where vibration would
interfere with interior operations
65 D 65 D 65 D
Category 2: Residences and buildings where
people normally sleep
72 75
75 78
80 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily 83 daytime use
Notes:

VdB = Human response to vibration often is described as the root-mean-square (RMS) velocity level and is denoted in the decibel scale, or VdB.

The typical background level in residential areas is about 50 VdB, and most people cannot detect levels below about 65 VdB, and generally do not consider levels below 70 VdB, or approximately 0.1 PPV, to be an annoyance.14 A Frequent: More than 70 vibration events of the same source per day.

B Occasional: Between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day.

C Infrequent: Less than 30 vibration events of the same source per day.

D This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research would require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels.

Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, Tables 6-3 and 6-4, p. 126.

3.2.3.2 State Regulations and Guidelines
This section identifies applicable state regulations and guidelines related to noise and vibration.

CALIFORNIA NOISE INSULATION STANDARDS
The 2019 California Building Code (California Code of Regulations title 24, part 2) requires that walls and floor/ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units from each other, or from public or service areas, have a sound transmission class (STC) of at least 50, meaning they can reduce noise by a minimum of 14 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, pp. 117-120, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impactassessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, accessed May 5, 2021. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 14 August 2022
387 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
50 dB.15 Building Code Section 1206.4, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, also specifies a maximum interior noise limit of 45 dBA (Ldn or Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL]) in habitable rooms, and requires that common interior walls and floor/ceiling assemblies meet a minimum STC rating of 50 for airborne noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards and are enforced by the City of Glendale Department of Building and Safety.

3.2.3.3 Local Regulations and Guidelines
This section identifies applicable local regulations and guidelines related to noise and vibration.

The Project would be entirely within the City of Glendale. Noise in the City is regulated by the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.

GLENDALE GENERAL PLAN
The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies sources of noise in the City and provides objectives and policies that ensure that noise from various sources would not create an unacceptable noise environment.

Goals and policies are outlined in the document to achieve and maintain land uses that are compatible with environmental noise levels. Based on these standards, exterior noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL and lower are “normally acceptable” for single-family residential uses, while exterior noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL and lower are “normally acceptable” for multi-family residential uses. “Normally acceptable” is defined as the highest noise level that should be considered for the construction of new buildings that incorporate conventional construction techniques, but without any special noise insulation requirements.

Table 3.2.7 displays the noise standards specified in Table 2 of the City’s General Plan Noise Element for evaluating land use noise compatibility for proposed developments.

Table 3.2.7 City of Glendale Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Noise Standards
Categories Land Use Categories
Interior CNEL Exterior CNEL
Residential Single-family 45 A
45 A
45 A
45 A
45 65 B
65 C
–
Multi-family
Residential within Mixed Use
Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging
Hospital, School, Classroom, Church, Library
Parks D
Commercial
Institutional
Open Space

0.4 –
– 65
Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
A Interior environment excludes bathrooms, toilets, closets, and corridors.

B Applies to the outdoor environment limited to the private yard of single-family residences (normally rear yard).

C Applies to the patio area where there is an expectation of privacy (i.e., not a patio area which also serves as, or is adjacent to, the primary entrance to the unit).

D Only applies to parks where peace and quiet are determined to be of prime importance, such as hillside open space areas open to the public.

Generally, would not apply to urban parks or active-use parks.

Source: City of Glendale Noise Element, Table 2 (2007). 15 California State Building Code Section 1206.3.
1642 South Central Avenue Project 15 August 2022
388 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis

CITY OF GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE
Noise Standards
The Glendale Municipal Code includes an adopted Noise Ordinance, Chapter 8.36 Noise Control, Articles I and II, which identifies noise standards for amplified noise sources, specific noise restrictions, noise insulation standards, and construction noise limits. Noise limits are regulated through the assessment of the offending noise sources, which influence the existing ambient noise environment.

Municipal Code Section 8.36.040 provides the City’s noise standards based on the noise zone, the location of the noise (exterior/interior), and the time period. As shown in Table 3.2.8, the maximum allowable exterior noise level for commercial zoned properties is 65 dBA during day and nighttime hours, seven days a week. For residential (single-family) zoned properties, the maximum exterior noise level is 55 dBA during daytime hours and 45 dBA during nighttime hours.

Table 3.2.8 City of Glendale Municipal Code Exterior and Interior Noise Standards Daytime
(7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Land Use Type Location
Cemetery and Residential (Single-Family and Duplex) Exterior Exterior
55 60
45 Residential (Multi-family, hotels, motels, and transient 60 lodgings)
Central Business District and Commercial Exterior
Exterior
Interior
65 70
55 65
70 45
Industrial
Residential
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Source: City of Glendale Municipal Code 8.36.040 Presumed noise standards.

Municipal Code Section 8.36.050 clarifies if “the actual ambient is less than the presumed ambient, the actual ambient shall control and any noise in excess of the actual ambient plus 5 dbA, shall be a violation.

Where the actual ambient is equal to or more than the presumed ambient, the actual ambient shall control and any noise may not exceed the actual ambient by more than 5 dbA, and in no event may the actual ambient exceed the presumed ambient by more than 5 dbA.” With regard to construction activities, Section 8.36.080 of the Municipal Code states it is unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of 500 feet therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures, or projects within the City between the hours of 7:00 p.m. on one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day or from 7:00 p.m. on Saturday to 7:00 a.m. on Monday or from 7:00 p.m. preceding a holiday, as designated in Chapter 3.08 of the Code, to 7:00 a.m. following such holiday unless a permit has been obtained beforehand from the building official.

Vibration Standards
Section 8.36.210 of the Municipal Code prohibits operation of any device that creates a vibration that is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at 150 feet from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 16 August 2022
389 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
In order to assess the potential for vibration annoyance, the City of Glendale has defined “vibration perception threshold” in Section 8.36.020 as “…the minimal ground or structure borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation of moving objects. The perception shall be presumed to be a motion velocity of 0.01 in./sec. over the range of one to one hundred Hz.”

3.2.4 Impact Analysis

3.2.4.1 Significance Criteria
The Project would have a significant effect related to noise and vibration if implementation of the proposed Project would result in any of the following:
 Expose persons to or generate noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; or


Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.

3.2.4.2 Approach to Analysis
This analysis evaluates the noise and vibration impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. Two types of noise and vibration impacts were considered: short-term, temporary impacts resulting from construction, and impacts due to long-term operational changes in the noise environment.

Given that the Municipal Code does not include standard criteria for construction noise impact assessment, the guidelines in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) are used in this analysis.

Impact NO-1: Construction of the proposed Project would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the City of Glendale Noise Ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. (Significant and Unavoidable) Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
The Project would be constructed in one development phase that would take approximately 18 months.

Short-term noise impacts would be associated with demolition of the existing structures, excavation, grading, and construction of the Project. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site; however, once Project construction is done, these noise levels would no longer occur.

Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the Project. The first type is related to noise generated by trucks transporting construction equipment and materials, by hauling activities, and by vehicles carrying construction workers commuting to the Project site. These transportation activities would incrementally raise noise levels on roads leading to the site. It is expected that larger trucks used in equipment delivery would generate higher noise levels than vehicles carrying workers commuting to the Project site. The single-event noise from equipment trucks passing at a distance of 50 feet from a sensitive noise receptor would reach a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax.

However, heavy equipment used for grading and construction activities would be moved on-site just one 1642 South Central Avenue Project 17 August 2022
390 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
time and would remain on-site for the duration of each construction phase. The total number of daily vehicle trips associated with hauling during the grading phase is estimated to be approximately 14 and would be minimal compared to existing traffic volumes on the affected streets. The daily traffic noise level change associated with these trips would not be perceptible. Therefore, construction-related traffic impacts would be short term and would not result in a significant off-site noise impact.

The second type of potential short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each with its own mix of equipment and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and therefore the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

The site preparation and grading phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving equipment is the noisiest construction equipment (see Table 3.2.9). Additionally, this phase would be the longest of the phases expected to occur near the Project site boundary. The three loudest pieces of equipment used during the site preparation and grading phase would likely be an excavator, grader, and dozer, as no pile driving is proposed. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

Table 3.2.9 Typical Maximum Construction Equipment Noise Levels (Lmax) Suggested Maximum Sound Levels for
Type of Equipment Analysis (dBA Lmax
at 50 feet)
Impact Equipment
Excavators with Hoe Ram
Impact Pile Driver
Non-Impact Equipment
Air Compressors
Bore/Drill Rigs
85 101
80 85
80 90
82 82
85 85
82 85
85 83
85 81
85 85
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Concrete/Industrial Saws
Concrete Truck
Concrete Boom Pump
Cranes
Excavators
Generator Sets
Graders
Pavers
Plate Compactors
Pressure Washers
Pumps
Rollers
Rough Terrain Forklifts
1642 South Central Avenue Project 18 August 2022
391 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
Suggested Maximum Sound Levels for
Type of Equipment Analysis (dBA Lmax
at 50 feet)
Rubber-Tired Dozers
Scrapers
85 85
80 85
85 84
73 Skid Steer Loaders
Tie Back Drill
Tower Crane
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
Welders
Notes:

A Based on highest anticipated noise level, assuming 100 percent use during any 1-hour period. dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Source: Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook, August 2006, Table 9.1, p. 91.

As shown in Table 3.2.10, during the construction of the Project, it is expected that the average noise levels at the nearest noise-sensitive use, the single-family home to the south at 1616 Gardena Avenue, would range from 69 dBA Leq to 83 dBA Leq. These noise levels depend on construction phase and are based on an average distance of 85 feet from the center of construction activities. Therefore, the noise impacts would not exceed the 90 dBA Leq 1-hour construction noise level criteria established by the FTA for residential uses based on the average condition. When construction activities occur near the property line, noise levels could approach 104 dBA Leq. For the single-family homes further to the south on El Bonito Avenue, construction noise levels would be reduced due to additional distance and shielding from existing intervening structures. While construction-related impacts are short term and would no longer occur once Project construction is completed, they have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels by more than 5 dBA, a typical threshold of perceptibility in an outdoor environment, in the Project area.

Table 3.2.10: Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Surrounding Residences Range of
Composite
Result in a 5 dBA
Increase Over
Ambient
Composite Noise
Average Exceed 90 dBA (dBA Leq) at
1 Receptor (Location) Level Distance (feet) Construction Noise Leq Threshold? 50 feet Levels (dBA Leq) Condition 1616 Gardena Avenue
335 El Bonito Avenue
337 El Bonito Avenue
339 El Bonito Avenue
343 El Bonito Avenue
76 -88 85 69-83
63-77
66-80
63-77
64-78
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
175
120
170
150
Source: 1642 S. Central Avenue Project –Noise and Vibration Study, LSA, July 2022. See EIR Appendix D.

The composite construction noise level represents the range of noise levels with the grading phases as compared to other phases. 1 dBA Leq = average A-weighted hourly noise level
Compliance with the time restrictions in the City’s Noise Ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter 8.36, would ensure that construction noise does not disturb the residential uses during hours when ambient noise levels are likely to be lower (i.e., at night). Although construction noise would be higher than the ambient noise in the Project vicinity during the day, construction noise would cease to occur once Project 1642 South Central Avenue Project 19 August 2022
392 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
construction is completed. In addition to compliance with appropriate construction times, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure M-NO-1, Construction Noise Control.

Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control
Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:



Grading and construction contractors shall use equipment that generates lower vibration levels, such as rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment.

Construction haul truck and materials delivery traffic shall avoid Local Streets and Urban, Community and Neighborhood Collectors as defined in the city’s Circulation Element .

The construction contractor shall place noise- and vibration-generating construction equipment, with exception to equipment needed to complete shoring activities associated with the construct of the subterranean garage, away from sensitive uses and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses whenever feasible.


The construction contractor shall only use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators where feasible.

The construction contractor shall ensure that a minimum 12-foot-high barrier, such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains, shall be erected between on the proposed Project site and adjacent to the sensitive receptors to minimize the amount of noise during construction. A 12-foot-high construction noise barrier would provide an approximately 12 dBA reduction to the closest residential receptors to the south.
 All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for the “noise disturbance coordinator”.

Construction noise would be higher than the daytime ambient noise in the Project vicinity and exceed daytime construction thresholds. However, the construction noise and threshold exceedance would cease to occur once Project construction is completed. In addition to compliance with appropriate construction times, the implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1 would reduce construction noise to the greatest extent feasible; however, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Impact NO-2: Construction of the proposed Project would generate excessive groundborne vibration levels. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Construction Vibration Impacts
Construction activities related to the Project, including excavation activities where the highest levels of vibration are anticipated, would not include vibration of foundations, utilities that are connected to existing structures, or tunneling operations. To provide an example of construction vibration levels expected for a project of this size, Table 3.2.11 shows the PPV values and vibration levels (in terms of VdB) from construction vibration sources from 25 feet away. A large bulldozer would generate 1642 South Central Avenue Project 20 August 2022
393 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
approximately 0.089 PPV inches/sec or 87 VdB of groundborne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.16 Table 3.2.11. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPVref at 25 ft (in/sec) A Lv (VdB) B
Impact Pile Driver (typical)
Vibratory Roller
Hoe Ram

0.644

0.210

0.089

0.089

0.076

0.035

0.003
104
94 87
87 86
79 58
Large Bulldozer
Loaded Trucks
Jackhammer
Small Bulldozer
Notes:

A PVref – reference Peak Particle Velocity. PPV is appropriate for evaluating potential damage to buildings.

B RMS VdB re 1 μin/sec.
ft = feet, in/sec = inches per second
μin/sec = microinches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity in decibel
Source: Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

In order to assess the potential for vibration impacts, the analysis utilizes the distance between the nearest off-site buildings and the Project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or within 5 feet of the Project boundary) because vibration damage impacts occur at the buildings.

Table 3.2.12 presents a summary of potential vibration impacts of the Project construction. Based on the information in Table 3.2.12, vibration has the potential to cause damage to the commercial building to the north at 1638 South Central Avenue and the residential building to the south at 1616 Gardena Avenue if large construction equipment operates within 15 feet of the building façade. Additionally, vibration has the potential to cause annoyance to residential uses if large construction equipment operates within 110 feet of the building façade.
16 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 21 August 2022
394 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 3.2.12 Summary of Construction Vibration Levels
Exceed
Damage
Criteria of

0.2 PPV
in/sec?
Exceed
Annoyance
Criteria of

0.01 PPV
in/sec?
Reference Maximum
Vibration
Level
Equipment
Reference
Vibration
Level (PPV)
at 25 ft
Distance
(ft)1 Land Use Address
(PPV)
Commercial
Residential
1638 S. Central
Avenue
Large Bulldozers 0.089 5
8 0.995

0.492
Yes
Yes
No1
1616 Gardena
Avenue
Yes
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
335 El Bonito Avenue
337 El Bonito Avenue
339 El Bonito Avenue
343 El Bonito Avenue
92 37
87 75

0.013

0.049

0.014

0.017
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source: Compiled by LSA (2022).

Note: Due to the associated indoor uses at the commercial use to the north, construction activities are not expected to cause annoyance. ft = foot/feet
FTA = Federal Transit Administration
in/sec = inch/inches per second
PPV = particle velocity
As the residences listed in Table 3.2.12 fall within the 110-foot contour for annoyance and the commercial use to the north at 1638 South Central Avenue and the residential use to the east at 1616 Gardena Avenue fall within the potential damage contour, there would be a potentially significant groundborne vibration impact at these two locations. With implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO2: Construction Vibration Control, vibration damage would be avoided.

Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:



Maintain Buffer Distances. The construction contractor shall maintain a safe distance between the operation of vibration-generating construction equipment and the potentially affected building and/or structure to avoid damage presented in EIR Table 3.2.12 to the extent possible, based on site constraints.

Use Alternative Construction Equipment. To the extent feasible, the construction contractor shall use alternative construction techniques or equipment, such as hand excavation, to avoid or reduce unnecessary construction vibration.

Prepare a Monitoring Plan. The property owner shall undertake a monitoring program to avoid or reduce Project-related construction vibration damage to adjacent buildings and/or structures and to ensure that any such damage is documented and repaired. The monitoring program shall apply to all potentially affected buildings and/or structures adjacent to the Project site. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit, the property owner shall submit the construction vibration monitoring plan to the City for approval. The monitoring plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components, as applicable:
o Vibration Analysis Refinement. Once the specific construction equipment list becomes available, potential vibration damage distance contours shall be refined. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 22 August 2022
395 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
o Vibration Analysis Refinement. Once the specific construction equipment list becomes available, potential vibration damage distance contours shall be refined.
o
o
o
Vibration Monitoring. To ensure that construction vibration levels do not exceed the established standard, an acoustical consultant shall monitor vibration levels at each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties when heavy construction occurs in close proximity.

Based on direction from the acoustical consultant, vibratory construction activities that generate vibration levels in excess of the standard shall be prohibited.

Alternative Construction Techniques. Should construction vibration levels be observed in excess of the established standard, the contractor(s) shall halt construction and put alternative construction techniques into practice, to the extent feasible. Following incorporation of the alternative construction techniques, vibration monitoring shall recommence to ensure that vibration levels at each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties are not exceeded.

Periodic Inspections. A historic architect or qualified historic preservation professional (for effects on historic buildings and/or structures) and/or structural engineer (for effects on non-historic buildings and/or structures) shall conduct regular periodic inspections as specified in the vibration monitoring plan of each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties during vibration-generating construction activity on the Project site. Should damage to any building and/or structure occur, the building(s) and/or structure(s) shall be remediated to their pre-construction condition at the conclusion of vibration-generating activity on the site.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-2 would avoid construction vibration damage. However, vibration levels could exceed the applicable annoyance criteria at nearby residences, even with the use of standard construction best practices. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable and would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation.

Impact NO-3: Operation of the proposed Project would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan, or applicable standards of other agencies. (Less than Significant) Operational Noise Impacts: On-site Stationary Sources
The Project would install heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems across the proposed building rooftop. The greatest noise impact related to HVAC operations would occur at the existing single-family home located south of the Project. The site plan identifies 31 HVAC units that would vary in distance from 30 to 140 feet from the closest single-family home façade. To be conservative, it was assumed that all units would be in operation simultaneously at the acoustical average distance to the receptor of approximately 75 feet.

Technical data available from several manufacturers show that there are residential air conditioners with noise levels with an approximate range from 42.3 to 60.3 dBA Leq when measured at a distance of 5 feet.

The representative data were incorporated into the analysis. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 23 August 2022
396 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
The HVAC system operation would result in a composite level of 51.7 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor to the south. However, the Project would include screening walls around the HVAC system, which would provide an additional noise reduction of approximately 6dBA. With the noise reduction associated with distance and additional reduction from screening walls, HVAC noise levels would be approximately 45.7 dBA Leq. This noise level would be below the existing quietest nighttime ambient noise levels of 48.4 dBA Leq. Therefore, no mitigation is required, and the impacts related to operation of on-site stationary sources would be less than significant.

Operational Noise Impacts: Other On-site Sources
Based on noise measurements shown in Table 3.2.3, noise levels at the Project site currently approach 67 dBA CNEL. In order to account for the decrease in activity associated with the current COVID-19 pandemic, for purposes of this analysis it is estimated that the primary sources of noise in the Project vicinity, including the rail line to the west and associated parking lot activities, are currently about 50 percent of typical operations. With a doubling of operations, it is expected that noise levels would be 3 dBA higher, resulting in a level of 70 dBA CNEL.

As shown in Table 3.2.7, exterior noise standards are only applicable to private areas for which there is an expectation of privacy, such as patios. While the Project does not have any such areas, for reporting purposes the rooftop deck would be considered a gathering space that may benefit from lower noise levels. The proposed 6-foot-high glass barrier around the perimeter of the roof deck would reduce noise levels by approximately 6 dBA CNEL, to a level of 65 dBA CNEL. While measures to reduce exterior noise levels are not required, the Project must demonstrate compliance with the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. The Project’s adherence to the minimum rating of windows and doors would ensure that noise impacts related to interior noise levels would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is required, and the impacts related to operation of other on-site sources would be less than significant.

3.2.5 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative noise or vibration impacts associated with construction or operation of the Project would occur if there are other projects in the Project vicinity that could be constructed at the same time as the proposed Project, or that could substantially extend the duration of construction noise or vibration received at any nearby sensitive receptors. The geographic area of concern for evaluation of cumulative noise impacts is the area within approximately 0.25 mile of the Project site because, in order for noise effects to combine with the Project-generated noise and result in a cumulative impact, the noise sources need to be in close proximity to each other. There are no cumulative projects within that radius of the Project site. The nearest cumulative project is located 1 mile from the Project site.

The Project site would be potentially impacted by the future California High Speed Rail (CAHSR) construction and operations. It would be within the Burbank to Los Angeles project section of the CAHSR project. The results of the noise model presented in the Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section EIR/EIS17 indicate that noise levels experienced at the Project site due to CAHSR operations would approach 64 dBA CNEL. The combination of the existing sources of noise with the future CAHSR operations would result in an exterior noise level of 71 dBA CNEL at the Project site. However, the CAHSR system is estimated to open in 2033.18 Therefore, the Project would not combine with 17 California High Speed Rail Authority, “Project Sections: Burbank to Los Angeles,” 2021. Available at:
https://hsr.ca.gov/programs/environmental-planning/project-section-environmental-documents-tier-2/burbank-to-los-angelesproject-section-draft-environmental-impact-report-environmental-impact-statement/. Accessed on August 11, 2021. 18 California High Speed Rail Authority, Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section EIR/EIS, Chapter 3, Available at:
https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/programs/burbank_los_angeles/BLA_Sec3-01_Introduction_DEIREIS.pdf 1642 South Central Avenue Project 24 August 2022
397 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
construction noise or vibration from future CAHSR construction and operations because construction of the Project would be completed prior to the initiation of CAHSR construction.

Municipal Code Section 8.36.080 (Construction on buildings, structures, and projects) limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and also prohibits construction activities on Sundays and federal holidays unless a permit is obtained. Compliance with Section 8.36.080 is required by the Glendale Municipal Code for any projects associated with the South Glendale Community Plan and other cumulative development. Implementation of the Glendale Municipal Code and Mitigation Measure NO-1 would mitigate the exposure of persons to or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the City. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Project would also be less than significant.

1.4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Section 1.4 of the Draft EIR included Table 1.1, which summarized the impacts and associated mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. Based on the analysis above in Section 3.2 Noise and Vibration of the PR-DEIR, Table 1.1 below has been updated with the two new significant and unavoidable impacts.

The table has four columns: the identified impact under each EIR issue area; the level of significance prior to implementation of mitigation; mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the level of impacts; and the level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures. The levels of significance of impacts before and after implementation of applicable mitigation measures are identified as follows:


No Impact (NI) – No adverse changes (or impacts) to the environment are expected.

Less Than Significant (LTS) – Impact that would not exceed the defined significance criteria or would be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with existing local, state, and federal laws and regulations.


Less Than Significant with Mitigation (LTSM) – Impact that is significant but reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the identified mitigation measure(s).

Significant and Unavoidable (SU) – Impact that exceeds the defined significance criteria and cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with existing local, state, and federal laws and regulations, and for which there are no feasible mitigation measures that would bring the level to LTSM.
1642 South Central Avenue Project 25 August 2022
398 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
Table 1.1. Summary of Project Impacts Identified in the PR-DEIR Level of
Significance
Level of
Significance
After Impact Mitigation and Improvement Measures Before Mitigation Mitigation
Legend: NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than significant or negligible impact, no mitigation required; S = Significant; LTSM = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact; SU = Significant and unavoidable adverse impact, no feasible mitigation; N/A = Not Applicable Section 3.2, Noise and Vibration
NO-1: Construction of the proposed Project
would generate a substantial temporary
increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the City of Glendale Noise
Ordinance or applicable standards of other
agencies.

S Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control SU Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:
 Grading and construction contractors shall use equipment that generates lower vibration levels, such as rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment.


Construction haul truck and materials delivery traffic shall avoid residential areas whenever feasible.

The construction contractor shall place noise- and vibration-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses whenever feasible.


The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators where feasible.

The construction contractor shall ensure that a minimum 12-foot-high barrier, such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains, shall be erected between on the proposed project site and adjacent to the sensitive receptors to minimize the amount of noise during construction. A 12-foot-high construction noise barrier would provide approximately 12 dBA reduction to the closest residential receptors to the south.
 All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for the “noise disturbance coordinator.

NO-2: Construction of the proposed Project
would generate excessive groundborne
vibration levels.

S Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control SU Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:
 Maintaining Buffer Distances. Maintain a safe distance between the operation of vibration generating construction equipment and the potentially affected building and/or structure to avoid damage to the extent possible as presented in Table I, based on site constraints; and
1642 South Central Avenue Project 26 August 2022
399 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
Level of
Significance
Before
Level of
Significance
After Impact Mitigation and Improvement Measures
Mitigation Mitigation
Legend: NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than significant or negligible impact, no mitigation required; S = Significant; LTSM = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact; SU = Significant and unavoidable adverse impact, no feasible mitigation; N/A = Not Applicable  Alternative Construction Equipment. To the extent feasible, the construction contractor shall use alternative construction techniques or equipment, such as hand excavation to avoid or reduce unnecessary construction vibration.  Prepare a Monitoring Plan. The property owner shall undertake a monitoring program to avoid or reduce project-related construction vibration damage to adjacent buildings and/or structures and to ensure that any such damage is documented and repaired. The monitoring program shall apply to all potentially affected buildings and/or structures adjacent to the project site. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit, the property owner shall submit the construction vibration monitoring plan to the City for approval. The monitoring plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components, as applicable:
o Vibration Monitoring. To ensure that construction vibration levels do not exceed the established standard, an acoustical consultant shall monitor vibration levels at each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties when heavy construction occurs in close proximity. Based on direction from the acoustical consultant, vibratory construction activities that generate vibration levels in excess of the standard shall be prohibited. o Alternative Construction Techniques. Should construction vibration levels be observed in excess of the established standard, the contractor(s) shall halt construction and put alternative construction techniques into practice, to the extent feasible. Following incorporation of the alternative construction techniques, vibration monitoring shall recommence to ensure that vibration levels at each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties are not exceeded.
o Periodic Inspections. A historic architect or qualified historic preservation professional (for effects on historic buildings and/or structures) and/or structural engineer (for effects on non-historic buildings and/or structures) shall conduct regular periodic inspections as specified in the vibration monitoring plan of each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties during vibration generating construction activity on the project site.

Should damage to any building and/or structure occur, the building(s) and/or structure(s) shall be remediated to their pre-construction condition at the conclusion of vibration-generating activity on the site. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 27 August 2022
400 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
Level of
Significance
Before
Level of
Significance
After Impact Mitigation and Improvement Measures
Mitigation Mitigation
Legend: NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than significant or negligible impact, no mitigation required; S = Significant; LTSM = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact; SU = Significant and unavoidable adverse impact, no feasible mitigation; N/A = Not Applicable NO-3: Operation of the proposed project
would generate a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the Project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan, or
applicable standards of other agencies.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
C-NO-1: Construction noise and vibration as LTS
a result of the proposed Project, combined
with construction noise and vibration from
cumulative projects in the vicinity, would
cause a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels. Operation of the
proposed Project, combined with operation
noise from cumulative projects in the vicinity,
would not cause a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity.

LTS See Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control and Mitigation Measure M-NO2: Construction Vibration Control, above. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 28 August 2022
401 of 638
CHAPTER 4. ALTERNATIVES

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 4, Alternatives, presents an analysis of alternatives to the 1642 South Central Avenue Project, as required by the CEQA. Four alternatives are evaluated: A No Project Alternative, Relocation Alternative, a Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative, and a Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative. This chapter explains the alternatives selection methodology, describes the alternatives selected for analysis, and compares the impacts of the Project with those of the alternatives and the ability of the alternatives to meet the Project objectives. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the environmentally superior alternative selected.

4.2 ALTERNATIVES SELECTION
The methodology used to select alternatives to the Project for detailed CEQA analysis focused on developing a range of potentially feasible alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts identified in Chapter 3 Environmental Impact Analysis, while still meeting most of the Project’s basic objectives. The Draft EIR identified one significant and unavoidable impact: the demolition of a historic architectural resource, the 1642 South Central Avenue residence and all its character-defining features (see Section 3.1 Historic Architectural Resources). The PR-DEIR identified two significant and unavoidable impacts: the exceedance of construction noise and vibration levels above adopted standards (see Section 3.2 Noise and Vibration). As a result, project alternatives have been designed to would avoid or substantially lessen these impacts while still meeting most of the Project’s basic objectives. The other alternative analyzed, the No Project Alternative, is required by CEQA.

4.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that an EIR must describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project that would feasibly attain most of its basic objectives but avoid or substantially lessen any identified significant environmental effects of the project. The EIR must include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project.

Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to foster informed decisionmaking and public participation.

The Public Resources Code, the CEQA Guidelines, and case law have found that range of factors and influences. CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 defines “feasibility” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (if the site is not already owned by the proponent). CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(3) states that an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. This section identifies an alternative considered by the Lead Agency, but rejected as infeasible, and provides a brief explanation of the reasons for its exclusion. As noted above, alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(c)). The final determination of feasibility will 1642 South Central Avenue Project 29 August 2022
402 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
be made by City decision-makers based on substantial evidence in the record, which includes, but is not limited to, information presented in the EIR, comments received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments.

In addition, the range of alternatives considered in an EIR must include a no project alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1)) and an environmentally superior alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The CEQA Guidelines provides the following direction about no project alternatives:
 The no project alternative analysis shall “discuss the existing conditions…as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and policies and consistent with the available infrastructure and community services.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2))
 In an EIR on “a development project on identifiable property, the ‘no project’ alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this ‘no project’ consequence should be discussed.” Thus, “…where failure to proceed with the project would not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project’s non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B)).

The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that best avoids or lessens any significant impacts of a proposed project, even if the alternative would impede to some degree attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b)). If it is determined that the “no project” alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other project alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)).
 An EIR must also identify and briefly discuss any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)). In identifying alternatives, primary consideration is given to alternatives that would reduce significant impacts while still meeting most of the basic project objectives. Alternatives typically rejected from further consideration are those that would have impacts identical to or more severe than the proposed project or those that would not meet most of the basic project objectives.

4.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 states that the description of the project shall contain the following information but should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact. Among the basic informational requirements is a statement of objectives sought for the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) clarifies the need for this requirement as follows:
“…A clearly written statement of objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project and may discuss project benefits.” 1642 South Central Avenue Project 30 August 2022
403 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives to a project selected for analysis in an EIR must substantially lessen or avoid any of the significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project while still meeting most of the project’s basic objectives. The applicant has identified the follow objectives for the proposed project:
1) Contribute to the health of the City through an economically viable infill project that would provide an increase in residential units to help meet housing demand in the City and better meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements for the region. 1) Construct a new multi-family residential building with new architectural designs and energyefficient building systems that promote energy conservation that furthers the City’s policy goals expressed in the Greener Glendale Plan.
2) Provide new residential opportunities that offer multi-modal opportunities taking advantage of the Project’s proximity to Larry Zarian Transportation Center. 3) Enhance the general welfare of the public by offering affordable housing opportunities and help meet the affordable housing goals and needs outlined in the City’s Housing Element. 4) Develop new residential opportunities close to the existing retail amenities within South Glendale.

4.5 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, project alternatives must avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts of the proposed project.

4.5.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
As discussed in Draft EIR Section 3.1 Historic Architectural Resources, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) establishes the criteria for assessing a significant environmental impact on historical resources. It states, “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” The section defines “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” as a “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” The significance of an historic architectural resource is considered to be “materially impaired” when a project demolishes or materially alters the physical characteristics that justify inclusion of the resource in the California Register of Historic Resources, or that justify inclusion of the resource in a local register, or that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources as determined by the lead agency for the purposes of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2). The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on an historic architectural resource after implementation of Mitigation Measure M-CR-1: Documentation of Historical Resources.

As discussed in PR-DEIR Section 3.2 Noise and Vibration, construction-related noise has the potential to result in a 5 dBA increase over ambient conditions and exceed the FTA construction impact noise assessment criteria of a 1-hour noise level of 90 dBA Leq for residential uses during daytime hours. The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to short-term off-site construction noise levels after implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control. The Project would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to short-term off-site construction vibration levels after implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 31 August 2022
404 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.6 SELECTION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

4.6.1 4.6.1.1
No Project Alternative
Description
Under the No Project Alternative, the two residential dwellings at 1642 South Central Avenue and at 1608 Gardena and the existing garage would be retained in their current configuration and would not be disturbed; no construction would occur on site and the current residential uses would continue. No new residential or commercial uses would be added. Therefore, the existing physical features on the Project site, including the character-defining features of the historical resource, would not change and no modifications, repairs, or restoration would be made to the existing historical resource.

4.6.1.2 Impacts of the No Project Alternative
The analysis of the No Project Alternative assumes that the Project would not be approved and would result in a “no build” alternative wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.

If the No Project Alternative were to proceed, no changes would be implemented, and none of the impacts associated with the Project would occur. However, incremental changes would be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site as nearby projects are approved, constructed, and occupied. With no change to existing site conditions under the No Project Alternative, land use activity on the Project site would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts beyond existing levels. There would be no construction or operational impacts related to noise and vibration compared to the Project.

Since the No Project Alternative would retain all the character-defining features of the subject property and not demolish or make any modifications to the historical resource, it would not cause material impairment to that resource. Compared to the Project, which would demolish all buildings on site and result in material impairment to the historical resource, the No Project Alternative would not result in any project-level impacts and would not contribute to any impacts related to historic architectural resources.

The No Project Alternative would not require construction activities and would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise and vibration.

4.6.1.3 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed 40,240-square-foot, five-story multi-family five-story residential building containing 31 units of rental housing, including three very-low income units, and a one-level subterranean garage would not be constructed. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives as set forth in Section 1.2 herein above.

4.6.2 Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative

4.6.2.1 Description
The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would relocate the 1642 South Central Avenue residential building within the Project site, demolish 1608 Gardena Avenue and the existing garage, and construct a reduced number of residential units on the remaining site area. The 1642 South Central Avenue residential building would be shifted to the north within the existing project site, with a 10-foot setback from South Central Avenue. This relocation would leave a remaining buildable area of 4,433 square feet (0.1017 acre) on the Project site to accommodate a reduced density project of fifteen (15) 1642 South Central Avenue Project 32 August 2022
405 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
residential units, including 11 market-rate and 4 very low-income units instead of 31 units. The Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would provide eight (8) subterranean parking spaces. Similar to the Project, the Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would require construction of similar improvements, including grading and construction of the footings, connections for utilities, however the construction activities would be of shorter duration.

The on-site relocation and restoration of the historic building would involve various restoration activities, which would be treated as categorically exempt under CEQA so long as maintenance, repair, restoration, rehabilitation, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of the historical resource is done in a manner consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s standards for Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (CEQA Guidelines section 15331).

4.6.2.2 Impacts of the Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative
The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would result in fewer environmental impacts compared to the Project given the reduced size (15 residential units versus 31 units) and shorter construction duration. The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would also be consistent with the SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and Mixed-Use District General Development Standards. The 15-unit building with a one-level subterranean garage would have a smaller building footprint than the 31-unit Project but would still result in short-term impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geology/soils, water quality, and traffic. Similar to the Project, these short-term construction impacts from this Alternative would be less than significant and typical of small land development projects where compliance with existing codes and other regulatory standards ensure these types of impacts are below impact thresholds.

As previously noted, the Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would require a shorter construction duration. However, the Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would not result in significantly reduced construction noise compared to the Project. As noted in Section 3.2.4, the site preparation and grading construction phases generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving equipment is the noisiest construction equipment. These two construction phases would still be required, although the timing would be shortened due to the reduced size of the proposed building. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control and Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control would ensure that construction noise and vibration is reduced to the maximum amount feasible. However, impacts related to construction noise and vibration would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would preserve the on-site location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and character-defining features of the historical resource within the Tropico neighborhood. While the historic resource would be preserved, as with the Project, the Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would modify the setting of the historic resource. This alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable historical architectural resources impact associated with demolition of 1642 South Central Avenue.

4.6.2.3 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
The Reduced Density Alternative would meet most of the Project objectives set forth in Section 4.4 herein above. However, it would not fulfill the project objectives to the same extent as the Project because fewer new residential units would be built, and it would not maximize the potential residential units on the Project site.
1642 South Central Avenue Project 33 August 2022
406 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.6.3 Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative

4.6.3.1 Description
The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would retain the historic residence located at 1642 South Central Avenue in its existing location on the Project site, and demolish the residence at 1608 Gardena Avenue and the existing garage. The remaining buildable area, consisting of approximately 3,383 square feet (0.007 acre) could accommodate 11 residential units, including 8 market-rate and 3 very low-income units. The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would provide eight (8) subterranean parking spaces.

Similar to the Project, the Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would require construction of similar improvements, including grading and construction of the footings, connections for utilities, however the construction activities would be of shorter duration. This Alternative would also require restoration and preservation of the historic resource, and protection from any adverse impacts from construction of the new building. As a consequence, mitigation measures requiring construction monitoring would be required, as would the post-construction restoration and rehabilitation of the historic home pursuant to Secretary of Interior Standards.

4.6.3.2 Impacts of the Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative
The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would result in fewer environmental impacts compared to the Project given the reduced size (11 residential units versus 31 units) and shorter construction duration. Due to the approximately 1/3 size of this Alternative compared to the Project and shorter duration of construction, this Alternative would result in reduced environmental impacts compared to the Project. The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would also be consistent with the SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and Mixed-Use District General Development Standards. The 11-unit building with a one-level subterranean garage would have a smaller building footprint compared to the Project but would still result in short-term impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geology/soils, water quality, and traffic. Similar to the Project, these short-term construction impacts would be less than significant and typical of small land development projects.

The Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would result in reduced construction duration compared to the Project. However, the site preparation and grading construction phases, which generate the highest noise levels, would still be required. The timing of these phases would be shortened due to the reduced size of the proposed building. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control and Mitigation Measure M-NO-2:

Construction Vibration Control would ensure that construction noise and vibration is reduced to the maximum amount feasible. However, impacts related to construction noise and vibration would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would preserve the existing location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and character-defining features of the historical resource within the Tropico neighborhood. The preservation of location of the historic resource at its existing location on site would eliminate the Project’s significant impact from demolition of the resource. The residential dwelling at 1642 South Central Avenue would remain a good example of a Craftsman style house and would remain eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3. 1642 South Central Avenue Project 34 August 2022
407 of 638
Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis

4.6.3.3 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
If the Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative is determined to be feasible, then it would meet all of the Project objectives set forth in Section 4.4 herein above. However, it would not fulfill the project objectives to the same extent as the Project because fewer new residential units would be built, and it would not maximize the potential residential units on the Project site.

4.6.4 Alternative Considered but Rejected

4.6.4.1 Relocation Alternative
The Relocation Alternative would relocate the existing historic building at 1642 South Central Avenue from its present location to an alternative site. The Relocation Alternative would involve demolishing the remaining buildings on site (1608 Gardena Avenue and the existing garage) and constructing the same new multi-family 31 unit five-story development as the Project. The Relocation Alternative would therefore require the same construction activities, would result in the same impacts as the Project, and would requires the same mitigation.

This alternative was considered but rejected, as it is infeasible and would not achieve a reduction of significant impacts. The Relocation Alternative would preserve the character-defining features of the historic Craftsman-style residential building; however, relocation would change the location and setting of the historic resource by moving the house from the Tropico neighborhood. This alternative is infeasible as neither the project applicant nor the City owns or controls a relocation site or any other property near the Project site to which the duplex could be relocated. The ability and cost of acquiring a suitable alternative site cannot be determined. For these reasons, the Relocation Alternative was deemed an infeasible alternative for the Project.

4.7 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then an EIR is required to identify another environmentally superior alternative from among the alternatives evaluated if the Project has significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a lessthan-significant level. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that best avoids or lessens any significant effects of the Project, even if the alternative would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives. The No Project Alternative is considered the overall environmentally superior alternative because it would represent a continuation of existing conditions on the Project site and would not result in any significant impacts associated with implementation of the Project. The No Project Alternative, however, would not meet any of the project objectives.

Therefore, the Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives evaluated. The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable historical architectural resources impact associated with demolition of 1642 South Central Avenue. The construction noise and vibration impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. This alternative would also meet more of the Project objectives of adding affordable housing and meeting the City’s affordable housing goals, although not to the same extent as the Project since fewer new units would be built.
1642 South Central Avenue Project 35 August 2022
408 of 638
1642 South Central Avenue Project
MARCH 2022

PREPARED FOR
City of Glendale

PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
409 of 638
410 of 638

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................................iv

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

1.1 Summary....................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Proposed Project Description ....................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Project Objectives......................................................................................................................1-1

1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures.........................................................................1-2

1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives...............................................................................................1-6

1.5.1 No Project Alternative .....................................................................................................1-6

1.5.2 Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative..........................................................1-6

1.5.3 Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative...........................................................1-6

1.5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative.............................................................................1-7

1.5.5 Areas of Known Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ................................................1-7

1.6 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report...........................................................................1-7

1.7 Organization of this EIR............................................................................................................1-8

1.8 Environmental Review Requirements .......................................................................................1-9

1.8.1 Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ...........................................1-10

1.8.2 Public Review of and Comments on the Notice of Preparation.....................................1-11

1.8.3 Draft Environmental Impact Report ..............................................................................1-11

1.8.4 How to Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report......................................1-11

1.8.5 Final Environmental Impact Report...............................................................................1-11

2.0 Project Description............................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Objectives......................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Project Location and Surrounding Uses ....................................................................................2-1

2.2.1 Land Use and Zoning.......................................................................................................2-1

2.3 Description of Proposed Project................................................................................................2-5

2.3.1 Construction Schedule .....................................................................................................2-5

2.3.2 Demolition, Excavation, and Soils Disturbance ..............................................................2-5

2.3.3 Anticipated Project Approvals.........................................................................................2-5

3.0 Environmental Impact Analysis....................................................................................................2.3-1

3.1 Cultural Resources..................................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.1 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................3.1-2

3.1.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................3.1-7

3.1.3 Impacts Analysis.........................................................................................................3.1-13

3.1.4 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................3.1-22

3.1.5 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................3.1-23

3.2 Noise and Vibration................................................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................3.2-4

3.2.3 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................3.2-8

3.2.4 Impact Analysis ..........................................................................................................3.2-11

3.2.5 Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................................3.2-13

3.2.6 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................3.2-16

4.0 Alternatives........................................................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................4-1 i
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
411 of 638
Table of Contents

4.2 Alternatives Selection................................................................................................................4-1

4.3 Requirements for Alternatives Analysis....................................................................................4-1

4.4 Project Objectives......................................................................................................................4-2

4.5 Summary of Significant Impacts ...............................................................................................4-3

4.5.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ..............................................................................4-3

4.6 Selection and Analysis of Alternatives......................................................................................4-3

4.6.1 No Project Alternative .....................................................................................................4-3

4.6.2 Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative..........................................................4-4

4.6.3 Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative...........................................................4-5

4.6.4 Alternative Considered but Rejected ...............................................................................4-6

4.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative.......................................................................................4-7

5.0 Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Related Projects and Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Cumulative Impact Analysis............................................................................................5-1

6.0 Other CEQA Considerations............................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts..........................................................................................................6-1

6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes.......................................................................6-2

7.0 Report Preparers...............................................................................................................................7-1

7.1 Lead Agency..............................................................................................................................7-1

7.2 Consultants ................................................................................................................................7-1 ii
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
412 of 638
Table of Contents
Appendices
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, June 10, 2021 Appendix B: Initial Study
Appendix C: Historic Resources Assessment, prepared by SWCA, August 2021 Appendix D: Noise and Vibration Study, prepared by LSA, June 2020 Appendix E: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1919 and 1925
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Project Site Vicinity Map. .......................................................................................................2-2 Figure 2.2. Project Site Location. ..............................................................................................................2-3 Figure 2.3. Project Site Zoning Map..........................................................................................................2-4 Figure 2.4. Site Plan Section View. ...........................................................................................................2-7 Figure 2.5. Visual Simulation of Project; View from North/East..............................................................2-8 Figure 2.6. Visual Simulation of Project; View from South/West. ...........................................................2-9 Figure 3.1.1. Northwest (primary) façade of 1642 South Central Avenue, view facing southeast (SWCA, June 2021).............................................................................................................3.1-7 Figure 3.1.2. Southeast end of southwest façade of 1642 South Central Avenue, view facing northeast (SWCA, June 2021). ............................................................................................3.1-8 Figure 3.1.3. Overview of southeast (rear) façade of 1642 South Central Avenue, view facing north (SWCA, June 2021).............................................................................................................3.1-8 Figure 3.1.4. Southwest (primary) façade of 1608 Gardena, view facing northeast (SWCA, August 2021)....................................................................................................................................3.1-9 Figure 3.1.5. Northeast (rear) façade of 1608 Gardena with the 1953 addition, view facing west (SWCA, August 2021).........................................................................................................3.1-9 Figure 3.1.6. Northwest façade of 1608 Gardena with the 1953 addition at the north end, view facing east (SWCA, August 2021).....................................................................................3.1-10 Figure 3.2.1 Long-term Noise Level Measurement Locations. ............................................................3.2-10 List of Tables
Table 1.1. Summary of Project Impacts Identified in the EIR...................................................................1-3 Table 3.2.1. FTA General Assessment Construction Noise Impact Criteria ..........................................3.2-1 Table 3.2.2. FTA Vibration Threshold Guidelines for Potential Damage to Structures.........................3.2-2 Table 3.2.3. Indoor FTA Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria .........................................................3.2-2 Table 3.2.4. City of Glendale Interior and Exterior Noise Standards.....................................................3.2-3 Table 3.2.5. City of Glendale Municipal Code Exterior and Interior Noise Standards ..........................3.2-4 Table 3.2.6. Representative Environmental Noise Levels ......................................................................3.2-5 Table 3.2.7. Definitions of Acoustical Terms.........................................................................................3.2-6 Table 3.2.8. Summary of Long-Term Noise Level Measurements.........................................................3.2-9 Table 3.2.9. Representative Construction Equipment Noise Levels – Peak Hourly Use......................3.2-12 Table 3.2.10. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment....................................................3.2-15 Table 5.1.1. Related Projects .....................................................................................................................5-1 iii
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
413 of 638
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CAHSR
CDFs
CEQA
CFR
California High Speed Rail
character-defining features
California Environmental Quality Act
Code of Federal Regulations
CHRIS
City
California Historical Resources Information System
City of Glendale
CNEL
CRHR
dB
Community Noise Equivalent Level
California Register of Historical Resources
decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DPR
EIR
California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series forms Environmental Impact Report
FTA Federal Transit Administration
Historic American Building Survey
Historic American Landscape Survey
Historic Resources Assessment
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
inches per second PPV
HABS
HALS
HRA
HVAC
in/sec PPV
Ldn Day/Night Noise Level
Leq Equivalent Continuous Noise Level
mitigation monitoring and reporting program
Native American Heritage Commission
Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report National Park Service
MMRP
NAHC
NOP
NPS
NRHP
PPV
National Register of Historic Places
peak particle velocity
RMS
SCAG
STC
root-mean-square
Southern California Association of Governments
sound transmission class
STC sound transmission class
VdB root-mean-square velocity level denoted in the decibel scale iv
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
414 of 638

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Chapter provides a summary and outlines the purpose and purpose of this EIR and summarizes the environmental review process.

1.1 Summary
This document is an environmental impact report (EIR) for the 1642 South Central Avenue Project (Project). This summary chapter is intended to highlight major areas of importance in the environmental analysis as required by Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

This chapter provides a summary of the Project, the environmental impacts of the Project, the alternatives to the Project, including identification of the environmentally superior alternative, and the environmental issues to be resolved and areas of known controversy.

1.2 Proposed Project Description
The Project site is located at 1642 South Central Avenue, within the Tropico neighborhood of the City of Glendale (APN 5640-029-014). The Project site is a 0.23-acre rectangular parcel and is bounded to the north by South Central Avenue, to the west by Gardena Avenue, to the east by an industrial building constructed in 1985, and to the south by a single-family residence constructed in 1947.

The Project site is zoned SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and developed with two residential buildings (1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardena Avenue) and a detached garage. The residence located at 1642 South Central Avenue was constructed in 1913, and a second residence located on the same lot but addressed on 1608 Gardena Avenue was constructed in 1920. The Project would demolish both residential dwelling units and the garage and construct a new 40,240-square-foot, five-story, 31-unit, rental housing building. Parking would be provided in a 16-space one-level subterranean garage. Per Government Code Section 65915 and Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.36 (Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance), three of the residential units would be reserved for very low-income households.

1.3 Project Objectives
The Project applicant’s objectives are as follows:
1) Contribute to the health of the City through an economically viable infill project that would provide an increase in residential units to help meet housing demand in the City and better meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements for the region. 2) Construct a new multi-family residential building with new architectural designs and energyefficient building systems that promote energy conservation that furthers the City’s policy goals expressed in the Greener Glendale Plan
3) Provide new residential opportunities that offer multi-modal opportunities taking advantage of the close proximity to Larry Zarian Transportation Center.
4) Enhance the general welfare of the public by offering affordable housing opportunities and help meet the City’s affordable housing goals and needs outlined in the City’s Housing Element. 5) Develop new residential opportunities close to the existing retail amenities within South Glendale. 1-1
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
415 of 638

1.0 Introduction

1.4 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 1.1 summarizes all impacts of the proposed Project and associated mitigation measures identified in this EIR. Table 1.1 has four columns: the identified impact under each EIR issue area; the level of significance prior to implementation of mitigation; mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the level of impacts; and the level of significance after implementation of mitigation measures. The levels of significance of impacts before and after implementation of applicable mitigation measures are identified as follows:


No Impact (NI) – No adverse changes (or impacts) to the environment are expected.

Less Than Significant (LTS) – Impact that would not exceed the defined significance criteria or would be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with existing local, state, and federal laws and regulations.


Less Than Significant with Mitigation (LTSM) – Impact that is significant but reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the identified mitigation measure(s).

Significant and Unavoidable (SU) – Impact that exceeds the defined significance criteria and cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with existing local, state, and federal laws and regulations, and for which there are no feasible mitigation measures that would bring the level to LTSM.
1-2
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
416 of 638

1.0 Introduction
Table 1.1. Summary of Project Impacts Identified in the EIR Level of
Significance
Level of
Significance
After Impact Mitigation and Improvement Measures Before Mitigation Mitigation
Legend: NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than significant or negligible impact, no mitigation required; S = Significant; LTSM = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact; SU = Significant and unavoidable adverse impact, no feasible mitigation; N/A = Not Applicable Section 3.B, Cultural Resources (Historic Architectural Resources) CR-1: The proposed Project would cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA
Guidelines.

S Mitigation Measure M-CR-1: Documentation of Historical Resource SU Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the Project applicant shall undertake Historic American Building/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABS/HALS) documentation of the building features. The documentation shall be undertaken by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History, History, or Architecture (as appropriate) to prepare written and photographic documentation of 1642 South Central Avenue. The specific scope of the documentation shall be reviewed and approved by City staff but shall include the following elements:

Measured Drawings – A set of measured drawings shall be prepared that depict the existing size, scale, and dimension of the historic resource. The Project applicant shall submit original architectural drawings or an as-built set of architectural drawings (e.g., plans, sections, elevations). City staff will assist the consultant in determining the appropriate level of measured drawings.

Historic American Buildings/Historic American Landscape Survey-Level Photographs – Either Historic American Buildings/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABS/HALS) standard large-format or digital photography shall be used. The scope of the digital photographs shall be reviewed by City staff for concurrence, and all digital photography shall be conducted according to the latest National Park Service (NPS) standards. The photography shall be undertaken by a qualified professional with demonstrated experience in HABS/HALS photography. Photograph views for the data set shall include contextual views; views of each side of the building and interior views, including any original interior features, where possible; oblique views of the building; and detail views of characterdefining features.

All views shall be referenced on a photographic key. This photographic key shall be on a map of the property and shall show the photograph number with an arrow to indicate the direction of the view. Historic photographs shall also be collected, reproduced, and included in the data set.

The Project applicant shall transmit such documentation to the Glendale Public Library, the Glendale Historical Society, the Community Development Department, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The HABS/HALS documentation scope will determine the requested documentation type for the Project site and the Project applicant will conduct outreach to identify other interested groups. All documentation will be reviewed and approved by City staff before any demolition or site permit is granted for the affected historical resources.
1-3
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
417 of 638

1.0 Introduction
Level of
Significance
Before
Level of
Significance
After Impact Mitigation and Improvement Measures
Mitigation Mitigation
Legend: NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than significant or negligible impact, no mitigation required; S = Significant; LTSM = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact; SU = Significant and unavoidable adverse impact, no feasible mitigation; N/A = Not Applicable C-CR-1: The proposed Project, LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A in combination with related projects, would
not materially alter, in an adverse manner,
the physical characteristics of historical
resources that justify their eligibility for
inclusion in the California Register of
Historical Resources, resulting in a
cumulative impact.

Section 4.2, Noise and Vibration
NO-1: Construction of the proposed Project
would generate a substantial temporary
increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the City of Glendale Noise
Ordinance or applicable standards of other
agencies.

S Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise and Vibration Control LTSM Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:
 Standard building construction requirements shall consist of wall construction with a minimum rating of STC-41 as described above and windows and glass doors throughout the building at sensitive rooms shall meet a minimum STC rating of STC-33.
 Grading and construction contractors shall use equipment that generates lower vibration levels, such as rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment.


Construction haul truck and materials delivery traffic shall avoid residential areas whenever feasible.

The construction contractor shall place noise- and vibration-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses whenever feasible.


The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators where feasible.

All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for the “noise disturbance coordinator.  Heavy equipment similar to that of bulldozers shall not be used within 5 feet of any existing neighboring structure.

NO-2: Construction of the proposed Project
would generate excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels.

S See Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise and Vibration Control, above. LTSM 1-4
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
418 of 638

1.0 Introduction
Level of
Significance
Before
Level of
Significance
After Impact Mitigation and Improvement Measures
Mitigation Mitigation
Legend: NI = No Impact; LTS = Less than significant or negligible impact, no mitigation required; S = Significant; LTSM = Significant but mitigable to less than significant impact; SU = Significant and unavoidable adverse impact, no feasible mitigation; N/A = Not Applicable NO-3: Operation of the proposed project
would generate a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the Project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan, or
applicable standards of other agencies.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
C-NO-1: Construction noise and vibration as N/A
a result of the proposed Project, combined
with construction noise and vibration from
cumulative projects in the vicinity, would
cause a substantial temporary increase in
ambient noise levels. Operation of the
proposed Project, combined with operation
noise from cumulative projects in the vicinity,
would not cause a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity.

LTS No mitigation measures are required.
1-5
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
419 of 638

1.0 Introduction

1.5 Summary of Project Alternatives
Three alternatives to the proposed Project are evaluated in this EIR:



No Project Alternative
Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative
Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative
These alternatives are summarized below and described in detail in Chapter 6, Alternatives.

1.5.1 No Project Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that, among a reasonable range of feasible Project alternatives, a “no project” alternative be evaluated. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that the no project alternative analysis “discuss the existing conditions as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and policies and consistent with the available infrastructure and community services.” The No Project Alternative assumes that the Project site would retain the existing single-family dwellings and garage, which would not constitute a change from existing conditions, and that the existing land use controls on the project site would continue to govern site development and would not be changed. The No Project Alternative would not result in the development of the 31-unit, rental housing building.

1.5.2 Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative
The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would move the existing historic resource located at 1642 South Central Avenue to another location on the Project site. Similar to the Project it would require the demolition of 1608 Gardena Avenue and the existing garage. This Alternative would reduce the Project size from 31 units to 15 residential units, including 11 14 market-rate and 4 1 very low-income units, and a subterranean garage with eight parking spaces. The new development would be located on the southern portion of the site.

The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would largely preserve the on-site location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and character-defining features of the historic building at 1642 South Central Avenue. This Alternative would change the property’s on-site setting by introducing new construction on the parcel, however there is requirement under CEQA to maintain all aspects of integrity as defined by the National Park Service. In addition, the broader setting of the property has been deeply compromised from the original single-family residential character. Therefore, it would eliminate the significant impact related to historic resources.

1.5.3 Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative
The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would keep the 1642 South Central Avenue duplex in its existing location on the project site, demolish 1608 Gardena Avenue and the existing garage, and build 11 residential units on the remaining site area. The new construction would include 11 residential units, including eight ten market-rate and 3 1 very low-income units, and a subterranean garage with eight parking spaces would be constructed on the southern portion of the site in a variety of layouts and sizes. 1-6
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
420 of 638

1.0 Introduction
The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would keep the 1642 South Central Avenue residential building in its existing location, demolish 1608 Gardena Avenue and the existing garage, and build 11 new residential units on the remaining site area instead of 31 units. The 11 residential units would include 8 10 market-rate and 31 very low-income units. Similar to the Project, this Alternative would include a single level subterranean garage with eight parking spaces. The Alternative would be constructed on the southern portion of the site.

The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would largely preserve the on-site location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and character-defining features of the historic building at 1642 South Central Avenue. This Alternative would change the property’s on-site setting by introducing new construction on the parcel, however there is no requirement under CEQA all aspects of integrity be retained and (see Section 4.1.1.5). In addition, the broader setting of the property has been deeply compromised from the original single-family residential character. This alternative would eliminate significant impacts relating to the demolition of the historic resource.

1.5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then an EIR is required to identify another environmentally superior alternative from among the alternatives evaluated. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that best avoids or lessens any significant effects of the Project, even if the alternative would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives. The Project would have a significant impact related to historical architectural resources that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because this Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable historical architectural resources impacts associated with demolition of 1642 South Central Avenue by avoiding demolition of the residence and would meet more project objectives compared to the Reduced Density (Existing Location) as it would allow for more affordable and market rate residential units and help the City achieve its regional affordability goals.

1.5.5 Areas of Known Controversy and Issues to be Resolved CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(2) indicates that an EIR summary should identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency including issues raised by agencies and the public. This Draft EIR has taken into consideration the comments received from the public in response to the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Based on the scoping process, the potential area of controversy known to the City is the potential adverse impact to Glendale historic resources. These concerns have been addressed in Section 4.1, Historic Architectural Resources, in the EIR.

1.6 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report
This EIR has been prepared by the City of Glendale (City), the Lead Agency for the Project, in compliance with the provisions of CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, this is a project-level EIR (an EIR that examines the physical environmental impacts of a specific development project). As determined and guided by findings of the initial study for the Project (presented in Appendix B), this EIR evaluates the potential for the 1-7
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
421 of 638

1.0 Introduction
Project to cause significant impacts under a limited number of environmental topics: cultural resources (historic architectural resources) and noise and vibration. The initial study determined that the remaining environmental topics would have less-than-significant impacts with mitigation, less-than-significant impacts, or no impacts, or would not be applicable; therefore, they were not carried forward for analysis in this EIR. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, a “significant effect on the environment” is:
. . . a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment.

A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.

As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is an informational document intended to inform public agency decision-makers and the public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. CEQA requires that public agencies not approve projects until all feasible means available have been employed to substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.

Before any discretionary project approvals may be granted for the project, the City must certify the EIR as adequate, accurate, and objective. EIR adequacy is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, Standards for Adequacy of an EIR, which states:

An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.

City decision-makers will use the certified EIR, along with other information and public processes, to determine whether to approve, modify, or disapprove the project, and to require any feasible mitigation measures as conditions of project approval.

1.7 Organization of this EIR
This EIR is organized into six chapters, as described below.

Chapter 1: Introduction
Provides a summary of the Project and describes the type, purpose, and function of the EIR; the environmental review process and comments received on the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (NOP); and the organization of the EIR.

Chapter 2: Project Description
Presents details about the Project and the approvals required for implementation.

Chapter 3: Environmental Impact Analysis
1-8
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
422 of 638

1.0 Introduction
Each topic section includes a description of existing conditions with respect to the particular environmental topic (environmental setting); the regulatory framework; the approach to analysis; identification and evaluation of project-specific and cumulative impacts; and mitigation measures, when appropriate. The initial study determined that the remaining environmental topics would have less-thansignificant impacts with mitigation, less-than-significant impacts, or no impacts, or would not be applicable; therefore, they were not carried forward for analysis in this EIR.

Chapter 4: Project Alternative
Presents and analyzes a range of alternatives to the Project. Three alternatives are described and evaluated: No Project Alternative, which is required by CEQA, a Reduced Density (Relocation On-Site), and a Reduced Density (Existing Location). This chapter also identifies the environmentally superior alternative, and discusses alternatives that were considered for analysis but rejected and gives the reasons for their rejection.

Chapter 5: Cumulative Impact Analysis
Addresses potential cumulative impacts from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

Chapter 6: Other CEQA Considerations
Addresses potential growth-inducing impacts of the Project and identifies significant effects that cannot be avoided if the Project is implemented, as well as significant irreversible impacts of the Project, and areas of known controversy.

Chapter 7: References
Chapter 8: List of Preparers and Organizations and Persons Contacted or Consulted Identifies the EIR authors and the agencies, organizations, and individuals consulted during preparation of the EIR. It also lists the Project applicant and any consultants working on their behalf.

List of Appendices:





Appendix A: Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, June 10, 2021 Appendix B: Initial Study
Appendix C: Historic Resources Assessment, prepared by SWCA, August 2021 Appendix D: Noise and Vibration Study, prepared by LSA, June 2020 Appendix E: Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1919 and 1925

1.8 Environmental Review Requirements
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15080 to 15097 set forth the EIR process, which includes multiple phases involving notification and input from responsible agencies and the public. The main steps in this process are described below.
1-9
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
423 of 638

1.0 Introduction

1.8.1 Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report On June 10, 2021, the City published an NOP (shown in Appendix A), announcing its intent to solicit public comments on the scope of the environmental analysis and to prepare and distribute an EIR on the 1642 South Central Avenue Project. The City mailed the NOP to the State Clearinghouse and relevant state and regional agencies; occupants of adjacent properties; property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the Project site; and other potentially interested parties, including neighborhood organizations and others that have requested such notice.

1.8.1.1 INITIAL STUDY
Following issuance of the NOP, an initial study was prepared to determine the extent of project-specific and cumulative impacts in certain resource topic areas would require additional analysis in the EIR, and which topic areas would not require analysis or less extensive analysis because the Project would have no impact, less-than-significant impacts, or less-than-significant impacts with mitigation included. These topic areas where additional analysis was not required include:


Aesthetics (all topics) 









Land Use and Planning (all topics)
Mineral Resources (all topics)
Noise (aviation-related topics)
Population and Housing (all topics)
Public Services (all topics)
Agricultural and Forest Resources
(all topics)



Air Quality (all topics)
Biological Resources (all topics)
Cultural Resources (archaeological
resources and human remains) Recreation (all topics)
Transportation (all topics)





Energy (all topics)
Tribal Cultural Resources (all topics)
Utilities and Service Systems (all topics)
Wildfire (all topics)
Geology and Soils (all topics)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (all topics)
Hydrology and Water Quality (all topics)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(all topics)
Please refer to the initial study (Appendix B) for a discussion and the impact analysis of the Project with respect to these resource topics.

1.8.1.2 AREAS WHERE ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS REQUIRED
Based on the analysis completed in the initial study, the Project could result in potentially significant impacts in the following topic areas:


Cultural Resources (historic architectural resources only) Noise (all topics except aviation-related ones)
These topics are analyzed in Chapter 4 of this EIR. The NOP comments related to the proposed Project’s physical environmental impacts were considered in preparing this analysis and are addressed under the relevant environmental topics in this chapter.
1-10
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
424 of 638

1.0 Introduction

1.8.2 Public Review of and Comments on the Notice of Preparation Publication of the NOP initiated a 30-day public review and comment period that ended on July 12, 2021.

During the NOP public scoping period, the City received a total of two comments: one from the Native American Heritage Commission and one from the Glendale Historic Society. The City has considered the comments made by the public in preparing this Draft EIR. The NOP and comments received during the public review and comment period are contained in Appendix A.

1.8.3 Draft Environmental Impact Report
Following completion of the Initial Study this Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. It provides an analysis of the project-specific physical environmental impacts of construction and operation of the Project, and the Project’s contribution to the environmental impacts from cumulative projects in the vicinity, the City as a whole, or larger geographic areas, as applicable.

The Draft EIR is available for viewing or downloading at the Planning Department website, https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/currentprojects/environmental-review. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person viewing opportunities at the Planning Department office are available only by appointment.

1.8.4 How to Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report This Draft EIR was published on March 24, 2022 and will be available for a 30-day comment period.

Members of the public are invited to submit written comments on the adequacy of the document, that is, whether this Draft EIR, including the initial study, identifies and analyzes the possible environmental impacts and identifies appropriate mitigation measures.

Written comments should be submitted to:

Attention: Dennis Joe, Senior Planner
City of Glendale
Community Development Department, Planning Division
633 East Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, California 91206
Email: [email protected]
Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on April 22, 2022. Commenters are not required to provide personal identifying information. All written or oral communications, including submitted personal contact information, may be made available to the public for inspection and copying upon request and may appear on the Planning Department’s website or in other public documents.

1.8.5 Final Environmental Impact Report
Following the close of the Draft EIR public review and comment period, the Planning Department will prepare and publish a Final EIR. The Final EIR will contain a Responses to Comments, which will include comments on the Draft EIR and the City’s responses to those comments. The Final EIR will be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission in a publicly-noticed meeting, and then certified as a Final EIR, if deemed adequate.

The Historic Preservation Commission will consider the information in the Final EIR in their deliberations on whether to approve, modify, or deny the Project or aspects of the Project. If the Historic 1-11
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
425 of 638

1.0 Introduction
Preservation Commission approves the Project, their approval action must include findings that identify significant project-related impacts that would result from the Project; discuss mitigation measures or alternatives that have been adopted to reduce significant impacts to less-than-significant levels; and explain reasons for rejecting mitigation measures or alternatives if any are infeasible for legal, social, economic, technological, or other reasons.

The Historic Preservation Commission must also adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) as part of the adoption of the CEQA findings and project approvals. The MMRP identifies the measures included in the Project or imposed by the decision-makers as conditions of approval, the entities responsible for carrying out the measures, and the timing of implementation. If significant unavoidable impacts would remain after all feasible mitigation measures are implemented, the approving body, if it elects to approve the Project, must adopt a statement of overriding considerations that makes factual findings and determinations concerning how the Project benefits would outweigh the significant environmental impacts.
1-12
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
426 of 638

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Project Objectives
The objectives for the proposed Project are as follows:
1) Contribute to the health of the City through an economically viable infill project that would provide an increase in residential units to help meet housing demand in the City and better meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements for the region. 2) Construct a new multi-family residential building with new architectural designs and energyefficient building systems that promote energy conservation that furthers the City’s policy goals expressed in the Greener Glendale Plan.
3) Provide new residential opportunities that offer multi-modal opportunities taking advantage of the Project’s proximity to Larry Zarian Transportation Center. 4) Enhance the general welfare of the public by offering affordable housing opportunities and help meet the affordable housing goals and needs outlined in the City’s Housing Element. 5) Develop new residential opportunities close to the existing retail amenities within South Glendale.

2.2 Project Location and Surrounding Uses
The approximately 9,958-square-foot (0.23-acre), rectangular Project site occupies APN 5640-029-014 in the Tropico neighborhood in the south area of the City of Glendale (Figure 2.1). The project site is generally bounded by South Central Avenue to the north, Gardena Avenue to the west, and El Bonito Avenue to the south (Figure 2.2).

The Project site is occupied by two Craftsman-style single-family residential buildings and a detached garage building. The address of the northern residential building is 1642 South Central Avenue, and the southern building is 1608 Gardena Avenue. These existing buildings occupy a total of 2,251 square feet.

2.2.1 Land Use and Zoning
The project site is currently zoned SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and is located within the South Glendale Community Plan boundaries (Figure 2.3). Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.14.030, Mixed Use District General Development Standards, establishes building height limits on the project site as 75 feet and 6 stories.

The Project site is surrounded primarily by residential, commercial, and industrial development. The Peak Auto Body automobile repair shop is immediately adjacent to the east. Other SFMU (Commercial/ Residential Mixed Use)–zoned properties are located to the west, south, and east, and IMU-R (Industrial/ Commercial-Residential Mixed Use)–zoned properties are located to the north across South Central Avenue. The adjacent properties are developed with industrial uses to the north and west, the Larry Zarian Transportation Center to the west, single-family residences to the south. The project site is located approximately 315 feet east of an existing rail corridor that carries both passenger trains (Amtrak and Metrolink) and freight trains (Union Pacific Railroad, formerly known as Southern Pacific Lines). 2-1
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
427 of 638

2.0 Project Description
Figure 2.1. Project Site Vicinity Map.
2-2
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
428 of 638

2.0 Project Description
Figure 2.2. Project Site Location.
2-3
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
429 of 638

2.0 Project Description
Figure 2.3. Project Site Zoning Map.
2-4
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
430 of 638

2.0 Project Description

2.3 Description of Proposed Project
The Project proposes to the demolish the two existing residential dwellings and accessory building on the Project site and construct a new 40,240-square-foot, five-story building with 31 units of rental housing and a one-level subterranean garage. The units would consist of 4 two-bedroom units and 27 onebedroom units. The applicant is requesting approval of a Density Bonus that would provide three units set aside for very-low-income residents. The new building would contain approximately 3,173 square feet of common open space, including a lobby, gymnasium for residents, and community rooms (Figure 2.4).

The project is subject to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance that requires 15% of the total units to be affordable. As proposed, the 13% of the units would be affordable therefore payment of an in lieu fee of the remaining 2% will be required.

There would be 1,431 square feet of landscaped area lining Gardena Avenue and South Central Avenue and in an interior courtyard surrounded by the residential units (Figure 2.5 and Figure 2.6). The roof would be accessible to residents and contain a 2,700-square-foot roof deck with amenities.

The subterranean garage would occupy 8,790 square feet and contain 16 vehicle parking spaces, one of which would be an Americans with Disabilities Act accessible space. Vehicles would enter and exit the garage from South Central Avenue.

2.3.1 Construction Schedule
The Project would be constructed in one development phase lasting 18 months, with full build-out expected to occur in 2023. The preliminary construction schedule assumes 2022 as the construction start and 2023 as the end of construction.

Construction-related activities would typically occur Monday through Friday, between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., although some work is anticipated to occur on Saturdays between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. The hours of construction would need to comply with the Glendale Municipal Code Ordinance 8.36.080. Construction activities are not permitted during the nighttime and on Sundays or holidays pursuant to Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 3.08.

2.3.2 Demolition, Excavation, and Soils Disturbance
The Project would result in the generation of approximately 5,500 cubic yards of demolition debris and would involve substantial amount of soils disturbance and excavation, specifically for construction of the subterranean parking garage and building foundations. The entirety of the 9,958-square-foot project site would be modified as a result of the Project. The depths of excavation would range up to 17 feet below the existing grade, with a total of approximately 5,500 net cubic yards of excavated soils generated during the approximately 18-month construction period.

2.3.3 Anticipated Project Approvals
A list of anticipated approval actions for the proposed Project is presented below; this list is preliminary and is subject to change. These approvals may be considered by City decision-makers in conjunction with the required environmental review, but they may not be granted until the required environmental review has been completed and certified.
2-5
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
431 of 638

2.0 Project Description
City of Glendale (Lead Agency):





Certification of the Final EIR
Density Bonus Request
Design Review
Demolition Clearance
Building Permit
2-6
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
432 of 638

2.0 Project Description
Figure 2.4. Site Plan Section View.
2-7
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
433 of 638

2.0 Project Description
Figure 2.5. Visual Simulation of Project; View from North/East. 2-8
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
434 of 638

2.0 Project Description
Figure 2.6. Visual Simulation of Project; View from South/West. 2-9
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
435 of 638

2.0 Project Description
This page intentionally left blank.
2-10
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
436 of 638

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

3.1 Cultural Resources
Section 3.1, Cultural Resources, assesses Project impacts on historical resources, as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Other cultural resources topics (i.e., archeological resources and human remains) and Tribal Cultural Resources are discussed in Sections E and R, respectively, of the initial study (Appendix B).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, defines a “historical resource” as follows:
(1) A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant.

Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.
(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

The assessment of a project’s impacts on historical resources is a two-step analysis: first, the project site is analyzed to determine if it contains a “historical resource(s)” as defined under CEQA; second, if the site is found to contain historical resources, an analysis is carried out to determine whether the project could cause a substantial adverse change to the resource. A project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21084.1).

The City of Glendale (City) received one comment on the NOP related to historic preservation (see EIR Chapter 1, Introduction). Section 3.1, Historic Architectural Resources, is based on the Historic Resources Assessment (HRA) prepared for the proposed Project by a historic architectural resource consultant (Appendix C).

3.1-1
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
437 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources

3.1.1 Regulatory Framework
This subsection describes the federal, state, and local laws and regulations that pertain to the identification and regulation of historic architectural resources.

3.1.1.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
National Register of Historic Places
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 60.2).

The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. In general, a resource must be 50 years of age to be considered for the NRHP, unless it satisfies a standard of exceptional importance. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:



Criterion A (Events): It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
Criterion B (Persons): It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past;
Criterion C (Design/Construction): It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or  Criterion D (Information Potential): It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.1
Although there are exceptions, certain kinds of resources are not usually considered for listing in the National Register. These include religious properties, moved properties, birthplaces and graves, cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative properties, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years.

Integrity
In addition to qualifying for listing under at least one of the National Register criteria, a property must possess sufficient integrity to be considered eligible for listing in the National Register. According to the National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, integrity is 1 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Chapter 1, Part 60, Section 60.4.

3.1-2
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
438 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.”2 The National Register Bulletin defines seven characteristics of integrity, as follows:


Location is the place where the historic property was constructed.

Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure, and style of the property.





Setting is the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the landscape and spatial relationships of the buildings.

Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the historic property.

Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history.

Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and an historic property.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (the Secretary’s Standards) were published in 1995 and codified as 36 CFR 68.3,4 Neither technical nor prescriptive, these standards are intended to promote responsible preservation practices that help protect irreplaceable cultural resources. The Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation consist of 10 basic principles created to help preserve the distinctive character of a historic building and its site while allowing for reasonable changes to meet new needs. The preamble to the Secretary’s Standards states that they “are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.” The standards for rehabilitation of a historic resource are as follows:
 Standard 1: A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
 Standard 2: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. 2 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 2002).

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer), The Secretary of the Interior’s 3 Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstruction of Historic Buildings, 1995, updated 2017. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf.

Accessed August 2021. National Park Service Technical Preservation Services, Four Approaches to the Treatment of Historic Properties. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments.htm. Accessed August 2021. 4 Treatments are defined as follows: “Preservation” acknowledges a resource as a document of its history over time and emphasizes stabilization, maintenance, and repair of existing historic fabric. “Rehabilitation” is the most widely used standard; while also incorporating the retention of features that convey historic character, “Rehabilitation” also accommodates alterations and additions to facilitate continuing or new uses. “Restoration” involves the retention and replacement from a specific period of significance. “Reconstruction,” the least-used treatment, provides a basis for re-creating a missing resource.

3.1-3
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
439 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
 Standard 3: Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.

Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 


Standard 4: Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

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

Standard 6: Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.

Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
 Standard 7: Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.


Standard 8: Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.  Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

3.1.1.2 STATE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
Definition of Historical Resources under CEQA
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a), in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, defines a “historical resource” as:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. (2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to

3.1-4
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
440 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.
(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.

Therefore, under the CEQA Guidelines, even if a resource is not included on any local, state, or federal register, or identified in a qualifying historical resources survey, a lead agency may still determine that any resource is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA if there is substantial evidence supporting such a determination. A lead agency must consider a resource to be historically significant if it finds that the resource meets the criteria for listing in the California Register.

California Register of Historical Resources
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.”5 Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher, are automatically included in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs may be nominated for inclusion in the CRHR.

Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to convey the reasons for their significance. Resources whose historic integrity does not meet NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR.

3.1.1.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
City of Glendale Municipal Code – Designation of Historic Resources Chapter 15.20.050 of the City of Glendale Municipal Code states that upon recommendation of the historic preservation commission, City Council shall consider and make findings for additions of designated historic properties to the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. According to the Municipal Code Chapter 15.20.020, a “Historic Resource” is any site, building, structure, area or place, man-made or natural, which is historically or archaeologically significant in the cultural, architectural, archaeological, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political or military heritage of the City of Glendale, the state of California, or the United States and retains sufficient historic integrity to convey its significance.

The designation of any proposed resource in the City as a historic resource shall be granted only if City Council first finds that the proposed historic resource meets one or more of the following criteria:
5 Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1.

3.1-5
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
441 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
A. The resource is identified with important events in national, state, or city history, or exemplifies significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, tribal, or historic heritage of the nation, state, or city, and retains historic integrity; B. resource is associated with a person, persons, or groups who significantly contributed to the history of the nation, state, region, or city, and retains historic integrity; C. The resource embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represents a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possesses high artistic values, and retains historic integrity;
D. The resource has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to archaeological pre-history or history of the nation, state, region, or city, and retains historic integrity. (Ord. 5949 Section 6, 2020; Ord. 5784 Section 7, 2012; Ord. 5347 Section 7, 2003; Ord. 5110 Section 12, 1996; prior code Sections 21-02).

Glendale Historic District Overlay Zones
Chapter 30.25.020 of the City of Glendale Municipal Code defines a historic district as a geographically definable area possessing a concentration, linkage or continuity, constituting more than 60 percent of the total, of historic or scenic properties, or thematically-related grouping of properties. Properties must contribute to each other and be unified aesthetically by plan or historical physical development.

A geographic area may be designated as a historic district overlay zone by the City Council upon the recommendation of the historic preservation commission and planning commission if the district:

A. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the City's cultural, social. economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural or natural history; B. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; C. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, method of construction or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; D. Represents the work of notable builders, designers, or architects; E. Has a unique location or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood community or of the City;
F. Embodies a collection of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation; G. Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning;
H. Conveys a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, workmanship, or association; or
I. Has been designated a historic district in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. (Ord. 5399 Attach. A, 2004)6 6 City of Glendale Municipal Code, Chapters 30.25.020, Available at: http://www.qcode.us/codes/glendale/. Accessed August 2021.

3.1-6
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
442 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
At this time the City Council has adopted nine historic districts and other districts are currently under review and consideration.7

3.1.2 Environmental Setting
The Project site is in the Tropico neighborhood within the City of Glendale and County of Los Angeles, California (Figures 3.1.1 through 3.1.6). The property consists of an approximately 0.23-acre rectangular parcel on the south side of S. Central Avenue, east of Gardena Avenue. The parcel consists of Lot 12 in Block 4 in Tract No. 910.

Situated on the property are three buildings: at the front of the Project site is 1642 South Central Avenue, a one-story Craftsman-style dwelling originally constructed in 1913 and subsequently converted to a duplex sometime between 1919 and 1925 (Figures 3.1.1 through 3.1.3); to the south is 1608 Gardena, a one-story Craftsman-style dwelling constructed in 1920 (Figures 3.1.4 through 3.1.6); and behind that building is a one-story garage constructed in 1923.

Figure 3.1.1. Northwest (primary) façade of 1642 South Central Avenue, view facing southeast (SWCA, June 2021).
7 City of Glendale, Historic Districts, Available at https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/communitydevelopment/planning/historic-preservation/historic-districts. Accessed February 2022.

3.1-7
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
443 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
Figure 3.1.2. Southeast end of southwest façade of 1642 South Central Avenue, view facing northeast (SWCA, June 2021).

Figure 3.1.3. Overview of southeast (rear) façade of 1642 South Central Avenue, view facing north (SWCA, June 2021).

3.1-8
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
444 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
Figure 3.1.4. Southwest (primary) façade of 1608 Gardena, view facing northeast (SWCA, August 2021).

Figure 3.1.5. Northeast (rear) façade of 1608 Gardena with the 1953 addition, view facing west (SWCA, August 2021).

3.1-9
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
445 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
Figure 3.1.6. Northwest façade of 1608 Gardena with the 1953 addition at the north end, view facing east (SWCA, August 2021).

3.1.2.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The first building constructed on the Project site was a single-family residence built in 1911. It was destroyed by fire two years later in 1913. Later that same year the extant front building (1642 South Central Avenue) was constructed. As reported in a 1913 edition of the Southwest Builder & Manufacturer, the single family residential building located at 1642 South Central Avenue was constructed in 1913. The contractor was reported to be William J. Gretten. A detached garage was added in 1913 (not extant).

The property appears to have changed hands by 1920 to Mr. John R. Struchen.8 As evidenced by the 1919 and 1925 editions of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of Glendale, California, sometime between 1919 and 1925 the residence at 1642 South Central Avenue was converted from single-family to a duplex.

On September 13, 1920, the City of Glendale issued permit no. 1701 to John R. Struchen to build a new three-bedroom residential building at 1608 Gardena Avenue. The contractor was listed simply as McClain.

Three years later, on October 22, 1923, the City issued permit no. 9514 to Mr. Struchen to add an addition to 1642 South Central Avenue. The contractor’s name of the permit is illegible. That same year (1923) the Southwest Builder & Manufacturer reported that Mr. Struchen built a garage on the property.9 8 City of Glendale, Building Permit No. 1701, September 13, 1920. 9 The Glendale Historical Society, “California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series Forms: 1642 S. Central and 1608 Gardena” (Glendale, CA: March 2019), 2.

3.1-10
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
446 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources

3.1.2.2 HISTORIC AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
Historic contexts are defined as “those patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) is made clear.” A context may be organized by theme, geographic area, or chronology; regardless of the frame of reference, a historic context is associated with a defined area and an identified period of significance. Historic contexts are linked to physical artifacts through the concept of property types and are crucial to the evaluation of historic significance. A property’s historic significance must be explained against its associated context. The following discussion of historic context has been developed to help evaluate the significance of the Project site.

South Glendale Historic Context
The following presents an historical overview of the area surrounding the Project site; this material is excerpted from the City of Glendale, South Glendale Historic Context Statement, completed by Historic Resources Group (HRG), on behalf of the City of Glendale Planning Division in 2014.

The City of Glendale is located at the eastern end of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County, at the southern base of the Verdugo Mountains. It is bordered to the northwest by the Tujunga neighborhood of Los Angeles, to the northeast by La Cañada Flintridge and the unincorporated area of La Crescenta, to the west by Burbank, to the east by Pasadena, and to the south and southeast by the City of Los Angeles. City boundaries are roughly delineated by the 210, 2, 134, and 5 freeways.

The South Glendale Community Plan Area comprises all of the neighborhoods south of the 134 freeway. It is composed of the original commercial and industrial centers of the City, along with single- and multi-family residential neighborhoods. Glendale was founded in 1887, amid the regional real estate and population boom of the era; the City of Glendale was incorporated in 1906. Incorporation triggered exponential growth, and the new city’s population grew from 1,186 in 1906 to 13,576 in 1920. By the following year, the population reached 25,720 due to the annexation of several adjoining unincorporated areas, as well as the nearby township of Tropico. The South Glendale Community Plan area encompasses the entire 1906 city boundary along with areas annexed by 1918.

A booming Southern California population, the city’s close proximity to downtown Los Angeles, improved public transportation followed by automobile-related development made Glendale an attractive place for suburban development. As a result, many new subdivisions were laid out, with the city expanding outward from its original downtown core. The construction boom lasted for most of the 1920s, ending soon after the stock market crash of 1929. In the flats of South Glendale, the residential neighborhoods represent some of the earliest development in Glendale; hillside developments followed in the 1920s and during the post-World War II era.

Zoning changes have resulted in a great deal of infill construction of apartment buildings in areas that were formerly low density, single-family neighborhoods. As a result, intact neighborhoods of low-density, single-family development are rare in South Glendale, and integrity of setting is often compromised. The residential neighborhoods are largely characterized by small clusters of single- and multi-family residences from the early 20th century surrounded by, and interspersed with, later development.

South Glendale includes one of the main retail hubs in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, featuring the Glendale Galleria, a major regional mall, The Americana at Brand,

3.1-11
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
447 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
a flagship mixed-use development, and the Brand Boulevard of Cars corridor of auto dealerships. Glendale is also home to a major regional concentration of medical and healthcare facilities, as well as to creative campuses of the Walt Disney Company and DreamWorks Animation (whose headquarters are located outside the South Glendale Community Plan area).

Today, South Glendale is the most densely developed part of the city. Its population has the highest levels of economic and cultural diversity, and its buildings display the widest range of types and uses. The most complex of the four Community Plan areas, South Glendale is also the site of the City’s highest development pressures, inevitably leading to increased threats to historic resources. Many South Glendale neighborhoods lost their historic character between the 1960s and the 1990s, ultimately becoming home to many of the city’s large multi-family developments. This trend was diminished through several down zonings at the close of the 20th century, though some portions of South Glendale are slated for increased density in the coming Community Plan.10

3.1.2.3 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT
Craftsman (Early 1900s – 1920s)
The following presents a historical overview of the Craftsman style of architecture in South Glendale; this material is excerpted from the City of Glendale South Glendale Historic Context Statement, prepared by HRG on behalf of the City of Glendale in September 2014.

Craftsman architecture grew out of the late-19th century English Arts and Crafts movement. A reaction against industrialization and the excesses of the Victorian era, the movement stressed simplicity of design, handcraftsmanship, and the relationship of the building to the climate and landscape. Craftsman architecture developed in the first decade of the 20th century as an indigenous California version of the American Arts and Crafts movement, incorporating Southern California’s unique qualities. Constructed primarily of stained wood, with wide overhanging eaves, balconies, and terraces extending the living space outdoors, the style embodied the goals of the Arts and Crafts movement.

The Craftsman bungalow dates from the early 1900s through the 1920s. The bungalow’s simplicity of form, informal character, direct response to site, and extensive use of natural materials, particularly wood and stone, was a regional interpretation of the reforms espoused by the Arts and Crafts movement’s founder, William Morris. Craftsman bungalows generally have rectangular or irregular plans and are one to one-and-a-half stories tall. They have wood clapboard or shingle exteriors and a pronounced horizontal emphasis, with broad front porches, often composed with stone, clinker brick, or plastered porch piers. Other character-defining features include low-pitched front-facing gable roofs, and overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails.

As opposed to smaller developer-built or prefabricated bungalows, two-story Craftsman houses were often commissioned for wealthy residents and designed specifically with the homeowner’s needs and the physical site in mind. They generally feature a low-pitched gable roof, wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails, and windows grouped in horizontal bands. A high-style Craftsman house is distinguished by the quality of the 10 Historic Resources Group (HRG), City of Glendale, South Glendale Historic Context Statement, Prepared for the City of Glendale Planning Division, September 30, 2014.

3.1-12
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
448 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
materials and complexity of design and may feature elaborate, custom-designed woodwork, stained glass, and other fixtures.

By World War I, the Craftsman style declined in popularity and was replaced by Period Revival styles. The Craftsman bungalow continued to be built into the 1920s, but was often painted in lighter colors, stripped of its dark wood interiors, or blended with characteristics of various Revival styles.

Character-Defining Features of Craftsman Style
Character-defining features (CDFs) are the visual and physical qualities that give a building its distinctive identity and that relate it to an area or period of significance. These features may include the overall building shape, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details and features, and aspects of its site and environment, and range in importance from high to low. The following are character-defining features of Craftsman-style buildings:


Horizontal massing  Heavy porch piers, often of river stone or masonry Wood sash casement or doublehung windows, often grouped in multiples Low-pitched gable roof with rolled or composition shingle roofing


Wide front doors, often with a beveled light



Wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafter
tails, outriggers, or knee braces Wide, plain window and door surrounds, often with extended lintels Exterior walls clad in wood shingle, shake, or clapboard siding 

Extensive use of natural materials (wood,
brick, or river stone) Projecting partial-width, full-width, or wraparound front porch Detached garage at rear of property

3.1.3 Impacts Analysis

3.1.3.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION
The City determines the significance of impacts in this analysis consistent with the environmental checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Implementation of the Project would have a significant effect related to historic architectural resources if the project would:
 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.

The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5(b)) establish the criteria for assessing a significant environmental impact on historical resources. The Guidelines state, “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” The CEQA Guidelines define “substantial adverse change” as “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (Section 15064.5(b)(1)).

3.1.3.2 APPROACH TO ANALYSIS
This analysis was conducted and completed in accordance with the practices described in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation, including standards for identifying, evaluating, and documenting resources. Applicable national, state, and local level criteria were considered, as well as the context-driven methods and framework used by the 2014 South Glendale

3.1-13
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
449 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
Historic Context Statement (2014 Context) and the 2019 South Glendale Historic Resources Survey (2019 Survey).

South Glendale Historic Context Statement Evaluation Criteria Period of Significance
A property’s period of significance is determined by analyzing the date or range of dates during which it acquired its historic significance. The residential building located at 1642 South Central Avenue was built in 1913 in the town of Tropico. It is identified as a historic resource since it is a rare surviving example of residential architecture from the period before the town was annexed into the City of Glendale (1918), and for the quality of its Craftsman-style design.

The house and garage at 1608 Gardena Avenue were built in 1920 and 1923, respectively. These two buildings were built in the City of Glendale after the 1918 annexation of Tropico, and are modest examples of Craftsman-style design, lacking in the abundance of design features that make 1642 South Central Avenue a significant example of the style.

Based on the construction of the residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue, the period of significance for the property is therefore determined to be 1913.

Assessment of Integrity
In addition to a finding of historic significance, in order to be eligible for listing on the NRHP, a property must retain integrity. Integrity is defined in National Register Bulletin no. 15 as the “ability of a property to convey its significance.” The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities of integrity:
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (see definitions in Subsection

3.1.1.1 “Federal Regulations and Guidelines”). To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities. Under the CRHR a property may lack integrity but still be found eligible for listing. In addition to the NRHP guidance, the Glendale Register outlines integrity criteria for properties within the City (discussed below).

LOCATION
The residential building at 1642 South Central has not been moved and therefore retains its integrity of location.

DESIGN
The residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue retains high integrity of design. It has no known alterations to the northwest (primary) façade. On secondary façades, alterations consist of the small addition at the southeast (rear) façade (1923), installation of four replacement vinyl sliding windows within original openings (2009), and the removal of the upper portion of the chimney (date unknown). These alterations are reversible and limited to secondary façades.

SETTING
The residential building located at 1642 South Central Avenue retains its integrity of setting in terms of the immediate property boundary. The historically-significant 1913 house shares the lot with the 1920/23 house and garage at 1608 Gardena Avenue, which are not historically significant in their own right. The overall site configuration dating to mid-1920s, therefore, remains the same. However, the original 1913 setting was altered by the later construction, which

3.1-14
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
450 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
led to the removal of an outbuilding shown on the 1919 Sanborn map near the rear property line.

Over time, the broader setting of the site in the context of the immediate surroundings has changed, with the introduction of small industrial buildings, taller multifamily residential buildings, and the Larry Zarian Transit Center parking lots, which together significantly transformed the neighborhood’s original single family residential character.

MATERIALS
The residential building located at 1642 South Central Avenue retains high integrity of materials.

Large amounts of original wood, stone, and concrete work, in addition to most window sashes, are original and present at all building facades, and are largely unaltered.

WORKMANSHIP
The residential building located at 1642 South Central Avenue retains high integrity of workmanship. The existence of, and quality of, the wood, stone, and concrete work associated with Craftsman-era residential construction is present at all building facades, and are largely unaltered.

FEELING
The residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue retains high integrity of feeling. The original design features and materials continue to reflect the building’s construction era, when most neighborhoods in Tropico and Glendale consisted of Craftsman-style homes.

ASSOCIATION
The residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue retains its association with the early residential development of town of Tropico and, after the town’s annexation in 1918, Glendale.

Through the retention of significant aspects of its original design, materials, and workmanship, as well as its location within the original Tropico boundary, this association with the area’s early history remains palpable.

The residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue retains a high level of integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance despite numerous changes to the historic character of the wider neighborhood. The building’s setting, therefore becomes a less critical aspect of integrity because the elements that connect it to its origin in Tropico and its Craftsman-style design – the things that make it eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources - remain intact.

3.1.3.3 NRHP, CRHR, AND CITY OF GLENDALE REGISTER OF HISTORIC

RESOURCES ELIGIBILITY
1642 South Central Avenue Architectural Description
The one-story residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue is generally rectangular in plan (Figures

3.1.1 through 3.1.3). It is clad in wood shingles and has stone piers and wood posts supports for the front porch. Fenestration consists primarily of original wood-framed casement and double-hung windows with some replacement vinyl-framed sliding windows within original openings. Windows are generally finished in unadorned wide flat board trim, without corner details, and have sloped sills. The dwelling is capped by gable roof with exposed rafter tails and beams. It is finished with composition shingles.

3.1-15
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
451 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
The following is an excerpt from the 2019 DPR, prepared by the Glendale Historical Society in March 2019. The 2019 DPR referred to 1642 South Central Avenue as “Building A.” The architectural description begins with the northwest (primary) façade and proceeds counterclockwise to the southwest, southeast, and northeast façades.

Building A is a single story with two, nested front-facing, low sloped gabled roofs. [The northwest (primary) façade] has a partial width entrance porch that notably wraps around the side of the building for a full bay. The porch has large-scale, tapered arroyo stone piers that are distinctively “pierced” by overlapping, extended porch railings.

The battered piers and porch base are random-set arroyo stone with concrete caps. Set on the caps, paired, outsize porch posts on each side support a decorative open, kingpost truss, which is punctuated by faceted, extended purlins and a low-sloping roof.

The overall effect is a delicate balance of wood joinery and careful proportions, imbued with clear structural stability. An exaggerated-width front door with an inset panel, which is characteristic of the style, is set off-center, and is balanced by multi-light sidelights.

The concrete steps have quarter-radiused ends but are interrupted by the decorative masonry of the battered, arroyo stone porch piers. There is an arroyo stone end wall chimney on the north wall that was dismantled to the roofline (date unknown). The other front bay has a three-part window, containing a central picture window with casement side windows. The windows and all doors have wide surrounds, with wider head casings, which are also representative of the style. Exterior walls are painted, random-width, straight edge wood shingles. An alternating, narrow and wide slat vent embellishes the wide attic vent. The low-sloped roof has exposed rafter tails, deep eaves, wide fascia boards and extended purlins. The porch is partially obscured by a shade, but features three posts at the outside corner. The roof extends to shelter the side porch which continues as a pergola at the side elevation. At the corner porch piers, banister handrails appear to “cross” inside the piers.

The south[west] side has three bays. Concrete steps with radiused ends lead to a pair of French doors with partial height, single light sidelights. The pergola extends to shelter the side entrance. Paired, double hung windows form the second bay. The third bay is stepped-out and has a front-facing gable above a tripartite window with small lights at the tops of the windows (typical of Arts & Crafts style windows). The gable features extended purlins and wide-narrow alternating attic vent slats, all of which mimic the main façade treatments.

The rear [southeast] of Building A has a three-part window, and a simple rear door with concrete steps and a pipe railing. A small, corrugated fiberglass extension from the rear stoop is protected by a plain overhang clad in the same material. The rear gable attic vent has identical decorative treatment as those features on the front and side.

The north[east] side of Building A notably has an arroyo stone, end wall chimney. It was dismantled to the roofline (date unknown), which is a common post-1992 earthquake alteration for unreinforced masonry chimneys and does not substantially affect the property’s integrity.

A very small, vernacular addition (200 square feet) at the northeast corner has a front facing gabled roof, a central door and sidelights. It may be a separate unit and wraps in an L shape into the side yard. It is clad in painted shingles that were not installed as professionally as the shingles on the original portion of Building A. The low sloping

3.1-16
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
452 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
front-facing gable has inexpertly applied shingles at the apex. The addition was completed in 1923 and associated with the conversion of the house to a duplex. 1608 Gardena Avenue Architectural Description
The one-story residence is generally rectangular in plan (Figures 3.1.4 through 3.1.6). It is clad in wood clapboard and has wood post supports for the front porch. Fenestration consists primarily of original wood-framed casement and double-hung windows with some replacement vinyl-framed sliding windows within original openings. Windows are generally finished in unadorned wide flat board trim, without corner details, and have sloped sills. The dwelling is capped by a gable roof with exposed rafter tails and beams. It is finished with composition shingles. The architectural description begins with the southwest (primary) façade and proceeds counterclockwise to the southeast, northeast, and northwest façades.

The southwest (primary) façade is asymmetrical. The eastern half of the façade features a covered porch with a gable roof supported by slim, paired, wood posts, which support an exposed, decorative queen truss, with extended purlins. The porch features a concrete deck and is accessed by a single concrete step.

Within the porch is the main entrance, which consists of a wood-framed wood door with a metal screen door. West of the porch, the western half of the façade features a tripartite combination window composed of a central fixed sash window, flanked on each side by narrow casement windows. The entire façade is capped by a gable roof. Beneath the peak of the gable is an attic vent.

The southeast façade is asymmetrical. It features a sliding vinyl window in a wood frame with ornamental security bars at the south end, followed by two wood hung windows trimmed together in a wood frame at center, and a combination window at the north end. The combination window is composed of a narrow jalousie window and a multi-lite window of unknown type (glass and hardware are missing/covered) trimmed together. The entire façade is capped by a side gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails. At the north corner of the façade is a small addition clad in horizontal plywood siding and capped by a flat roof that sits right beneath the rafter tails of the gable roof.

The northeast (rear) façade is asymmetrical. The western two-thirds of the façade are dominated by a bump-out clad in the same siding as the rest of the dwelling and capped by a gable roof that sits approximately 2 feet shorter than the main gable roof capping the dwelling. Sitting at center of the northfacing facet of the bump-out is a vinyl sliding window in a wood frame. An attic vent sits above the window, at the peak of the gable. The east- and west-facing facets of the bump-out are blind. East of the bump-out and taking up the east third of the façade is the north-facing facet of the addition from the east façade discussed above. The north-facing facet of the addition is blind.

The northwest façade is asymmetrical. Centered on the façade are two hung wood windows trimmed together in a wood frame, flanked to the north by a small vinyl sliding window. At the south end of the façade is a narrow vinyl sliding window in a wood frame. The entire façade is capped by a side gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails.

Garage Architectural Description
The garage is rectangular in plan and is clad in both wood clapboard and vertical board and batten siding.

It is capped by a gable roof with wide overhanging eaves. The architectural description begins with the southwest (primary) façade and proceeds counterclockwise to the southeast, northeast, and northwest façades.

The southwest (primary) façade is asymmetrical. The eastern half of the façade features double plywood vehicular doors with metal hinges. The western half of the façade is partially open with interspersed

3.1-17
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
453 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
vertical wood posts on the top half, and board and batten siding on the bottom half. The façade is capped by a gable roof. Beneath the peak of the gable is an attic vent.

The southeast façade is symmetrical and clad in board and batten wood siding. Near center is a woodframed door-sized opening. The remainder of the façade is blind. The entire façade is capped by a side gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails.

The northeast (rear) façade is clad in unpainted vertical board and batten siding. The façade is blind and capped by a gable roof.

The northwest façade is primarily clad in horizontal plywood siding; approximately two feet of the south corner of the façade is clad in vertical board and batten siding. The west façade is blind. The entire façade is capped by a side gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails.

Character-Defining Features
Character-defining features of the residential building located at 1642 South Central Glendale include:













Horizontal massing;
Wood shingle exterior wall cladding;
Wrap around porch with battered stone piers topped by square wood posts; Trellis and concrete porch at the side entry
River stone chimney (partial);
Concrete steps and stone piers;
Wood-framed one-over-one double-hung and two-lite casement windows; Wide front door with divided side lites;
12-lite French doors;
Low-pitched gable roof with exposed rafter tails, beams, and wide overhanging eaves; Decorative gable vents;
Decorative beam ends at the gables;
Heavy outrigger beams below the front façade window and at the porch piers; 

Chamfered wall at the front entry; and
Scored-concrete porch floor.

As analyzed in the 2021 Historic Resources Assessment, attached as Appendix C, the residence at 1608 Gardena Avenue (constructed in 1920) and the garage (c. 1923) were determined not eligible under City of Glendale Criterion 1 and Criterion 3 and are not individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. They do not exhibit any specific historical associations or significant design or construction techniques. They were constructed after the property was annexed into the City of Glendale (1918), and after the Period of Significance for the property (1913), which period is associated with town of Tropico. Based on the prior historic resource assessments and current 2021 assessment, neither 1608 Gardena nor its associated garage are considered a historical resource for the purposes of review under CEQA. This Cultural Resources impact analysis therefore concentrates on the residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue.

3.1-18
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
454 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
Alterations
Buildings on the Project site have been alteration since its initial construction in 1913 and 1920. Known alterations to 1642 South Central Avenue include the conversion from single-family to duplex (sometime between 1919 and 1925), the construction of a small addition at the southeast (rear) façade (1923), the installation of four replacement vinyl-framed sliding windows within original openings (2009), and the removal of the upper portion of the chimney (date unknown).

Known alterations to 1608 Gardena Avenue include the bedroom addition to the northeast (rear) façade (1953), and on secondary façades the installation of four replacement vinyl-framed sliding windows within original or slightly altered openings (2009), the installation of a metal-framed jalousie window and infilling of a window within an original opening (date unknown), and the addition of a shed-like enclosure on the northeast (rear) façade (date unknown).

Known alterations to the garage include the possible recladding with clapboard (date unknown) and the infilling of a pair of vehicular doors.

The 1919 and 1925 editions of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps of Glendale, California maps provide a visual record of the property. The subsequent two Sanborn Maps (1950 and 1970) recorded no changes to the property.

Prior Historic Resource Evaluation
The Project site itself and individual buildings on the site are not listed individually in the NRHP, CRHR, or designated as a Glendale Historic Resource. The Project site is not located within a Historic District Overlay Zone.

The property was included in the 2019 South Glendale Historic Resources Survey (2019 Survey), which assigned 1642 South Central Avenue California Historical Resource Status Code 5S3, meaning it appears individually eligible for local designation through survey evaluation. The 2019 Survey determined the 1642 South Central Avenue is eligible because of its architecture as a Craftsman-style residence and because of its association as a circa 1913 residence within the township of Tropico.11 In August 2018 Environmental Science Associates (ESA) prepared the 1642 S. Central Avenue Historic Resources Assessment (2018 HRA), which determined the buildings on the property are not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria C/3 (Design/Construction) and for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under any criteria. The 2018 HRA determined 1642 South Central Avenue is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP, the CRHR, and for designation as a Glendale Historic Resource under Criteria A/1/A (Event), B/2/B (Person), and D/4/D (Information Potential). Although the report states in one section that the property is individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria C/3 (Design/Construction), that statement contradicts the rest of the findings presented in the report and appears to be an error. Further, the 2018 HRA determined 1642 South Central Avenue is not individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under the now-deleted Criterion 5 (Early Heritage).12
In March 2019, The Glendale Historical Society prepared California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series forms (2019 DPR) in which the 2018 HRA was peer reviewed. The 2019 DPR concluded by 11 Historic Resources Group, South Glendale Historic Resources Survey, prepared for the City of Glendale, March 2019. 12 ESA, 1642 S. Central Avenue, Glendale, California Historic Resources Assessment, August 2018.

3.1-19
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
455 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
affirming the findings of the 2019 Survey that 1642 S. Central Avenue appears individually eligible as a Glendale Historic Resource.13
The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search indicated that prior to the 2019 Survey the property had not been previously recorded and evaluated.

The Project site was included in the 2019 Survey, which assigned the residential building located at 1642 South Central Avenue a California Historical Resource Status Code 5S3, meaning it appears individually eligible for local designation through survey evaluation. The 2019 Survey determined the 1642 South Central Avenue is eligible for its architecture as a Craftsman-style residence and for its association as a circa 1910 residence within the City of Tropico.

Criteria A/1/1 (Events): The residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR but is individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. The property does not have an important association with events or patterns that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state, or local history.

However, as previously identified by the 2019 Survey, the residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue is associated with Early Development and Town Settlement, 1872-1918, because it was constructed in 1913, before the township of Tropico was annexed into the City of Glendale in 1918. The secondary residence and garage at 1608 Gardena Avenue were constructed in 1920 and 1923, respectively (post-dating the City of Tropico). Therefore, the 1642 South Central Avenue is individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 1 and conversely the property as a whole is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria A/1.

Criteria B/2/2 (Person): Research to date did not reveal the subject property to have an association with the lives of significant persons in our past. The numerous known owners and occupants associated with the property during the historic period (prior to 1971) do not appear to have made significant contributions to national, state, or local history. Therefore, the subject property is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP, the CRHR, or the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criteria B/2/2.

Criteria C/3/3 (Design/Construction): Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.14 The residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue, built in 1913, is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR because its design and construction are not outstanding example of the Craftsman design and construction technique that would be considered distinctive, the work of a master, or possessing of high artistic value. However, it is individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it retains the majority of Craftsman CDFs, such as horizontal massing; wood shingle cladding; front porch with battered stone piers, with square wood posts; wood-framed casement and double-hung windows; and lowpitched gable roofs with exposed beams and rafter tails. Although the residential building was expanded in 1923, the addition is in keeping in its materials and design. Thus, the property is an intact and good, example of early Craftsman architecture.

Conversely, based the prior historic resource evaluations, 1920 residential building located at 1608 Gardena and its detached garage were constructed after 1918 and are not associated with the town of Tropico, and therefore they do not meet Criterion 1, and do not have the architectural character required 13 The Glendale Historical Society, “California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series Forms: 1642 S. Central and 1608 Gardena” (Glendale, CA: March 2019).
14 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 2002), 17.

3.1-20
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
456 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
for a post-1919 building to qualify under Criterion 3. Based on these factors, the 1609 Gardena residence and its detached garage are not individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources as they do not “embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represent the work of a master.”
Criteria D/4/4 (Information Potential): The property has not yielded, nor does it appear to possess potential to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Therefore, the subject property is not individually eligible under Criteria D/4 for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR.

Historic District Consideration
The project site is not within a designated historic district and no potential historic districts were identified in the vicinity of the Project site by the 2019 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey. A few properties in the area were similarly identified as individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, but the overall neighborhood is too altered for consideration as a cohesive historic district.

Eligibility Conclusion
Based on the 2019 Survey, prior and current evaluations, the residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue is individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 1 for its association with Early Development and Town Settlement as a residence in the City of Tropico, and under Criterion 3 as a distinctive and exemplary example of the Craftsman style.

The residential building at 1608 Gardena Avenue (constructed in 1920) and garage (c. 1923) post-date the City of Tropico because they were constructed before 1918 when the property was annexed into the City of Glendale, and they therefore do not fall within the period of significance for the property which is associated with the City of Tropico. They are not eligible under Criterion 1 nor Criterion 3 as they do not exhibit any specific historical associations with the city, state or nation, do not have associations with persons to be important in national, state or local history, are not distinctive or exemplary specimens of their style.

The property as a whole (inclusive of all three buildings) and the residences individually are not eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria A/1 and C/3 as no evidence was identified for statewide or nationwide level of significance. Likewise, neither the property as a whole nor the individual buildings are eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criteria B/2/2 because research did not reveal it to have an association with significant persons, nor are they likely to yield important information in history or prehistory (Criteria D/4/4). In addition, none of the buildings are within a historic district or would be likely to contribute to a potential historic district.

As 1642 South Central Avenue is determined to be individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, the property is considered a historical resource for the purposes of review under CEQA.

Impact CR-1: The proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Based on the analysis contained in this EIR and supporting studies, the residential building located at 1642 South Central Avenue is individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with Early Development and Town Settlement as a residence in the City of Tropico; it is also individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of

3.1-21
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
457 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
Historic Resources under Criterion 3 as a distinctive and exemplary example of the Craftsman style. As such, the property is considered a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA.

The Project proposes to demolish all the buildings on site and redevelop the whole site with new fourstory, 31-unit residential housing project. The character-defining features, listed under Architectural Context above, are the distinctive qualities and characteristics of 1642 South Central Avenue that convey the building’s historic and architectural significance and justify its eligibility for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. The proposed demolition of all onsite buildings would materially alter the physical characteristics of the 1642 South Central Avenue and would therefore cause a substantial adverse impact to an historical resource and result in a significant impact.

3.1.4 Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-CR-1: Documentation of Historical Resource, would lessen the impact of the proposed demolition and new construction by documenting and presenting the house’s history and character-defining features architecture as a Craftsman-style residence and for its association as a 1913 residence within the City of Tropico. However, implementation of these mitigation measures would not reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure M-CR-1: Documentation of Historical Resource Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the Project applicant shall undertake Historic American Building/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABS/HALS) documentation of the building features. The documentation shall be undertaken by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History, History, or Architecture (as appropriate) to prepare written and photographic documentation of 1642 South Central Avenue. The specific scope of the documentation shall be reviewed and approved by City of Glendale staff (City staff) but shall include the following elements:

Measured Drawings – A set of measured drawings shall be prepared that depict the existing size, scale, and dimension of the historic resource. City staff will accept the original architectural drawings or an as-built set of architectural drawings (e.g., plans, sections, elevations). City staff will assist the consultant in determining the appropriate level of measured drawings.

Historic American Buildings/Historic American Landscape Survey-Level Photographs – Either Historic American Buildings/Historic American Landscape Survey (HABS/HALS) standard large-format or digital photography shall be used. The scope of the digital photographs shall be reviewed by City staff for concurrence, and all digital photography shall be conducted according to the latest National Park Service (NPS) standards. The photography shall be undertaken by a qualified professional with demonstrated experience in HABS/HALS photography. Photograph views for the data set shall include contextual views; views of each side of the building and interior views, including any original interior features, where possible; oblique views of the building; and detail views of character-defining features.

All views shall be referenced on a photographic key. This photographic key shall be on a map of the property and shall show the photograph number with an arrow to indicate the direction of the view. Historic photographs shall also be collected, reproduced, and included in the data set.

3.1-22
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
458 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
The Project applicant shall transmit such documentation to the Glendale Public Library, the Glendale Historical Society, the Community Development Department, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The HABS/HALS documentation scope will determine the requested documentation type for the Project site and the Project applicant will conduct outreach to identify other interested groups. All documentation will be reviewed and approved by City staff before any demolition or site permit is granted for the affected historical resource.

Because the identified mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level, alternatives have been identified. Chapter 4, Alternatives, presents a range of alternatives that would meet most of the Project’s basic and additional objectives and could avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of demolition under the proposed project.

3.1.5 Cumulative Impacts
Impact C-CR-1: The proposed Project, in combination with cumulative projects, would not materially alter, in an adverse manner, the physical characteristics of historical resources that justify their eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources, resulting in a cumulative impact. (Less than Significant)
Related projects are identified in Table 3.1. There are no related projects in the immediate vicinity of the site; all other projects are more than a block away. None of the listed related projects include the demolition of a historical resource. Additionally, the Project site is not within a Glendale Historic District.

The impacts of related projects on identified historical resources in the vicinity of the Project site would not combine with impacts of the Project because none of the cumulative projects would impact historical resources. The significance of 1642 South Central Avenue is not premised on it possessing an intact and cohesive visual or functional relationship with nearby properties. Likewise, and reciprocally, the significance of nearby offsite historical resources is not premised on their having an intact and cohesive visual or functional relationship with the Project site. As such, the impact of the Project on the significance of the 1642 South Central Avenue historical resource is independent of the cumulative impacts of nearby related projects on the significance of nearby historical resources. Such impacts would not combine to result in a significant cumulative impact.

For these reasons, the impact of the Project on historical resources would not result in a significant cumulative impact on historical resources. No mitigation measures are required.

3.1-23
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
459 of 638

3.1 Cultural Resources
This page intentionally left blank.

3.1-24
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
460 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration

3.2 Noise and Vibration
This Noise and Vibration section describes the existing noise environment in the Project vicinity; evaluates the potential for construction-related and operational noise and vibration impacts associated with implementation of the project to adversely affect sensitive land uses; and identifies mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential adverse impacts.

The analysis is based on long-term noise measurements at the Project site and review of applicable federal, state, and local noise-related regulations and standards. Noise calculations were prepared to quantitatively assess the noise increases that would be attributable to the Project; this information forms the basis of much of the assessment of noise impacts discussed in this section. A Noise and Vibration Study was prepared for the Project and is shown in Appendix D of this EIR.

3.2.1 Regulatory Framework

3.2.1.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
This section identifies applicable federal regulations and guidelines related to noise and vibration.

U.S. Federal Transit Administration
The U.S. Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual15 establishes general methodology guidelines and impact criteria for assessment of construction noise impacts. It is not a regulation but does function as one of the few federal sources that suggest both a methodology and guidelines for assessing noise impacts from construction activities.

Table 3.2.1 describes the general noise impact criteria for construction impacts from the Project. If the FTA criteria are exceeded, adverse noise impacts could occur.

Table 3.2.1. FTA General Assessment Construction Noise Impact Criteria Maximum 1-Hour dBA Leq
Land Use
Day A Night B
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Notes:
90 80
100
100
100
100
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = average or constant sound level.

A Day = 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.

B Night = 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, Table 7-2, p. 179.

Although not a regulation, the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual also provides guidance on the evaluation of building damage and human response to different levels of construction-related groundborne vibration. It functions as one of the few federal sources that provide guidance on the evaluation and assessment procedures and impact criteria for groundborne vibration induced by construction equipment. Table 3.2.2 summarizes the FTA vibration guidelines used to assess 15 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

3.2-1
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
461 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
the potential for damage to structures, based on vibration PPV levels, with the potential for damage based on building category types (i.e., the fragility or strength of a building structure).

Table 3.2.2. FTA Vibration Threshold Guidelines for Potential Damage to Structures Building Category Peak Particle Velocity (inches/second) I. Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber buildings (no plaster) II. Engineered concrete and masonry buildings (no plaster) III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings

0.50 0.30

0.20 IV. Buildings that are extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, Table 7-5, p. 186.

To avoid temporary annoyances for building occupants or interference with vibration-sensitive equipment inside special-use buildings during construction, the FTA recommends using the vibration criteria from the guidance manual for groundborne vibration assessments. Table 3.2.3 summarizes the FTA’s general assessment criteria used to evaluate potential interference to building operations by different levels of construction-generated groundborne vibration and groundborne noise.

Table 3.2.3. Indoor FTA Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria Impact Levels
(VdB relative to 1 micro-inch/second)
Land Use Category
Frequent Events A Occasional Events B Infrequent Events C Category 1: Buildings where vibration would
interfere with interior operations
65 D 65 D 65 D
Category 2: Residences and buildings where
people normally sleep
72 75
75 78
80 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily 83 daytime use
Notes:

VdB = Human response to vibration often is described as the root-mean-square (RMS) velocity level and is denoted in the decibel scale, or VdB. The typical background level in residential areas is about 50 VdB, and most people cannot detect levels below about 65 VdB, and generally do not consider levels below 70 VdB, or approximately 0.1 PPV, to be an annoyance.16 A Frequent: More than 70 vibration events of the same source per day.

B Occasional: Between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day.

C Infrequent: Less than 30 vibration events of the same source per day.

D This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research would require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels.

Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, Tables 6-3 and 6-4, p. 126.

3.2.1.2 STATE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
This section identifies applicable state regulations and guidelines related to noise and vibration. 16 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, pp. 117-120, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impactassessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, accessed May 5, 2021.

3.2-2
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
462 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
California Noise Insulation Standards
The 2019 California Building Code (California Code of Regulations title 24, part 2) requires that walls and floor/ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units from each other, or from public or service areas, have a sound transmission class (STC) of at least 50, meaning they can reduce noise by a minimum of 50 dB.17 Building Code Section 1206.4, Allowable Interior Noise Levels, also specifies a maximum interior noise limit of 45 dBA (Ldn or Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL]) in habitable rooms, and requires that common interior walls and floor/ceiling assemblies meet a minimum STC rating of 50 for airborne noise. These requirements are collectively known as the California Noise Insulation Standards and are enforced by the City of Glendale Department of Building and Safety.

3.2.1.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
This section identifies applicable local regulations and guidelines related to noise and vibration.

The Project would be entirely within the City of Glendale. Noise in the City is regulated by the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.

Glendale General Plan
The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies sources of noise in the City and provides objectives and policies that ensure that noise from various sources would not create an unacceptable noise environment.

Goals and policies are outlined in the document to achieve and maintain land uses that are compatible with environmental noise levels. Based on these standards, exterior noise levels of 60 dBA CNEL and lower are “normally acceptable” for single-family residential uses, while exterior noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL and lower are “normally acceptable” for multi-family residential uses. “Normally acceptable” is defined as the highest noise level that should be considered for the construction of new buildings that incorporate conventional construction techniques, but without any special noise insulation requirements.

The City uses the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Table shown below in Table 3.2.4 for evaluating land use noise compatibility for proposed developments.

Table 3.2.4. City of Glendale Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Noise Standards
Categories Land Use Categories
Interior CNEL Exterior CNEL
Residential Single-family 45 A
45 A
45 A
45 A
45 65 B
65 C
–
Multi-family
Residential within Mixed Use
Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging
Hospital, School, Classroom, Church, Library
Parks D
Commercial
Institutional
Open Space

0.4 –
– 65
Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level
A Interior environment excludes bathrooms, toilets, closets, and corridors.

B Applies to the outdoor environment limited to the private yard of single-family residences (normally rear yard).

C Applies to the patio area where there is an expectation of privacy (i.e., not a patio area which also serves as, or is adjacent to, the primary entrance to the unit).

D Only applies to parks where peace and quiet are determined to be of prime importance, such as hillside open space areas open to the public.

Generally, would not apply to urban parks or active-use parks.

Source: City of Glendale Noise Element, Table 2 (2007). 17 State Building Code Section 1206.3.

3.2-3
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
463 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
City of Glendale Noise Ordinance
The Glendale Municipal Code includes an adopted Noise Ordinance, Chapter 8.36 Noise Control, Articles I and II, which identifies noise standards for amplified noise sources, specific noise restrictions, noise insulation standards, and construction noise limits. Noise limits are regulated through the assessment of the offending noise sources, which influence the existing ambient noise environment.

As shown in Table 3.2.5, pursuant to Section 8.36.040 of the Municipal Code, the maximum allowable noise level for commercial zoned properties is 65 dBA during day and nighttime hours, seven days a week. Section 8.36.050 clarifies if the actual ambient is less than the presumed ambient, the actual ambient shall control and any noise in excess of the actual ambient plus 5 dbA, shall be a violation.

Where the actual ambient is equal to or more than the presumed ambient, the actual ambient shall control and any noise may not exceed the actual ambient by more than 5 dbA, and in no event may the actual ambient exceed the presumed ambient by more than 5 dbA.

Table 3.2.5. City of Glendale Municipal Code Exterior and Interior Noise Standards Daytime
(7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Land Use Type Location
Cemetery and Residential (Single-Family and Duplex) Exterior 55 60 45
Residential (Multi-family, hotels, motels and transient 60 lodgings)
Exterior
Central Business District and Commercial Exterior
Exterior
Interior
65 70
55 65
70 45
Industrial
Residential
Notes:
dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Source: City of Glendale Municipal Code 8.36.040 Presumed noise standards.

With regard to construction activities, Section 8.36.080 of the Municipal Code states it is unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of 500 feet therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures, or projects within the City between the hours of 7:00 p.m. on one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day or from 7:00 p.m. on Saturday to 7:00 a.m. on Monday or from 7:00 p.m. preceding a holiday, as designated in Chapter 3.08 of the Code, to 7:00 a.m. following such holiday unless a permit has been obtained beforehand from the building official.

Section 8.36.210 of the Municipal Code prohibits operation of any device that creates a vibration that is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at 150 feet from the source if on a public space or public right of way.

3.2.2 Environmental Setting
This subsection introduces the key concepts and terms that are used in the evaluation of noise and describes the existing noise environment of the Project area.

3.2.2.1 MEASUREMENT OF SOUND
Sound pressure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient sound. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise is sometimes defined as

3.2-4
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
464 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
unwanted sound, and the terms “noise” and “sound” are used more or less interchangeably in this analysis. The human ear responds to a very wide range of sound intensities. The dB scale used to describe sound is a logarithmic rating system which accounts for the large differences in audible sound intensities.

When addressing the effects of noise on people, it is necessary to consider the frequency response of the human ear, or those frequencies that people hear the best. Noise-measuring instruments are therefore often designed to “weight” noises based on the way people hear. The frequency weighting most often used to evaluate environmental noise is “A weighting” because it best reflects how humans perceive noise. Measurements from instruments using this system, and associated noise levels, are reported in “A weighted decibels,” or dBA. Using this scale, a change in noise level of 3 dBA is perceived as barely perceptible, 5 dBA is perceived as readily perceptible, and 10 dBA is perceived as a doubling or halving of noise loudness.18 Therefore, a 70-dB sound level will sound about twice as loud as a 60-dB sound level. People generally cannot detect differences of 1 to 2 dB in a complex acoustical environment.

A 5-dBA change is also required before any noticeable change in community response is expected.19 On this scale, a doubling of sound-generating activity (i.e., a doubling of the sound energy) causes a 3-dB increase in average sound produced by that source, not a doubling of the perceived loudness of the sound (which requires a 10-dB increase). For example, if existing traffic on a road is causing a 60-dB sound level at a nearby location, a doubling of the number of vehicles on this same road would cause the sound level at this same location to increase to 63 dB, i.e., a noise level change that is barely perceptible to most people.

For any noise source, several factors affect the efficiency of noise transmission traveling from the source, which in turn affects the potential noise impact at offsite locations. Important factors include distance from the source, frequency of the noise, absorbency and roughness of the intervening ground (or water) surface, the presence or absence of obstructions and their absorbency or reflectivity, and the duration of the noise. Noise transmission is further discussed under “Attenuation of Noise.” Table 3.2.6 presents typical noise levels of some familiar noise sources and activities.

Table 3.2.6. Representative Environmental Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110
100
90 Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 100 feet
Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet
Diesel Truck going 50 mph at 50 feet Food Blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage Disposal at 3 feet
Noise Urban Area during Daytime
Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet
Commercial Area
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet
Normal Speech at 3 feet
Heavy Traffic at 300 feet 60
Large Business Office
18 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Environmental Analysis, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013, pp. 2-43 to 2-46 and Table 2-10, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/ programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf, accessed May 5, 2021. 19 Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc., Acoustics – Architecture, Engineering, the Environment, 1998, p. 63.

3.2-5
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
465 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities Quiet Urban Area during Daytime 50
40 30
20 10
0 Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime
Library
Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) Broadcast/Recording Studio
Source: California Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental Analysis, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013, p. 2-20.

Although a measured A-weighted noise level will adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, noise levels in populated communities typically vary by time. Several noise descriptors have been developed to characterize community noise by the total acoustical energy content of the noise over defined periods of time or by characterizing the loudest noise levels over a given time interval. Table 3.2.7 describes other noise metrics and terms used in this analysis.

Table 3.2.7. Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definition
Ambient Noise Level The all-encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time; usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant.

Decibel (dB) A unit of measurement that denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio.

A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter deemphasizes the very low- and very high-frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. (All sound levels in this report are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise.)
Equivalent Continuous Noise Level, Leq The equivalent sound level is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given sample period. An Leq is a single number representing the level of a constant sound containing the same amount of sound energy as the varying sound levels over a specific period. Thus, the Leq is the “energy average” noise level for the measurement time interval.

Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 5 dBA to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 dBA to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

3.2-6
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
466 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
Attenuation of Noise
Noise levels attenuate (decrease) with distance from the source. Transportation noise sources tend to be arranged linearly, such that roadway traffic attenuates at a rate of 3 to 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source. Point sources of noise, including stationary, fixed, and idle mobile sources, like idling vehicles or construction equipment, can attenuate at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source. The 1.5-dBA variation in attenuation rates for these two noise sources can result from groundabsorption effects, which occur as sound travels over soft surfaces such as soft earth or vegetation versus hard ground such as pavement or very hard-packed earth.20, 21 Meaningful reductions or attenuation of noise levels can also be accomplished by “shielding” a noise source or providing a barrier, which may be in the form of an intervening structure or terrain, between the source and receptor.22 With respect to the transmission of exterior noise to interior environments, noise attenuation effectiveness depends on exterior wall insulation, a window’s sound transmission class rating, and whether windows are closed or open. Sound transmission class ratings indicate how well wall, ceiling, floor, door, and window assemblies attenuate airborne sound. Generally, the higher the sound transmission class rating, the more sound is attenuated.23
Effects of Noise On People
Exposure to prolonged high noise levels has been found to have effects on human health, including physiological and psychological effects to humans. 24 Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 dBA. 25 Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. In comparison, extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA would result in permanent cell damage. When the noise level reaches 120 dBA, a tickling sensation occurs in the human ear, even with short-term exposure. This level of noise is called the threshold of feeling.

As the sound reaches 140 dBA, the tickling sensation is replaced by the feeling of pain in the ear (the threshold of pain). A sound level of 160 to 165 dBA will result in dizziness or loss of equilibrium.

The ambient or background noise problem is widespread and is generally more concentrated in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas.

3.2.2.2 MEASUREMENT OF GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
Equipment that creates blows or impacts on the ground surface produces vibrational waves, called groundborne vibration, that radiate along the surface of the earth and downward into the earth, potentially resulting in effects that range from annoyance to structural damage. As vibrations travel outward from the source, they excite the particles of rock and soil through which they pass and cause them to oscillate by a 20 Caltrans, Division of Environmental Analysis, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013, pp. 2-27 to 2-28, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/ env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf, accessed November 6, 2020.
21U.S. Housing and Urban Development, The Noise Guidebook, 1985, p. 24, https://www.hudexchange.info/onecpd/assets/ File/Noise-Guidebook-Chapter-4.pdf, accessed November 6, 2020. 22 Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, January 2006, Appendix A, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf, accessed November 6, 2020. 23 There is not a straightforward linear relationship between increasing STC and a reduction in exterior-to-interior noise because the amount of reduction varies considerably with the frequency range of noise. 24 World Health Organization, Guidelines for Community Noise, Chapter 3, pp. 24-26, April 1999, http://apps.who.int/iris/ bitstream/10665/66217/1/a68672.pdf, accessed May 5, 2021. 25 Appendix D.

3.2-7
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
467 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
few ten-thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch. Differences in subsurface geologic conditions and distance from the source of vibration will result in different vibration levels characterized by different frequencies and intensities. Vibration levels decrease with increasing distance. The maximum rate or velocity of particle movement is the commonly accepted descriptor of the vibration “strength.” This is referred to as the peak particle velocity (PPV) and is typically measured in inches per second.

Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish with distance away from the source. When vibration encounters a building, the transfer of vibration from ground to the building foundation (referred to as “ground-to-foundation coupling”) will usually reduce the overall vibration level; however, under certain circumstances, the ground-to-foundation coupling may also amplify the vibration level due to structural resonances of the floors and walls. High levels of vibration can damage fragile buildings or interfere with the operation of sensitive equipment. Depending on the age of the structure and type of vibration (transient, continuous, or frequent intermittent sources), vibration levels as low as 0.5 to 2.0 inches per second PPV (in/sec PPV) can damage a structure.

Human response to vibration is difficult to quantify. Vibration can be felt or heard well below a level that would result in damage to a structure. Except for long-term occupational exposure, vibration levels rarely affect human health. Instead, most people consider vibration to be an annoyance that can affect concentration or disturb sleep. People may tolerate infrequent, short-duration vibration levels, but human annoyance to vibration becomes more pronounced if the vibration is continuous or occurs frequently.

Human response to vibration often is described as the root-mean-square (RMS) velocity level and is denoted in the decibel scale, or VdB. The typical background level in residential areas is about 50 VdB, and most people cannot detect levels below about 65 VdB, and generally do not consider levels below 70 VdB, or approximately 0.1 PPV, to be an annoyance.26 However, the duration of a vibration event has an effect on human response, as does its frequency. Generally, as the duration of a vibration event increases, the potential for adverse human response increases, particularly if the vibration event disturbs sleep. In addition, while people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration.

3.2.3 Existing Conditions

3.2.3.1 NOISE SOURCES
This section describes the existing noise environment in the Project site vicinity. Noise monitoring was used to quantify existing noise levels at the Project site. In the City, vehicle traffic is the primary source of noise. Other significant local noise sources include train pass-bys and station operations, airport noise, industrial noise, and mechanical equipment noise.

The Project site is located approximately 400 feet east of an existing rail corridor that carries both passenger trains (Amtrak and Metrolink) and freight trains (Union Pacific Railroad, formerly known as Southern Pacific Lines). Noise associated with rail operations includes locomotive engines, wheel-to-rail and switch noise, horn sounding, station approach and disembark bell sounding, emergency signaling devices, and stationary bells located at the at-grade crossings at Chevy Chase Drive, West Broadway, and Doran Street.27 The historic Glendale Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, also referred to as the Larry Zarian Transportation Center, is located across Gardena Avenue from the Project site. It serves as a stop 26 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, pp. 117-120, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impactassessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, accessed May 5, 2021. 27 South Glendale Community Plan: Final Program Environmental Impact Report, June 2018. https://www.glendaleca.gov/
government/departments/community-development/planning/community-plans/sgcp-eir.

3.2-8
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
468 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
for Metrolink commuter and Amtrak passenger trains on the corridor, except for certain express rail services. Passenger rail movements occur every day and multiple times per hour between 5:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M. through the Larry Zarian Transportation Center. Current passenger train operations have been reduced due to the current COVID-19 pandemic conditions and are estimated to be approximately half of typical operations.28 This reduction in activity is accounted for in the impacts analysis discussion in this section. Furthermore, the rail corridor may include the future operations of the proposed California HighSpeed Rail Project. These operations, while not captured in the existing noise measurements, are also accounted for in the impacts analysis.

3.2.3.2 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The Project site is surrounded primarily by residential, commercial, and industrial development. The areas adjacent to the Project site include the following uses:




North: Existing industrial warehouse uses opposite South Central Avenue, 65 feet away East: Existing Peak Auto Body repair shop, immediately adjacent (within 5-10 feet) South: Existing single-family homes, 60 feet away
West: Existing parking lot associated with the Larry Zarian Transportation Center opposite Gardena Avenue, 55 feet away
Land uses are considered noise “sensitive receptors” where low noise levels are necessary to preserve their intended goals such as relaxation, education, health, and general state of well-being. Noise-sensitive receptors include residents, hospitals, convalescent homes, schools, churches, hotels, and motels.29 The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family homes approximately 60 feet to the south.

3.2.3.3 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess existing noise levels, two long-term noise measurements were conducted at the Project site (Figure 3.2.1). The long-term noise measurements were recorded from June 9 through June 10, 2020.

The long-term noise measurements captured data in order to calculate the hourly Leq and CNEL at each location, which incorporate the nighttime hours. Sources that dominate the existing noise environment include traffic on adjacent roadways, train traffic on the existing rail line to the east, parking lot activities, and operations from the commercial and industrial uses. Table 3.2.8 summarizes the long-term noise level measurements taken at the Project site.

Table 3.2.8. Summary of Long-Term Noise Level Measurements Daytime Noise
Levels.A
(dBA Leq)
Evening Noise
Level B
(dBA Leq)
Nighttime Noise
Levels C
Average Daily
Noise Level
(dBA CNEL)
Site # Location
(dBA Leq)
Western edge of the Project site on
Gardena Avenue.

62.1–70.7 59.2–63.0 48.4–63.4 67.0 LT-1
LT-2 Northeast corner of the Project site,
across on S. Glendale Avenue.

61.4–68.4 57.7–63.9 48.0–64.7 66.3
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels, Leq=equivalent continuous sound level, CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level A Daytime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

B Evening Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

C Nighttime Noise Levels = noise levels during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Source: 1642 S. Central Avenue Project –Noise and Vibration Study, LA, June 2020. See EIR Appendix C. 28 Metrolink, Coronavirus Updates, June 8, 2021. https://metrolinktrains.com/coronavirus-updates#June_8. 29 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State of California 2017 General Plan Guidelines, 2017, p. 136, http://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf, accessed May 5, 2021.

3.2-9
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
469 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
Figure 3.2.1 Long-term Noise Level Measurement Locations.

3.2-10
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
470 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration

3.2.4 Impact Analysis

3.2.4.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The Project would have a significant effect related to noise and vibration if implementation of the proposed Project would result in any of the following:
 Expose persons to or generate noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; or


Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project.

3.2.4.2 APPROACH TO ANALYSIS
This analysis evaluates the noise and vibration impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. Two types of noise and vibration impacts were considered: short-term, temporary impacts resulting from construction, and impacts due to long-term operational changes in the noise environment.

Given that the Municipal Code exempts construction activities and that no standard criteria for assessing construction noise impacts are provided, the guidelines in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) are used in this analysis to assess construction noise impacts.

Impact NO-1: Construction of the proposed project would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City of Glendale Noise Ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
The Project would be constructed in one development phase approximately 18 months in duration. Shortterm noise impacts would be associated with demolition of the existing structures, excavation, grading, and construction of the Project. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site but would no longer occur once construction of the Project is completed.

Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the Project. The first type is related to noise generated by trucks transporting construction equipment and materials to the Project site and by vehicles carrying construction workers commuting to the Project site. These transportation activities would incrementally raise noise levels on roads leading to the site. It is expected that larger trucks used in equipment delivery would generate higher noise impacts than vehicles associated with worker commutes. The single-event noise from equipment trucks passing at a distance of 50 feet from a sensitive noise receptor would reach a maximum level of 84 dBA Lmax. However, the pieces of heavy equipment for grading and construction activities would be moved on-site just one time and would remain on-site for the duration of each construction phase. This one-time trip, when heavy construction equipment is moved on and off site, would not add to the daily traffic noise in the Project vicinity.

The total number of daily vehicle trips would be minimal when compared to existing traffic volumes on the affected streets, and the long-term noise level change associated with these trips would not be perceptible. Therefore, noise generated by equipment transport and construction-related worker commutes would be short term and these activities would not result in a significant off-site noise impact.

3.2-11
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
471 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
The second type of potential short-term noise impact is related to noise generated during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving. Construction is completed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and therefore the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase.

The site preparation and grading phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels because earthmoving equipment is the noisiest construction equipment (see Table 3.2.9). Additionally, this phase would be the longest of the phases expected to occur near the Project site boundary. The three loudest pieces of equipment used during the site preparation and grading phase would likely be an excavator, grader, and dozer, as no pile driving is proposed. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

Table 3.2.9. Representative Construction Equipment Noise Levels – Peak Hourly Use Peak Hourly Leq
at 50 feet (dBA) A
Peak Hourly Leq
at 100 feet (dBA) Equipment A
Impact Equipment
Excavators with Hoe Ram
Impact Pile Driver
Non-Impact Equipment
Air Compressors
Bore/Drill Rigs
85 84
101 95
80 85
80 90
82 82
85 85
82 85
85 83
85 81
85 85
85 85
80 85
85 74
79 79
84 76
76 79
79 76
79 79
77 79
75 79
79 79
79 74
79 79
Cement and Mortar Mixers
Concrete/Industrial Saws
Concrete Truck
Concrete Boom Pump
Cranes
Excavators
Generator Sets
Graders
Pavers
Plate Compactors
Pressure Washers
Pumps
Rollers
Rough Terrain Forklifts
Rubber-Tired Dozers
Scrapers
Skid Steer Loaders
Tie Back Drill
Tower Crane

3.2-12
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
472 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
Peak Hourly Leq
at 50 feet (dBA) A
Peak Hourly Leq
at 100 feet (dBA) Equipment A
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 84
73 78
Welders 68
Notes:

A Based on highest anticipated noise level, assuming 100 percent use during any 1-hour period. dBA = A-weighted decibels
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Source: Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook, August 2006, Table 9.1, p. 91.

Consistent with FTA guidance, the composite noise level of the two loudest pieces of equipment proposed to be used during construction, the concrete saw and excavator, as required by the FTA criteria, would be 85.5 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the construction area. As stated above, the nearest sensitive receptors are 60 feet to the south.

It is expected that the average noise levels during the construction of the Project at the nearest noisesensitive use, the existing single-family homes to the south, would be 76.5 dBA Leq based on an average distance of 140 feet from the center of construction activities. While construction-related short-term noise levels have the potential to be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the Project area under existing conditions, the noise impacts would no longer occur once Project construction is completed and construction-related noise impacts would remain below the 90 dBA Leq 1-hour construction noise level criteria established by the FTA for residential uses.

3.2.5 Mitigation Measures
Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would ensure that construction noise does not disturb the residential uses during hours when ambient noise levels are likely to be lower (i.e., at night). Although construction noise would be higher than the ambient noise in the Project vicinity, construction noise would cease to occur once Project construction is completed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise and Vibration Control would ensure that noise impacts related to construction would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure M-NO-1, described below, requires implementation of noise control measures in accordance with a noise control plan approved by the City of Glendale for all construction activities.

Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise and Vibration Control Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:
 Standard building construction requirements shall consist of wall construction with a minimum rating of STC-41 as described above and windows and glass doors throughout the building at sensitive rooms shall meet a minimum STC rating of STC-33.


Grading and construction contractors shall use equipment that generates lower vibration levels, such as rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment.

Construction haul truck and materials delivery traffic shall avoid residential areas whenever feasible.

3.2-13
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
473 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
 The construction contractor shall place noise- and vibration-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses whenever feasible.


The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators where feasible.

All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for the “noise disturbance coordinator”.  Heavy equipment similar to that of bulldozers shall not be used within 5 feet of any existing neighboring structure.

Mitigation Measure M-NO-1 would reduce the Project’s temporary increases in ambient noise levels from construction to the maximum extent feasible and because the exceedance of daytime construction thresholds would be limited in time, the potential for construction of the Project to generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of Glendale Noise Ordinance would be less than significant with mitigation.

Impact NO-2: Construction of the proposed Project would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction Vibration Impacts
Vibration in buildings caused by construction activities may be perceived as motion of building surfaces or rattling of windows, items on shelves, and pictures hanging on walls. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, which is referred to as groundborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range of vibration frequencies (i.e., 60 to 200 Hertz), when the structure and the construction activity are connected by foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, or when the airborne noise path is blocked, such as during tunneling activities.

Construction activities related to the Project, including excavation activities where the highest levels of vibration are anticipated, would not include vibration of foundations or utilities that are connected to existing structures, and would not include tunneling operations.

To provide a comparison of vibration levels expected for a project of this size, a small bulldozer, as shown in Table 3.2.10 would generate approximately 0.003 PPV inches/sec or 58 VdB of groundborne vibration when measured at 25 feet, based on the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.30 As shown in Table 3.2.5, it would take a minimum of 0.3 in/sec in PPV to have the potential to result in building damage to structures constructed of concrete and masonry buildings and 0.2 in/sec PPV to cause any potential building damage to non-engineered timber and masonry buildings. Table 3.2.10 further shows the PPV values and vibration levels (in terms of VdB) from other construction vibration sources at 25 feet from construction vibration sources for comparison purposes. 30 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

3.2-14
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
474 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
Table 3.2.10. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPVref at 25 ft (in/sec) A Lv (VdB) B
Impact Pile Driver (typical)
Vibratory Roller
Hoe Ram

0.644

0.210

0.089

0.089

0.076

0.035

0.003
104
94 87
87 86
79 58
Large Bulldozer
Loaded Trucks
Jackhammer
Small Bulldozer
Notes:

A PVref – reference Peak Particle Velocity. PPV is appropriate for evaluating potential damage to buildings.

B RMS VdB re 1 μin/sec.
ft = feet, in/sec = inches per second
μin/sec = microinches per second
LV = velocity in decibels
RMS = root-mean-square
VdB = vibration velocity in decibel
Source: Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018 The distance to the nearest buildings for vibration impact analysis is measured between the nearest offsite buildings and the Project boundary (assuming the construction equipment would be used at or near the Project boundary) because vibration damage impacts occur at the buildings.

It is assumed that all activities associated with demolition of the existing buildings and construction of the new buildings within 5 feet of any existing nearby buildings would be carried out using hand tools and any large equipment such as a dump truck to carry debris away would remain more than 5 feet from the existing buildings.

It is expected that vibration levels generated by small bulldozers and other similar equipment that would be as close as 5 feet would approach 0.034 in/sec in PPV. At a distance of 65 feet at the existing singlefamily uses to the south, vibration levels would approach 0.001 in/sec in PPV. It is expected that with the incorporation of standard construction best practices, such as the use of hand tools as equipment for demolition work within 5 feet of existing structures, building damage would not occur.

The closest sensitive uses to the Project site, which are subject to annoyance due to vibration, are the single-family homes to the south approximately 60 feet from construction activity. To assess the potential vibration levels related to annoyance, the estimated vibration impacts are propagated for distance. Based on the following formula for vibration transmission, a vibration level at 50 feet is 9 VdB lower than at 25 feet, a vibration level at 100 feet is 18 VdB lower than at 25 feet, and a vibration level at 400 feet is 36 VdB lower than at 25 feet.

Utilizing the information in Table 3.2.10, above, the operation of typical construction equipment would generate groundborne vibration levels of up to 46 VdB. Based on the standards provided in Table 3.2.6, this level of groundborne vibration is well below the threshold of distinctly perceptible, which is approximately 72 VdB for frequent events at uses where people sleep, and would not exceed the FTA vibration threshold for human annoyance at the nearest sensitive use. Additionally, the Project would incorporate Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise and Vibration Control, which includes construction vibration reduction measures. Therefore, construction impacts related to groundborne vibration would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

3.2-15
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
475 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
Impact NO-3: Operation of the proposed Project would generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan, or applicable standards of other agencies. (Less than Significant) Operational Noise Impacts: Onsite Stationary Sources
The Project would install heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems for the building.

The greatest noise impact related to HVAC operations would occur at the existing single-family homes located south of the Project. The site plan identifies 28 HVAC units that would vary in distance from 70 feet to 190 feet from the closest single-family home façade. To be conservative, it was assumed that all units would be in operation simultaneously at the average distance to the receptor of 130 feet.

Technical data available from several manufacturers (e.g., Trane) show that there are residential air conditioners with noise levels with an approximate range from 42.3 to 60.3 dBA Leq when measured at a distance of 5 feet. The representative data was incorporated into the analysis.

Additionally, the Project would include screening walls around the HVAC system which would provide an additional noise reduction. With the noise reduction associated with distance and additional reduction from screening walls, HVAC noise levels will be below the existing quietest nighttime ambient noise levels of 48.4 dBA Leq. Therefore, no mitigation is required and the impacts related to operation of onsite stationary sources would be less than significant.

Operational Noise Impacts: Other Onsite Sources
Based on monitoring results shown in Table 3.2.3, noise levels at the Project site currently approach 67 dBA CNEL. In order to account for the decrease in activity associated with the current COVID-19 pandemic, for purposes of this analysis it is estimated that the primary sources of noise in the Project vicinity, including the rail line to the west and associated parking lot activities, are currently about 50 percent of typical operations. With a doubling of operations, it is expected that noise levels would be 3 dBA higher, resulting in a level of 70 dBA CNEL.

As described in Table 3.2.7, exterior noise standards are only applicable to private areas for which there is an expectation of privacy, such as patios. While the Project does not have any such areas, for reporting purposes the rooftop deck would be considered a gathering space that may benefit from lower noise levels. The proposed 6-foot-high glass barrier around the perimeter of the roof deck would reduce noise levels by approximately 7 dBA CNEL, to a level of 64 dBA CNEL. While measures to reduce exterior noise levels are not required, the Project must demonstrate compliance with the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL. The Project’s adhere to the minimum rating of windows and doors would ensure that noise impacts related to interior noise levels would be less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is required, and the impacts related to operation of other onsite sources would be less than significant.

3.2.6 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative noise or vibration impacts associated with construction or operation of the Project would occur if there are other projects located in the Project vicinity that could be constructed at the same time, or that could substantially extend the duration of construction noise or vibration received at any nearby sensitive receptors. The geographic area of concern for evaluation of cumulative noise impacts is the area within approximately 0.25 mile of the Project site because, in order for noise effects to combine with the Project-generated noise and result in a cumulative impact, the noise sources need to be in close proximity to each other. There are no cumulative projects within that radius of the Project site. The nearest cumulative project is located one mile from the project site.

3.2-16
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
476 of 638

3.2 Noise and Vibration
The Project site would be potentially impacted by the future California High Speed Rail (CAHSR) construction and operations. It would be within the Burbank to Los Angeles project section of the CAHSR project. The results of the noise model presented in the Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section EIR/EIS31 indicate that noise levels experienced at the Project site due to CAHSR operations would approach 64 dBA CNEL. The combination of the existing sources of noise with the future CAHSR operations would result in an exterior noise level of 71 dBA CNEL at the Project site. However, the CAHSR system is estimated to open in 2033.32 Therefore, the Project would not combine with construction noise or vibration from future CAHSR construction and operations because construction of the Project would be completed prior to the initiation of CAHSR construction.

Section 8.36.080 (Construction on buildings, structures and projects) of the Glendale Municipal Code limits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and also prohibits construction activities on Sundays and federal holidays unless a permit is obtained. Further, the City exempts noise generated from construction from the established City noise standards.

Compliance with Section 8.36.080 is required by the Glendale Municipal Code for any projects associated with the South Glendale Community Plan and other cumulative development. Implementation of the Glendale Municipal Code and mitigation measures Mitigation Measure NO-1 would mitigate the exposure of persons to or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the City.

Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Project would also be less than significant. 31 California High Speed Rail Authority, “Project Sections: Burbank to Los Angeles,” 2021. Available at:
https://hsr.ca.gov/programs/environmental-planning/project-section-environmental-documents-tier-2/burbank-to-los-angelesproject-section-draft-environmental-impact-report-environmental-impact-statement/. Accessed on August 11, 2021. 32 California High Speed Rail Authority, Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section EIR/EIS, Chapter 3, Available at:
https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/programs/burbank_los_angeles/BLA_Sec3-01_Introduction_DEIREIS.pdf

3.2-17
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
477 of 638

4.0 ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Introduction
Chapter 4, Alternatives, presents an analysis of alternatives to the 1642 South Central Avenue Project, as required by the CEQA. Four alternatives are evaluated: A No Project Alternative, Relocation Alternative, a Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative, and a Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative. This chapter explains the alternatives selection methodology, describes the alternatives selected for analysis, and compares the impacts of the Project with those of the alternatives and the ability of the alternatives to meet the Project objectives. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the environmentally superior alternative selected.

4.2 Alternatives Selection
The methodology used to select alternatives to the Project for detailed CEQA analysis focused on developing a range of potentially feasible alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts identified in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, while still meeting most of the Project’s basic objectives. The EIR identifies only one significant and unavoidable impact: the demolition of a historic architectural resource, the 1642 South Central Avenue residence and all its character-defining features (see Section 3.1, Historic Architectural Resources). As a result, project alternatives have been designed to would avoid or substantially lessen this impact while still meeting most of the Project’s basic objectives. The other alternative analyzed, the No Project Alternative, is required by CEQA.

4.3 Requirements for Alternatives Analysis
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that an EIR must describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project that would feasibly attain most of its basic objectives but avoid or substantially lessen any identified significant environmental effects of the project. The EIR must include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a proposed project.

Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to foster informed decisionmaking and public participation.

The Public Resources Code, the CEQA Guidelines, and case law have found that range of factors and influences. CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 defines “feasibility” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (if the site is not already owned by the proponent). CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(3) states that an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. This section identifies an alternative considered by the Lead Agency, but rejected as infeasible, and provides a brief explanation of the reasons for its exclusion. As noted above, alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet most of the project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant 4-1
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
478 of 638

4.0 Alternatives
environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(c)). The final determination of feasibility will be made by City decision-makers based on substantial evidence in the record, which includes, but is not limited to, information presented in the EIR, comments received on the Draft EIR, and responses to those comments.

In addition, the range of alternatives considered in an EIR must include a no project alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1)) and an environmentally superior alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). The CEQA Guidelines provides the following direction about no project alternatives:
 The no project alternative analysis shall “discuss the existing conditions…as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and policies and consistent with the available infrastructure and community services.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2))
 In an EIR on “a development project on identifiable property, the ‘no project’ alternative is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this ‘no project’ consequence should be discussed.” Thus, “…where failure to proceed with the project would not result in preservation of existing environmental conditions, the analysis should identify the practical result of the project’s non-approval and not create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions that would be required to preserve the existing physical environment.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B))
The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that best avoids or lessens any significant impacts of a proposed project, even if the alternative would impede to some degree attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b)). If it is determined that the “no project” alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other project alternatives (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)).
 An EIR must also identify and briefly discuss any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)). In identifying alternatives, primary consideration is given to alternatives that would reduce significant impacts while still meeting most of the basic project objectives. Alternatives typically rejected from further consideration are those that would have impacts identical to or more severe than the proposed project or those that would not meet most of the basic project objectives.

4.4 Project Objectives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124 states that the description of the project shall contain the following information but should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact. Among the basic informational requirements is a statement of objectives sought for the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) clarifies the need for this requirement as follows:
“…A clearly written statement of objectives will help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and will aid the decision makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project and may discuss project benefits.” 4-2
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
479 of 638

4.0 Alternatives
As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, alternatives to a project selected for analysis in an EIR must substantially lessen or avoid any of the significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed project while still meeting most of the project’s basic objectives. The applicant has identified the follow objectives for the proposed project:
1) Contribute to the health of the City through an economically viable infill project that would provide an increase in residential units to help meet housing demand in the City and better meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements for the region. 2) Construct a new multi-family residential building with new architectural designs and energyefficient building systems that promote energy conservation that furthers the City’s policy goals expressed in the Greener Glendale Plan
3) Provide new residential opportunities that offer multi-modal opportunities taking advantage of the Project’s proximity to Larry Zarian Transportation Center. 4) Enhance the general welfare of the public by offering affordable housing opportunities and help meet the affordable housing goals and needs outlined in the City’s Housing Element. 5) Develop new residential opportunities close to the existing retail amenities within South Glendale.

4.5 Summary of Significant Impacts
As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, project alternatives must avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts of the proposed project.

4.5.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
As discussed in Section 3.1, Historic Architectural Resources, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) establishes the criteria for assessing a significant environmental impact on historical resources. It states, “[a] project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” The section defines “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” as a “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” The significance of an historic architectural resource is considered to be “materially impaired” when a project demolishes or materially alters the physical characteristics that justify inclusion of the resource in the California Register of Historic Resources, or that justify inclusion of the resource in a local register, or that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources as determined by the lead agency for the purposes of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(2). The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on an historic architectural resource after implementation of Mitigation Measure M-CR-1: Documentation of Historical Resources.

4.6 Selection and Analysis of Alternatives

4.6.1 No Project Alternative

4.6.1.1 DESCRIPTION
Under the No Project Alternative, the residential buildings located at 1642 South Central Avenue and at 1608 Gardena as well as the existing garage would be retained in their current configuration, and would not be disturbed; no construction would occur on site and the current residential uses would continue. No 4-3
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
480 of 638

4.0 Alternatives
new residential or commercial uses would be added. Therefore, the existing physical features on the Project site, including the character-defining features of the historical resource, would not change and no modifications, repairs, or restoration would be made to the existing historical resource.

4.6.1.2 IMPACTS OF THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The analysis of the No Project Alternative is based on the assumption that the Project would not be approved and would result in a “no build” alternative wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.

If the No Project Alternative were to proceed, no changes would be implemented, and none of the impacts associated with the Project would occur. However, incremental changes would be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site as nearby projects are approved, constructed, and occupied. With no change to existing site conditions under the No Project Alternative, land use activity on the Project site would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts beyond existing levels. There would be no construction or operational impacts related to noise compared to the Project.

Since the No Project Alternative would retain all the character-defining features of the subject property and not demolish or make any modifications to the historical resource, it would not cause material impairment to that resource. Compared to the Project, which would demolish all buildings on site and result in material impairment to the historical resource, the No Project Alternative would not result in any project-level impacts and would not contribute to any impacts related to historic architectural resources.

4.6.1.3 ABILITY TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed 40,240-square-foot, five-story multi-family five-story residential building containing 31 units of rental housing, including three very-low income units, and a one-level subterranean garage would not be constructed. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not meet the Project objectives as set forth in Section 1.2 herein above.

4.6.2 Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative

4.6.2.1 DESCRIPTION
The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would relocate the 1642 South Central Avenue residential building within the Project site, demolish 1608 Gardena Avenue and the existing garage, and construct a reduced number of residential units on the remaining site area. The 1642 South Central Avenue residential building would be shifted to the north within the existing project site, with a 10-foot setback from South Central Avenue. This relocation would leave a remaining buildable area of 4,433 square feet (0.1017 acre) on the Project site to accommodate a reduced density project of fifteen (15) residential units, including 11 14 market-rate and 4 1 very low-income units instead of 31 units. The Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would provide eight (8) subterranean parking spaces.

This Alternative would generate the same type of construction impacts as the Project, however due to 50% reduced project size those impacts would be of shorter duration. The on-site relocation and restoration of the historic building would involve various restoration activities which would be treated as categorically exempt under CEQA so long as maintenance, repair, restoration, rehabilitation, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of the historical resource is done in a manner consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s standards for Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (CEQA Guidelines section 15331). 4-4
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
481 of 638

4.0 Alternatives

4.6.2.2 IMPACTS OF THE REDUCED DENSITY (RELOCATION ON SITE)

ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would result in fewer environmental impacts at the Project site, compared to the Project because of the project is less than half the size of the Project (15 versus 31 units), and would be of shorter construction duration. The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would also be consistent with the SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and Mixed-Use District General Development Standards. The 15-unit building with a one-level subterranean garage would have a smaller building footprint than 31-unit Project but would still result in short-term impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geology/soils, water quality, and traffic. Similar to the Project, these short-term construction impacts from this Alternative would be less than significant and typical of small land development projects where compliance with existing codes and other regulatory standards ensure these types of impacts are below impact thresholds. The Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would result in a similar construction noise during grading and site preparation as the Project. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO1: Construction Noise and Vibration Control would ensure that construction noise stays below applicable thresholds and does not disturb the nearby residential uses during hours when ambient noise levels are likely to be lower (i.e., at night). Impacts related to construction noise would remain less than significant with mitigation.

The Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would preserve the on-site location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and character-defining features of the historical resource within the Tropico neighborhood. While the historic resource would be preserved, as with the Project the Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would modify the setting of the historic resource.

4.6.2.3 ABILITY TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Reduced Density Alternative would be able to meet all of the Project objectives set forth in Section

1.2 herein above.

4.6.3 Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative

4.6.3.1 DESCRIPTION
The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would retain the historic residence located at 1642 South Central Avenue in its existing location on the Project site, and demolish the residence at 1608 Gardena Avenue and the existing garage. The remaining buildable area, consisting of approximately 3,383 square feet (0.007 acre) could accommodate 11 residential units, including 8 10 market-rate and 3 1 very low-income units. The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would provide 8 parking spaces for the residential units in a subterranean garage below the new building.

Similar to the Project, the Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would require construction of similar improvements, including grading and construction of the footings, connections for utilities, however the construction activities would be of shorter duration. This Alternative would also require restoration and preservation of the historic resource, and protection from any adverse impacts from construction of the new building. As a consequence, mitigation measures requiring construction monitoring would be required, as would the post-construction restoration and rehabilitation of the historic home pursuant to Secretary of Interior Standards.
4-5
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
482 of 638

4.0 Alternatives
 IMPACTS OF THE REDUCED DENSITY (EXISTING LOCATION)

ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would involve constructing 11 instead of 31 new multifamily residential units on site with one-level of subterranean parking. Due to the approximately 1/3 size of this Alternative compared to the Project and shorter duration of construction, this Alternative would result in reduced environmental impacts compared to the Project. This Alternative would also be consistent with the SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and Mixed Use District General Development Standards. The 11-unit building with a one-level subterranean garage would have a smaller building footprint compared to the Project but would still result in short-term impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geology/soils, water quality, and traffic. These short-term construction impacts would be less than significant and typical of small land development projects, but construction of the alternative would be of shorter duration than the Project due to the reduced size and would result in less exposure to construction noise during grading and site preparation. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise and Vibration Control would ensure that construction noise stays below applicable thresholds and does not disturb the nearby residential uses during hours when ambient noise levels are likely to be lower (i.e., at night).

Impacts related to construction noise would remain less than significant with mitigation.

The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would preserve the existing location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and character-defining features of the historical resource within the Tropico neighborhood. The preservation of location of the historic resource at its existing location on site would eliminate the Project’s significant impact from demolition of the resource. The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would permit 1642 South Central Avenue would remain be a good example of a Craftsman style house and would remain eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3.

4.6.3.2 ABILITY TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES
If the Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative is determined to be feasible, then it would meet all of the Project objectives set forth in Section 1.2 herein above. However, it would not fulfill the project objectives to the same extent as the Project because fewer new units would be built and it would not maximize the potential residential units on the Project site.

4.6.4 Alternative Considered but Rejected

4.6.4.1 RELOCATION ALTERNATIVE
The Relocation Alternative would relocate the existing historic building at 1642 South Central Avenue from its present location to an alternative site. The Relocation Alternative would involve demolishing the remaining buildings on site (1608 Gardena Avenue and the existing garage) and constructing the same new multi-family 31 unit five-story development as the Project. The Relocation Alternative would therefore require the same construction activities, would result in the same impacts as the Project, and would requires the same mitigation.

This alternative was considered but rejected, as it is infeasible and would not achieve a reduction of significant impacts. The Relocation Alternative would preserve the character-defining features of the historic Craftsman-style residential building; however, relocation would change the location and setting of the historic resource by moving the house from the Tropico neighborhood. This alternative is infeasible as neither the project applicant nor the City owns or controls a relocation site or any other property near the Project site to which the duplex could be relocated. The ability and cost of acquiring a suitable 4-6
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
483 of 638

4.0 Alternatives
alternative site cannot be determined. For these reasons, the Relocation Alternative was deemed an infeasible alternative for the Project.

4.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then an EIR is required to identify another environmentally superior alternative from among the alternatives evaluated if the Project has significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a lessthan-significant level. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that best avoids or lessens any significant effects of the Project, even if the alternative would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives. The No Project Alternative is considered the overall environmentally superior alternative because it would represent a continuation of existing conditions on the Project site and would not result in any significant impacts associated with implementation of the Project. The No Project Alternative, however, would not meet any of the project objectives.

Therefore, the Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives evaluated. The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable historical architectural resources impacts associated with demolition of 1642 South Central Avenue. This alternative would also meet more of the Project objectives of adding affordable housing and meeting the City’s affordable housing goals, although not to the same extent as the Project since fewer new units would be built. 4-7
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
484 of 638

4.0 Alternatives
This page intentionally left blank.
4-8
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
485 of 638

5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

5.1 Related Projects and Cumulative Impacts
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR discuss cumulative impacts of a project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts in the following way:
“Cumulative Impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.

The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or number of separate projects. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.

5.1.1 Cumulative Impact Analysis
Table 5.1.1 presents a list of related projects located within a 1-mile radius of the Project site, which encompasses the historic boundary of the town of Tropico. There are two projects located within this radius as shown in Table 5.1.1 below.

Table 5.1.1. Related Projects
Residential
(square feet)
Office
(square feet)
Industrial
(square feet)
Retail
(square feet)
Status of
August 2021 Project Height
901-919 South
Brand Boulevard
0 0
0 171,140
0 0
0 5 stories Under
environmental
review
1226 Vista Ct. 1,476 1 story Approved by DRB
on June 25, 2020 –
building permit
under review
Notes: DRB = City of Glendale Design Review Board
Source: City of Glendale Community Development Department, Current Projects, August 2021.

Other active projects in the project vicinity consist of minor modifications to existing buildings and residences, such as accessory dwelling units, window replacements, installation of rooftop solar collection systems, and construction of decks. Given their minor scope, they were no included in the cumulative impacts analysis.
5-1
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
486 of 638

5.0 Cumulative Impact Analysis
This page intentionally left blank.
5-2
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
487 of 638

6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, discusses growth-inducing impacts, significant unavoidable impacts, significant irreversible impacts, and areas of known controversy related to the Project.

6.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts
As required by Section 15126.2(d) of CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must consider the ways in which a Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth-inducing impacts can result from the elimination of obstacles to population growth, such as a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant, or through economic growth that would, in turn, generate increased employment or demand for housing and public services. In general, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if it meets any one of the following criteria:




Removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., the establishment of an essential public service or the provision of new access to an area)
Economic expansion or growth (e.g., construction of additional housing, changes in revenue base, employment expansion)
Establishment of a precedent-setting action (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning or general plan designation)
Development or encroachment in an isolated or adjacent area of open space (being distinct from an “infill” type of project)
As stated in Section N, Population and Housing, of the initial study (Appendix B), the Project would add 31 housing units (a net increase of 29 housing units), accommodating approximately 78 new residents.