Agenda packet — Glendale City Council, April 11, 2023 (part 3 of 3)

The City is within the planning jurisdiction of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG,) which represents six counties (Los Angeles, Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial). The 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) estimates that the population within the SCAG region will grow by approximately 21 percent by 2040 to an estimated 22.1 million people; Glendale is projected to grow by approximately 11 percent to an estimated 214,000 by 2040.33 The estimated population of the City of Glendale in 2019 was approximately 196,543 residents.34 As a result, the Project would not exceed the growth projections outlined in the 2016 RTP/SCS. When compared to existing conditions, the Project would represent an incremental increase in the local population and would not result in a substantial or unplanned increase.

No expansion of roads or other public infrastructure related to energy, water supply or wastewater/ stormwater collection and conveyance system expansions, or public services would be needed to accommodate the Project-related population. Therefore, the Project would not induce unplanned population growth; rather, the Project would accommodate the need for housing within the City.

In summary, the increase in the number of residents on the Project site would not result in a substantial or unplanned increase in the population of the City. Furthermore, the Project would not result in the extension of infrastructure into undeveloped areas; the extension of infrastructure systems beyond what is 33 Southern California Association of Governments, 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, April 2016, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/f2016rtpscs.pdf?1606005557 34 U.S. Census Bureau, Glendale, California, Population Estimates QuickFacts July 1, 2021, California, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/glendalecitycalifornia/PST045219 February 7, 2021. 6-1
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
488 of 638

6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
needed to serve Project-specific demand; construction of a residential Project in an area that is undeveloped or sparsely developed; or removal of obstacles to population growth (such as provision of major new public services to an area where those services are not currently available).

6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
In accordance with Section 21100(b)(2)(B) of CEQA and Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could result from implementation of the Project. This may include uses of non-renewable resources during the initial and continued phases of a Project that may be irreversible, as a large commitment of resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely, and secondary impacts that commit future generations to similar uses.

Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with a Project. According to the CEQA Guidelines, irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to ensure that such current consumption is justified.

The Project site is currently an urban site developed with two residential buildings and a garage; under the Project, the site would be redeveloped with a 31-unit residential building. As such, no irreversible environmental changes, such as those that might result from construction of a large-scale mining project, hydroelectric dam, or other industrial project that specifically alters non-renewable resources, would result from development of the Project.

No significant irreversible environmental damage related to environmental accidents is anticipated to occur with implementation of the Project. Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations related to the handling, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during demolition, construction, and operation of the Project, as well as the limited hazardous materials associated with the operation of the new residential uses, would reduce the potential for the Project to cause significant irreversible environmental damage. (See Section I, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the initial study in Appendix B.)
Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses, and loss of access to mineral reserves. No agricultural lands would be converted and no access to mining reserves would be lost with construction of the Project. (See Sections L, Mineral Resources; F, Energy; and B, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, of the initial study in Appendix B.)
Resources consumed during construction would include lumber, concrete, gravel, asphalt, masonry, metals, and water. Similar to the existing uses on the Project site, the Project would irreversibly use water and solid waste landfill resources. However, the Project would not involve a large commitment of resources relative to existing conditions or supply, nor would it consume any of those resources wastefully. (See Section S, Utilities and Service Systems, of the initial study in Appendix B.) Construction and operation of the Project would require the use of energy, including energy produced from nonrenewable fossil fuels. In California, energy consumption in buildings is regulated by Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Title 24 includes standards that regulate energy consumption for the heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting of residential and nonresidential buildings. In the City, documentation demonstrating compliance with Title 24 standards is required to be submitted with a building permit application and is enforced by the Building and Safety Division. The Project is an infill development that would involve new construction on a developed site. The Project would be required to comply with the standards of Title 24 Building, Energy and Green Buildings Standards (California Building Code, Title 24, Parts 4, 6, and 11). Energy conservation design features to meet state and local goals for energy efficiency and renewable energy have been incorporated into the Project design to reduce 6-2
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
489 of 638

6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction and operation.

Sustainable design strategies for the new building would include the use of high-performance glazing and a light-colored, single-ply, thermoplastic roof membrane over a well-insulated roof assembly to reduce heat gain during the summer. Other sustainable features would include energy-efficient light fixtures, lighting controls, and water-conserving plumbing fixtures. The building roof would be solar ready and able to support future installation of a photovoltaic system. The Project would not use energy in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. (See Sections E, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and F, Energy, of the initial study in Appendix B.)
As discussed in the initial study under Section U, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project site is within an urban area that is served by water storage, treatment, and distribution facilities; combined wastewater and stormwater collection, storage, treatment, and disposal facilities; and solid waste collection and disposal service systems. The Project would use best-practice water conservation devices and techniques and would not involve the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of water resources. (See Sections E.13, Utilities and Service Systems, and E.17, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the initial study in Appendix B.)
6-3
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
490 of 638

6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
This page intentionally left blank.
6-4
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
491 of 638

7.0 REPORT PREPARERS

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

7.2 Consultants
SWCA Environmental Consultants
51 West Dayton Street
Pasadena, CA 91105
Project Manager
Project Planner
Architectural Historian
Architectural Historian
Noise
Ian Todd, AICP
Kara Laurenson-Wright
Joe Tomberlin
Nelson White
Carlos M. Ituarte-Villarreal
GIS Analyst Anna Belk
Technical Editor Liz Haines
7-1
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
492 of 638

7.0 Report Preparers
This page intentionally left blank.
7-2
March 2022 1642 South Central Avenue Project
493 of 638

APPENDIX A
Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, June 10, 2021
494 of 638
495 of 638

APPENDIX B
Initial Study
496 of 638
497 of 638

APPENDIX C
Historic Resources Assessment, prepared by SWCA,
August 2021
498 of 638
499 of 638

APPENDIX D
Noise and Vibration Study, prepared by LSA,
June 2020
500 of 638
501 of 638

APPENDIX E
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps – 1919 and 1925
502 of 638
503 of 638
504 of 638
505 of 638
506 of 638
507 of 638
508 of 638
509 of 638
510 of 638
511 of 638
512 of 638
513 of 638
514 of 638
515 of 638
516 of 638
517 of 638
518 of 638
519 of 638
520 of 638
521 of 638
522 of 638
523 of 638
524 of 638
525 of 638
2020-05-05 Central SD Set

PLANTING
Symbol Botanical LEGEND
Name/Common Name Quantity Size WUCOLS Remarks TRE
Acer palmatum ES
'Sango Kaku' /
5 13
11 36" Box
36" Box
24" Box
M multitrunk
multitrunk
multitrunk
Coral Bark Japanese Maple Cercidium 'Desert Museum' / Thornless Palo Verde VL
Lagerstroemia indica M
'Watermelon Red' / Watermelon Red Crape Myrtle SHRU
Asparagus densiflorus ' BSMyers' / Myers asparagus @ 18" o.c.

Aspidistra elatior / Cast
iron plant @ 18" o.c. Bulbine frutescens / Stalked Bulbine @ 18" o.c. Calandrinia spectabilis / Rock purslane @ 24" o.c. Heuchera maxima / Island Alum Root
68 sf @ 12" o.c.
64 29
44 37
68 46
1g
5g
M
M
1g L
1g L
1g L
320 W. Arden Ave. Glendale, CA 91203
Suite
Leymus condensatus 120
'Canyon Prince' / Canyon rye grass, @ 30" o.c.
1g L Phone: (818) 244-5130 Fax: (818) 551- 1613 E-mail: [email protected] .net
Philodendron 'Xanadu' / Xanadu philodendron 37 @ 24" o.c.5g M Salvia leucantha / L Mexican sage @ 30" o.c.38 5g
Sansevieria trifasciata / Motherin-laws Tongue 508
508 sf @ 12" o.c.
5g L
Schefflera arboricola / Umbrella plant @ 36" o.c.3 24" Box M GROUND COVER Ajuga reptans / Carpet bugle
41 sf @ 12" o.c. = 41 plants Teucrium chamaedrys / Wall germander 137 sf @ 12" o.c. Vinca minor / Periwinkle 27 @ 12" o.c. = 27 plants
3 4"
flats
1g
M
13 L
7 2
S 37°30'45 " E151. 6 4"
flats M

SD PLANS - COLOR LANDSCAPING

LANDSCAPE AREAS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
0' 4' 8' 16' GREEN ROOF TRAYS WHEN PRINTED ON 24"
(E) PARKWAY X 36" PAPER. TREES AND

LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN
TYP.

TRE ES SHRU BS
NA
Acer palmatum 'Sango Kaku' / Coral Bark Japanese MapleCercidium 'Desert Museum' / Thornless Palo VerdeLagerstroemia indica 'Watermelon Red' / Watermelon Red Crape MyrtleAsparagus densiflorus ' Myers' / Myers asparagusAspidistra elatior / Cast iron plantBulbine frutescens / Stalked BulbineCalandrinia spectabilis / Rock purslaneHeuchera maxima / Island Alum Root GROUNDC OVER

04.27. 20
Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' / Canyon
rye grass
Philodendron 'Xanadu' / Xanadu philodendronSalvia leucantha / Mexican sage
Sansevieria trifasciata / Mother-in-laws TongueSchefflera arboricola / Umbrella plantAjuga reptans / Carpet bugleTeucrium chamaedrys / Wall germanderVinca minor / Periwin kle 2020-05-05 Central SD Set
526 of 638
2020-05-05 Central SD Set

TYPICAL FOR ALL L CORRIDORS
2ND - 5TH FLOORS
1g
1g L
1g L
320 W. Arden Ave. Glendale, CA 91203
Suite
Leymus condensatus 120
'Canyon Prince' / Canyon rye grass, @ 30" o.c.
1g L Phone: (818) 244-5130 Fax: (818) 551- 1613 E-mail: [email protected] .net
Philodendron 'Xanadu' / Xanadu philodendron 37 @ 24" o.c.5g M Salvia leucantha / L Mexican sage @ 30" o.c.38 5g
Sansevieria trifasciata / Motherin-laws Tongue 508
508 sf @ 12" o.c.
5g L
Schefflera arboricola / Umbrella plant @ 36" o.c.3 24" Box M GROUND COVER Ajuga reptans / Carpet bugle
41 sf @ 12" o.c. = 41 plants Teucrium chamaedrys / Wall germander 137 sf @ 12" o.c. Vinca minor / Periwinkle 27 @ 12" o.c. = 27 plants
3 4"
flats
1g
M
13 L
7 2
4"
flats M

SD PLANS - COLOR LANDSCAPING

LANDSCAPE AREAS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
0' 4' 8' 16' GREEN ROOF TRAYS WHEN PRINTED ON 24" X 36" PAPER.

04.27. 20
2020-05-05 Central SD Set
527 of 638
2020-05-05 Central SD Set

PIT PIT
Philodendron 'Xanadu' / Xanadu philodendron 37 @ 24" o.c.5g M L

PIT PIT
Salvia leucantha / Mexican sage @ 30" o.c.38 5g
Sansevieria trifasciata / Motherin-laws Tongue 508
508 sf @ 12" o.c.
5g L
Schefflera arboricola / Umbrella plant @ 36" o.c.3 24" Box M GROUND COVER Ajuga reptans / Carpet bugle
41 sf @ 12" o.c. = 41 plants Teucrium chamaedrys / Wall germander 137 sf @ 12" o.c. Vinca minor / Periwinkle 27 @ 12" o.c. = 27 plants
3 4"
flats
1g
M
13 L
7 2
4"
flats M
GREEN
Symbol Botanical ROOF
Name/Common Name Quantity
1,456 sf
Siz
e
Remar ks
Green Living Roof mix to include:

Achillea millefolium
6" deep
trays
contract grown by Green Living Roof Carex praegracilis
760-250- Chondropetalum 0357
tectorum
Festuca glauca
contact: Santiago Rosales
www.greenlivingr oof.com
Phormium dwarf var.
'Jack Spratt' Sesleria autumnalis
Sesleria caerulea

SD PLANS - COLOR LANDSCAPING

LANDSCAPE AREAS
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
0' 4' 8' 16'
WHEN PRINTED ON 24" X 36" PAPER. GREEN ROOF TRAYS
NA

04.27. 20
2020-05-05 Central SD Set
528 of 638
529 of 638
530 of 638
531 of 638
532 of 638
533 of 638
534 of 638
535 of 638
536 of 638
537 of 638
538 of 638
539 of 638
540 of 638
541 of 638
542 of 638
543 of 638
544 of 638
545 of 638
546 of 638
547 of 638
548 of 638
ERRATA
Draft Environmental Impact Report (pages 1-7 and 1-8)

1.5.2.1 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.

1.5.2.2 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 ten market-rate and 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.

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.

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 3 1 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.
549 of 638
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.

Final Environmental Impact Report (Summary of Project Impacts Identified in Draft EIR and PR DEIR, Section 3.2, Noise and Vibration, page 1-6) 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 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 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.
550 of 638
Final Environmental Impact Report (Summary of Project Impacts Identified in Draft EIR and PR DEIR, Section 3.2, Noise and Vibration, page 1-7) NO-2: Construction of the proposed
Project would generate excessive
groundborne vibration levels.

S 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:
 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 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 vibrationgenerating activity on the site. 551 of 638
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, page 1-4)

552 of 638
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, page 1-5)
553 of 638
554 of 638
555 of 638
556 of 638
557 of 638
558 of 638
559 of 638
560 of 638
561 of 638
562 of 638
563 of 638
564 of 638
565 of 638
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FOR THE

CITY OF GLENDALE, GLENDALE CERTIFYING A FINAL ENIVONRMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH 2021060219 AND RELATED MITIGATION, MONITORING

AND REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE 1642 SOUTH CENTRAL AVENUE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1642 SOUTH CENTRAL AVENUE, GLENDALE, CA 91204 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 certified that (i) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines, (ii) the Historic Preservation Commission 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
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Glendale that:

566 of 638
2 SECTION 1. 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 Historic Preservation Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by the Historic Preservation Commission, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect.

SECTION 2. The recitals as set forth herein above are true and correct.

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 Historic Preservation Commission 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 Historic Preservation Commission 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 measure or project alternative identified in the Final EIR.

These Findings accomplish the following: (a) they address the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR for the Project; (b) they incorporate all mitigation measures associated with these significant impacts identified in the Final EIR; (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 Final EIR. For any effects which will remain significant and unavoidable, a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” is adopted.

The Historic Preservation Commission 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 Historic Preservation Commission intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR, 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 567 of 638
3 adopted by the Final EIR, the responses to comments in the Final EIR explain why the proposed mitigation measures are not recommended by the Final EIR for adoption. The Historic Preservation Commission hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons stated in the responses to comments contained in the Final EIR 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 shall conduct 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 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 has prepared a Final EIR in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines. The City has supervised the preparation of the EIR. The EIR is a full-disclosure informational document intended to inform and assist public agency decisionmakers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of the project. Possible ways to minimize significant effects are identified in the EIR, 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 Final EIR.

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 Final EIR. The Findings and Determinations constitute the independent Findings and Determinations of the City in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial 568 of 638
4 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 Final EIR, 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 Final EIR and other evidence in the record have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the Final EIR 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 Final EIR (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 and Final EIR.

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:
• 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)
569 of 638
5 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 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 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.

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 570 of 638
6 criteria were considered, as well as the context-driven methods and framework used by the 2014 South Glendale Historic Context Statement (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 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.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. 571 of 638
7 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, 572 of 638
8 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 Historic Preservation Commission 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 573 of 638
9 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
574 of 638
10 Type of Equipment
Suggested Maximum Sound
Levels for Analysis (dBA Lmax
at 50 feet)
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. 575 of 638
11 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 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.
576 of 638
12 • 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 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 Historic Preservation Commission finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A to this Resolution).
577 of 638
13 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. 578 of 638
14 Table 3.2.12 Summary of Construction Vibration Levels Land Use Address Equipment
Reference
Referenc
e
Vibration
Level
(PPV)
at 25 ft
Distan
ce (ft)1
Maximu
m
Vibration
Level
(PPV)
Exceed
Damage
Criteria
of 0.2
PPV
in/sec?
Exceed
Annoyan
ce
Criteria
of

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

0.089 5 0.995 Yes No1
Residenti
al
1616 Gardena
Avenue
8 0.492 Yes Yes
Residenti
al
335 El Bonito
Avenue
92 0.013 No Yes
Residenti
al
337 El Bonito
Avenue
37 0.049 No Yes
Residenti
al
339 El Bonito
Avenue
87 0.014 No Yes
Residenti
al
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:
• 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 579 of 638
15 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.

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.

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 1642 South Central Avenue in its existing location on the project site 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. 581 of 638
17 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).

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. 582 of 638
18 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 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 583 of 638
19 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 Historic Preservation Commission 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 Historic Preservation Commission hereby adopts the “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as 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.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of ______________, 2022 AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
584 of 638
20 Chair, Historic Preservation Commission
585 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 Historic Preservation Commission 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 Historic Preservation Commission 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 Historic Preservation Commission has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The Historic Preservation Commission 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.
586 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 Historic Preservation Commission 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. 587 of 638
ATTACHMENT "B"

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

PREPARED FOR
City of Glendale

PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
589 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. 590 of 638
■ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
November 2022 2 1642 South Central Avenue Project
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
Responsibilit
y for
Implementatio
n
Mitigation
Schedule
Monitoring/Rep
orting
Responsibility
Schedule
and
Verification
of
Compliance
Section 3.1, Cultural Resources (Historic Architectural Resources)
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 Project
applicant and
qualified
architectural
historian
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permits for
construction
City of Glendale
Date:
_______
591 of 638
■ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
3 Mitigation Measures
Adopted as Conditions of Approval
Responsibilit
y for
Implementatio
n
Mitigation
Schedule
Monitoring/Rep
orting
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.

Initials:
_______
Date:
_______
Initials:
_______
592 of 638
■ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
4 Mitigation Measures
Adopted as Conditions of Approval
Responsibilit
y for
Implementatio
n
Mitigation
Schedule
Monitoring/Rep
orting
Responsibility
Schedule
and
Verification
of
Compliance
Section 3.2, Noise and Vibration
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 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.

Project
Applicant and
their
construction
contractor
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permits for
construction
City of Glendale
Date:
_______
Initials:
_______
593 of 638
■ Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
5 Mitigation Measures
Adopted as Conditions of Approval
Responsibilit
y for
Implementatio
n
Mitigation
Schedule
Monitoring/Rep
orting
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:
• 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 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.

Project
Applicant and
their
construction
contractor
Prior to
issuance of
demolition
permits for
construction
City of Glendale
Date:_____
__
Initials:
_______
594 of 638
P.O. Box 4173 Glendale CA 91202
www.GlendaleHistorical.org
April 10, 2023
Re: (Agenda Item 9a) re: 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
Dear Mayor Brotman and Members of the Glendale City Council:

Thanks for the opportunity to provide input on the proposed development slated at 1642 South Central.

The Glendale Historical Society (TGHS) respectfully requests that you deny the appeal of the applicant and affirm HPC’s unanimous decision to reject demolition of 1642 South Central Avenue, an undisputed historic resource. This property, built in 1913, is one of the last historic Craftsman bungalows in the Tropico section of Glendale.

TGHS believes that a clear balance between preserving a historic resource and gaining additional housing can be made. The EIR outlined two alternatives that preserved the historic resource. Alternative 2 called for reduced density and allowed for the historic resource to be moved on the lot to allow for a total of 15 units. Alternative 3 also called for reduced density, for the resource to remain in place, and allowed for a total of 11 units.

TGHS is painfully aware that new housing is needed and has supported new development that incorporates existing historic resources. Harrower is an excellent example of that collaborative effort. Either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 would meet all of the project goals. Moreover, both would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impact that would result from the demolition of 1642 South Central. TGHS would support either alternative.

The Glendale Historical Society (TGHS) advocates for the preservation of important Glendale landmarks, supports maintaining the historic character of Glendale’s neighborhoods, educates the public about and engages the community in celebrating and preserving Glendale’s history and architectural heritage, and operates the Doctors House Museum. TGHS is a tax-exempt, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, and donations to TGHS are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law. 595 of 638

To date, no documentation has been provided to show that either of the alternatives are not economically feasible. The threshold for infeasibility is not that one or all of the stated alternatives are more expensive or less profitable, than the proposal to demolish the historic resource. The expectation is that if any documentation regarding feasibility is presented to the city, an independent review will occur and the final analysis will be publicly available.

Lastly, TGHS is concerned about the precedent that would be set if demolition is approved for this historic resource. The developer for 1624 South Central has admitted that he purchased the property with full knowledge that the dwelling was historic and that he planned to demolish it. If City Council were to allow this to happen, it would send a message to other developers that they would be given approval as well.

Glendale recognized the importance of Craftsman properties when it commissioned a survey in 2007. Since then, a number of properties have been demolished. In fact, there are three that are currently proposed for demolition (not including 1624 South Central) and will be heard at the April 11th City Council Meeting.

We believe that it is important to preserve Glendale’s historic Craftsman homes. Incorporating this historic resource into a smaller, well integrated housing development is a winwin. This is currently being done with another historic Craftsman on Kenwood Ave.

Demolishing 1624 South Central and forgoing the opportunity to create a unique housing development for another cookie cutter mid rise housing structure that will blend into all of the others that have been recently built, would be a lost opportunity.

Sincerely,
John Schwab-Sims
President
The Glendale Historical Society
596 of 638

cc: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Jay Platt, Senior Urban Designer
597 of 638
Catherine Jurca
Glendale, CA
April 8, 2023
The Honorable Mayor Brotman and Members of the City Council City of Glendale
via email
RE: Agenda Item 9b, Appeal of Project at 1642 S. Central Ave.

Dear Mayor Brotman and City Council Members:

Please deny the appeal of the Historic Preservation Commission’s unanimous decision to reject demolition of the historic Craftsman at this address. The HPC instructed the applicants to prepare a revised project under alternative 3 of the EIR.

The HPC carefully considered this Project and discussed and deliberated for approximately 3.5 hours over two hearings. If you want to understand the problems with the EIR and the project, you should focus on the first HPC hearing on January 19, 2023. The Staff Report ends at about 1.18.00, and questions and discussion begin then. I don’t understand why the Council Staff Report covers only the second hearing, in February, because the discussion was more robust at the January hearing, given that the applicant returned with the exact same project at the February meeting.

I think (and I said) that Staff is doing the city a disservice by not recommending approval of a project alternative. The bottom line is that Council cannot approve the project and would need to choose an alternative. I also have concerns about the EIR, which I outline below.

Alternative 3 Reduces Environmental Impacts and Is Feasible At the January hearing I brought up section 21001 of the Public Resources Code that deals with a local agency’s obligation to choose an alternative that substantially reduces environmental impacts if it is feasible.

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.

Contrary to the impression in the April 11 Staff Report (p. 15), I am familiar with the rest of this section of the PRC, and we discussed it at the hearing: “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.” 598 of 638
2 The applicant states in the appeal that Alternative #3 “is NOT economically feasible.” The Staff Report, in suggesting that Council could approve the project, states:

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 (p. 15).

But there is no evidence to support the claim of economic infeasibility. None was presented to the HPC, and none is produced here. The fact that an alternative is more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is infeasible.

Citizens of Goleta Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (Goleta I) (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167 held that a record that included no analysis of the comparative costs, profits, or economic benefits of a scaled-down project alternative was insufficient to support findings of economic infeasibility. And in Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1336, the Court reiterated that evidence presented by an applicant as to claimed infeasibility of an alternative must be independently analyzed by the lead agency. Further, in Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 587, the Court ruled that a project applicant’s “willingness…to accept a feasible alternative” is not a measure of feasibility: “To define feasible [in this way] would render CEQA meaningless.”
Furthermore, alternative #3 meets all of the project goals, which are:
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 energy efficient 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.

As there is no evidence that the alternative is infeasible, and it meets not only many but all of the project goals, and it obviously substantially reduces environmental impacts by retaining the historic Craftsman house in its original location, Council cannot approve the project.

Problems with the EIR
The HPC did not take lightly its decision to vote against certification of the EIR, even as we supported a project redesign in line with Alternative 3.

An EIR is required to disclose impacts and mitigate or avoid those impacts where feasible. To that end, an EIR is required to study feasible project alternatives. And, as I 599 of 638
3 have pointed out, the public agency should not approve a project when, as in this case, there is a feasible alternative that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a project.

The HPC questioned whether the alternatives are actually feasible; if not, then the EIR cannot be certified, because it must study feasible alternatives. The Project was supposed to be heard in December 2022, and it got pushed back to January 2023. The only change between the Staff Reports was that Alternatives 2 and 3 were suddenly described as “approximately” 15 and 11 units, and other language was added in each case to indicate that “the unit count…is likely to be lower” (this language remains in the final HPC Staff Report, February 16, 2023, pp. 6-7). During questions staff stated that they do not expect the projects to be able to accommodate the number of units stated in the alternatives but could not clearly explain why. This is important because if the unit count is “likely” to be less than 15 or 11 units, then those do not qualify as “feasible” alternatives and would not meet the requirement that an EIR study feasible alternatives. The Council Staff Report has eliminated the “likely to be lower” language but still leaves the unit count as “approximate” (pp. 7 – 8).

Staff stated that the applicant is not required to provide detailed plans for the alternatives. That is true, but the EIR needs to study a project alternative in sufficient detail to know whether it is actually feasible.

The EIR also requires identification of an “environmentally superior alternative” to the project (beyond the “no project” option). Staff chose alternative 2, which moves the Craftsman on the lot, as the environmentally superior alternative, even though alternative 3 would leave the Craftsman where it has been for the last 110 years. The HPC thought this was ridiculous. Staff claim that they chose alternative 2 because it also meets more of the project objectives (because it provides more units), but that is NOT what “environmentally superior” means. It means the fewest environmental impacts.

While it is true as stated in the Council Staff Report, that I “was troubled that the noise/vibration consultants were not available during the second meeting” (p. 12), it neglects to mention that I was equally upset by the fact that they were nowhere to be found during the first meeting, or that I had specifically requested that someone capable of answering our questions come to the next hearing. As the environmental review authority for this project, the HPC should not have to beg for access to people who can explain the findings in the EIR.

I urge you to watch the consultants from SCWA try to answer questions at the January hearing, which begins around 2 hours 48 minutes. They were so hopeless that Dennis Joe finally had to explain that they were just the people who peer-reviewed the EIR. I am indeed “troubled” that the peer reviewers did not seem to understand and certainly could not explain the noise/vibration impacts. Surely, they have to understand what they are reviewing or they do not qualify as peers?!
I and the other commissioners are certainly not experts in noise and vibration impacts, which is why it is so important that people are available who can answer questions. 600 of 638
4 The reason that the draft EIR had to be amended and recirculated is because the noise/vibration consultant had not noticed that there is a residence (an ADU) within three feet of the property line! That omission hardly inspires confidence. I was concerned about the vibration impacts to this building, as well as to the commercial building to the east, which is five feet from the property line; the owner of that building showed up at both hearings to express his concerns. The people from SWCA simply could not explain the analysis or the feasibility or adequacy of the proposed mitigation to protect these buildings.

The Draft EIR includes the following mitigation measure: “Heavy equipment similar to that of bulldozers shall not be used within 5 feet of any existing neighboring structure” (p. 66). That mitigation measure is removed from the Final EIR, even though there is a building that we now know to be within closer than five feet from the property line.

Isn’t it more necessary now?
Similarly, this language appears in the Draft EIR, but is not to be found in the Final EIR:

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 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. (Draft EIR, p. 65).

It seems as though, with the discovery a building less than five feet from the property line, the “assumptions” about best practices and how to avoid damage to these buildings were eliminated. But are they less true now? Why is this language gone, and what does it mean for adjacent property owners?
The HPC did succeed in getting staff to remove language from the Mitigation Measures that proposed mitigating various noise and vibration impacts “where feasible.” Far from being “minor clarifications” (Staff Report, April 11, 2023, p. 22), these changes were crucial to avoiding “impermissibly vague” mitigation (Sierra Watch v. County of Placer (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 86). If mitigation only happens “where feasible,” then impacts may, in fact, not be mitigated. But I believe staff wrongfully claim that mitigation of vibration impacts is not improperly deferred (p. 12):

Mitigation Measure M-NO-2 requires a Vibration Analysis Refinement: “Once the specific construction equipment list becomes available, potential vibration damage distance contours shall be refined.”
Staff state that
the CEQA Guidelines (as amended in 2018) acknowledge [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 601 of 638
5 during the EIR review process, 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. 14 Cal Code Regs §15126.4(a)(1)(B).

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 (pp. 12-13).

But there is no reason why the “construction equipment list” cannot be identified, and if there are expected differences in equipment, then the mitigation should specify that the equipment with the least vibration shall be used. Why is it “impractical or infeasible to specify the details” here? And it is not a performance standard to say that the project proponent is required “to monitor construction activities to reduce any potential project-related construction vibration damage…and to ensure that any such damage is documented and repaired.” Monitoring to “document and repair” damage is not mitigation.

There is way too little information about what is required to go into a Vibration Management and Monitoring Plan (M-NO-2). This information should be available— certainly to the adjacent property owners!—before project approval not after.

The Housing Element
To be clear, Alternatives 2 and 3 likewise “assist with citywide housing 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 (p. 16)
602 of 638
6 Conclusion
In 1977 Glendale became one of the first local jurisdictions in California to adopt a Historic Preservation Element of its General Plan. Glendale has since recognized the special importance of the Craftsman style—and concerns about its disappearance from our housing stock—when it undertook to survey the remaining Craftsman properties in multi-family areas of Glendale in a 2007 Survey. Since then, dozens of Craftsman homes included in that survey have been demolished. The supply continues to dwindle; indeed, three more Craftsman-style houses analyzed in the 2007 Craftsman Survey are proposed for demolition under Agenda Item 9a.

Fewer than 4 percent of properties in South Glendale have been identified as historic resources; these are not a grave impediment to increasing our housing supply. Glendale needs to preserve its most important examples of the Craftsman style if its commitment to historic preservation, which is expressed throughout policy documents and the Municipal Code, is to mean anything. The Staff Report ably indicates the historic value of this 1913 Craftsman property as an “increasingly rare example of early residential development in Tropico” and “an excellent example of the style” (p. 3). The house is in need of restoration, but it could be a remarkable centerpiece of a new, smaller housing project, which is essentially what the HPC asked for. It is unfortunate that the owner, knowing that he was purchasing a historic property (as he acknowledged in response to a question from Chair Chris Cragnotti), did not see the possibility of a project that honors Glendale’s past and looks to the future. I ask you to do that by denying the appeal of a project that would demolish this historic property.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Cc: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
Jay Platt, Senior Urban Designer
Dennis Joe, Senior Planner
603 of 638
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
April 10, 2023
City Council
City of Glendale
633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103
Glendale, CA 91206
Em: [email protected]
RE: Agenda Item No. 9b: 1642 S. Central Avenue Project
Dear Mayor Brotman and Honorable Councilmembers,
On behalf of the Southwest Mountain States Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Mountain States Carpenters” or “SWMSRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments for the City of Glendale’s (“City”) April 11, 2023, City Council meeting to support the denial of the 1642 S. Central Avenue Project (“Project”).

The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters is a labor union representing 63,000 union carpenters in 10 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

As SWMSRCC noted in its January 19 and February 15 comment letters, the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project is insufficient in several respects. First, the EIR fails to mitigate noise sources elevated above the ground level as construction of the 5-story building progresses. EIR at 1-6. Such failure is particularly disconcerting given that the EIR recognizes that the Project will have significant noise impacts.

Additionally, the EIR fails to specify whether the Project will be compliant with the 2022 Green Building Code electric vehicle requirements for new multifamily dwellings and uses an outdated model to determine air quality impacts. EIR at 2-26. Thus, the EIR fails to represent the latest scientific and factual data and regulatory requirements. 604 of 638
City of Glendale - 1642 S. Central Avenue Project
April 10, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

Finally, as recognized by the Historic Preservation Commission during its February 16, 2023 meeting, the Project has significant and unavoidable historical resource impacts stemming from its proposed demolition of the existing house located at 1642 S. Central Ave., a building of historical significance which dates back to 1913.

In sum, SWMSRCC reiterates its opposition to the Project and supports denial of this appeal. If the City has any questions or concerns, feel free to contact my Office.

Sincerely,
Talia Nimmer
Attorneys for Southwest Mountain
States Regional Council of Carpenters
605 of 638
1/6

FRANCESCA SMITH
April 10, 2022
Mayor Daniel Brotman and City Council Members
Glendale City Hall
633 East Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
Sent via e-mail
RE: April 11, 2023 City Council Agenda Item 9. b.

Community Development, 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
Dear Mayor Brotman and Council members Kassakhian, Devine, Asatryan and Najarian:

This letter is being sent on behalf of my family as well as Glendale Residents Against Environmental Destruction (GRAED). Please do not vote to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the 1642 S. Central Avenue Project. Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations because of significant and unavoidable project impacts from (i) the demolition of the existing historic resource 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 would disregard California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.

Given that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the project demonstrates that there are two feasible preservation alternatives that would incorporate the 1642 S. Central Avenue building into a residential development, approval of the project as proposed would violate the substantive mandate of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). According to CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the proposed project’s significant effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)). Two of the proposed alternatives under consideration would feasibly attain the fundamental project objectives as well as avoid or substantially lessen any of the proposed project’s significant impacts on a historical resource.

Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative
The 1642 South Central Avenue Project FEIR describes the Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative (Alternative 2). It
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 market-rate and 4 very 606 of 638
2/6
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 (emphasis added, page 1-6; note the unit allotment has been updated to 14 market-rate and one very low-income affordable unit).

The historical resource is a duplex, so two units would be either part of the 15 described or the alternative would result in 17 total units. It is unclear as described.

Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative
The FEIR for the 1642 South Central Avenue Project described the Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative (Alternative 3) as retaining
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 market-rate and 3 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.

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 (emphasis added, pages 1-6 and 1-7; note the unit allotment has been updated to 10 market-rate and one very low-income affordable unit).
607 of 638
3/6
In total, implementation of Alternative 3 would result in 13 residential units, including the 11 new residential units as well as retaining the two existing units in the 1642 S. Central Avenue duplex residence.

California Public Resources Code, Section 21002 provides 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[.]” The proposed project environmental review identified two alternatives that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects the proposed project: Alternative 2- Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative and Alternative 3- Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative.

The fewest impacts to historical resources would be caused by Alternative 3, as relocation of a historical resource (as proposed in Alternative 2) can cause “adverse change to the significance of an historical …resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its surroundings such that its significance is materially impaired” (emphasis added, PRC Section 15064.5 b). California PRC, Section 21002 provides that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.”
Without clear reasoning, the FEIR concluded that Alternative 2- Reduced Density (Relocation on Site)“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 {that are not identified] compared to the [Alternative 3-] Reduced Density (Existing Location) as it would allow for more affordable and market rate residential units [15 or 17 versus 13, a difference of two or four units] and help the City achieve its regional affordability goals [which under the revised unit allocation is now one very lowincome unit with either alternative].

Project Objectives are described in Section 2.0 of the FEIR. Five objectives are outlined, each of which would be met or partially met by implementation of Alternatives 2 and 3. They are described in the table on pages 4 and 5.

608 of 638
4/6
Project
Objectives
from FEIR
Alternative 2-
Reduced Density (Relocation
on Site) Alternative
Alternative 3-
Reduced Density (Existing
Location) Alternative
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.

Alternative 2 would contribute
to the health of the City through
an economically viable [not
defined] infill project that would
provide an increase in [15] new
residential units [demolishing
one and ostensibly retaining
two, a net difference of 12], to
help meet housing demand in
the City and better meet the
RHNA1 requirements for the
region [not defined either].

The RHNA does not apply to
properties smaller than one half
an acre as described in footnote

1. Alternative 3would also contribute
to the health of the City through
an economically viable {not
defined] infill project that would
provide an increase in [11] new
residential units [replacing 2] to
help meet [undefined] housing
demand in the City and better
meet the RHNA requirements for
the region [also not defined)]
The RHNA does not apply to
properties smaller than one half an
acre as described in footnote 1.
2) Construct a new multifamily residential building
with new architectural
designs and energy efficient
building systems that
promote energy conservation
that furthers the City’s policy
goals expressed in the
Greener Glendale Plan.

The 2012 Greener Glendale Plan
describes an “important but
generally unaccounted for type
of waste emission is the
‘embodied’ energy in products
consumed.”2
The estimated embodied energy
for a single family home is
approximately 1,800 JG.3 The
residence that is proposed to be
demolished and its garage (1,200
JG) would total approximately
2,000 JG of embodied energy.

There is no more energy efficient
building material than a
building that already exists.

The proposed new building
would be a multi-family
residential building with new
architectural designs and energy
efficient building systems that
promote energy conservation,
however not as efficiently as the
existing building that would be
relocated as part of the
alternative, requiring
replacement foundation.

The 2012 Greener Glendale Plan
describes an “important but
generally unaccounted for type of
waste emission is the ‘embodied’
energy in products consumed.”
The estimated embodied energy
for a single family home is
approximately 1,800 JG. The
residence that is proposed to be
demolished and its garage (1,200
JG) would total approximately
2,000 JG of embodied energy.

There is no more energy efficient
building material than a building
that already exists.

The proposed new building would
be a multi-family residential
building with new architectural
designs and energy efficient
building systems that promote
energy conservation, however not
as efficiently as the existing duplex
residence that would be retained.

The historic building would
consume the least embodied
energy as it already exists.
1 The subject property is .23 acres in size (FEIR page 2.1). The City of Glendale’s “6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element” states on page 4 that that “Sites smaller than a half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).).” 2 ” Embodied energy is what is used in order to build a given usable object. This includes the energy from material extraction, refining, processing, transporting, and fabricating. This energy is considered to be "embodied" within the item itself.
3 Embodied energy calculation for house | Download Table (researchgate.net) 609 of 638
5/6
Project
Objectives
from FEIR
Alternative 2-
Reduced Density (Relocation
on Site) Alternative
Alternative 3-
Reduced Density (Existing
Location) Alternative
3) Provide new residential
opportunities that offer
multi-modal opportunities
taking advantage of the
Project’s proximity to Larry
Zarian Transportation Center.

The proposed alternative would
provide 15 new residential units
and two existing units that
would or already do provide (in
the case of the duplex) offer
multi-modal opportunities
taking advantage of the Project’s
proximity to the Zarian
Transportation Center.

The proposed alternative would
provide 11 new residential units
(and two existing units) that
would offer, or already provide
multi-modal opportunities taking
advantage of the Project’s
proximity to the 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.

The proposed alternative
includes one very low-income
unit that would 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.

The proposed alternative includes
one very low-income units that
would 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.

The proposed alternative would
provide 15 new residential
“opportunities” or units close to
the existing retail amenities
within South Glendale. The 2
existing units that would be
relocated already provide
residential opportunities close to
the existing retail amenities
within South Glendale.

The proposed alternative would
provide 11 new residential
“opportunities” or units close to
the existing retail amenities within
South Glendale. The 2 existing
units that would be retained in
place already provide residential
opportunities close to the existing
retail amenities within South
Glendale.

Alternatives 2 and 3 meet each of the project objectives as described more fully in the table above.

Preservation alternatives actually are not required by CEQA to meet all project objectives, but in this case, Alternatives 2 and 3 fully meet the five described project objectives.

Alternative 2-the Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative should not be considered the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives evaluated as stated in the FEIR (page 4-7). Alternative 2 may eliminate the significant and unavoidable historical resources impact associated with demolition of 1642 South Central Avenue, but because it would be relocated it could yet cause “substantial adverse change” under CEQA. The alternative would not meet “more of the Project objectives” by adding the same number of affordable housing units as Alternative 3, nor would it better satisfy the City’s affordable housing goals.

I strongly urge the City Council to listen to your appointed experts on the Historic Preservation Commission: reject the proposed project which calls for the unwarranted and needless demolition of the historical resource at 1642 S central Avenue. Preservation Alternatives were identified and analyzed for this project that are feasible and allow for a “win-win” outcome that would eliminate demolition of the historical resource and fully meet the identified project objectives. Most importantly Alternative 3 would be a project that would not violate CEQA. Numerous community groups and individuals have expressed serious concerns in the Administrative Record, in both writing and in public meetings with the proposed project. I would welcome the 610 of 638
6/6
opportunity to work with you on an alternative that would not demolish the historical resource and would provide additional housing in keeping with the project objectives.

Please ensure that this letter and my e-mail are included in the Administrative Record for this project.

Sincerely,
Francesca Smith
Francesca Smith
cc: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
611 of 638
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: van Muyden, Gillian; Calvert, Bradley; Adjemian, Aram; Shahnazarian, Renia Subject: FW: 1624 S. Central Ave., Glendale
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:14:47 PM
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! -----Original Message-----
From: gartenart <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: 1624 S. Central Ave., Glendale
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I just drove by the subject property, the 1913 Craftsman, a residence considered for destruction, and a behemoth of an apartment building put in its place.

Granted, the lovely building built from a time gone by could use some TLC, but its bones speak of a solid representation of its style so prevalent of those days. It is also true that too many of its relatives have been decimated over the years to make way for a heartless structure such as is being planned to take its place. Must we destroy every single one of these charming jewels to give way to this concrete block? Surely there could be able to find some alternative such as the Historic Preservation Commission suggested.

I trust you will give this project due consideration by denying the appeal and save this rare, and vanishing, example of historic Glendale housing stock.

Respectfully yours,
Ute Baum
1208 Cottage Grove Ave
Glendale, Ca. 91205
Member of Cottage Grove Historic District
612 of 638
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: Garcia, Michael; Calvert, Bradley; Shahnazarian, Renia Subject: FW: 1913 Craftsman preservation
Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 12:03:19 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Don Anderson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 2:00 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: 1913 Craftsman preservation
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Glendale City Councilmembers:

I am writing to urge you to help preserve the 1913 Craftsman in the Tropic area of Glendale. A proposal to demolish the property has been submitted in order to build an apartment building.

Please help protect Glendale’s unique character and history by requiring that the property be preserved. There are many other areas of South Glendale that could be developed which would not put our historic heritage at risk. If we continue at this rate of demolishing so much of our past, most of it will soon be gone and there will be only a few historic homes left in the city. There is no way to recapture this lost history.

Many of us moved here to appreciate the history that Glendale has to offer, and we should all do our best to encourage alternative options that are both fiscally and historically responsible. Please do not allow this historic home to be destroyed.

Sincerely,
Don Anderson 613 of 638
1811 Niodrara Dr., Glendale
614 of 638
From: Adjemian, Aram
To: Shahnazarian, Renia
Subject: FW: Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission"s denial of 1642 South Central Avenue Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 10:27:07 AM
Attachments: image001.png
HPC Appeal 1642 S Central.pdf
This one is for you to put on AMS.

Aram Adjemian, CMC.

Assistant City Clerk ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Elections Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2090 ● [email protected] E-mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Grant Michals <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 9:57 AM
To: Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>; Adjemian, Aram <[email protected]> Subject: Appeal of Historic Preservation Commission's denial of 1642 South Central Avenue CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

April 11, 2023
Mayor Brotman and Members of the City Council
City of Glendale
613 East Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
RE: 1642 S. Central
Dear Mayor Brotman and Council Members:

The Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council is grateful for the opportunity to provide 615 of 638 comments on the project at 1642 S. Central. We ask that you approve a project alternative that adds housing but retains the existing house.

While we are intensely frustrated with the State’s heavy hand in these matters, we do understand that new housing must be built, and that the logical place to increase density is around transit. As an organization, however, we are interested in ensuring some measure of compatibility of mass and scale between existing and new development, and we always advocate for high-quality design, which we struggle to identify in the proposed project.

We also believe it is critical that the City comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.

The goal is to protect the built and natural environment. We believe that the project alternatives comply with CEQA, because they are feasible to build, would meet the project goals, and would greatly reduce the environmental impacts.

We note that the Staff Report claims that “the applicant has indicated that they have specific evidence supporting why the development of Alternative #3 would be economically infeasible.” Where is the evidence and the independent analysis of it? Developers claim that projects will not “pencil out” all the time. Assertions simply aren’t good enough. The GHCC urges you to approve project alternative #3 that adds housing but retains the existing house or produce evidence as to why the project is not feasible.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Grant Michals, President
616 of 638
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: van Muyden, Gillian; Calvert, Bradley; Adjemian, Aram; Shahnazarian, Renia Subject: FW: Attached letter about 1642 S, Central
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:13:28 PM
Attachments: MVSNA Comment Letter on 1642 S Central Ave (3).pdf image001.png
image003.png
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Michael Morgan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 10:15 AM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Attached letter about 1642 S, Central
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello Dan,
See I did not say Mayor as you asked. It doesn't see right though!! I just wanted to show you a letter the Montrose,Verdugo City, Sparr Heights Community Assn(MVSNA) sent letter back in 2019 asking for the property 1642 S. Central to not be demolished. The council in their wisdom voted that the property should not be demolished but saved because of its Historic nature. Please listen to what the Council did then and hopefully do the same.

Regards,
Michael Morgan
617 of 638
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: van Muyden, Gillian; Calvert, Bradley; Shahnazarian, Renia; Adjemian, Aram Subject: FW: Craftsman Home; Tripico
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 12:09:51 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Bill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 5:46 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Craftsman Home; Tripico
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
As a longtime Glendale resident and advocate for preserving historic buildings, I ask that you please preserve the historic 1913 Craftsman home
in the Tropico area of South Glendale. Our craftsman homes have historic beauty and Glendale appears to be losing more and more examples.

I understand that new housing is important but we cannot eliminate our past historic buildings, we have done far too much of this in Glendale already.

Please vote to preserve this beautiful Historic 1913 Craftsman.

Respectfully,
Bill Vásquez
(C) 818-421-3243
[email protected]
618 of 638
619 of 638
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: Garcia, Michael; Calvert, Bradley; Shahnazarian, Renia Subject: FW: Historic 1913 Craftsman in the Tropic area of South Glendale Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 12:02:59 PM
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! -----Original Message-----
From: Araik Sinanian <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 4:57 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Historic 1913 Craftsman in the Tropic area of South Glendale [You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello,
I would like to express concern about the residential development in Tropico. I would like to ask you to deny the appeal so that the historic Craftsman is preserved. 96% of South Glendale properties built before 1979 are not historic resources and you can choose from that.

I think as Glendale grows, we need to be mindful of historic properties so that Glendale can keep its historic culture and not lose itself in modernity.

Thank you,
Araik Sinanian
Lifelong Glendale resident
Board Member, Nor Windsor Condos
620 of 638
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: van Muyden, Gillian; Calvert, Bradley; Adjemian, Aram; Shahnazarian, Renia Subject: FW: Historic Preservation Consideration
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:41:21 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Patty Silversher <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 10:02 AM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Historic Preservation Consideration
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear City Council Members,
Tonight you will be considering an appeal to destroy a historic 1913 Craftsman house here in
South Glendale where I have lived since 1985. The proposal to build a new affordable housing complex
which will have no historical or aesthetic significance is distressing.

I don't understand why new housing projects are not built on properties that have no historical significance.

In this case, it is my understanding that a project alternative has been proposed that would build a smaller
housing project while preserving the Craftsman.

This would bring together historic preservation AND new housing! I take great pride in Glendale's historic preservation commitments in the past.

Please, let's not set a precedent that would start destroying what we have worked so 621 of 638 hard for.

I sincerely thank you,
Patty Silversher
Adams Hill
622 of 638
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: van Muyden, Gillian; Calvert, Bradley; Shahnazarian, Renia; Adjemian, Aram Subject: FW: Item 9b 1642 S. Central and a Hello
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:12:56 PM
Attachments: MVSNA Comment Letter on 1642 S Central Ave (3).pdf image001.png
image003.png
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Michael Morgan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 10:05 AM
To: Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 9b 1642 S. Central and a Hello
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Good Day Councilmember Najarian,
I am writing to you about Item 9b I will keep it brief as you have seen this property 1642. S. Central before in 2019 see attached letter. The Council voted to preserve it and deny its demolition then because of its historic nature. I'm asking you to do it again tonight.

Coming before you is an appeal. I will try to keep it brief. Hearings 9b Community Development, re: 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. As you know their appeal of the 5-0 HPC vote on the 1913 Historic Craftsman at 1642 S. Central is for it to be demolish(such a historic loss). The HPC voted feasible project alternatives but instead they chose to appeal. Knowing full well it would come before you. I would ask as one of the HPC commissioners to deny their appeal. OPTION 4. Motion to sustain the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision to not certify the FEIR and deny the Project Design Review Application. I stand by that decision! The plaintiff realized the Council might be a more sympathetic audience.

I am attaching a letter the Montrose, Verdugo City, Sparr Heights Neighbor Ass. (MVSNA) wrote you back in 2019 when you were Mayor. The house is over 110 years old built in the City of Tropico surely it deserves a better fate than this. Both the South Glendale Historic Survey and the Glendale Historic Society say and I've seen that this house should be on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. I have 623 of 638 been around long enough to see all the good you have done. let's leave a little Glendale history for the next generation.

Respectfully,
Michael Morgan
624 of 638
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: van Muyden, Gillian; Calvert, Bradley; Adjemian, Aram; Shahnazarian, Renia Subject: FW: Item 9b Appeal of HPC Denial and a Hello
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 3:14:04 PM
Attachments: MVSNA Comment Letter on 1642 S Central Ave (3).pdf image001.png
image003.png
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Michael Morgan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 9:45 AM
To: Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 9b Appeal of HPC Denial and a Hello
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Good Day Councilperson Asatryan,
I would like to introduce myself Michael Morgan, I have lived I Glendale for a long time since 1955 in fact. For the moment I am on the Board of the Montrose,Verdugo City,Sparr Heights Neighborhood Assn(MVSNA) which I serve along with Grant Michals our President. He has nothing but wonderful things to say about you. I'm looking forward to meeting you. I am one of the 5 Commissioners on the Glendale Historic Preservation Commission as of right now the Historian of the Commission.

This house 1642 S. Central is one of the last Craftsman built(1913) in what was the City of Tropico before it was annexed to Glendale in 1918.Both the Glendale Historic 625 of 638 Society and the South Glendale Historic Resources Survey found the House to be eligible to be on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources most of which have long vanished. Let future generations see what life was life in the last century don't rob them of that history.

Lastly I have attached a letter that our organization(MVSNA) sent back in 2019 when 1642 come before the Council they as now found it a Glendale asset. Please do the same.

Respectfully,
Michael Morgan
626 of 638
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: van Muyden, Gillian; Calvert, Bradley; Shahnazarian, Renia; Adjemian, Aram Subject: FW: Please Preserve Historic Craftsman at 1642 S. Central Ave.

Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:40:17 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Susan Dasso <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 10:22 AM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>; Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]> Subject: Please Preserve Historic Craftsman at 1642 S. Central Ave.

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Please vote against the appeal from the developer to allow demolition of the historic 1913 Craftsman in the Tropic area of South Glendale.

The Historic Preservation Commission unanimously voted for a project alternative that incorporates the historic Craftsman into a new housing project but the developer insists on demolition. This is in spite of feasible preservation alternatives.

Please respect the decision and recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission.

Why bother having a Commission if it’s decisions and recommendations are not followed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Susan Dasso
923 Cumberland Road
627 of 638
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: van Muyden, Gillian; Calvert, Bradley; Adjemian, Aram; Shahnazarian, Renia Subject: FW: Please Preserve Historic Craftsman at 1642 S. Central Ave.

Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:46:19 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Zuzka Eggena <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 11:20 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Preserve Historic Craftsman at 1642 S. Central Ave.

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Honorable Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
It was just seventeen years ago that Glendale celebrated its centennial and demonstrated pride in its history which includes historic buildings. Since then one-by-one many of the structures have been demolished; Craftsman style houses once prevalent in certain parts of the city have disappeared. Now, in spite of the The Historic Preservation Commission unanimously voting for a project alternative that incorporates the historic Craftsman into a new housing project, the developer insists on demolition! And in spite of feasible preservation alternatives!
Please respect and support the work of the Historic Commission and save this “increasingly rare example of early residential development in Tropico”, “an excellent example of the Craftsman style.” Once lost it cannot be resurrected.

Please vote against the appeal from the developer to allow demolition of this historic 1913 Craftsman in the Tropic area of South Glendale. New housing should not be at the expense of losing Glendale’s heritage; our children and grandchildren deserve an opportunity to appreciate examples of a bygone era. There are plenty of non-historical properties in South Glendale where housing, especially that is affordable, can be built. 628 of 638 Let not the Glendale residents who celebrate the city’s 200 years in 2106 be deprived of not having tangible evidence of the City’s heritage.

Thank you for your consideration.

Zuzka P. Eggena
1724 Cleveland Rd.
629 of 638
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: van Muyden, Gillian; Calvert, Bradley; Adjemian, Aram; Shahnazarian, Renia Subject: FW: Please preserve the historic 1913 Craftsman house at 1642 S. Central Avenue Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:47:19 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 9:39 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Please preserve the historic 1913 Craftsman house at 1642 S. Central Avenue CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Council Members,
I am writing you as a member of the Glendale Historical Society to urge you to decide at your April 11 meeting NOT to permit the demolition of the historic 1913 Craftsman house located at 1642 S. Central Ave. as part of a project to build modern housing at this location. I understand the Historic Preservation Committee recommended that the house could remain in place and other units could be integrated into the space without demolishing this historic property. I don't understand why the Council would vote against the HPC recommendation that this house could be preserved at the same time some new housing could be built on the lot. It just seems that in Glendale too often greed is winning out over preservation of our diminishing historic resources. We already have many units of ugly condominiums and apartments that quite frankly are unaffordable for a large percentage of residents, so adding more unaffordable units won't do much to provide affordable housing, if this is the argument. Please follow the recommendations of your own HPC rather than bow down to the already too powerful developers.

Sincerely,
Dorothy J Black
1492 Melwood Drive
630 of 638
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: van Muyden, Gillian; Calvert, Bradley; Adjemian, Aram; Shahnazarian, Renia Subject: FW: Please retain the Craftsman Home at 1642 S. Central Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 11:45:07 AM
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! -----Original Message-----
From: Marcia Hanford <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 8:46 AM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Please retain the Craftsman Home at 1642 S. Central CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Honorable Councilmembers:

The opportunities to create housing projects that incorporate historic Craftsman structures are diminishing. Here is a chance to deviate from the trend of scraping the land to build something generic to replace a building with character.

As Glendale increases its housing stock, it can do so in ways that retain charm. There’s ample opportunity for allnew construction, such as that proposed for 1642 S. Central, but it doesn’t need to happen here. Collectively, Glendale’s replacement construction is an indistinguishable blur. 1642 S. Central is an opportunity to add to the City’s character in an area that is being slammed with projects.

I watched both meetings of the Historic Preservation Commission, where discussion of the Environmental Impact Report, specific facts, figures, and details parsed critical information that most residents are not versed in. I appreciate their expertise and the recommendation to preserve this Craftsman house, and I encourage you to support this option.

Thank you.

Marcia Hanford
631 of 638
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: Garcia, Michael; Calvert, Bradley; Shahnazarian, Renia Subject: FW: Preservation Observations
Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 12:04:01 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Adryan Russ <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 11:12 AM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Preservation Observations
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear City Council Members…
It always seems to be a fight to help preserve some of the City’s most historic buildings as they are destroyed in order to put up new housing.

As I drive through Glendale traffic, trying to get into and out of the City, I wonder why on Earth we need more housing — more people, more drivers, more square and uninteresting units — unless, of course, you plan to house the homeless there, which I think would trigger country-wide notoriety.

Why destroy this one small property — against the wishes of so many — when you have so many more opportunities to take down properties that are not considered historic? Especially when this Craftsman is valued by so many who consider it a “rare example” of early development in the Tropico area.

I love Glendale — the best Police, the best Fire Fighters — but with every new housing project that goes up, I love it a bit less. Why not be more sensitive to the many who value this property and look elsewhere to put up yet another square building?
632 of 638
I appreciate you all...

Adryan Russ
adryanruss.com
818 425 0443
633 of 638
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: Garcia, Michael; Calvert, Bradley; Shahnazarian, Renia Subject: FW: Preservation of Historic 1913 Craftsman
Date: Monday, April 10, 2023 11:44:04 AM
Attachments: image007.png
image002.png
image004.png
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 11:40 AM
To: Adjemian, Aram <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Preservation of Historic 1913 Craftsman
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 10:13 AM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Preservation of Historic 1913 Craftsman
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 write to encourage you to vote against the appeal that would allow demolition of a historic 1913 Craftsman in the Tropico area of South Glendale.

Glendale once boasted a large number of Craftsman-style homes. However, the numbers of such homes have been dwindling for years. The City Council now has an opportunity to ensure that a prime example of this style of building will be preserved 634 of 638 well into the future.

Reasonable proposals exist that would both add new housing and preserve this Craftsman home. Such a compromise should be the goal of the Council. The developer’s claims that a smaller project will not be profitable should not be a determining factor in your decision. There are other properties in South Glendale that are not historic resources where such a project could be sited.

Again, I urge you to vote no on this appeal. Thank you.

Bob Nicksin
[email protected]
818-795-2093
635 of 638
From: Abajian, Suzie
To: Golanian, Roubik
Cc: van Muyden, Gillian; Calvert, Bradley; Adjemian, Aram; Shahnazarian, Renia Subject: FW: Preserve Historic 1913 Craftsman as Part of New Housing Project Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 4:06:27 PM
Suzie Abajian, Ph.D.| City Clerk | City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 110 | Glendale, CA | 818-548-2090 [email protected] | www.glendaleca.gov | Follow us! -----Original Message-----
From: Pam <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2023 2:52 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Asatryan, Elen <[email protected]>
Cc: Abajian, Suzie <[email protected]>
Subject: Preserve Historic 1913 Craftsman as Part of New Housing Project You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important <https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Honorable Mayor and Council Members,
As a longtime Glendale resident and advocate for preserving historic buildings, I ask that you please preserve the historic 1913 Craftsman home in the Tropic area of South Glendale. Our craftsman homes have historic beauty and Glendale appears to be losing more and more examples.

I understand that new housing is important but we cannot eliminate our past historic buildings.

Please preserve this beautiful Historic 1913 Craftsman as Part of New Housing Project.

Thank you
Pam Vasquez
Glendale Rossmoyne resident
636 of 638
April 11, 2023
Mayor Brotman and Members of the City Council
City of Glendale
613 East Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
RE: 1642 S. Central
Dear Mayor Brotman and Council Members:

The Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council is grateful for the opportunity to provide comments on the project at 1642 S. Central. We ask that you approve a project alternative that adds housing but retains the existing house.

We also believe it is critical that the City comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The goal is to protect the built and natural environment. We believe that the project alternatives comply with CEQA, because they are feasible to build, would meet the project goals, and would greatly reduce the environmental impacts.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Grant Michals, President
637 of 638
Montrose/Verdugo City/Sparr Heights Neighborhood Association P.O. Box 732
Verdugo City, CA 91046-0732
June 11, 2019
The Honorable Mayor Najarian and Members of the City Council City of Glendale
613 East Broadway, Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91206
Re: Demolition of 1642 S. Central Ave.

Dear Mayor Najarian and Members of the City Council:

We formed our neighborhood association in 1997 with the mission of uniting our neighbors to protect our quality of life. One quality of life issue we follow is neighborhood integrity. The Montrose, Verdugo City, Sparr Heights Neighborhood association (MVSNA) asks that you support the finding of the City’s consultant who prepared the South Glendale Historic Resources Survey, the City’s Historic Preservation Planner, and the Director of Community Development that the property at the above-listed address appears eligible for the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and as such that its proposed demolition would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), triggering preparation of a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Many Architectural Historians including the Cities own staff evaluated the property and finds it to be a historic resource.

We therefore request that the City Council reject the appeal; as the analysis of the property owner’s consultant does not meet the burden of evidence required to find the property not to be historic.

The Montrose,Verdugo City, Sparr Heights Neighborhood Association(MVSNA) is very grateful that City Council identified and took a quick and important step with The Historic Preservation Ordinance’s passage last month to protect our historic resources and neighborhoods that contribute so much to all of Glendale’s character and desirability. That was an important first step and this is the logical second one to protect that historic stock.

Having studied the reports and documentation, the MVSNA supports the denial of the demolition permit of 1642 S. Central Ave., a property that was identified as “Historically Significant” in July 2017 prior to the sale, and urges the City Council to vote for that denial of requested demolition permit.

Sincerely,
Grant Michals
President, Montrose,Verdugo City, Sparr Heights Neighborhood Association 638 of 638

Glendale City CouncilApril 11, 2023

Glendale City Council
April 11, 2023