MOTION
Moved by Council Member Najarian ;
seconded by Council Member Devine , that the
Council of the City of Glendale hereby:
1. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a professional services agreement — subject to approval by the City Attorney - with Professional Account Management, LLC, as described in the report to Council dated April 11, 2023, for a five-year term for $1,000,000, with the option to renew one-time for an additional period of two years for an additional $400,000.
Votes as follows:
Ayes: Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
Noes: None
Absent: “one
7 None
Abstain:
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: Tuesday, April 11, 2023. f, \
_SHIEF ASSISTANT QITY ATTORNEY
DATE d ( i 2023
461
Adopted
04/11/23
Najarian
All Ayes
/Devine
RESOLUTION NO. __ 23-39
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FORROOF REPLACEMENT AND RESTORATION AT VARIOUS CITY FACILITIES, SPECIFICATION NO. 3908 AND
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
SECTION 1.The Specifications on file in the City Clerk’s office for the Roofing Replacement and Restoration at Various City Facilities including the various documents incorporated therein, are hereby approved, adopted, designated and shall hereafter be known as Specification No. 3908.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed {6 advertise for bids for the work, equipment and materials described in this Specifications adopted by this Resolution.
Adopted this _11th day of _ April , 2023
Glendale
ATTEST:
a lege
7 City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES _)
CITY OF GLENDALE )
|, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 23-39 was Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _11th day of April , 2023, the same was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
Noes: None
Absent: None
None
Abstain: -.
ARPROVED AS TO FORM
@HIEF ASSISTANT ORNEY
oate_71/ [ 7023 4
Adopted
04/11/23
Najarian/Devine
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE
MAKING AN APPROPRIATION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
SECTION 1: That the sum of $65,000 is hereby appropriated and/or transferred from the following accounts to the following accounts:
ACCOUNTS DESCRIPTION FROM TO
27900-6070-PWD-0000-P0000- Net Position, Building Maintenance Fund, $65,000 TOO00-FO000-0000-0000- Public Works
43110-6070-PWD-0020-P0000- Contractual Services, Building $65,000 T0000-F0000-0000-0000- Maintenance Fund, Public Works, Project, PWD00987AN Fire Station 28 Roof Renovation
To appropriate funding for the Roof Replacements and Restoration and Various City Facilities.
SECTION 2: The Director of Finance / Information Technology i is authorized to make such other revisions, individual appropriation line-items, changes in summaries, fund totals, grand totals, and other portions of the budget document as necessary to reflect and implement the changes specified in this resolution.
Adopted this__11th_ day of April , 2023.
ue Vo
V pe or_/
ATTEST:
CITY OF GLENDALE
} <r DATE 4/4/2023
_ =e APPROVED AS TO FINANCIAL
City Clerk PROVISION FOR $_ 65,000
Director of Finance / Information Technology
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.___23-40__was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the Jith dayof_ April , 2023, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None Boge
Sg iO
pecan ASTOFORM City Clerk ~~
CHIEF eat ATTORNEY
DATE [Hz23 Ace
Adopted
04/11/23
Najarian/Devine
All Ayes
RESOLUTION NO. __23-41
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR FLOORING INSTALLATION AT VARIOUS CITY FACILITIES, SPECIFICATION NO. 3943 AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
SECTION 1.The Specifications on file in the City Clerk’s office for the Flooring Installations Various City Facilities including the various documents incorporated therein, are hereby approved, adopted, designated and shall hereafter be known as Specification No. 3943.
SECTION 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed{to advertise for bids for the work, equipment and materials described in this Specifications adopted by this Resolution.
Adopted this _11th day of April _, 2023}
ATTEST:
fA oe
7 City’Cierk 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES _)
CITY OF GLENDALE )
|, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _ 23-41 was Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _11th day of April , 2023, the same was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
Noes: None
Absent: None
. None
Abstain:
PPROVED ORM
~ CHIEF ASSISTANT GITY ATTORNEY
pate_W// [23 4 fj
MOTION
Moved by Council Member Najarian ;
seconded by Council Member Devine
that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby:
1. Authorizes the City Manager, or a designee, to execute a professional services agreement — subject to approval by the City Attorney — with Infrastructure Engineers to provide engineering services for the South Verdugo Road Pavement Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $408,344.
2. Authorizes a 10% reserve for contingencies of $40,800.
Vote as follows:
Ayes: Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: Tuesday, Apwdl 11,_2023.
PPROVE
CHIEE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
Ji GOES DATE fF
MOTION
Moved by Council Member Najarian
seconded by Council Member Devine
that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby:
1. Authorizes the City Manager, or a designee, to execute a professional services agreement — subject to approval by the City Attorney — with NV5 Inc. for three hundred sixty-eight thousand five hundred dollars ($368,500) to provide Professional Engineering Services for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Pavement Management Program implementation Project
2. Authorizes a 10% reserve for contingencies of thirty-six thousand eight hundred fifty dollars ($36,850).
Vote as follows:
Ayes: Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: Tuesday, April 11, 2023. . le ia oh
pate_A/2225
4 -F 1
MOTION
Moved by Council Member Najarian
seconded by Council Member Devine
that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby:
1. Authorizes the City Manager, or a designee, to execute a professional services agreement — subject to approval by the City Attorney — with Onward Engineering, Inc., for $587,075 to provide engineering services for the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Pavement Management Program Implementation Project
2. Authorizes a 10% reserve for contingencies of $58,700.
Vote as follows:
Ayes: Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
Noes: None
Absent: None
; None
Abstain:
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: Tuesday, April 11, 2023. ‘a ROVED AS TO
)
UD
~
pate FH, :
4 ql
MOTION
Moved by Council Member___ Asatryan and seconded by Council Member Najarian , that upon review and consideration of Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing Plan Case No. PDBP2212648 (“Density Bonus & IZO Housing Plan Case’), located at 424, 430 and 434 Milford Street, Glendale, CA 91203 (“Site”), and after having conducted a public hearing on said case pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 (“GMC”), and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby APPROVES the Density Bonus & IZO Housing Plan Case for all of the reasons outlined in the April 11, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development, including any attachments thereto and any other evidence presented at the hearing, including any additional Council comments at the hearing, subject to the conditions below and pursuant to the facts and findings as follows:
The housing development project involves the demolition of five existing residential structures on site and the construction of a new, four-story, 43-unit multi-family residential project totaling 30,665 square feet, over a one-level, semi-subterranean parking structure containing 36 residential parking spaces (“Project”). Pursuant to State and City Density Bonus Law, the Project will provide eight (8) affordable units reserved for very-low income households.
The City Council has reviewed and considered analysis and evidence to support that the Project is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines contained in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (“Class 32 In-fill Development Project”) and hereby approves such exemption, and finds that the Project meets all of the conditions ofa ase
Class 32 In-fill Development Project, as analyzed in detail with supporting evidence and technical studies in Exhibit 5 to the April 11, 2023 staff report.
This approval is based on the authority provided in State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Sections 65915, et seg.) and GMC Chapter 30.36 (Density Bonus Incentives), that allows an applicant that seeks and agrees to provide at least fifteen (15) percent of the units in a housing development to very low income households a mandatory fifty (50) percent density bonus, as well as three incentives. Cal. Govt. Code § 65915(d)(2)(C) & f(2); GMC § 30.36.070(A)(3). State Density Bonus Law and the GMC also allow the City Council to grant or deny a discretionary density bonus above fifty (50) percent. Government Code Section 65915(n) states that ‘[i]f permitted by local ordinance, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a city .. . from granting a density bonus greater than what is described in this section. . .". Pursuant to Urgency Ordinance No. 5966, an applicant may seek a density bonus in an amount greater than that required by State Density Bonus Law, which shall be heard and decided by the City Council following a noticed public hearing. The City Council may approve or deny this request for a discretionary density bonus at its sole discretion, taking into consideration factors including, but not limited to: the number and type of affordable units proposed, the housing type, the underlying zone, and neighborhood conditions and compatibility. (Ordinance No. 5966, Section 3(1)). The applicant is therefore eligible for the mandatory fifty (50) percent density bonus, but has requested a discretionary density bonus of one hundred fifty-two and nine tenths (152.9) of a percent.
Based on the above, the City Council hereby finds and determines that it has considered factors including, but not limited to, the number and type of units, the housing
type, the underlying zone, and neighborhood conditions and compatibility. The Council finds that the number of affordable units proposed is sufficient in number, in unit type, in unit mix and in unit location, in comparison to the total number of units requested. The Council further finds that the underlying zone and neighborhood conditions and compatibility do support the requested discretionary density bonus. The Council also finds that the grant of the discretionary density bonus that would allow the project to be built would provide certain public benefits that include, but are not limited to: 1) the provision of affordable housing; and 2) the provision of market-rate housing. These public benefits of the project support the grant of the discretionary density bonus.
The Council additionally determines that it cannot make any of the findings to deny the incentives/concessions requested, and therefore, must grant the incentives/ concessions, pursuant to GMC Section 30.36.080(A) because there is no evidence in the record that: (1) the incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or to provide affordable rents; (2) the incentive or concession will have a “specific adverse impact upon public health and safety,” as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households; and (3) the incentive or concession will be contrary to state or federal law. The Council hereby adopts and incorporates the findings set forth in the April 11, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development.
APPROVAL of this Density Bonus shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. That the development shall be in substantial accord with the plans submitted with the application and presented at the hearing except for any modifications as may be required to meet specific Code standards or other conditions stipulated herein to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
2. That all necessary permits shall be obtained from the Permit Services Center and all construction shall be in compliance with the Glendale Building and Safety Code and all other applicable regulations.
3. That the premises shall be maintained in a clean and orderly condition, free of weeds, trash and graffiti, both during construction and at all times thereafter.
4. That any expansion or modification of the facility or use shall require a new Density Bonus application. Expansion shall constitute adding of additional units, floor area, or any physical change as determined by the Director of Community Development.
5. That the applicant shall work with the City’s Community Development Department and the City Attorney’s Office to make any permissible or required amendments to the Density Bonus and Inclusionary Housing Plan and to execute and record a Density Bonus Housing Agreement pursuant to GMC Section 30.36.140, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or his designee and subject to approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. Such Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall restrict the rental or sale of the required percentage of dwelling units in the housing development to persons or families of very-low income households identified in this approval. The applicant shall record such Density Bonus Housing Agreement prior to issuance of any and all required building permits.
6. That all affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the Project Site (e.g. throughout the different floors) and shall be comparable with the other dwelling units in the project in terms of appearance, finished quality and materials. Subject to requested changes necessary to comply with health and safety standards approved by the Director of Community Development or his designee, the unit type, size and location of the affordable units shall be as approved by the City Council.
7. That the affordability term shall not start until the date of recordation of the Housing Notice of Completion. The applicant shall notify the City’s Housing Division at least six months prior to the anticipated date of the Certificate of Occupancy so that affordable units may be marketed in a timely manner.
8. That approval of the Design Review Board shall be obtained prior to applying for or obtaining permits.
9. That the premises shall be made available to any authorized City personnel (Fire, Police, Neighborhood Service, etc.) for inspection to ascertain that all conditions of approval of this Density Bonus application are complied with.
10. That the applicant shall comply with all Section/Department requirements as specified in their memos to the satisfaction of the City or Department Director. These memos include but are not limited to Glendale Water and Power (September 27, 2022), Public Works Engineering (October 13, 2022), Traffic Engineering (November 3, 2022), and Maintenance Services/Urban Forester (November 29, 2022), Building and Safety Division (October 3, 2022), Community Development Housing Division (December 2, 2022) and Mobility Division (October 19, 2022), Community Services and Parking (September 26, 2022), and Fire Prevention Engineering (October 22, 2022).
11. That if any buildings, sidewalks, curb or gutter, fence or landscaping areas, etc., adjacent to the site are damaged during the course of construction on public or private property, the damage shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works for public property.
12. That any proposed exterior lighting shall be directed on the driveways, walkways and parking areas within the development and away from adjacent properties and the public-right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
13. That the applicant and/or the owner of the Site and/or real property located at 424, 430 and 434 W. Milford Street and any of their successors and/or assigns (collectively, “Developer’) agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and each of its agents, officers, council members, commissioners, attorneys, employees and representatives, with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City, from any claim, action or proceeding brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul any City land use approval for the Project located at 424, 430 and 434 Milford Street, Glendale, CA 91203.
At its sole discretion, the City may participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action, but such participation shall not relieve the Developer of any obligation imposed by this condition. The Developer’s indemnity, defense and hold harmless obligations shall include, without limitation, payment of all damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney's fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action or proceeding. In the event that a claim, action or proceeding referenced herein is brought, the City shall promptly notify the Developer of the existence of the claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action or proceeding. As used herein, “land use approval” refers to decisions of the City approving requests for
planning permits for the Project including, but not limited to, density bonus housing plans (including requests for density bonus, incentives and/or waivers), design review, general plan amendments, zone changes, zoning ordinance text amendments, tentative maps, vesting tentative maps, tentative parcel maps, reversions to acreage, final maps, final map modifications or amendments, time extensions, parcel map waivers, lot line adjustments, boundary line adjustments, certificates of compliance, conditional certificates of compliance, development agreements, conditional use permits, conditional use permit modifications, conditional use permit extensions, variances, variance modifications, precise plan of design, specific plans, sign permits, site plans, temporary use permits, any administrative or discretionary permit or any accompanying California Environmental Quality Act determinations pertaining to the type of approval referred to in this section, and any other similar approval. Notwithstanding the above, the Developer shall, within five (5) business days of this approval, execute a formal agreement with the City setting forth the above defense, indemnification and hold harmless provisions in substance.
Vote as Follows:
Ayes: Asatryan, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine (pro tem)
Noes: None
None
Absent:
Brotman (recused)
Abstain:
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: Tuesday, April 11, 2023.
PROVED AS TO F M
Ay
~ CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
pate_H//// O12
Adopted
04/11/23
Devine/Asatryan
Noe: Brotman
RESOLUTION NO. 23-42
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE CERTIFYING A FINAL ENIVONRMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH 2021060219,
RELATED MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PREPARED
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1642 SOUTH CENTRAL AVENUE, GLENDALE, CA 91204,
AND ADOPTING FINDINGS SUPPORTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale, as the lead agency, has caused preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP”) for the proposed demolition of the two residential buildings (1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardena Avenue) and a detached garage, and construction of a new 40,240-square-foot, five~ story, 31-unit (three of the residential units would be reserved for very low-income households), affordable rental housing project (the “Project”) located at 1642 South Central Avenue, Glendale, CA 91204; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") for the Project was prepared and circulated on June 10, 2021, through July 12, 2021 for a 30-day period pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., and State and City Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto; and
WHEREAS, notice was duly provided to the public, government agencies and all other interested parties that they may submit written comments on the Draft EIR to the City on or before July 12, 2021; and
WHEREAS, a Partially Recirculated Draft EIR (PR-DEIR) was prepared to address public comments and expand upon the analysis in the DEIR. Consistent with the requirements of Sections 15087 and 15088.5(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the PR-DEIR was circulated for public review and comment from August 12, 2022, for public review for a period of 30 days.
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project, State Clearinghouse No.
SCH 2021060219, (“Final EIR”) was prepared pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, was released on December 5, 2022, and incorporated the Draft EIR, PR-DEIR and included written responses to the comments made during the CEQA review period; and WHEREAS, after due notice, on December 15, 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission conducted a public hearing on this matter at which it reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR as well as supplemental responses and information; and WHEREAS, on December 15, 2022, the Historic Preservation Commission returned the Project to the applicant for redesign, and
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2023 the Project returned to the Historic Preservation Commission for consideration of the Final EIR and consideration of the design review application and the Historic Preservation Commission voted not to certify the FEIR and did not approve the design review application; and
WHEREAS, the Project applicant filed an appeal to the City Council, and on April 11, 2023, 98 1
the City Council conducted a de novo hearing of the design review application and request to certify the Project FEIR, and after reviewing all the Project materials, appeal application, receiving staff and consultant presentations, and hearing public testimony, and after having considering all the materials and testimony, the City Council finds and determines that the (i) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines, (ii) the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, and (iii) the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Glendale as the lead agency; and WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that the economic, social, legal and technological benefits of the Project, which include a region-wide social, environmental and economic benefit of providing more housing, including affordable housing, in close proximity to a major transit hub — the Larry Zarian Transportation Center — outweigh the Project's temporary significant and unavoidable environmental impact from construction noise and vibration, and outweigh the Project's significant and unavoidable environmental impact on cultural resources due to the demolition of a historic resource, and on that basis the adverse environmental impacts are considered acceptable pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093(a).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Glendale that:
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth herein above are true and correct and are incorporated herein.
SECTION 2. Each and all of the Findings and Determinations contained in this document are based upon competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and the Final EIR. The Findings and Determinations constitute the independent Findings and Determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by the City Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect.
SECTION 3. The FEIR and MMRP were circulated for public review and notice of the hearing on their adoption was completed as required by law.
SECTION 4. The following Findings are hereby adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale as required by Public Resources Code §§21081, 21081.5 and 21081.6, and CEQA Guidelines §§15091 through 15093, in conjunction with the approval of the Project. The Final EIR identified significant impacts associated with the Project. Approval of a project with significant impacts requires that findings be made by the Lead Agency. Significant impacts of the Project would have a residual significant impact that requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires the City Council to make one or more of the following written findings:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. c. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measure or project alternative identified in the Final EIR.
These Findings accomplish the following: (a) they address the significant environmental effects identified in the FEIR for the Project; (b) they incorporate all mitigation measures associated with these significant impacts identified in the FEIR; (c) they indicate whether a significant effect is avoided or reduced by the adopted mitigation measures to a less-than-significant level or remains significant and unavoidable, either because there are no feasible mitigation measures or because, even with implementation of mitigation measures, a significant impact will occur, or because such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency; and (d) they address the feasibility of all project alternatives and mitigation measures identified in the FEIR.
For any effects which will remain significant and unavoidable, a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” is adopted.
The City Council of the City of Glendale hereby adopts and incorporates, as conditions of approval, the mitigation measures set forth in the Findings below to reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project, as well as certain less-than-significant impacts. In adopting these mitigation measures, the City Council intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures recommended in the FEIR, except to the extent such mitigation measures are specifically rejected or specifically modified by these Findings. In the comments on the Draft EIR, a number of measures were suggested by various commenters as proposed additional mitigation measures. With respect to the measures that were proposed in the comments, and not incorporated into the FEIR, the responses to comments in the FEIR explain why the proposed mitigation measures are not recommended by the Final EIR for adoption. The City Council hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons stated in the responses to comments contained in the FEIR as its grounds for rejecting adoption of these proposed mitigation measures.
Section 5. Project Description
The Project site is located at 1642 South Central Avenue, within the Tropico neighborhood of the City of Glendale (APN 5640-029-014). The Project site is a 0.23-acre rectangular parcel and is bounded to the north by South Central Avenue, to the west by Gardena Avenue, to the east by an industrial building constructed in 1985, and to the south by a single-family residence constructed in 1947.
The Project site is zoned SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and developed with two residential buildings (1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardena Avenue) and a detached garage.
The residence located at 1642 South Central Avenue was constructed in 1913, and a second residence located on the same lot but with the address of 1608 Gardena Avenue was constructed in 1920. The Project would demolish both residential dwelling units and the garage and construct a new 40,240-square-foot, five-story, 31-unit, rental housing building. Parking would be provided in a 16- space one-level subterranean garage. Per Government Code Section 65915 and Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.36 (Density Bonus Incentives), three of the residential units would be reserved for very low-income households.
Section 6. CEQA Process
Notice of Preparation
In accordance with Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency conducted an Initial Study to determine if the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. Preparation of an Initial Study was conducted during October 2020 identifying potentially significant impacts involving Noise and Cultural Resources. As a result, the City issued a Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Project on June 10, 2021. The State
Clearinghouse assigned this project State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2021060219. The Notice of Preparation circulated for public review and comment for a 30-day period beginning on June 10, 2021.
Environmental Impact Report
The City supervised and reviewed the preparation of the Draft EIR, the Partially-Recirculated Draft EIR, and the FEIR in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 ef seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines. The FEIR is a full-disclosure informational document intended to inform and assist public agency decision- makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of the project. Possible ways to minimize significant effects are identified in the FEIR, and reasonable alternatives to the project are evaluated. This document assesses the environmental impacts, including unavoidable adverse impacts and cumulative impacts that may result from approval of the Project.
Written or oral comments from the public were received. All comments and responses to those comments are included in the FEIR.
Each and all of the Findings and Determinations contained in this document are based upon competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and FEIR. The Findings and Determinations constitute the independent Findings and Determinations of the City in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by the City, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect.
All summaries of information and the findings to follow are based on the FEIR, the Project (and every component thereof), and/or other evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding if not based in part on that fact.
The summaries of information below are only summaries. Cross-references to the FEIR and other evidence in the record have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the FEIR and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. In addition, unless noted or stated otherwise, the rationale for the findings is that set forth in the FEIR (including the responses to comments) or elsewhere in the administrative record.
Section 7. Findings on Significant and Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the Draft EIR, Partially-Recirculated Draft EIR, and FEIR.
An initial study was prepared to determine the extent of project-specific and cumulative impacts in certain resource topic areas would require additional analysis in the EIR, and which topic areas would not require analysis or less extensive analysis because the Project would have no impact, less-than-significant impacts, or less-than-significant impacts with mitigation included. The topic areas where additional analysis was not required include:
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)
Pursuant to and in accordance with Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, the EIR examined the potential for adverse effects to result from project implementation. In summary, implementation of the proposed Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable project-related and/or cumulative impacts:
. Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1-Implementation of the proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
. Noise/Vibration
Impact NO-1—Implementation of the proposed Project would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the City of Glendale Noise Ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies
Impact NO-2—Implementation of the proposed Project would generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
The findings, impacts, and mitigation measures that are applicable to the proposed project are noted below.
Impact C-CR-1 Implementation of the proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines
The City commissioned the development of the South Glendale Historic Context (2014 Context) and Historic Resources Survey (2019 Survey) for the South Glendale Community Plan (SGCP) area to aid in identifying potential historic resources. The Project site was included in the 2019 Survey, which assigned the residential building located at 1642 South Central Avenue a California Historical Resource Status Code 583, meaning it appears individually eligible for local designation through survey evaluation. The 2019 Survey determined the 1642 South Central Avenue is eligible for its architecture as a Craftsman-style residence and for its association as a circa 1910 residence within the City of Tropico. It is identified as a historic resource since it is a rare surviving example of residential architecture from the period before the town was annexed into the City of Glendale (1918), and for the quality of its Craftsman-style design. The house and garage located at 1608 Gardena Avenue were built in 1920 and 1923, respectively, and were not identified in the South Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resources Survey as potentially historic. These two buildings were built in the City of Glendale after the 1918 annexation of Tropico, and are modest examples of Craftsman-style design, lacking in the abundance of design features that make the house located at1642 South Central Avenue a significant example of the Craftsman style.
The EIR’s analysis was conducted and completed in accordance with the practices described in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation, including standards for identifying, evaluating, and documenting resources. Applicable national, state, and local level
criteria were considered, as well as the context-driven methods and framework used by the 2014 Context and the 2019 Survey.
Criteria A/4/1 (Events): The residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue is not individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) but is individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. The property does not have an important association with events or patterns that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state, or local history. However, as previously identified by the 2019 Survey, the residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue is associated with Early Development and Town Settlement, 1872-1918, because it was constructed in 1913, before the township of Tropico was annexed into the City of Glendale in 1918. The secondary residence and garage at 1608 Gardena Avenue were constructed in 1920 and 1923, respectively (post-dating the City of Tropico). Therefore, the house located at 1642 South Central Avenue is individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 1 and conversely the property as a whole is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria A/1. The later addition of the residence and garage at 1608 are not part of the original historic context for the historic property and were not built during the period of significance for the residence located at 1642 South Central although the buildings are all on the same lot.
Criteria B/2/2 (Person): Research to date did not reveal the subject property to have an association with the lives of significant persons in our past. The numerous known owners and occupants associated with the property during the historic period (prior to 1971) do not appear to have made significant contributions to national, state, or local history. Therefore, the subject property is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP, the CRHR, or the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criteria B/2/2.
Criteria C/3/3 (Design/Construction): Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.1 The residential building at 1642 South Central Avenue, built in 1913, is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR because its design and construction are not outstanding example of the Craftsman design and construction technique that would be considered distinctive, the work of a master, or possessing of high artistic value. However, it is individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it retains the majority of Craftsman CDFs, such as horizontal massing; wood shingle cladding; front porch with battered stone piers, with square wood posts; wood-framed casement and double-hung windows; and low-pitched gable roofs with exposed beams and rafter tails.
Although the residential building was expanded in 1923, the addition is in keeping in its materials and design. Thus, the property is an intact and good, example of early Craftsman architecture.
Conversely, 1920 residential building located at 1608 Gardena and its detached garage were constructed after 1918 and are not associated with the town of Tropico, and therefore they do not meet Criterion 1, and do not have the architectural character required for a post-1919 building to qualify under Criterion 3. Based on these factors, the 1608 Gardena residence and its detached garage are not individually eligible for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources as they do not “embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represent the work of a master.”
1 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 2002), 17. 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 five- story, 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,
including any original interior features, where possible; oblique views of the building; and detail views of character-defining features.
All views shall be referenced on a photographic key. This photographic key shall be on a map of the property and shall show the photograph number with an arrow to indicate the direction of the view. Historic photographs shall also be collected, reproduced, and included in the data set.
The Project applicant shall transmit such documentation to the Glendale Public Library, the Glendale Historical Society, the Community Development Department, and the South Central Coastal Information Center. The HABS/HALS documentation scope will determine the requested documentation type for the Project site and the Project applicant will conduct outreach to identify other interested groups. All documentation will be reviewed and approved by City staff before any demolition or site permit is granted for the affected historical resource.
Findings This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure M-CR-1 would reduce this impact, but not to a less than significant level, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The City Council finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A to this Resolution).
Noise and Vibration
Impact NO-1 Construction of the proposed Project would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the City of Glendale Noise Ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies.
The EIR’s analysis evaluates the noise and vibration impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. Two types of noise and vibration impacts were considered: short-term, temporary impacts resulting from construction, and impacts due to long-term operational changes in the noise environment.
Given that the Municipal Code does not include standard criteria for construction noise impact assessment, the guidelines in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2018) are used in this analysis.
Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
The Project would be constructed in one development phase that would take approximately 18 months. Short-term noise impacts would be associated with demolition of the existing structures, excavation, grading, and construction of the Project. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site; however, once Project construction is done, these noise levels would no longer occur.
Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the Project. The first type is related to noise generated by trucks transporting construction equipment and materials, by hauling activities, and by vehicles carrying construction workers commuting to the Project site. These transportation activities would incrementally raise noise levels on roads leading to the site. It is expected that larger trucks used in equipment delivery would generate higher noise levels than
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) Suggested Maximum Sound
Type of Equipment 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
Suggested Maximum Sound
Type of Equipment Levels for Analysis (dBA Lmax
10 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 41-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. 11 Table 3.2.10: Potential Construction Noise Impacts at Surrounding Residences . Range of Result ina 5 c it Receptor N sine Level Average Composite Exceed 90 dBA Increase (Location) (dBA Leq)at Distance Construction _ dBA Leq Over 50 feet! (feet) Noise Levels Threshold? Ambient
fee (dBA Leq) Condition
1616 Gardena 76 -88 85 69-83 No Yes
Avenue
335 El Bonito 175 63-77 No Yes
Avenue
337 El Bonito 420 66-80 No Yes
Avenue
339 El Bonito 170 63-77 No Yes
Avenue
343 El Bonito 150 64-78 No Yes
Avenue
Source: 1642 S. Central Avenue Project -Noise and Vibration Study, LSA, July 2022. See EIR Appendix D, + The composite construction noise level represents the range of noise levels with the grading phases as compared to other phases. dBA Leq = average A-weighted hourly noise level
Compliance with the time restrictions in the City’s Noise Ordinance, Municipal Code Chapter 8.36, would ensure that construction noise does not disturb the residential uses during hours when ambient noise levels are likely to be lower (i.e., at night). Although construction noise would be higher than the ambient noise in the Project vicinity during the day, construction noise would cease to occur once Project construction is completed. In addition to compliance with appropriate construction times, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure M-NO-1, Construction Noise Control.
M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control
Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:
Grading and construction contractors shall use equipment that generates lower vibration levels, such as rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment.
Construction haul truck and materials delivery traffic shall avoid Local Streets and Urban and Cormmunity and Neighborhood Collectors as defined in the City’s Circulation Element.
The construction contractor shall place noise- and vibration-generating construction equipment, with the exception of equipment needed to completed shoring activities associated with the construction of the subterranean garage, away from sensitive uses. All construction staging areas shall be located away from sensitive uses.
42 ° The construction contractor shall use on-site electrical sources to power equipment rather than diesel generators.
° The construction contractor shall ensure that a minimum 12-foot-high barrier, such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains, shall be erected between on the proposed Project site and adjacent to the sensitive receptors to minimize the amount of noise during construction. A 12-foot-high construction noise barrier would provide an approximately 12 dBA reduction to the closest residential receptors to the south.
° All residential units located within 500 feet of the construction site shall be sent a notice regarding the construction schedule. A sign legible at a distance of 50 feet shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and the signs shall indicate the dates and durations of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number for the “noise disturbance coordinator’.
Construction noise would be higher than the daytime ambient noise in the Project vicinity and exceed daytime construction thresholds. However, the construction noise and threshold exceedance would cease to occur once Project construction is completed. In addition to compliance with appropriate construction times, the implementation of Mitigation Measure M- NO-1 would reduce construction noise to the greatest extent feasible; however, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Findings This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure M-NO-1 would reduce this impact, but not to a less than significant level, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The City Council finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A to this Resolution). 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 PPV,er at 25 ft (in/sec) 4 Lv (VdB) ®
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 PVier— reference Peak Particle Velocity, PPV is appropriate for evaluating potential damage to buildings. 2 RMS VdB re 1 pin/sec.
ft=feet, in/sec = inches per second
Hin/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 fagade.
Additionally, vibration has the potential to cause annoyance to residential uses if large construction equipment operates within 110 feet of the building fagade. 14 Table 3.2.12 Summary of Construction Vibration Levels Exceed
Reference Maximum Exceed Annoyance
Equipment Level PY} Distance , Vibration ‘Gttoiy Criteria of LandUse Address Reference at 25 ft (fey! Level (PPV) of 0.2 oor PPV PPV in/sec?
in/sec?
Commercial 1638S. Central Large 0.089 5 0.995 Yes No1
Avenue Bulldozers
Residential 1616 Gardena 8 0.492 Yes Yes
Avenue
Residential 335 El Bonito 92 0.013 No Yes
Avenue
Residential 337 El Bonito 37 0.049 No Yes
Avenue
Residential 339 El Bonito 87 0.014 No Yes
Avenue
Residential 343 EI Bonito 75 0.017 No Yes
Avenue
Source: Compiled by LSA (2022).
Note: Due to the associated indoor uses at the commercial use to the north, construction activities are not expected to cause annoyance. ft = foot/feet FTA = Federal Transit Administration in/sec = inch/inches per second PPV = particle velocity
As the residences listed in Table 3.2.12 fall within the 110-foot contour for annoyance and the commercial use to the north at 1638 South Central Avenue and the residential use to the east at 1616 Gardena Avenue fall within the potential damage contour, there would be a potentially significant groundborne vibration impact at these two locations. With implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control, vibration damage would be avoided.
M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control
Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Glendale (City) Department of Building and Safety, or designee, shall verify that all construction plans include notes stipulating the following:
° Prepare a Monitoring Plan. The property owner shall undertake a monitoring program to avoid or reduce Project-related construction vibration damage to adjacent buildings and/or structures and to ensure that any such damage is documented and repaired. The monitoring program shall apply to all potentially affected buildings and/or structures adjacent to the Project site. Prior to issuance of any demolition or building permit, the property owner shall submit the construction vibration monitoring plan to the City for approval. The monitoring plan shall include, at a minimum, the following components, as applicable:
o Vibration Analysis Refinement. Once the specific construction 15 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 equipment list becomes available, potential vibration distance contours shall be refined.
Vibration Monitoring. To ensure that construction vibration levels do not exceed the established standard, an acoustical consultant shall monitor vibration levels at each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties when heavy construction occurs in close proximity. Based on direction from the acoustical consultant, vibratory construction activities that generate vibration levels in excess of the standard shall be prohibited.
Alternative Construction Techniques. Should construction vibration levels be observed in excess of the established standard, the contractor(s) shall halt construction and put alternative construction techniques into practice. Following incorporation of the alternative construction techniques, vibration monitoring shall recommence to ensure that vibration levels at each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties are not exceeded.
Periodic Inspections. A historic architect or qualified historic preservation professional (for effects on historic buildings and/or structures) and/or structural engineer (for effects on non-historic buildings and/or structures) shall conduct regular periodic inspections as specified in the vibration monitoring plan of each affected building and/or structure on adjacent properties during vibration-generating construction activity on the Project site.
Should damage to any building and/or structure occur, the building(s) and/or structure(s) shall be remediated to their pre- construction condition at the conclusion of vibration-generating activity on the site.
and would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation.
Findings
Section 8.
This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure M-NO-1 would reduce this impact, but not to a less than significant level, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The City Council finds this significant impact to be acceptable for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A to this Resolution).
Findings on Project Alternatives Considered in the Environmental Impact Report.
The Alternatives chapter of the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d), which requires the analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing significant adverse environmental effects of the proposed project. The Alternatives section contains an analysis of the effects of the following alternatives:
1. No Project Alternative
2. Reduced Density and Relocation on Site
3. Reduced Density and keep the residential building located at 1642 South Central Avenue in its existing location on the project site
16 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines states the purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The no project alternative analysis is not the baseline for determining whether the proposed project's environmental impacts may be significant, unless it is identical to the existing environmental setting analysis which does establish that baseline.
Under the No Project Alternative, the two residential dwellings at 1642 South Central Avenue and at 1608 Gardena and the existing garage would be retained in their current configuration and would not be disturbed; no construction would occur on site and the current residential uses would continue.
No new residential or commercial uses would be added. Therefore, the existing physical features on the Project site, including the character-defining features of the historical resource, would not change and The analysis of the No Project Alternative assumes that the Project would not be approved and would result in a “no build” alternative wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.
If the No Project Alternative were to proceed, no changes would be implemented, and none of the impacts associated with the Project would occur. However, incremental changes would be expected to occur in the vicinity of the Project site as nearby projects are approved, constructed, and occupied. With no change to existing site conditions under the No Project Alternative, land use activity on the Project site would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts beyond existing levels. There would be no construction or operational impacts related to noise and vibration compared to the Project.
Since the No Project Alternative would retain all the character-defining features of the subject property and not demolish or make any modifications to the historical resource, it would not cause material impairment to that resource. Compared to the Project, which would demolish all buildings on site and result in material impairment to the historical resource, the No Project Alternative would not result in any project-level impacts and would not contribute to any impacts related to historic architectural resources.
The No Project Alternative would not require construction activities and would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise and vibration.
Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed Project containing 31 units of rental housing, including three very-low income units, and a one-level subterranean garage would not be constructed.
Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives.
Findings: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), if the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then an EIR is required to identify another environmentally superior alternative from among the alternatives evaluated if the Project has significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that best avoids or lessens any significant effects of the Project, even if the alternative would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives. The No Project Alternative is considered the overall environmentally superior alternative because it would represent a continuation of existing conditions on the Project site and would not result in any significant impacts associated with implementation of the Project. The No Project Alternative, however, would not meet any of the project objectives. This Alternative is Infeasible, as set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A).
17 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, aithough the timing would be shortened due to the reduced size of the proposed building. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control and Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control would ensure that construction noise and vibration is reduced to the maximum amount feasible. However, impacts related to construction noise and vibration would remain significant and unavoidable.
Finding: The Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would preserve the on-site location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and character-defining features of the historical resource within the Tropico neighborhood. While the historic resource would be preserved, as with the Project, the Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would modify the setting of the historic resource. This alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable historical architectural resources impact associated with demolition of 1642 South Central Avenue.
The Reduced Density Alternative would meet most of the Project objectives.
However, it would not fulfill the Project objectives to the same extent as the Project because fewer new residential units would be built, and it would not maximize the potential residential units on the Project site. Specific Economic, Legal, Social, Technological, or Other Considerations Make This Alternative Feasible, as set forth above and in Exhibit A to this Resolution.
Alternative 3: Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would retain the historic residence located at 1642 South Central Avenue in its existing location on the Project site and demolish the residence at 1608 Gardena Avenue and the existing garage. The remaining buildable area, consisting of approximately 3,383 square feet (0.007 acre) could accommodate 11 residential units, including 8 market-rate and 3 very low-income units. The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would provide eight (8) subterranean parking spaces.
Similar to the Project, the Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would require construction of similar improvements, including grading and construction of the footings, connections for utilities, however the construction activities would be of shorter duration. This Alternative would also require restoration and preservation of the historic resource, and protection from any adverse impacts from construction of the new building. As a consequence, mitigation measures requiring 18 construction monitoring would be required, as would the post-construction restoration and rehabilitation of the historic home pursuant to Secretary of Interior Standards.
The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would result in fewer environmental impacts compared to the Project given the reduced size (11 residential units versus 31 units) and shorter construction duration. Due to the approximately 1/3 size of this Alternative compared to the Project and shorter duration of construction, this Alternative would result in reduced environmental impacts compared to the Project. The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would also be consistent with the SFMU (Commercial/Residential Mixed Use) and Mixed-Use District General Development Standards. The 11-unit building with a one-level subterranean garage would have a smaller building footprint compared to the Project but would still result in short-term impacts to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geology/soils, water quality, and traffic. Similar to the Project, these short-term construction impacts would be less than significant and typical of small land development projects.
The Reduced Density (Relocation On Site) Alternative would result in reduced construction duration compared to the Project. However, the site preparation and grading construction phases, which generate the highest noise levels, would still be required. The timing of these phases would be shortened due to the reduced size of the proposed building. Compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance and implementation of Mitigation Measure M-NO-1: Construction Noise Control and Mitigation Measure M-NO-2: Construction Vibration Control would ensure that construction noise and vibration is reduced to the maximum amount feasible. However, impacts related to construction noise and vibration would remain significant and unavoidable.
The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative would preserve the existing location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and character-defining features of the historical resource within the Tropico neighborhood. The preservation of location of the historic resource at its existing location on site would eliminate the Project’s significant impact from demolition of the resource. The residential dwelling at 1642 South Central Avenue would remain a good example of a Craftsman style house and would remain eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under Criterion 3.
The Reduced Density (Existing Location) Alternative meet all of the Project objectives set forth in Section 4.4 of the EIR. However, it would not fulfill the project objectives to the same extent as the Project because fewer new residential units would be built, and it would not maximize the potential residential units on the Project site.
Finding: Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives evaluated. The Reduced Density (Relocation on Site) Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable historical architectural resources impact associated with demolition of 1642 South Central Avenue. The construction noise and vibration impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. This alternative would also meet more of the Project objectives of adding affordable housing and meeting the City’s affordable housing goals, although not to the same extent as the Project since fewer new units would be built. Specific Economic, Legal, Social, Technological, or Other Considerations Make This Alternative Feasible, as set forth above and in Exhibit A to this Resolution.
8. Statement of Overriding Considerations: The City Council hereby adopts the “Statement of Overriding Considerations” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Attachment "A" in support of this Resolution.
9. Mitigation Monitoring Program: The City Council hereby adopts the “Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as 19 Attachment "B’ in support of this Resolution.
10. Section 21081.6(a)(2) of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e) require that the public agency shall specify the location of the custodian of the documents or other materials that constitute the record upon which its decision is based. Accordingly, the record and custodian of documents is the Glendale Planning Department, 633 East Broadway, Room 103, Glendale, California, 91206-4386.
Adopted this llth day of April a , 2023.
ayor
ATTEST:
hy, Le
Jcity Clerk” 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
|, Dr. Susie Abajian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _ 23-42 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the day _11th of April , 2023, by the following vote:
Ayes: Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian
Noes: Brotman
Absent: None
Abstain: None
nee Leg
4 iN aS Z City Clerk
GHIEF ASSISTANT C) NEY
pate 1/ 3
20 MOTION
Moved by Council Member Najarian , seconded by Council
Member Asatryan , that the City Council hereby approves the Project Design Application (DR Case No. PDR 2017612) for a proposed 31 unit housing project, including three units reserved for very low income households and a concession to reduce the amount of parking spaces by two spaces (16 parking spaces provided in a one-level subterranean parking garage) per Density Bonus Law, for a project to be located at 1642 South Central Avenue and 1608 Gardenia Avenue, as more particularly described in the April 11, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development and subject to any Council comments or recommendations thereon.
Vote as follows:
Ayes: Asatryan, Kassakhian, Najarian
Noes: Devine, Brotman
Absent, None
None
Abstain:
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: Tuesday, April 11, 2023.
PPROVED AS T
7 CRIER ASSISTANT ITY ATTORNEY
pate_L// 2023