CC_02042025_Exhibit_3_9a — Glendale City Council, February 4, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

72278252v1
A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County Daniel Freedman
[email protected]
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
(310) 203-8080 (310) 203-0567 Fax

www.jmbm.com

May 24, 2024
BY EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL

Cassandra Pruett, AICP
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Division
City of Glendale
633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103
Glendale, CA 91206

Re: Notice Pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(V) DRB Case No. PDR-003089-2024
Project Address: 1303-1315 N. Central Avenue

Dear City of Glendale Community Development Department:

Our office represents Central BWB LLC, the applicant for the above referenced 149-unit density-bonus housing project, which includes 19 dedicated affordable units. This is an updated and resubmitted version of a project that our client has been attempting to pursue with the City for years now, and which was previously submitted to the City on January 26, 2022.

Notwithstanding years of effort, a half-dozen meetings and updated submittals, including the completion of a design review hearing, the City refuses to process and approve the project without justification or good cause. Accordingly, this revised project was filed to update the project consistent with recent changes in state law, and to require the City to process the project in accordance with all updated requirements and procedures required by the Housing Accountability Act.

As part of the resubmittal, a complete project application was submitted to the City of Glendale on March 14, 2024. (Exhibit A.) The application also included an SB 330 Preliminary Application, affording the Project additional protections under state law. Consistent with those laws, and pursuant to Government Code § 65943, the application was deemed complete as of April 13, 2024. 1 Then, on May 13, 2024, pursuant Government Code § 65589.5, the application was

1 On April 24, 2024, you sent a letter to the applicant requesting additional "items" in order "to deem the application complete." Notwithstanding the fact that none of the requested items are required for a submittal pursuant to the City's own application requirements, the project's application was deemed complete as a matter of law more than ten days before this letter was sent.

Accordingly, the letter is of no force or effect, and the project application is complete.

City of Glendale
Community Development Department
May 24, 2024

Page 2 ends

72278252v1
deemed consistent and compliant with all applicable objective plans, policies, ordinances, standards, and requirements. Thereafter, on May 15, 2024, the project applicant submitted extensive documentation to support a finding that the project meets all of the findings required to qualify for a Class 32 in-fill exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").

Accordingly, the project application is now complete, consistent with all applicable standards, and is documented to be exempt from CEQA. Given this, the City has an obligation to act on the project application.

The applicant request that the City immediately make a CEQA determination and act on the project application. The City's ongoing refusal to process and approve this project is in violation of state law and constitutes an abuse of discretion. Moreover, failure by the City to act on this project within 90 days of receipt of this Notice will constitute a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. Please be advised of these additional findings for your records and consideration:
 As required by Government Code Sec. 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(V)(Ia), all of the information specified in paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 15062 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, can be found in Exhibit B to this Notice.  As required by Government Code Sec. 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(V)(Ib), a citation to the section of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations or the statute under which the applicant asserts that the project is exempt can be found in Exhibit B to this Notice. The Project meets all of the qualifications for a finding that it is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Cal.

Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15332.
 As required by Government Code Sec. 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(V)(Ic), a brief statement of reasons supporting the assertion that the project is exempt can be found in Exhibit B to this Notice. In summary, the attached technical analysis prepared by Meridian Consultants concludes that the project is: (i) consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies and zoning regulations; (ii) proposed within the Glendale limits on a site of no more than five acres surrounded by urban uses; (iii) located on an already developed site that has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (iv) will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and, (v) is proposed on site that can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services, and indeed is already adequately served for the proposed project. Accordingly, the project meets all of the qualifications required for it to be determined to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15332.  As required by Government Code Sec. 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(V)(Id), a copy of the excerpts from the record constituting substantial evidence that the criteria of subclauses (I) to (IV), inclusive, are satisfied can be found in Exhibit B to this Notice. Additionally, for ease of

City of Glendale
Community Development Department
May 24, 2024

Page 3 ends

72278252v1
reference, the Project (I) is not located within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone; (II) is located on a legal parcel within an urbanized area, is surrounded on four sides by existing developments, and is proximal to six or more amenities (See Exhibit C.); (III) the proposed density exceeds 15 dwelling units per acre, and is in fact 74 units per acre; and (IV) there is substantial evidence that the project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption from CEQA, and that none of the exemptions set forth in CEQA Guideline § 15300.2.

Finally, pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65589.5(h)(6)(D)(V)(Ib), please be advised that within five working days of receiving this written notice, the City shall file this notice with the county clerk to be posted for public inspection in the manner set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.

Very truly yours,

DANIEL FREEDMAN of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP

Attachments

CC: Erik Krause, Senior Planner, City of Glendale
Mark Berry, Principal Development Officer, City of Glendale Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development, City of Glendale Gillian Van Muyden, Chief Assistant City Attorney, City of Glendale

City of Glendale
Community Development Department
May 24, 2024

Page 4 ends

72278252v1

Exhibit A

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
633 East Broadway Room 103
Glendale, California 91206

PLANNING APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED
3/1/2024
through
3/15/2024
Excluding

Certification of Zoning; Home Occupation Permit; Business Registration Certificate; Design Review Exemption; ABC License Address
Description
Type
Date Submitted
Case Planner
611 E GLENOAKS

BOULEVARD
1 . ADD
275
S.F. TO EXISTING FIRST
LEVEL.
2 . ADD
1,326
S.F. TO THE EXISTING
SECOND LEVEL.
3 . ADD A
213
S.F. OPEN PATIO AT THE
SECOND LEVEL.
4 . ADD NEW
200
S.F. LANDSCAPING
Administrative Design
Review
March 5, 2024
Eric Ji
[email protected]
1317 THOMPSON AVENUE
Demolition of the excising single family
house and garage, and new construction
of the single family house and garage.

Design Review
March 6, 2024
Alan Lamberg
[email protected]
1541 REMAH VISTA DRIVE
Demolish existing house, build one Story
Single Family Residence:
2,821
S.F.

New Attached Garage :
475
S.F.

New Trellis Structure in the Rear Yard :
290
S.F.

New Swimming pool and Spa and Deck
around the pool
Design Review
March 7, 2024
Cassandra Pruett
[email protected]
560 W ELK AVENUE
CONSTRUCT 25 X 40 ACCESSORY

BUILDING
Administrative Design
Review
March 7, 2024
Alan Lamberg
[email protected]
405 IRVING AVENUE
2353 sf SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 2
STORIES. 4 CAR GARAGE, EXTERIOR
COVERED PATIO @ 2ND FLOOR
Administrative Design
Review
March 13, 2024
Eric Ji
[email protected]
1303 N CENTRAL AVENUE
Final DRB application and submittal for
1303 - 1315 N. Central Avenue. The
project is now 149 Apartment Units
utilizing a density increase permitted by
California Assembly Bill 1287.

Design Review
March 14, 2024
Cassandra Pruett
[email protected]
1200 MONCADO DRIVE
Mills Act Contract
March 14, 2024
Jay Platt
[email protected]
3/25/2024
Page
1 of
1 City of Glendale
Community Development Department
May 24, 2024

Page 5 ends

72278252v1

Exhibit B

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FINDINGS

METRO ART GLENDALE PROJECT
1303 – 1315 North Central Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202
PREPARED FOR:

City of Glendale
Community Development Department
Planning Division
633 E. Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, CA 91206
PREPARED BY:
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, CA 91361
www.meridianconsultantsllc.com
MAY 2024

City of Glendale i Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
A. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 B. Project Location .................................................................................... 1 C. Existing Site Conditions ............................................................................ 1 D. General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations ............................................... 1 E. Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................. 2 F. Project Description ................................................................................. 2 G. Requested Approval Actions....................................................................... 2 H. Class 32 Infill Categorical Exemption ............................................................ 5 I. Consistency of Project with the Class 32 Exemption Criteria ............................... 6 J. Exceptions to the Use of Categorical Exemptions ............................................ 20

List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Project Site Location ............................................................................... 3

List of Tables
Table Page
1 Construction Maximum Noise Estimates ........................................................ 11 2 Maximum Construction Emissions ............................................................... 14 3 Maximum Operational Emissions ................................................................ 15 4 Estimated Sewage Generation ................................................................... 17

Appendix
A Historic Resources Assessment
B Traffic Technical Memorandum
C Noise Study
D A
ir Quality Study

Metro Art Glendale Project 1 City of Glendale
Categorical Exemption Findings May 2024

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FINDINGS
A. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the review of projects that involve the exercise of discretionary powers by a public agency that could result in a physical change in the environment. Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that once a lead agency has determined that a project is subject to CEQA, the next step is to determine if the project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA. This document evaluates the Metro Art Glendale (Project) in relation to the criteria for the Class 32 In -Fill Development Projects Exemption established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 and concludes that the Pr oject (1) meets the eligibility criteria for the Class 32 exemption and (2) none of the exceptions defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

B. PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is located at 1303 – 1315 North Central Avenue (APN 5633-006-014) within the West Glendale Community Plan area in the City of Glendale, as shown in Figure 1: Project Site Location. The 86,025 square foot (1.97 acre) irregularly shaped double-fronting lot that fronts North Central Avenue for a length of 286 feet, and Viola Avenue for 75 feet at the end of the cul-de-sac. The Project site is bounded to the east by North Central Avenue, to the north and south by multifamily buildings , and to the west by a residence along Parkwood Drive, and multifamily buildings on all sides along Viola Avenue. The project site fronting Central Avenue is across the street from multifamily buildings and a Ralph’s Fresh Fare Supermarket.

C. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Project site was constructed in 1957 in a Mid-Century Modern style as a garden apartment multifamily residence consisting of three two -story apartment buildings (B uilding 1303, 1311 and 1315) which includes 37 mostly two-bedroom units with a rear ancillary building, courtyard garden, pool, and associated parking garages. Building 1303, located in the southern portion of the site, consists of 13 rental units. Building 1311, located in the northwest portion of the site consists of 12 rental units, and Building 1315, on the northeast corner of the site, consists of 12 rental units. The majority of the parking is ”tuck under parking” with non- reinforced soft story construction.

D. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
The Project site is located within the Northwest area of Glendale commonly known as Verdugo Viejo. The Project site has an R -1250 High Density Residential Development zone designation which is the highest density residential development zoning within the city. R -1250 allows for relatively large multi-family uses at the density of 1,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 2 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
unit.1 Height limits building height to 36 feet (41 feet with pitched roofs) and 3 stories with a maximum floor-area-ration (FAR) of 1.2. The total lot area of the Project site is approximately 86,025 square feet (approximately 1.97 acres).

E. S URROUNDING LAND USES
The Project is in an urbanized area and the surrounding area consists of single and multifamily residential buildings and commercial retail buildings constructed mainly in the 1950s, with some newer buildings built between 1980 to 2000. The Project site is bounded to the east by North Central Avenue, to the south by an apartment building built in 1988, to the west by late 1950s- era residences along Parkwood Drive and multifamily buildings built in 1953 and 1956 along Viola Avenue. The property is bound to the north by a 1954 multi- building apartment complex built in 1954. The nearest major arterial roads are State Route 134 (approximately 0.5 -miles) to the south, State Route 2 (approximately 2.7 -miles) to the east, and Interstate 5 (approximately 5-miles) to the west.

F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed development includes removal of the existing apartment complex for a new three-story to six-story multi-family residential building consisting of 25 one-bedroom units, 80 two-bedroom units and 44 three-bedroom units for a total of 149 units. Of those units, 14 units are proposed as City of Glendale low- income inclusionary and state very low- income units pursuant to Senate Bill ( SB) 1818 and Assembly Bill (AB) 2345. Five (5) units are proposed as moderate income pursuant to AB 1287. The subterranean parking garage would include approximately 310 stalls with 211 accessible spaces which comply with the City of Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) 30.36.090(B) and density bonus AB 2345 parking requirements. The proposed multi-family residential building would be approximately 9 5 feet in height and have a floor-area ratio (FAR) of 2.77.

G. REQUESTED APPROVAL ACTIONS
For the Project to be implemented, the City of Glendale would need to approve the following actions:

DESIGN REVIEW
The design of the Project is subject to approval of the Glendale Design Review Board which can review the project based under the objective design standards of the City of Glendale Residential District General Development Standards.

1 Glendale Municipal Code. Title 30. Section 30.11.010.

Project Site Location
FIGURE 1
395-001-23
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2023

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
2001000 400
N
Legend:

Project Site
Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 4 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024

HEIGHT AND DENSITY BONUS
Review by the City of Glendale Density Bonus Commission which is required to grant ministerial approval of density bonuses in compliance with SB 1818, AB 2345 and AB 1287.

SB 1818 permits allows a 35 percent increase in the maximum number of units otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning. To qualify for this increase, 11% of the units otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning must be set aside as very low -income affordable units. AB 2235 further increases the density bonus to 50 percent in the maximum number of units otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning. To qualify for this increase, 15 percent of the units otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning must be s et aside as very low -income affordable units. For this development, 14 units are set aside as very low- income affordable units which allows an additional 44 units beyond the 88 units permitted by the R-1250 zone. AB 2345 also lowers parking requirements to one space per studio or 1 bedroom; 1.5 spaces per 2 or 3-bedroom units, with no guest or covered parking required. As this development is located within one-half mile of a “major transit stop” and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development, AB2345 lowers the parking requirement to 0.5 spaces per unit.

AB 1287 creates a new stackable density bonus (bonus on top of bonus) of up to 50 percent increase based on the number of very low-income, low-income, or moderate-income units that are constructed. For this project, 5 percent of the units otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning are set aside as moderate -income affordable units which allows an additional 18 units resulting in a total of 149 units.

Of the proposed Project’s 149 units, 14 units are proposed as City of Glendale low income inclusionary and state very low income pursuant to SB 1818 and AB 2345 and 5 units are proposed as moderate income pursuant to AB 1287.

INCENTIVES FOR HEIGHT , FAR, AND LOT COVERAGE
Review by the City of Glendale Density Bonus Commission which must grant ministerial approval of three requested development incentives:

Incentive Code Proposed
Incentive #1 Increase in Height and Stories 41 feet 94’ – 6 ¾’’ 3 stories 3 to 6 stories
Incentive #2 Increase in Floor Area Ra tio (FAR) 1.2 2.77 Incentive #3 Increase in Lot Coverage 50 percent 53.5 percent Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 5 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
H. CLASS 32 INFILL CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Section 21084 of the CEQA statue requires t he CEQA Guidelines to include a list of classes of projects determined not to have a significant effect on the environment that are exempt from environmental review under CEQA. The list of exemption classes is defined in Section 15300 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Project is considered to qualify as exempt under Class 32, Infill Development Projects as described in Section 15322 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the Project meets the following conditions:
a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that there are exceptions to the exemptions:
a. Location.

Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located —a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. b. Cumulative Impact. All e
xemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. c. Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
d. Scenic Highways. A
categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state sce nic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
e. Hazardous Waste Sites. A
categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 6 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
f. Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

I. CONSISTENCY OF PROJECT WITH THE CLASS 32 EXEMPTION

CRITERIA
a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

Provided below is the analysis of the Project’s consistency with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

CITY OF GLENDALE GENERAL PLAN
The City of Glendale’s Land Use Element serves as a long-range plan for current and future land use requirements. At the time of the Land Use Element’s adoption and revision, the City reported that residential zoning occupied approximately 77 percent of all zoned land in the City. Areas zoned for high intensity uses still reflected low density dwellings, with the potential to increase its existing residential units by more than 120 percent. Newly constructed units are generally above the economic capability of many residents, and the Land Use Element emphasizes the unmet needs of residents. To address resident needs, specialized requirements such as moderate priced housing and rent subsidies are priorities for future developments. The proposed Project would be consistent with the City’s priority of providing residential development opportunities based on different income levels. Additionally, the Project is proposed on an infill site within an urbanized area that would provide 149 new residential units, which is in line with the City’s General Plan which aims to promote the revitalization and replacement of deteriorating neighborhoods.

The current General Plan designation for the Project site is High-Density Residential zone. The land use designation allows a density of 1,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit

2. Residential District development standards allow a building height of 41 feet and three stories with a maximum floor-area-ratio (FAR) of 1.2. Lot coverage is allowed at a 50 percent maximum including all residential and accessory buildings. The proposed Project would redevelop the current residential Project site as a new multi -family residential building and would remain consistent with the applicable designation as a High-Density Residential zone.

2 City of Glendale. “Land Use Element." Glendale General Plan. Accessed April 2024. https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/47607/638469746730500000 Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 7 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
ZONING
The proposed Project would utilize zoning incentives in accordance with the City’s General Plan, SB 1818, AB 2345, and AB 1287. These incentives allow for greater density and/or use bonuses than stated in development standards. The Project would develop 149 housing units which could accommodate approximately 391 people based on the average household size in the City of Glendale. 3 Based on the City’s General Plan Land Use designation, current zoning requirements would allow for the development of 87 units. Per AB 2345, a 1.50 density bonus increase would allow the addition of 44 units, for a total of 131 units. Per AB 1287 there would be a 20 percent additional bonus that would allow 18 additional units , resulting in a total of 149 units. Of the proposed Project’s 149 units, 14 units are proposed as City of Glendale low income inclusionary and state very low income pursuant to SB 1818 and AB 2345 and 5 units are proposed as moderate income pursuant to AB 1287.

Based on incentives, the proposed Project’s building height’s lowest point of building at grade to top of stair would be approximately 9 5 feet. The development has a proposed FAR of 2.77 and the Project’s lot coverage would be 53.5 percent with incentives. The residential density maximum, FAR, height limitation and lot coverage limit the intensity allowed on the site; however, as stated, the Project would utilize incentives, which provide an increase in intensity allowed for developments . Pursuant to AB 234 5 and the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) 3036.090(B), the proposed Project’s subterranean parking garage would include 310 stalls with 211 accessible spaces.

Based on the above, the Project would be consistent with density bonus incentives, applicable General Plan and zoning designations, policies and regulations and would meet this criterion of the Class 32 Exemption.
b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The Project site is approximately 2.0 acres in size and is located in a developed area within the City of Glendale. The project site is surrounded by dense, developed urban areas consisting of single and multifamily residential buildings and commercial retail buildings. Therefore, the Project satisfies this criterion of the Class 32 Exemption. c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

The project would redevelop a residential site that is surrounded by other residential uses.

There are multiple trees on site identified as typical landscaping species (refer to Appendix A).

3 City of Glendale. “Census Information − Households.” Accessed April 2024. https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/services/census- information-households.

Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 8 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
There are six unmaintained trees under Street Tree Ordinance (GMC 12.40). GMC 12.40 requires a Street Tree Permit prior to site disturbance to or near street trees. The Project site has three existing Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta) maintained by the City as street trees. The City right-of-way also encompasses three City trees, two Mexican fan palms and one red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). The six trees would be removed with the support of Forestry, and additional trees would be planted in accordance with requirements set forth by t he City and Forestry.

The GMC Chapter 12.44, Indigenous Trees, contains guidelines for the protection and removal of Indigenous trees. Based on the tree report conducted by the qualified tree expert (refer to Appendix A), there are no protected Indigenous tree species on site or within 20 feet of site adjoining properties. The Project site is not located within the boundary of any draft or adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan .
4 The Project site does not contain any critical
habitat and is not known to support any species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations.

Due to the urban location and low relative density of vegetation overall compared to rural and natural open space locations the Project would not be a potential habitat for listed plant or wildlife species. Therefore, the Project satisfies this criterion of the Class 32 Exemption. d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

TRAFFIC
The proposed Project includes a six -foot wide strip of land would be dedicated for street use purposes along the entire street frontage of the property on Viola Avenue. The Project would not remove or obstruct existing roadways, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian facility, or transit.

Based on SB375, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has identified High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA), defined as areas within one-half mile from major transit stops and high-quality transit corridors. The Project Site is located in a HQTA as identified by SCAG, Metro, and the City Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines. 5 The Project site is served by multiple bus and shuttle lines. The Los Angeles County MTA and City of Glendale Beeline operate within the vicinity of the Project site including along Central Avenue, Brand Boulevard and Glendale Avenue.

4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). National Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Plan.

Summaries. Accessed April 2024. https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning/nccp/plans. 5 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, City of Glendale, CA. October 30, 2020. https://www.glendaleplan.com/_files/ugd/81c7a2_f90d9d2610e04c27b08cf0baac9fcd2f.pdf.

Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 9 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
The nearest major arterial roads are State Route 134 (approximately 0.5 -miles) to the south, State Route 2 (approximately 2.7 -miles) to the east, and Interstate 5 (approximately 5 -miles) to the west. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b) identifies criteria for analyzing transportation impacts and states that projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. 6 The Project site is located approximately 0.2 miles from a transit stop serving one major bus route with frequency intervals of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods within the City of Glendale.
7 The City Council adopted updates to the City’s TIA Guidelines in October 2020 pursuant to the requirements of SB 743, which states that all development projects within a HQTA are considered to have less than significant transportation impacts and would not require further vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis.
8 A transportation analysis memo was prepared to
determine whether the Project would meet the TIA’s VMT exemption screening criteria for a project located in a HQTA and if the Project would require a non -CEQA local transportation analysis.

Per the City’s TIA Guidelines, 9 a non-CEQA local transportation analysis may be required to evaluate the effects of a development project on the circulation network. A local transportation analysis is required for projects generating at least 50 net -new peak hour vehicle trips, using ITE trip generation rates or local/empirical rates (if available). The Project is estimated to generate a net total of 41 peak hour trips (10 inbound and 31 outbound) during morning peak hour period, a net total of peak hour 40 trips (24 inbound and 16 outbound) in the afternoon peak hour, resulting in a net total of 427 daily trips (refer to Appendix B: Traffic Technical Memorandum). The subterranean parking garage would not generate additional trips because it would provide parking for the proposed resident ial Project. The net change in peak trips generated by the proposed Project is less than 50 peak hour trips in both morning and afternoon peak hours. In accordance with the City of Glendale’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines,
10 a local transportation analysis will not be required.

6 CEQA Guidelines. Section 15064.3.
7 City of Glendale, Transportation. “Beeline Timetables & Route Maps.” Accessed April 2024. https://www.glendaletransit.com/tools/system-map/beeline-timetables-route-maps. 8 Jano Baghdanian & Associates. Metro Art Glendale Project, 1303-1315 North Central Avenue. March 15, 2024. 9 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, City of Glendale, CA. October 30, 2020.
10 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. “Chapter 3: Local Transportation Analysis Requirements.” Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, City of Glendale, CA. October 30, 2020.

Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 10 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
Based on the above, traffic effects of the Project would not be significant, and the Project satisfies this criterion of the Class 32 Exemption.

NOISE
The following section summarizes and incorporates by reference information from the Noise Study prepared by Meridian Consultants dated April 2024 on behalf of the Applicant. The report is included as Appendix A of this Categorical Exemption.

On-Site Construction Noise
Noise from construction activities would be affected by the amount of construction equipment, the location of this equipment, the timing and duration of construction activities, and the relative distance to noise -sensitive receptors. Construction activities that would occur during the construction phases would generate both steady -state and episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the Project site. Each construction phase involves the use of different types of construction equipment and, therefore, has its own distinct noise characteristics. The Project would be constructed using typical construction techniques; no blasting or impact pile driving would be required.

The construction equipment reference noise levels (refer to Appendix C ) are based on measured noise data compiled by the FHWA and would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions. However , equipment used on construction sites typically operate at less than full power. The acoustical usage factor is the perce ntage of time that each type of construction equipment is anticipated to be in full power operation during a typical construction day. These values are estimates and will vary based on the actual construction process and schedule.

Construction equipment operates at its noisiest levels for certain percentages of time during operation. As such, equipment would operate at different percentages over the course of an hour.
11 During a construction day, the highest noise levels would be generated when multiple pieces of construction equipment are operated concurrently.

To characterize construction-period noise levels, the average (hourly Leq) noise level associated with each construction stage was calculated based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each type of equipment that would be used during each construction stage. These noise levels are typically associated with multiple pieces of equipment operating simultaneously.

The estimated construction noise levels were calculated for each of the analyzed receptors (refer to Figure 7 of Appendix C) during each of the construction phases. As mentioned

11 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). “Traffic Noise Model.” 2006.

Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 11 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
previously, given the physical size of the Project site and logistical limitations, and with the noise equipment located at the construction area nearest to the affected receptors to present a conservative impact analysis. This is considered a worst-case evaluation because construction of the Project would typically use fewer pieces of equipment simultaneously at any given time as well as operating throughout the construction site (i.e., most of the time construction equipment would be operating at distances further away from the off -site receptors than that assumed in the forecasting of Project construction noise levels). As such, Project construction would often generate lower noise levels than reported herein.

Table 1: Construction Maximum Noise Estimates presents the maximum noise impacts that are forecasted to occur at each of the receptor sites. As shown, average noise levels during construction would result in a maximum increase of 4.5 dBA (Leq 1-hour) above the significance threshold of 85 dBA (Leq 1- hour) at the adjacent multi- family residential use (REC-A) without implementation of construction best management practices.

TABLE 1

CONSTRUCTION MAXIMUM NOISE ESTIMATES
Location
Calculated Noise Level (Leq-1hour) by Construction Phase Exceeds 85 dBA Significance
Threshold? Demolition Grading Building
Construction Paving Architectural
Coating
REC-A 88.7 89.5 87.3 61.3 75.4 Yes
REC-B 86.6 86.2 83.8 58.4 72.1 Yes
REC-C 81.5 80.1 78.3 51.8 66.1 No
REC-D 84.4 83.8 81.5 68.3 69.3 No
REC-E 74.4 75.0 73.1 60.9 59.5 No
REC-F 82.0 82.5 78.8 70.2 66.9 No

Source: Meridian Consultants. Noise Technical Study. April 2024.

RCM-NOISE-1 would lead to replacement of worn mufflers and to retrofitting where mufflers Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 12 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
are not in use. Using optimal muffler systems on all equipment would reduce construction noise levels by 10 dBA or more.12
Other effective methods of diminishing the noise impacts associated with individual pieces of construction equipment is to employ less noisy machinery. This is accomplished by specifying the quietest available equipment. Modifications such as dampening of metal surfaces or a redesign of a particular piece of equipment is effective in reduction noise due to vibration.

These modifications are typically conducted by the manufacturer or with factory assistance.

The reduction is controlled by the imposed limits on the technical capabilities of the manufacturer or the equipment user. Noise reductions of up to 5 dBA can be achieved using dampening materials.
13 Additionally, shields such as sound skins may achieve reductions of 20 dBA at high frequencies and 10 dBA in the middle frequency range. Sound aprons may achieve noise reductions of up to 10 dBA.
14 Sound aprons are typically designed from absorptive mats and are draped on the frames attached to the equipment. This material can be constructed from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) layers, lead-filled fabric, or rubber. These aprons are most useful when equipment only needs partial shielding or has to be regularly moved.

Additionally, limiting the number of noise -generating, heavy-duty construction equipment to two (2) pieces operating simultaneously would reduce construction noise levels by approximately 5 dBA.

With Implementation of RMC-NOISE-1, construction noise levels resulting in a maximum increase of 4.5 dBA (Leq 1- hour) above the significance threshold would be reduced by a minimum of 30 dBA (Leq 1-hour). Moreover, with implementation of RCM-NOISE-2, the Project would comply with Section 8.36.080 of the GMC by ensuring that the operation of construction equipment would only occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7 :00 PM on weekdays and Saturday. Compliance with the above practices would ensure construction noise levels would be below the significance threshold; thus, construction noise levels would not be considered significant.

12 FHWA. Special Report—Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation. June 2017. Accessed March 2024. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn04.cfm. 13 FHWA. Special Report—Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation. June 2017. 14 FHWA. Special Report—Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation. June 2017.

Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 13 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
phase. Haul truck traffic would take the most direct route to the freeway ramp along Central Avenue.

Noise associated with construction truck trips were estimated using the Caltrans FHWA Traffic Noise Model based on the maximum number of worker and truck trips in a day. Project haul truck trips, which includes medium - and heavy- duty trucks, would generate noise levels of approximately 58.8 to 63.7 dBA, respectively, measured at a distance of 25 feet from the adjacent sensitive receptor. Existing noise levels along Central Avenue (refer to Sites 1 and 4 of Appendix C) ranged from 61.0 dBA to 67.7 dBA during the morning period and 64.1 dBA to 67.7 dBA during the afternoon period. The noise level increases from truck trips would be below the significance threshold of 5 dBA. As such, off -site construction noise impacts would not be considered significant.

OPERATION
The Project would introduce various stationary noise sources, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, which would be located either on the roof, the side of a structure, or on the ground. All Project mechanical equipment would be required to be designed with appropriate noise -control devices —such as sound attenuators, acoustics louvers, or sound screens/parapet walls—to comply with noise compatibility requirements provided in the GMC.

The stationary equipment would be required to comply with GMC Section 30.34.070, which establishes low -sound intensities from mechanical equipment. Therefore, operation of mechanical equipment on the Project building would not exceed the City’s threshold o f significance and impacts would be less than significant.

AIR QUALITY
The following section summarizes and incorporates by reference information from the Air Quality Study prepared by Meridian Consultants dated April 2024 on behalf of the Applicant.

The report is included as Appendix B to this Categorical Exemption.

Construction Emissions
Estimated construction emissions were quantified based on the type and number of equipment associated with demolition, grading, construction, paving, and architectural coating. Emissions calculations assumed (1) all construction activities would be conducted in compliance with the SCAQMD rules pertaining to Fugitive (Dust Rule 403)
15 and Architectural Coatings (Rule 1113),16

15 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). “Rule 403 Fugitive Dust.” Accessed June 2018. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4. 16 SCAQMD. “Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings.” Accessed June 2018. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf.

Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 14 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
and (2) heavy- duty diesel equipment would meet minimum California Air Resources Board (CARB) off-road fleet requirements. Table 2: Maximum Construction Emissions identifies daily emissions that are estimated for peak construction days for each construction year. Based on the modeling, construction of the Project would not exceed regional concentration thresholds.

All criteria air pollutants would be below SCAQMD construction thresholds. As such, construction of the Project would not generate any significant environmental impacts associated with air quality compliance.

TABLE 2

MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds/day
2025 1.8 26.9 21.4 <0.1 5.4 2.4
2026 1.6 10.5 20.5 <0.1 2.6 0.8
2027 36.9 28.2 28.2 <0.1 3.3 1.1
Maximum 36.9 28.2 28.2 <0.1 5.4 2.4
SCAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No

Source: Meridian Consultants. Air Quality Technical Study. April 2024.

Operational Emissions
Operational emissions would result primarily from passenger vehicles traveling to and from the Project site. As mentioned previously, the vehicle trips associated with the proposed project have been analyzed by inputting the project -generated trips from the Traffic trip Generation Memorandum (dated March 15, 2024). The results presented in Table 3: Maximum Operational Emissions are compared to the SCAQMD -established operational significance thresholds. As shown in Table 3, the operational emissions would not exceed the regional concentration thresholds. Additionally, the operational emissions provided below would be further reduced when taking into account removal of the existing use and trip reductions from public transit options located within the Project vicinity. As such, operation of the Project would not generate any significant environmental impacts associated with air quality compliance.

Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 15 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
TABLE 3

MAXIMUM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds/day
Mobile 2.0 1.4 16.6 <0.1 3.9 1.0
Area 7.0 2.0 14.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2
Energy <0.1 0.5 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total 9.0 3.9 31.0 <0.1 4.1 1.2
SCAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No

Source: Meridian Consultants. Air Quality Technical Study. April 2024.

WATER QUALITY
As authorized by the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States which includes reservoirs, lakes, and their tributary waters. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man -made ditches.

Three general sources of potential short -term, construction-related stormwater pollution are associated with the proposed Project: the handling, storage, and disposal of construction materials containing pollutants; the maintenance and operation of construction equipment; and earthmoving activities that, when not controlled, may generate soil erosion via storm runoff or mechanical equipment.

The proposed Project would satisfy all applicable requirements of GMC Chapter 13.42, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control , including filing a Notice of Intent with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), and submittal and certification of plans and details from preconstruction, during and post -construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) integrated in the design of the proposed Project.

The proposed Project would satisfy applicable requirements of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) during construction in accordance with the City of Glendale Public Works Department. The SUSMP would reduce postconstruction pollutants in stormwater discharges. C ompliance would also include the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with the LARWQCB water quality standards, the SWPPP would include BMPs to control stormwater pollutant discharges and reduce pollutants. BMPs would utilize best available technology (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Examples of BAT/BCT that may be implemented include straw hay bales, straw bale inlet filters, filter barriers and silt fences. Prevention and mitigation plans would ensure the construction of the Project would not violate water quality standards and/or discharge requirements. Therefore, no significant impacts during construction would occur.

Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 16 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
After construction, the new development and the new hardscape and landscape improvements would increase the intensity of activities on the site and would likely result in an increase in typical urban pollutants generated by motor vehicle use on roadways and parking areas adjacent to the Project site, and the maintenance and operation of landscaped areas.

Stormwater quality is generally affected by the length of time since the last rainfall, rainfall intensity, urban uses of the area, and quantity of transported sediment. Typical urban water quality pollutants usually result from motor vehicle operations; oil and grease residues; fertilizer/pesticide uses; human/animal littering; careless material storage; and poor handling and property management. The majority of pollutant loads are usually washed away during the first flush of the storm occurring after the dry-season period.

These pollutants have the potential to degrade water quality. However, the quality of runoff from the Project site would be subject to Section 401 of the CWA under the NPDES permit, which would be issued by the LARWQCB.

Development projects are required by the GMC to submit and then implement a SUSMP containing design features and BMPs appropriate and applicable to the Project. The proposed Project would incorporate silt fences, sandbag barriers, and/or stabilization of the construction entrance/exit to satisfy the SUSMP standards. One of the requirements of the SUSMP is that the Project retain on-site water runoff from the first 0.75 inches of a 24 -hour rain event. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the City must approve the SUSMP; preparation of the SUSMP is incorporated as a project design feature.

The Applicant would submit a Low Impact Development (LID) drainage system to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval. Through a LID drainage system, the amount of surface water runoff leaving the Project site would be reduced. Additionally, all NPDES-related drainage on the Project site would be under a Covenant and Agreement with the City for related replacement, installation and continued maintenance with inspection rights granted to the City.

Compliance with LID and implementation of design-related stormwater BMPs would ensure the Project’s operation does not violate water quality standards or discharge requirements. After compliance with the preparation of the SUSMP, implementation of BMPs and the LID standards, there would be no potential water quality impacts, therefore the Project satisfies this criterion of the Class 32 Exemption.
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

UTILITIES
The Project site is located in an urban area in the City of Glendale that is currently served by existing water, sewer, gas and electric services. Glendale Water and Power (GWP) would provide water service, and the City’s sewer infrastructure and discharge would collect, and transport generated wastewater to the City of Los Angeles’s Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP) or to the Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 17 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
Los Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant (LAGWRP), with sludge discharged to the HTP system.17 In 2020, the volume of wastewater collected from the City was 6,024 million gallons per day (mgd).18 The HTP has a capacity of 450 mgd, a peak wet weather flow of 800 mgd, and processes approximately 275 mgd of wastewater.19 The LAGWRP has a capacity of 80 mgd and processes an average daily flow of 20 mgd, with a remaining capacity of approximately 60 mgd.

It is estimated that the proposed Project would generate 23,110 gpd of net new wastewater, as shown in Table 4: Estimated Sewage Generation. Because HTP is currently operat ing at 525 mgd below capacity and the LAGWRP is currently operating 60 mgd below capacity, the addition of approximately 23,110 gpd of wastewater generated by the proposed Project would not result in either of the plant’s exceeding capacity. Additionally, a sewer area study would be required for the proposed Project, with the assessment of a sewage capacity increase fee based on the potential increase in sewage flow generated by the proposed Project compared to current usage.

TABLE 4

ESTIMATED SEWAGE GENERATION
Land Use Quantity – du Factor (gpd/unit)a Generation (gpd) 1-Bedroom 25 du 110 gpd/du 2,750
2-Bedroom 80 du 150 gpd/du 12,000
3-Bedroom 44 du 190 gpd/du 8,360
Total Daily Estimate 23,110
Annual Estimate 25.8 afy

Note: gpd = gallons per day; ksf = thousand square feet; du=dwelling unit; afy = acre feet per year a City of Los Angeles, Sewage Generation Factors Chart The proposed Project would consult with GWP to determine electric service requirements and the electric service plan would be incorporated in final construction plans. This would ensure the Project site is designed to applicable codes , including the City’s building electrification ordinance for new residential buildings. Thus, utility demand would be reduced, and the Project would be adequately served by the required utilities.

The City’s Urban Water Management Plan projects that water supplies would meet the City’s future projected water demand including for the required single dry year and five consecutive

17 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. Final Report Wastewater Master Plan Update. July 2007. Accessed April 2024. https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/16299/635375717729400000. 18 City of Glendale. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed April 2024. https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/62412/637623898692530000. 19 City of Glendale. 2021-2029 Housing Element. February 2023. Accessed April 2024. https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/70238/638140330782770000.

Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 18 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
dry years through 2040. In 2020, the City’s multi-family uses utilized approximately 8,912 acre- feet (af) and by 2040, water use is projected to increase to 8,984 af.20 The Project is estimated to generate a water demand of 40,664 gallons per day, based on a demand factor of 104 gallons per day per capita, which is equivalent to 45.5-acre feet per year.21 The demand projects used in the UWMP were derived from SCAG growth projections. This assumed growth in population and households within the Glendale Plan area based on the development potential expressed by existing land designations and zoning. The Project is consistent with t he assumed growth projects utilized in developing the UWMP . Additionally, the Project would be designed and implemented per GWP review and recommendations and in line with current building codes to reduce water demand. Therefore, adequate water supplies would be able to serve the proposed Project.

As stated, the Project site is located in a developed residential area in the City of Glendale that serves existing stormwater infrastructure. The Project would include a LID drainage system, which would reduce the amount of surface water runoff leaving the Project site.

Through compliance with LID and implementation of design- related stormwater BMPs, the volume of stormwater runoff entering public stormwater infrastructure during peak events would not substantially increase as compared to existing conditions on the residential property.

Therefore, the Project can be adequately served by the stormwater utility system.

The City’s Integrated Waste Management Division (IWM) is responsible for collection and disposal of solid waste in accordance with environmental regulations. Solid waste generated within the City is disposed of at landfill facilities throughout Los Angeles County . The City of Glendale implemented a franchise system for the collection of solid waste , with Southland Disposal designated as the Project site’s solid waste collector. 22 The proposed Project would
follow the City and State regulations related to recycling and reduction of solid waste. Based on the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works’ Annual Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, there is no shortfall projected to occur within the next 15 years in permitted solid waste disposal capacity.23 Solid waste generated on the Project site could be deposited at the Scholl Canyon Landfill, located in the City of Glendale or at a landfill located within Los Angeles County. Scholl Canyon’s annual disposal rate is 233,000 tons per year , with a remaining

3.82-million-ton capacity. The proposed Project’s net new generation would be approximately

20 City of Glendale. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. 21 (104 gallons per day per capita * 391 residents * 365 days) / (325,900 -acre feet per year per 1 gallon) = 45.5 - acre feet per year
22 City of Glendale. Integrated Waste Management. “Multi-Family. (5+ Units).” Accessed April 2024. https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/public-works/integrated-waste-management/multi- family-5-units.
23 L os Angeles County Public Works. “Solid Waste Information Management System (SWIMS).” Accessed April 2024. https://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/swims/News/swims-more-links.aspx?id=4#.

Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 19 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
596 pounds per day,24 which does not factor recycling, industrial composting or other waste diversion programs. With the remaining 3.82-million-ton capacity, the solid waste facility would meet the needs of the proposed Project. As such, the proposed Project could be adequately served by the solid waste disposal system. New utility connections would be established for the proposed Project, but in context of the larger Glendale area , no substantial additional infrastructure would need to be installed or relocated to be adequately served by utility services. Additionally, the Project Applicant would implement applicable CBCs and the Glendale Building and Safety Code. Therefore, the Project would be adequately served by utility services.

PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed Project is in an urban area currently served by public services. The area is served by the Glendale Fire Department (GFD). I n the event of an emergency, t he proposed Project would be served by Fire Station No . 26 located at 1145 N Brand Blvd, approximately 0.3 miles southeast of the Project site. The fire station is equipped with an engine company, rescue and fire truck and a basic life support ambulance.25 The Glendale Police Department provides police protection services for the Project site. The closest station to the Project site is located at 131 North Isabel Street, approximately 1.7 miles southeast.

As stated, the Project site is surrounded by residential buildings and the proposed Project would remain in residential use. The proposed Project would include up to 149 dwelling units that could accommodate approximately 391 residents. The redevelopment would increase the density of the multi -family development; however , there would not be a substantial increase in growth and the proposed Project would remain consistent with the City of Glendale’s Land Use Element and applicable designation as a High -Density Residential zone. Therefore, population and housing growth would not substantially affect police , emergency and fire protection services or create the need to construct expanded services.

School services for the Project site are provided by Glendale Unified School District (GUSD).

The Project site is served by Balboa Elementary School, Eleanor J. Toll Middle School and Herbert Hoover High School. 26 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 and California Education Code 17620, school districts can collect fees on residential projects within a school district’s boundaries. The Applicant would be required to pay all applicable school and public facility fees. The Project area has two parks in proximity, Casa Adobe de San Rafael, approximately 0.7 miles west and Doran Gardens Mini -Park, approximately 0.9 miles south .

Pursuant to GMC 4.10 Public Use Facilities Development Impact Fees, the Applicant would be

24 (149 residential units * 4 lbs./du/day) = 596 lb./day. 25 City of Glendale. “Fire Stations: Fire Station 26.” Accessed April 2024. https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/administration/fire-stations#26. 26 Glendale Unified School District. “School Finder.” Accessed April 2024. https://gusd.net/8439_3.

Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 20 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
required to pay applicable public facility fees, with only the Project’s affordable units falling under an exemption as stated in GMC Section 4.10.050.H.

As described, t he Project would pay applicable public service fees and would not result in substantial population growth for the community that would affect or create a need for expanded public services. Based on the above, the Project would be adequately served by all required utilities and public services and meets the criterion of the Class 32 Exemption.

J. EXCEPTIONS TO THE USE OF CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS
There are exceptions to the use of categorical exemptions. The following analysis demonstrates why the Project does not fall into any of the exceptions that would disqualify the Project from using the Class 32 Infill Exemption.
a. Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located—a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

This exception applies only to exemption Class 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 and do e s not apply to
exemption Class 32. Because the Project meets the criteria for exemption Class 32, this does not apply.
b. Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

A categorical exemption is inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of th
e same type in the same place, over time is significant. Cumulative impacts could occur if the proposed Project in concurrence with other related projects would produce an impact that is greater than what would occur with the development of only the proposed Project. The proposed Project consists of the redevelopment of a residential site that would remain consistent with the General Plan and zoning. As discussed, the Project would not generate a substantial increase in population that would affect the Project area or community. The Project would not result in other substantial impacts to agricultural, biological and mineral resources compared to the existing residential uses of the site as the Project would redevelop previously disturbed land. Potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, a rchaeological and paleontological resources are generally site specific and would not impact other projects that would in concurrence produce a cumulative impact.

The proposed Project would incrementally change the use of the site as the site would continue as a multi- family residential area during Project operation . Future development in the surrounding area that is similar to the proposed Project would not generate considerable Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 21 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
cumulative conditions as they would remain consistent with the General Plan designations and residential zone policies. As such, the proposed Project would not have a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts. Thus, this exception does not apply. c. Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

A categorical exemption is inapplicable when there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will h
ave a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Unusual circumstances could occur if the Project site use was different than typical existing uses. The Project site is located on a previously developed residential site in an urban area. As stated, the Project site is consistent and comparable in size and features with the surrounding uses that include single and multi-family residential buildings. The proposed Project would remain consistent with the City’s General Plan objectives, designation and zoning. The proposed Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. There are no known or identified potentially significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Therefore, this exception does not apply. d. Scenic Highwa
ys. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a State scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

The existing plant spe
cies on the Project site are typical landscaping species. The GMC Chapter

12.44, Indigenous Trees, contains guidelines for the protection and removal of Indigenous trees.

Based on the tree report conducted by the qualified tree expert, there are no protected Indigenous tree species on site or within 20 feet of si te adjoining properties. There are no unique, geologic features or similar resources within the Project site or State scenic highway.

Additionally, the Project site is not located within a scenic highway area because there are no State designated scenic highways found in the City of Glendale.27 As such, the proposed Project would not substantially damage scenic resources and would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, this exception would not apply. e. Hazardous Waste Sites . A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

27 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). “Scenic Highways, California State Scenic Highways.” Accessed April 2024. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.

Categorical Exemption Findings
City of Glendale 22 Categorical Exemption Findings
Metro Art Glendale Project May 2024
Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Department of Health Services and the Water Resources Control Board to compile lists of hazardous waste sites. This exception applies if a project is included on the State hazardous lists. Department of Toxic Substances Control sites were reviewed through the State GeoTracker28 and EnviroStor.29 The Project site is not included on any State hazardous list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5.24 and would not pose a significant effect on the environment. As such, this exception would not apply.
f. Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The existing building a t the Project site meets the minimum age threshold (50 years old) to be considered a historic structure and is subject to evaluation for its integrity, architectural and historic significance. An evaluation of the architectural and historic significance of the historic building in conformance with CEQA was conducted in June 2019 (refer to Appendix A ). The evaluation included reviewing eligibility as a historical resource for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NR), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (Glendale Register). The site was found ineligible under the applicable federal, state, and loc al criteria for its historic and architectural associations and as a contributor to the potential historic district. As a result of the evaluation, the 1957 Mid Century Modern -style apartment building is not considered a historical resource in accordance with CEQA. Therefore, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resourc e, and this exception does not apply.

28 State Water Resources Control Board. “GeoTracker.” Accessed April 2024. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
29 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “EnviroStor.” Accessed April 2024. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

APPENDIX A

1303 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
Historic Resources Assessment

Prepared for June 2019
Central BWB, LLC
14140 Moorpark Street, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, California 91423

1303 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
Historic Resources Assessment
Prepared for June 2019
Central BWB, LLC
14140 Moorpark Street, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, California 91423
80 South Lake Avenue
Suite 570
Pasadena, CA 91101
626.204.6170
esassoc.com
Bend
Camarillo
Delray Beach
Destin
Irvine
Los Angeles
Oakland
Orlando
Pasadena
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Santa Monica
Sarasota
Seattle
Tampa
1303 North Central Avenue i ESA / D 190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Historic Resource Assessment
Page
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................. 2 Research and Field Methodology .................................................................................. 5 Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................................... 5 Federal Eligibility Criteria and Integrity Aspects ............................................................. 6 National Register of Historic Places ...................................................................... 6 State Register and Eligibility Criteria .............................................................................. 8 California Register of Historical Resources .......................................................... 8 California Historical Resources Status Codes .................................................... 10 Local Cultural Heritage Ordinance and Eligibility Criteria ............................................. 11 City of Glendale Municipal Code......................................................................... 11 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 14 Historic Context ............................................................................................................ 14 Glendale ............................................................................................................. 14 Architecture & Design ......................................................................................... 15 Construction and Occupancy History of 1303 North Central Avenue ................. 23 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................ 32 Historical Resources Identified ..................................................................................... 32 Previous Evaluations .......................................................................................... 32 Architectural Description ..................................................................................... 34 Significance Evaluation ................................................................................................ 47 National Register, California Register, City of Glendale ..................................... 47 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 51 References ........................................................................................................................... 52 Appendices
A. Professional Qualifications
B.

Sanborn Maps
C. B uilding Permits
D.

Assessor Records
E. DPR Forms
Figures
Figure 1 Regional and Subject Property Vicinity Map ............................................................ 3 Table of Contents

Page
1303 North Central Avenue ii ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of Project Site ............................................................................. 4 Figure 3 Excerpt of advertisement for Pasadena property designed by Norwood and DeLonge, constructed in 1962 ............................................................................... 18 Figure 4 Excerpt of Tract No. 18547 Map, depicting area surrounding subject property outlined in red .......................................................................................... 19 Figure 5 Sanborn Map with future subject property roughly outlined in red, 1925, Los Angeles County ..................................................................................................... 20 Figure 7 Aerial photograph with subject property identified with red arrow, 1960 ................. 22 Figure 8 Bird’s eye rendering of Glendale Garden Homes in an advertisement titled “In Glendale,” Los Angeles Times, May 19, 1957. ................................................. 25 Figure 9 Early photograph of Glendale Garden Homes as featured in an advertisement in the Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1958. ................................... 25 Figure 10 Building 1311 with adjacent landscaping along North Central Avenue at the northern most extent of property with access road and security gate at right ........ 35 Figure 11 Building 1303 at southern extent of property, with access road, security gate, and tenant parking beyond ........................................................................... 35 Figure 12 Access to cabana and pool area at west portion of property ................................. 36 Figure 13 Contemporary security gate with low stone walls and wood trellis structure, located between Buildings 1311 and 1303, along North Central Avenue, looking east ........................................................................................................... 36 Figure 14 Diagrammatic map of Glendale Garden Homes complex, located at the contemporary security gate ................................................................................... 37 Figure 15 Courtyard view with Building 1303 east elevation at left and background, with concrete circulation pathway at center and Building 1311 at right, looking southwest .................................................................................................. 37 Figure 16 Courtyard view with Building 1303 at right and Buildings 1315 and 1311 at left, looking east ..................................................................................................... 38 Figure 17 Building 1303 south elevation, looking northwest ................................................. 39 Figure 18 Building 1303 west (left) and north (right) elevations, looking southwest ............. 39 Figure 19 Building 1303 recessed entry to first and second floor units, north elevation, looking south ......................................................................................... 40 Figure 20 Building 1303 central portion of north elevation, looking southwest ...................... 40 Figure 21 Building 1303 north elevation with projecting patios, looking southwest from second story balcony ..................................................................................... 41 Figure 22 Building 1311 east elevation, looking southwest ................................................... 42 Figure 23 Building 1311 north elevation, looking west .......................................................... 42 Figure 24 Building 1311 south elevation (left) and east elevation (right), looking northwest ............................................................................................................... 43 Figure 25 Building 1311 canted patio overhang at second floor with parking beyond and laundry room at left ......................................................................................... 43 Figure 26 Building 1311 upstairs landing with a decorative handrail ..................................... 44 Figure 27 Building 1311 at left, and Building 1315 at right with central walkway in- between, looking south .......................................................................................... 45 Figure 28 Building 1315 at right, with Building 1311 at left, with central road in between looking south ........................................................................................... 45 Figure 29 Building 1315 recessed unit entryways ................................................................. 46 Figure 30 Interior of typical unit with brick fireplace............................................................... 46

Table of Contents

Page
1303 North Central Avenue iii ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
List of Tables
Table 1 1303-1315 North Central Avenue Glendale Building and Safety Division Building Permits ..................................................................................................... 26 Table 2 Occupancy History for 1303-1315 North Central Avenue ........................................ 27 Table 3 Occupancy History of 1303-1315 North Central Avenue .......................................... 28

1303 North Central Avenue 1 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE,

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
Historic Resources Assessment
Introduction
Executive Summary
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) was retained by Central BWB, LLC (Client) to prepare this Historical Resources Assessment Report (Report). The purpose of this Report is to identify and evaluate potential historical resources located at 1303 North Central Avenue (subject property), City of Glendale (City), California, on assessor parcel number (APN) 5633-006-014.

This Report, completed by ESA, was prepared to comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to assess the existing building and landscapes on the subject property and neighboring parcels for eligibility as historical resources for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NR), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (Glendale Register). The Report includes a discussion of the survey methods used, a brief historic context of the property and surrounding area, and the identification and evaluation of the subject property.

The subject property, Glendale Garden Homes, is situated in the City of Glendale and contains three two-story apartment buildings, with a rear ancillary building, and a courtyard garden. The subject property was constructed in 1957 in the Mid Century Modern style as a garden apartment multi-family residence.

It appears that the property has been formerly evaluated for historic significance, but the evaluation has not been located to-date (see discussion about Previous Evaluations on page 32).

Since the City of Glendale currently does not have an approved historic context for the area in which the subject property is located or the architectural style in which the multi-family residence is built, ESA evaluated the property under the following historical and architectural themes identified in the neighboring South Glendale Historic Context Statement (2014) and the Garden Apartments of Los Angeles Historic Context Statement (2012): Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-1979), Community Planning and Development: Garden City Planning Principles (1937-1955), and Designed Landscapes (1937-1955). ESA also conducted research on the subject property’s construction and occupancy history. ESA evaluated the subject property against the criteria for the National Register, California Register, and the Glendale Register.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 2 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Here, ESA found the subject property ineligible under the applicable federal, state, and local criteria for its historic and architectural associations and as a contributor to a potential historic district.

Project Location
The subject property is located at 1303 North Central Avenue, within the West Glendale neighborhood area on APN: 5633-006-014, shown on Figure 1, Regional Location map. As shown in Figure 2, Aerial Photograph of Project Site indicates the three apartment buildings and cabana structure located at the subject property. The Project Site is improved with three two-story apartment buildings, a cabana/carport building and a pool toward the rear, at the west. The subject property is bounded to the east by North Central Avenue, to the south by a 1988 apartment building, and to the west by late 1950s-era residences along Parkwood Drive and a 1956 commercial building along Viola Avenue. The property is bound to the north by a 1954 multi- building apartment complex. The subject property is located in the West Glendale neighborhood area, which was originally a portion of unincorporated Los Angeles County, and was later integrated into the City of Glendale by 1950. The surrounding neighborhood consists of single- family homes and multi-family residential buildings, constructed in the mid-to late 1950s and also in the 1990s and 2000s. The nearest major arteries are State Route 134 (approximately 0.5-miles) to the south, State Route 2 (approximately 2.7-miles) to the east, and Interstate 5 (approximately 5-miles) to the west.

!^
A n g e l e s N a t i o n a l F o r e s t
To p a n g a
S t a t e P a r k
Ø

PROJECT

LOCATION
Upper Van
Norman Lake
Middle
Lake
Chatsworth
Reservoir
Devils
Gate Res.Flood
Control
Basin
Encino
Reservoir
Hollywood
Reservoir
Upper Stone
Canyon Res.

Silver
Lake Res.

UV213
UV72
UV1
UV90
UV42
UV710
UV110
UV27
UV60
UV91
UV103
UV19
UV159
UV14
UV107
UV2
UV187
UV170
UV118
UV134
£¤101
Seal
Beach
Los
Alamitos
Rolling Hills
Rolling Hills
Estates
Lomita Signal Hill
Lakewood
Artesia
CarsonTorrance
Cerritos
Lawndale
Bellflower
Gardena Compton
El
Segundo
Norwalk
Hawthorne Lynwood
South Gate
Cudahy
Downey
Santa Fe
Springs
Bell
GardensInglewood
Huntington
Park
Maywood
Bell
Vernon Commerce
Pico
Rivera
Culver City
Montebello
Monterey
Park
Rosemead
West
Hollywood Alhambra
Beverly Hills
San
Gabriel
Temple CitySouth
Pasadena
San
Marino
Calabasas
Hidden
Hills
Pasadena
Glendale
San Fernando
Santa Clarita
La Canada
Flintridge
Burbank
Paramount
Palos Verdes
Estates
Redondo
Beach
Hermosa Beach
Manhattan
Beach
Malibu
Hawaiian
Gardens
Santa Monica
Simi Valley
§¨¦710
§¨¦
210
§¨¦
110
§¨¦
105
§¨¦
605
§¨¦
5 §¨¦
10 §¨¦
405
Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\19xxxx\D190229_1303_N_Central_Ave\03_MXDs_Projects\Fig1_RegionalLoc.mxd, jjohnston 5/10/2019 SOURCE: ESRI
1303 North Central Avenue
Figure 1
Regional Location
Area of
Detail
Santa
Monica
N
0 4
Miles

CENTRAL AVE

VIOLA AVE
Building 1315 Building 1311
Cabana/Carport
Building 1303
Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\19xxxx\D190229_1303_N_Central_Ave\03_MXDs_Projects\Fig2_ProjectSite.mxd, jjohnston 5/10/2019 SOURCE: OpenStreetMap, 2018.
0 100
Feet
Figure 2
1303 North Central Avenue
Aerial Photograph of Project Site
N
Project Parcel (APN 5633-006-014)
Structures
Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 5 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Research and Field Methodology
This Report was prepared by ESA’s architectural historians, including Joel Levanetz, M.A., AICP, Historic Resources Manager and Alison Garcia Kellar, M.S., Senior Architectural Historian, both who meet and exceed the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in history and architectural history. Professional qualifications are provided in Appendix A.

The historical resources evaluation involved a review of the National Register and its annual updates, the California Register, the Statewide Historical Resources Inventory (HRI) database maintained by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and the City of Glendale’s inventory of historic properties to identify any previously recorded properties within or near the subject property. An intensive pedestrian survey was also undertaken to document the existing conditions of the property and vicinity. In addition, the following tasks were performed for the study:
 ESA’s architectural historian Alison Garcia Kellar conducted a site visit of the subject property on March 26, 2019. This site visit included an intensive pedestrian survey to document the existing conditions of the property and vicinity. During the site visit the subject property was documented with digital photography. Field inspections of the subject property utilized the survey methodology of the State OHP.
 Photography of the subject property and associated landscape features, and examined other properties in the vicinity that exhibited potential architectural and/or historical associations.  Conducted site‐specific research on the property utilizing building permits, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (Sanborn Maps), City Directories, historical photographs, California Digital Newspaper Collection, UC San Diego Geisel Library, Glendale History Room at the Glendale Central Library, historic newspapers, and other published sources.  Conducted research at Glendale’s Planning Division and Building & Safety Division departments as well as the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor (Assessor).  Reviewed and analyzed ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation, designation assessment processes, and related programs.
 Evaluated potential historical resources based upon criteria used by the National Register, California Register, and the City of Glendale Historic Preservation Ordinance.

Regulatory Framework
Historical resources fall within the jurisdiction of the federal, state, and local designation programs. Federal laws provide the framework for the identification, and in certain instances, protection of historical resources. Additionally, state and local jurisdictions play active roles in the identification, documentation, and protection of such resources within their communities. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended and the California Public Resources Code (PRC), Section 5024.1, are the primary federal and state laws and regulations governing the evaluation and significance of historical resources of national, state, regional, and local importance. Descriptions of these relevant laws and regulations are presented below.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 6 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Federal Eligibility Criteria and Integrity Aspects
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register was established by the NHPA as “an authoritative guide to be used by federal, state, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.”1 The National Register recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and/or local levels.

To be eligible for listing in the National Register, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Four criteria for evaluation have been established to determine the significance of a resource:

A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embodies 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; D. Yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.2 Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are 50 years in age must meet one or more of the above criteria and retain integrity (that is, convey their significance) to be eligible for listing.

Under the National Register, a property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and uses over a period of time.3 Within the concept of integrity, the National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity: Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association:

Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved.

1 36 CFR Section 60.2.
2 “Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms,” in National Register Bulletin 16, U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, 1977, Revised 1997. This bulletin contains technical information on comprehensive planning, survey of cultural resources and registration in the NRHP. 3 National Register Bulletin 15, p. 19.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 7 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a property (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architecture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. A property’s design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape.

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

Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans’ labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components.

Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. A property must retain key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance.

Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character.

Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. 4 To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess most of the aspects of integrity (design, setting, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association), and depending upon its significance, retention of specific aspects of integrity may be required for a property to convey its significance.5 As an example, if a potential resource is architecturally significant under Criterion

4 National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 44-45, http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb15.pdf, accessed July 7, 2013. 5 The National Register defines a property as an “area of land containing a single historic resource or a group of resources, and constituting a single entry in the National Register of Historic Places.” A “Historic Property” is defined as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object at the time it attained historic significance.” Glossary of National Register Terms,
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb16a/nrb16a_appendix_IV.htm, accessed June 1, 2013.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 8 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
C of the National Register, then the potential resource must retain integrity of design to be able to convey its architectural associations. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where and when a property is significant.6 For properties that are considered significant under National Register Criteria A and B, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Register Bulletin 15) explains, “a property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person(s).” 7 In assessing
the integrity of properties that are considered significant under National Register Criterion C, National Register Bulletin 15 states, “a property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.”8
State Register and Eligibility Criteria
California Register of Historical Resources
The OHP, as an office of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), implements the policies of the NHPA on a statewide level.

The OHP also carries out the duties as set forth in the PRC and maintains the HRI and the California Register. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is an appointed official who implements historic preservation programs within the state’s jurisdictions.

Also implemented at the state level, CEQA requires projects to identify any substantial adverse impacts which may affect the significance of identified historical resources.

The California Register was created by Assembly Bill 2881, which was signed into law on September 27, 1992. The California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” 9 The criteria for eligibility for the
California Register are based upon National Register criteria.10

6 National Register Bulletin 15, 44.
7 “A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character. Because feeling and association depend on individual perceptions, their retention alone is never sufficient to support eligibility of a property for the National Register.” Ibid, p. 46. 8 “A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.” Ibid. 9 PRC Section 5024.1(a).
10 PRC Section 5024.1(b).

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 9 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
The California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:
 California properties listed on the National Register and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register; 11
 California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward;  Those California Points of Historical Interest (PHI) that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the California Register.12
Other resources which may be nominated to the California Register include:
 Individual historical resources;
 Historical resources contributing to historic districts;  Historical resources identified as significant in historical resources surveys with significance ratings of Category 1 through 5;
 Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance, such as an HPOZ.13
To be eligible for the California Register, a historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:

1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information importan t in prehistory or history.

Additionally, a historical resource eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one or more of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reasons for its significance. Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of seven aspects of integrity similar to the National Register (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association).

Also like the National Register, potential historic resources must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the

11 PRC Section 5024.1(d).
12 Ibid.
13 PRC Section 5024.1(e)
Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 10 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.14 California Historical Resources Status Codes
The California State OHP developed National Register Status Codes in 1975 as a standardized system for classifying historical resources in the state’s Historic Resources Inventory. In 2003 these codes were revised to reflect the application of California Register and local criteria and the name was changed to California Historical Resource (CHR) Status Codes. CHR Status codes consist of three digits and are assigned to properties or historic districts through a survey process and as a result of varying regulatory processes. The first digit ranges from 1-7. Code categories 1- 5 reflect properties determined eligible for designation according to the criteria established for the National Register, California Register or local government criteria for significance. Code categories 6-7 generally identify properties that do not meet established criteria for significance, have not been evaluated, or need to be reevaluated. The code categories are as follows:

1. Properties listed in the Nati onal Register or the California Register;

2. Properties determined eligible for listing in the National Register or the California Register;

3. Appears eligible for National Register or the California Reg ister through survey evaluation;

4. Appears eligible for the Nati onal Register or the California Register through other evaluation;

5. Properties recognized as historically significant or are pot entially significant by local government;

6. Not eligible for listing or designation as specified; and

7. Not evaluated for the National Register or California Register or needs re -evaluation.

The second digit of the CHR Status Code is a letter code indicating whether the resource is separately eligible (S), eligible as part of a district (D), or both (B). The third digit is a number that is used to further specify significance and refine the relationship of the property to the National Register and/or California Register. Under this evaluation system, categories 1 through 4 pertain to various levels of National Register and California Register eligibility. Locally eligible resources are given a rating code level 5. Properties found ineligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, or for designation under a local ordinance are given an evaluation Status Code of 6. Properties given an evaluation Status Code of 6Z are “found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or Local designation through survey evaluation.” 15 14 Codified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Section 4852(c) which can be accessed on the internet at http://ohp.parks.ca.gov
15 Ibid.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 11 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Local Cultural Heritage Ordinance and Eligibility Criteria City of Glendale Municipal Code
The Glendale Municipal Code (Chapter 15.20 Historic Preservatio n and Chapter 30.25 Historic District Overlay Zone) establishes criteria for designating local historic resources and districts.16 Chapter 15.20 Historic Preservation

15.20.010 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, prosperity, cultural enrichment, and general welfare of the people through the identification, designation, protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and use of historic resources that reflect significant aspects of the city’s heritage and to:

A. Safeguard buildings, sites, objects, structures, neighborhoods, cultural landscapes, and archaeological sites that are important to the heritage of the city through the establishment and implementation of sound historic preservation policies and practices; B. Encourage public appreciation of and involvement with the city’s unique architectural and cultural heritage;
C. Strengthen civic pride in the historic and architectural character of the city and the notable accomplishments of the past;
D. Recognize the economic benefits associated with the preservation and continued use of historic resources and provide incentives to property owners to encourage participation in the city’s historic preservation program;
E. Deter the demolition or neglect of historic resources and potential designated historic resources;
F. Promote the private and public use of historic resources for the education, enrichment and general welfare of the people;
G. Make the city a more attractive and desirable place to live, work, and visit; H. Implement the historic preservation goals, policies, and programs of the general plan, preservation element (applicable only to areas not encompassed by an approved community plan), and approved community plans; and
I. Fulfill the city’s responsibilities as a certified local government and in carrying out environmental review as mandated by federal and state laws.

In addition, the city recognizes that groups of buildings that are unified aesthetically by plan or historical physical development may be worthy of preservation consideration and this code therefore provides for the designation of historic districts in chapter 30.25 through a change of zone that establishes a historic district overlay zone. (Ord. 5784 § 1, 2012; Ord. 5425 § 15, 2004:

Ord. 5347 § 5, 2003: Ord. 5110 § 7, 1996: prior code § 21-00).

16 Glendale, California, Municipal Code. Section 15.20.050 and Section 30.25 (Findings for designation of historic resources) Accessed July 2, 2018. http://qcode.us/codes/glendale/view.php?topic=15-15_20&frames=on Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 12 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

15.20.050 Findings for Designation of Historic Resources Upon recommendation of the historic preservation commission, ci ty council shall consider and make findings for additions to the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. The designation of any proposed resource in the city as a historic resource shall be g ranted only if city council first finds that the proposed historic resource meets one (1) or more of the following criteria:

1. The proposed historic resource is identified with important events in national, state, or city history, or exemplifies significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, or historic heritage of the nation, state, or city;

2. The proposed historic resource is associated with a person, persons, or groups who significantly contributed to the history of the nation, state, region, or city;

3. The proposed historic resource embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represents a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possesses high artistic values;

4. The proposed historic resource has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to archaeological pre-history or history of the nation, state, region, or city;

5. The proposed historic resource exemplifies the early heritage of the city. (Ord. 5784 § 7, 2012; Ord. 5347 § 7, 2003: Ord. 5110 § 12, 1996: prior code § 21-02) Chapter 30.25 Historic District Overlay Zone (HD)

30.25.010 Purpose
The city recognizes that the historic and architectural resources of the city are among its most important assets. It is the purpose of this chapter:

A. To protect the beauty of the city and improve the quality of its environment through identification, recognition, conservation, maintenance and enhancement of its historic and architectural resources within neighborhoods;
B. To protect designated areas having historic and architectural significance against intrusion of alterations, additions, new structures and other designs that fail to protect such significance; C. To ensure harmonious, orderly and efficient growth and development of the city; D. To stabilize and improve property values in such districts thus strengthening the local economy;
E. To foster civic pride; and
F. By furthering such purposes, to promote the public welfare, to strengthen the cultural and educational life of the city and to make the city a more attractive and desirable place in which to live and work. (Ord. 5399 Attach. A, 2004)
Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 13 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

30.25.020 Historic District Overlay Zone Designation Criteria.

A historic district is a geographically definable area possessing a concentration, linkage or continuity, constituting more than sixty (60) percent of the total, of historic or scenic properties, or thematically-related grouping of properties. Properties must contribute to each other and be unified aesthetically by plan or historical physical development. A geographic area may be designated as a historic district overlay zone by the city council upon the recommendation of the historic preservation commission and planning commission if the district:

A. Exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering, architectural or natural history; B. Is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; C. Embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, method of construction or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; D. Represents the work of notable builders, designers, or architects; E. Has a unique location or is a view or vista representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood community or of the city;
F. Embodies a collection of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship that represent a significant structural or architectural achievement or innovation;
G. Reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with different eras of settlement and growth, transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning;
H. Conveys a sense of historic and architectural cohesiveness through its design, setting, materials, workmanship or association; or
I. Has been designated a historic district in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. (Ord. 5399 Attach. A, 2004) Integrity
The Preservation Ordinance and Glendale Register criteria for designation are silent with regard to the issue of historic integrity, as defined in the National Register.17

17 In this situation, guidance from the National Register will be utilized to determine integrity if the property is found to be historic.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 14 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Environmental Setting
Historic Context
The historic contexts provided below present the background necessary to evaluate the historical and architectural significance of the subject property, including the history of its construction and alterations, as well as the surrounding neighborhood’s development. The subject property sits outside of the boundaries of both South Glendale and North Glendale, two areas which have established historic context statements. While the property sits within the pending West Glendale Historic Context Statement area, as of this writing, the City has yet to release the approved final text. Instead, the analysis below utilizes the “City of Glendale: South Glendale Historic Context Statement” as it includes pertinent information related to multi-family residential developments in the Glendale region. Similarly, while the property does not fall within the City of Los Angeles proper, it is located within Los Angeles County, and for that reason the “Garden Apartments of Los Angeles: Historic Context Statement” was reviewed for contextual purposes. In this, ESA identified the following historical and architectural themes from the “City of Glendale: South Glendale Historic Context Statement” (2014) and the “Garden Apartments of Los Angeles:

Historic Context Statement” (2012): Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-1979), Community Planning and Development: Garden City Planning Principles (1937- 1955), and Designed Landscapes (1937-1955). An additional context gleaned from Glendale’s “Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings in Adopted Historic Districts,” included a discussion of Glendale’s Residential Character: Multi-Family Residences and Multi-Family Modern Buildings. The preliminary period of significance associated with garden apartments in Los Angeles County spans from 1937 to 1955, which predates the construction of the subject property.

Glendale
Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development, 1945-197918 The end of World War II brought a wave of migration to Southern California for its booming local economy and pleasant climate, and demand for housing skyrocketed. Many people used this as an opportunity to engage in speculative real estate. Glendale was no exception. South Glendale’s lack of height restrictions, zoning that permitted intermingling of single-family and multi-family residential buildings, and a business community largely based on banking and financial services created the perfect opportunity for apartment developers.

18 Historic Resources Group, “City of Glendale: South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” City of Glendale, ed. 2018, 99-100.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 15 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
mechanical systems, elevators, up-to-date appliances, central air conditioning, outdoor balconies, and newly available prefabricated components such as steel-framed windows and sliding glass doors. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 “permitted owners to charge off high percentages of the original cost of new building during the early years of the building’s life,” thereby encouraging new construction. In the early 1960s the federal government eased existing restrictions limiting investment in multi-family housing lending by Savings and Loans.

During the first seven months of 1957, Glendale ranked sixth among Southern California cities in terms of the number of apartment units being built.

During the postwar period, local architects and community planners adapted the principles of these movements and constructed innovative new forms of multiple family housing. A new multiple family housing type known as “garden apartments” emerged at this time. Characteristics of garden apartments include the use of superblocks in development of the site, the segregation of automobile and pedestrian traffic, low to medium density and building coverage, the standardization of building types with a maximum of three stories in height, and an emphasis on landscaping and open space.

Multi-family residential development during the postwar period was influenced by planning and design principles dating to the 1920s. The Garden City Movement in particular had a profound influence on the design of multi-family housing, as did the publication of Clarence Stein’s Toward New Towns (1951). During the postwar period, local architects and community planners adapted the principles of these movements and constructed innovative new forms of multiple family housing. A new multiple family housing type known as “garden apartments” emerged at this time. Characteristics of garden apartments include the use of superblocks in development of the site, the segregation of automobile and pedestrian traffic, low to medium density and building coverage, the standardization of building types with a maximum of three stories in height, and an emphasis on landscaping and open space.

Architecture & Design
Los Angeles Garden Apartments (1937-1955)19
Planned and constructed in Los Angeles between 1937 and approximately 1955, garden apartment complexes generally consist of concentrations of similar multi-unit buildings situated on a large – and often irregularly shaped – property. Complexes range in size from just a few acres to more than a hundred. Though some of Los Angeles’s preeminent architects designed garden apartments at mid-century, the buildings themselves are typically (and deliberately) architecturally modest. Emphasis is placed, rather, on site plan and landscape; the designers relied on color, texture, planting plan, light and shadow to create visual interest. Building entrances face landscaped courtyards rather than the street, and parking and vehicular circulation is relegated to the perimeter of the site plan or within garage courts separate from pedestrian areas. Large, expansive green space is common; typically there are one or two large courtyards or greens at the nucleus of the complexes available to all residents. Garden apartments vary in appearance, size

19 Architectural Resources Group, “Garden Apartments of Los Angeles: Historic Context Statement,” Los Angeles Conservancy, 2012, 3-4.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 16 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
and plan; however, the following character defining features epitomize the property type in its purest expression:
 Superblock site plan, which deviates from the rectilinear urban grid by combining multiple city blocks or parcels into a single property
 Three acres in size or greater
 Low-slung buildings, rarely exceeding two stories in height  Elimination of common interior corridors
 Repetition of nearly identical building models throughout the plan  Stylistic simplicity; buildings are usually minimal in appearance with a lack of stylistic details and ornament
 Primary building entrances face common courtyards rather than the street  Parking at the perimeter of the site plan, typically in detached, enclosed garage buildings or garage courts
 One or more large open spaces, or greens, located at the interior of the site plan, around which buildings are arranged
 Recreational amenities planned to help foster community  Variety of landscape, often native or drought tolerant; low shrubs used to delineate outdoor “rooms”; allées; mature trees and the use of climbing vines to add visual interest to buildings Community Planning and Development: Garden City Planning Principles, 1937-195520 The success of the Depression and World War II-era garden apartment developments spurred the construction of similar complexes on a large scale in the post-World War II era, as the housing shortage became more and more acutely felt in Los Angeles. In the late 1940s, the FHA renewed Title 608, which guaranteed developers 90% mortgages on multi-family housing which conformed to FHA guidelines, which favored garden apartments. Title 608 was intended as a temporary solution to insure defense and immediate postwar multi-family housing to ease the housing crisis caused by returning veterans. This made possible the relatively easy financing of large-scale private rental housing, and in the late 1940s several developers took advantage of this temporary extension to build garden apartments. With rumors that funding would soon be cut off, there was a race to get these garden apartments approved before the funding ran out. The two- year period of 1949-1950 alone saw the construction of at least a dozen garden apartments throughout the city, nearly always in suburban areas adjacent to arteries of the city’s growing freeway system. Post-1945 examples are clearly based on the Garden City planning concepts that shaped the early garden apartments; however, due to the urgency of the postwar housing crisis they are typically higher density with more emphasis on unit count than open space. As such, whereas pre-1945 examples averaged 10 to 20 units per acre, most garden apartments constructed between 1945 and 1955 ranged between 20 to 30 units per acre.

20 Ibid., 40.

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 17 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Designed Landscapes, 1937-1955
After World War II, as privately funded garden apartments were built in great quantities throughout Los Angeles, the quality of the landscapes changed. Because density was generally higher, many of the developments didn’t provide recreational amenities, instead using that space for more dwellings. Less experienced landscape architects, or in some cases nurseries, provided the design for the landscapes, and the focus turned from functional spaces meant for active participation in the landscape to more traditional suburban landscapes meant to be enjoyed from apartment windows or from pathways. In addition, contrary to the previous focus on using native and drought-resistant plant species, tropical and sub-tropical plantings were used, catering to changing tastes in the post-war period.

Norwood & DeLonge History, Designers
Norwood & DeLonge were identified as the designers of Glendale Garden Homes, as noted on the architectural plans created in 1957. The practitioners worked in Pasadena sometime between 1935 and 1965, as identified in the City of Pasadena’s “Cultural Resources of the Recent Past Historic Context Report” prepared by Historic Resources Group and Pasadena Heritage in 2007.
21 Serving as contractors and designers, it appears that Jack Norwood and Jack DeLonge, interior decorator, comprised this company. It is unclear whether Jack Norwood was a registered architect or contractor. The two were credited for the construction of many buildings in the Los Angeles area, including ranch-style homes, and mid-century apartment and commercial buildings where they often were listed as the contractors and developers. One such extant example of their work that is reflective of the design of the subject property at 1303 North Central Avenue are the apartments located at 1066 San Pasqual Avenue, Pasadena which were constructed in 1962 (Figure 3).
22 Their relationship with contractors Causey & Causey for the construction on Glendale Garden Homes is unknown, but it is possible that Norwood and DeLonge designed the complex and worked on conjunction with Causey & Causey to develop the property.

Causey & Causey was comprised of brothers Gill B. Causey and Joseph G. Causey, whose grandfather and father were successful builders and real estate developers.23 The firm of Causey & Rhodes, the predecessor firm to Causey & Causey, was comprised of Gill B. Causey and Frank Rhodes, Jr. Established in the mid-1940s, Causey and Rhodes continued to work together over the course of 55 years.24 It appears that Causey & Causey and Causey & Rhodes may have used their firm names interchangeably over the course of their partnerships. The following is a firm biography for Causey & Causey as prepared for a historic resource evaluation of another one of their buildings along North Central Avenue in Glendale:

21 Historic Resources Group, “Cultural Resources of the Recent Pa st Historic Context Report,” City of Pasadena, 2007.
22 “Advertisement: Pasadena’s Finest Cooperative Apartments,” Los Angeles Times, November 11, 1962. 23 Bob Howard, “Winning OK for Hillside Plan Is an Uphill Battle for Gregg,” Los Angeles Times, August 17, 1999. 24 “Obituary: Frank Alexander Rhodes, Jr.,” Los Angeles Times, August 17, 2009.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 18 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
The firm of Causey & Rhodes had a successful business operation developing, leasing and operating commercial buildings. Their projects and investments included development of the Crenshaw Medical Center in the 1950s, Glendale’s Garden Homes, a mid-century apartment complex and Glendale Fashion Center in the 1960s with partner Richard Daugherty. In the 1970s they developed medical office buildings in Newport Center in Orange County. They hired others to design buildings while they sometimes handled the construction contracting and subsequently managed the leasing of the buildings. Causey & Rhodes can be considered successful land developers with full professional careers but their careers and the buildings they developed are typical of the success of land developers during the period they were active. Their buildings did not influence the commercial development patterns or the architectural style of commercial development or influence the urban form of Glendale in the post-World War II commercial building boom of Glendale’s central business district.25

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor
Figure 3
Excerpt of advertisement for Pasadena property designed by Norwood and DeLonge, constructed in 1962
Tract No. 18547
Tract No. 18547 was a subdivision of the Baugh Tract as per book 5, page 179 of Map Records of Los Angeles County, California. Tract No. 18547 was surveyed by J. Burritt Smith on behalf of owners Helen B. Gregg and Edgar N. Gregg formerly subdivided in 1953. Additional information about the subject lot as part of the Baugh Tract is located in book 9 page 23 of miscellaneous records of Los Angeles County, California. Figure 4 indicates the current parcel configuration.

25 David Kaplan, “540, 607, 633 North Central Avenue, 317-327 Wes t Doran Street Glendale, California: Historic Resource Evaluation,” Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 2013.

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 19 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor
Figure 4
Excerpt of Tract No. 18547 Map, depicting area
surrounding subject property outlined in red
The Sanborn map from 1925 indicates that the subject property was considered to be part of unincorporated Los Angeles County, while the parcel immediately to the south was considered to be at the northern extent of the City of Glendale (Figure 5). During this time, the area appeared to be comprised of single-family residences. At this time a one-story single family home with an adjacent automobile garage and ancillary building to its west occupied the subject parcel. The properties to the north of the Los Angeles County limits appeared to be larger parcels, more rural in their development, with larger single homes, and ample setbacks from North Central Avenue, interspersed with automobile garages, water tanks, and other ancillary buildings.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 20 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: Los Angeles Public Library
Figure 5
Sanborn Map with future subject property roughly
outlined in red, 1925, Los Angeles County

By the 1950 Sanborn map, the subject property had been incorporated into the City of Glendale, yet the subject parcel and its subsequent northern adjacent parcels remained rural in their appearance with few signs of development (Figure 6). Adjacent cul-de-sacs to the west and southwest were still not present by this time.

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 21 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: Los Angeles Public Library Figure 6
Sanborn Map with future subject property roughly outlined in red, 1950, Los Angeles County
A review of the construction dates of the properties surrounding the subject parcel indicate a surge of dense development in the immediate area from the mid to late-1950s. This included residential and commercial development to the south, along Viloa Avenue, terminating in a cul- de-sac, and a tract home development along Parkwood Drive to the west of the subject property also terminating in a cul-de-sac (Figure 7). To the immediate north, a multi-building apartment complex was constructed toward the end of the decade. The subject property was constructed in 1957, which coincided with the multi-family residential development boom in neighboring South Glendale following World War II.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 22 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: University of California, Santa Barbara Figure 7 Aerial photograph with subject property identified with red arrow, 1960
Today, the development surrounding the subject property appears similar to how it did in a 1960 aerial photograph. Development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property includes single- family homes from the mid-20th century to the west, 21st century and mid-20th century apartments to the north and east, and commercial businesses to the south along North Central Avenue. The general residential character of the area remains, with North Brand Boulevard continuing to serve as a main artery of the neighborhood.

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 23 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Construction and Occupancy History of 1303 North Central Avenue Construction History
Building permits on file with the Glendale Building & Safety Division (Appendix D) and Los Angeles County Assessor’s Records (Appendix E) were reviewed to determine the subject property’s history of construction, including alterations. A summary of available building permits and Assessor’s records are provided in Table 1 below.

The earliest permit for the subject property dates back to 1954, which mentions that an existing old garage was to be replaced for a retaining wall on the neighboring property. The owner was Edgar N. Gregg, one of the developers associated with the eventual Glendale Garden Homes project.26
Created in 1956, original drawings for the three-building garden apartment are credited to Norwood and DeLonge of San Marino, California. Original building permits credit Causey & Causey as the building contractors. The first building permit for construction dates to 1957, issued for the construction of Building 1303, the elongated building of the trio. Building 1303 was to consist of 12 rental units, comprising 65 rooms. The building was to have concrete foundations, wood framing, stucco finish, shingle roofs, 8’6” ceilings, and 7 chimneys. The construction cost was $175,000. A second permit filed at the same time was issued for the construction of Building 1315, which was U-shaped in configuration, mirroring that of Building 1311. A temporary sign was erected at the site around February of 1957 which would announce the new complex to be constructed. Later that summer, a building permit was filed for a swimming pool, cabanas, showers, filter rooms, and storage areas at the west of the property. The MacDonald Brothers were listed as the contractors for this work.

Assessor’s records from 1957 offer the best description of how the two-story buildings varied from one another, as each had a slightly different configuration while utilizing the same interior finishes and fixtures throughout (Figure 8). Building 1303, the largest of the three, included 12 2- bedroom units and at least one bedroom “studio” apartment. Four of the apartment units had slump stone room dividers containing both a fireplace and barbeque, with a surmounting copper hood. Each of these four units had an extra bar sink. All units in Building 1303 had wood vanities, and 5-drawer wood dressers built into the closets, with birch paneled walls with folding birch serving windows from the kitchen to dining room. Downstairs units had 6 foot-high redwood fences, enclosing patios with sliding glass doors.

26 The Glendale Historical Society wrote a letter to the Glendale City Council in 2004 indicating that Glendale Garden Homes was built “by a partnership of well-known Glendale developers including Edgar Gregg, Gil and Joseph Causey, Frank Rhodes and Millard Archuleta, and with active participation of the City’s Planning Division,” however, no further information was located to affirm this, including a search request with the Glendale Planning Department. When ESA emailed the Glendale Historical Society in 2019, the organization corresponded that they did not have archival files to reference.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 24 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Building 1311 included 9 2-bedroom units, 2 3-bedroom units, and a 2-bedroom “studio” unit.

Eight of these units had either slump stone or brick room dividing walls containing both a fireplace and barbeque. Building 1315 included 2 3-bedroom units, 9 2-bedroom units, and a 2- bedroom “studio.” All units had a central water heater, with parking garages constructed on the first floor of the buildings.

Advertisements from 1957, the year of construction, touted the complex as having “All the graciousness of a modern home. Plus the convenience of an apartment.” The advertisement further read, “Let us show you the breathtaking plans which are now being transformed into Glendale’s most beautiful design for living.”
27 Features publicized at the complex included
fireplaces, electric kitchens, soundproofed units, air conditioning, ample closets, all-wool carpeting, modern spacious floor plans, heated swimming pool with cabanas and a sunbathing deck, and the possibility to have private parties.28 By 1958, builders Causey & Causey were referred to as the property’s rental agents as well. Advertisements at this time read “Enjoy the graciousness of a modern 2 or 3 bedroom 2 bath home plus the convenience of apartment living.” (Figure 9) In the 1960s, advertisements announcing available rental units continued to be placed in the Los Angeles Times for Glendale Garden Homes’ adults-only community.

There was no recorded evidence of modifications to the property or site for the next 40 years. Site modifications in 1998 included new stone and masonry posts with a lighted entry gate door, short walls, and a wood trellis structure which would enclose the courtyard between Buildings 1311 and 1303 along Central Avenue. The contractor listed was Sazeh Construction & Development Corp. Electrical alteration permits were issued in April and December of 1998.

In 2003, an 86-unit high density residential development was proposed to be constructed at the site upon the demolition of Glendale Garden Homes.

A permit for reroofing with composition shingles was issued in November of 2005 for work to be performed by Central Roofing. In December of 2005, a permit was issued to upgrade the mechanical systems including the A/C and electrical systems. This permit expired in 2006.

27 “Advertisement: Ope n Today, Sunday,” The Los Angeles Times, August 25, 1957. 28 “Advertisement: Gle ndale Garden Homes,” Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1958.

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 25 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 8
Bird’s eye rendering of Glendale Garden Homes in an
advertisement titled “In Glendale,” Los Angeles Times,
May 19, 1957.

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 9
Early photograph of Glendale Garden Homes as
featured in an advertisement in the Los Angeles Times,
March 23, 1958.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 26 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
TABLE 1
1303-1315 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
GLENDALE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION BUILDING PERMITS29 Issued
Permit
Record Owner
Contractor (C),
Architect (A), or
Engineer (E) Valuation ($) Description
10/23/1954 Edgar N.

Gregg
- Replace existing old garage with a new
retaining wall. New wall to be constructed on
neighboring property
1/9/1957 53944 Edgar N.

Gregg
(C) Causey & Causey - Permit for the construction of the cabana, carport, and dressing room
1/9/1957 59345 Edgar N.

Gregg
(C) Causey & Causey $175,000 1303 N. Central: Permit to construct rental units, a concrete foundation, 7 chimneys,
wood framing, stucco finish, shingle roof, 8’6”
ceilings
1/9/1957 53947 Edgar N.

Gregg
(C) Causey & Causey - 1315 Central: Concrete foundation, wood framing, stucco
2/7/1957 53861 Edgar N.

Gregg
(C) Causey & Causey - Permit for temporary billboard sign announcing the new complex to be
constructed
8/15/1957 55423 Edgar N.

Gregg
(C) MacDonald
Brothers
- 20’ x 40’ swimming pool constructed in
cabana area
11/12/1957 Edgar N.

Gregg
- Certificate of Occupancy issued
1/1998 Central
BWB,
LLC
(C) Sazeh
Construction &
Development Corp.
- Stone and masonry post and light entry gate,
door and short walls, wood trellis
12/1998 Central
BWB,
LLC
(C) Sazah
Construction &
Development Corp.
- Electrical permit for electrical alterations
12/2005 Central
BWB,
LLC
- Mechanical systems upgrade including a/c
and electrical

Occupancy and Ownership History
Ownership history for the subject property was compiled from documents at the Glendale City Planning Division and the Los Angeles County Assessor (Table 2). Tract information indicates that Edgar N. Gregg subdivided the subject parcel in 1953. The property was originally owned and developed by Edgar N. Gregg, Gill B. Causey, and Joseph G. Causey. Limited information was found on Edgar N. Gregg, who appeared to be part owner of a development firm, also owned with his brother, J. Lee Gregg, in the Glendale area, since 1934. Their grandfather, father, and later, J. Lee Gregg’s son were also in the contracting and real estate development business.30 According to a newspaper article Edgar N. Gregg left the family business in 1956, just three years after subdividing the subject parcel, a year prior to the completion of the Glendale Garden Homes design drawings.

29 Documentation exists for all permits and certificates of occupancy listed in this table. 30 Howard, Los Angeles Times, 1999.

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 27 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Gill B. Causey owned the property by 1967. Causey and his brother, Joseph G. Causey, had served as the builders of Glendale Garden Homes about 10 years prior. Limited information was found about Gill B. Causey, however, his brother Joseph G. Causey was considered to be a successful businessman in Glendale by 1957.31 Joseph G. Causey owned contracting firm Causey & Causey, the original contractors of the subject property, and was president of the Verdugo Development Corporation. He was considered to specialize in “income property construction and sales.”32 Joseph G. Causey took ownership of the property 20 years later, in 1987.

TABLE 2
OCCUPANCY HISTORY FOR 1303-1315 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
Year Source Owner
2004 Los Angeles County Assessor Central BWB, LLC
2003 Los Angeles County Assessor Central BWB, LLC
1997 Los Angeles County Assessor 130 Central, LLC
1996 Los Angeles County Assessor Laurence Godair, Kenneth Morte nsen, Fred L. Mortensen Jr, and Peter Mortensen
1993 Los Angeles County Assessor Fr ed L. Mortensen Jr. and Evelyn C.

Wenker Family Trust
1987 Los Angeles County Assessor Joseph G. Causey
1987 Los Angeles County Assessor Joseph G. Causey Ind. Causey T rust 1967 Los Angeles County Assessor Gill B. and June H. Causey 1954 Glendale City Planning Division Edgar N. Gregg

Glendale City Directories available at the Glendale History Room at the Glendale Central Library spanned from 1957 to 1977, with several years absent in between (Table 3). This ranged the year that the complex opened through about a 20-year period afterwards. No other sources were found to identify rental tenants from 1978 to the present.

Early tenants listed were all-men, although there were some married couples living at the subject property at the time. Many early tenants appear to have been living in the Los Angeles-area prior to moving into the new apartment complex. Many tenants end up living there for multiple years.

Professions of the earliest tenants included personnel managers, veterans, bus drivers, and a landscape gardener. One of the longest tenants was Philip E. Zeiss, a dentist, who lived at the complex from 1958 through at least 1977, when the available Glendale City Directories end.

Advertisements indicate that this was an adult-only community through the 1960s.

J. (Joe) E. Hoeft, who later became the founder of the Glendale Federal Savings, lived at the apartment building for two years from 1967 to 1968, roughly 6 years after the Glendale Federal Savings and Loan building was constructed downtown in 1959. City directories indicate that

31 Carroll W. Parcher, Glendale Community Book (Glendale: John W. Akers, 1957), 584. 32 Ibid.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 28 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Hoeft resided at other locations for longer periods of time. Hoeft later became known as a civic leader in the area.

It appears that, Joseph G. Causey, one of the building’s original contractors comprising the firm of Causey & Causey and Causey & Rhodes, lived at the 1311 North Central Avenue building from 1993 to1997, likely in his senior years.

TABLE 3
OCCUPANCY HISTORY OF 1303-1315 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE33
Source Occupant
1958 Glendale City Directory 1303 N. Central
A – Vacant
B – John H. Verling
C – (none listed)
D - Harmon Baldwin
E – Chas E. Weaver
F – William Goss
G – Harley P. Easley
H – Richard O. Bullis
I – Boyd D. Henry
J – Philip E. Zeiss
K- Lewis I. Reed
L – W. G. Onderdonk

33 Note: tenants in bold resided at the subject property for multiple years.

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 29 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Source Occupant
1960 Glendale City Directory 1303 N. Central
A- Herald H. Beck
B- Mark G. McMahon
C- John H. Verling
D- Harmon W. Baldwin
E- Arthur H. Schneer
F- William J. Goss
G- Harley P. Easley
H- Richard O. Bullis
I- Boyd D. Henry
J- Philip E. Zeiss
K- Lewis I. Reed
L- Clare C. Conzett
M-Sam Spaulding

1311 N. Central
A- Kent W. Barlett
B- Mrs. Irene F. Henderson
C- James A. Henderson
D- J. J. Martin
E- A. F. Awald
F- Ferron Rasco
G- Mrs. Arleen Kloppel
H- Vacant
I- Bill C. Wallick
J- John B May
K- Tod E. Stice
L- Harry Maher
1961 Glendale City Directory 1303 N. Central
A- Hugh H. Logan
B- Nevin W. Albert
C- Vacant
D- Harmon Baldwin
E- Mrs. Frances Schneer
F- William J. Goss
G- Harley P. Easley
H- Herman A. Enemark
I- Thomas E. Durant
J- Philip E. Zeiss
K- Ewald B. Rasmussen
Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 30 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Source Occupant
1967 Glendale City Directory 1303 N. Central
A- Russell T. Burnham
B- Mrs. Blanche C. Albert
C- No listing
D- Perry E. Wright
E- Mrs. Frances Scheer
F- Vacant
G- Harley P. Easley
H- Herman A. Enemark
I- Thomas E. Durant
J- Philip E. Zeiss
K- Ewald B. Rasmussen
L- Michael Nugent, A business consultant
M- J. E. Hoeft
1968 Glendale City Directory 1303 N. Central
A- Russell T. Burnham
B- Mrs. Blanche C. Albert
C- Edith A. Nicklos
D- Perry E. Wright
E- Mrs. Frances Scheer
F- Alvin W. Ray
G- Harley P Easley
H- Lloyd R. Nicholson
I- Thomas E. Durant
J- Philip E. Zeiss
K- Edwald B. Rasmussen
L- Michael A. Nugent, A business
consultant
M- J. E. Hoeft

1311 N. Central
A - Eugene F. Conner
B- Mrs. Irene F. Martin
C- Claude A. Welcome
D- Mrs. Florence M. Sidney
E- Albert F. Ewald
F- No return
G- Mrs. Arleen E. Kloeppel
H- Paul G. Kirman
I - Harmon W. Baldwin
J - John B. May
K - L. E. Scharf
L - James R. Wilkinson
Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 31 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Source Occupant
1969 Glendale City Directory 1303 N. Central
A- Edith A. Ward
B- Mrs. Albert C. Blanche
C- Edith A. Nicklos
D- William D. Wessly
E- Michael Nugent, A business consultant
F- Reginald E. Spicer
G- Harley P Easley
H- Lloyd R. Nicholson
I- Thomas E. Durant
J- Philip E. Zeiss
K- Ewald B. Rasmussen
L- Saml B. Lapin
M- Vacant

1311 N. Central
A- Dallas Brigg
B- Mrs. Irene F. Martin
C- Herbert N. Dorman
D- Vacant
E- Albert F. Ewald
F- Mrs. Clara H. Brown
G- Mrs. Arleen E. Kloeppel
H- Melvin Lindapl
I- Harmon W. Baldwin
J- John B. May
K- L. E. Scharf
L- Kames R. Wilkinson

1315 N. Central
A- Max L. Green
B- John H. Lauten
C- Rodney M. Spoden
D- Mrs. Lillian Kennedy
E- Mrs. Mildred Kittleson
F- Barney Riemarr
G- Thomas N. Jamieson
H- Donald W. Corson
I- Vacant
J- William Crockett
K- Vacant
Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 32 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Source Occupant
1970 Glendale City Directory 1301 N. Central
A - Mrs. Ruth W. Ward
B- Albert W. Nevin
C- Edith A. Nicklos
D – No return
E – Michael Nugent
F - Reginald E. Spicer
G – Harley P. Easley
H – Lloyd R. Nicholson
I – Thomas E. Durant
J - Philip E. Zeiss
K – Ewald B. Rasmussen
L – Burt S. Turney
M – Mrs. Margaret Maher
1977 Glendale City Directory 1301 N. Central
A – Mrs. Ruth W. Ward
B – Mrs. Ruth L. Green
C - Kermit W. Kuhns
D - J. M. Caldwell
F – Reginald E. Spicer
G – Carl C. Monroe
H – H. V. Hedges
I – Thomas E. Durant
J – Philip E. Zeiss
K – Wally E. Rasmussen
L – William H. Donnelly
M – Frederick C Young

Evaluation
Historical Resources Identified
Previous Evaluations
Correspondence between Timothy Foy, Senior Planner at the City of Glendale, and EP Associates on behalf of Greg Brody, current owner, indicates that a historic assessment report for the Glendale Garden Homes was created on August 30, 2004. Signatories on behalf of EP Associates included Selin Hovnanian, B. Arch, architectural designer, and Vahn Hovnanian, Registered Environmental Assessor and Principal of EP Associates. To-date, the City of Glendale Community Development and Planning Division could not locate this historic assessment report.

A letter dated April 26, 2005 indicates that Foy requested further information regarding the historic report from EP Associates, including clarification regarding report findings, tenants, and oral histories. Based on this letter, it seems that EP Associates concluded that Glendale Gardens Homes was found to be historic, presumably at the local level as Foy wrote to clarify a statement in the EP Associates report as follows: “The report finds that the property is the best of its style in Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 33 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
the neighborhood. It may be the best example in the whole City.”34 During the data gathering process for the current analysis, several attempts were made to recover the initial historic assessment prepared for the subject property. Among these attempts was a visit to the City of Glendale Planning Division in March of 2019 as well as numerous telephone conversations with City Planning Staff through May of 2019. Despite these efforts the complete historic assessment report was not located in the City files associated with the addresses 1303, 1311, or 1315 North Central Avenue.

A search for EP Associates did not result in conclusive findings regarding the credentials of authors, current contact information for EP Associates, or its successors as the LLC appears to be inactive. EP Associates produced several historical assessment reports for the City of Glendale during the early to mid-2000s. Vahn Hovnanian passed away in 2015, and appears to have been a registered contractor in California. Limited additional information on the Hovnanians was located.

The City of Glendale’s “Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings in Adopted Historic Districts,” created by Architectural Resources Group, presents an overview of multi-family modern buildings in Glendale. The subject property itself is not considered to be in an identified potential historic district.
35 It is also not included in the California State Historical Resources Inventory (HRI), most recently formally updated in 2011. The subject property is not identified as an example of a garden apartment in the “Garden Apartments of Los Angeles: Historic Context Statement,” created in 2012 by Architectural Resources Group, which identified representative properties across Los Angeles County.36

Further, the subject property is not listed as one of the City’s 113 identified historic resources on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, most recently updated in 2015.37 The Glendale Register of Historic Places includes six buildings from the 1950s and 1960s periods. These include three single-family residences of Ranch, Tudor Revival, and Modern styles from the 1950s; two Modern style single-family residences and one Modern style civic building constructed in the 1960s. The property was not included in the survey area for the City of Glendale’s most recent historic survey, the “City of Glendale: South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” draft, prepared for the City of Glendale by Historic Resources Group updated in 2018, as geographically, the project area falls outside of the boundaries for this area.38

34 EP Associates, Letter entitled: “Supplemental In formation Historic Assessment Glendale Garden Homes 1301, 1311, and 1315 North Central Avenue Glendale, California,” to Timothy Foy, Senior Planner, City of Glendale, April 26, 2005.
35 Architectural Resources Group, “Design Guidelines for Residen tial Buildings in Adopted Historic Districts,” City of Glendale, N.D., 10.
36 Architectural Resources Group, “ Garden Apartments of Los Angeles: Historic Context Statement,” Los Angeles Conservancy, 2012.
37 City of Glendale, “Glendale Register of Historic Resources,” 2 015. 38 Historic Resources Group, “City of Glendale: South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” City of Glendale, ed. 2018.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 34 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Architectural Description
The subject property occupies a parcel on the west side of North Central Avenue. It is improved with three multi-family garden apartment buildings, along with a detached cabana and carport which are located in the western portion of the lot.

Site
The subject property’s site includes the surrounding vehicular access roads at the north and south of the parcel, ground floor parking, a cabana and pool area at the rear, and landscaping along North Central Avenue at the central courtyard.

Tenant vehicular access onto the property can be gained from North Central Avenue through gated access roads that lead toward the rear (west) of the parcel along the north and south property extents (Figures 10 and 11). Tenant parking carport spaces sit below the building at the ground floor along the north and south property extents. Additional carports sit at the northern part of the property (accessible from the north access road), and at the west of the property adjacent to the cabana and pool area (accessible from the south access road). The cabana and pool area includes a 20’ x 40’ rectangular swimming pool, with a one-story semi-enclosed wood structure comprising the cabanas and barbeque patio (Figure 12). The landscaping along North Central Avenue includes manicured hedges adjacent to the sidewalk and the subject property’s lawn. There are mature trees along this front yard, and higher manicured hedges abutting the ground-floor units at Buildings 1303 and 1311.

The central courtyard runs the extent of the inward-facing elevations of Buildings 1303, 1311, and 1315. The apartment units and courtyard are accessible to pedestrians from the main entrance along North Central Avenue, and at two other locations through Building 1311 from the North Central Avenue sidewalk. The main entrance includes a contemporary metal security gate with low stone walls and a wood trellis structure that sits between Buildings 1303 and 1311 (Figure 13). Pedestrian access is also through the ground-floor carports at the north, south, and west portions of the site. Concrete sidewalks connect pathways through the central courtyard, leading from the main entrance gate, and circulating through the interior courtyard (Figure 14). The courtyard includes lush vegetation, mature trees, and regularly spaced metal lamp posts throughout (Figures 15 and 16). Some ground-floor patio areas off of apartment units are enclosed, some with vertical wood fencing, others with lattice fencing. A stone feature has recently replaced an earlier decorative fountain in the central courtyard.

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 35 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 10
Building 1311 with adjacent landscaping along North
Central Avenue at the northern most extent of property
with access road and security gate at right

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 11
Building 1303 at southern extent of property, with
access road, security gate, and tenant parking beyond

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 36 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 12
Access to cabana and pool area at west portion of
property

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 13
Contemporary security gate with low stone walls and
wood trellis structure, located between Buildings 1311
and 1303, along North Central Avenue, looking east

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 37 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 14
Diagrammatic map of Glendale Garden Homes
complex, located at the contemporary security gate

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 15
Courtyard view with Building 1303 east elevation at left and background, with concrete circulation pathway at
center and Building 1311 at right, looking southwest

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 38 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 16
Courtyard view with Building 1303 at right and
Buildings 1315 and 1311 at left, looking east

Building 1303
Building 1303 is the largest of the three apartment buildings comprising the Glendale Garden Homes complex, located in the southern portion of the property. Symmetrically configured and U-shaped in plan, the building has two shorter wings that extend north (Figure 17). The two- story wood frame building has a concrete foundation and a gently sloping hipped roof with overhanging eaves (Figure 18). Brick chimneys extend the roofline. The building has stucco cladding and decorative horizontal and vertical painted redwood.

Building 1303 consists of 12 rental units, comprising 65 rooms. Access is through recessed ground floor porches, each with two units and an interior staircase, which leads up to the second floor with a semi-enclosed porch flanked by two additional second-story units (Figure 19).

Several units in Building 1303 feature exterior patios, which project from the main portion of the building, and are clad in horizontal painted redwood siding (Figures 20 and 21). Steel frame windows punctuate the elevations at regular intervals, and single wood doors without paneling serve each apartment unit.

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 39 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 17
Building 1303 south elevation, looking northwest

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 18
Building 1303 west (left) and north (right) elevations, looking southwest

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 40 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 19
Building 1303 recessed entry to first and second floor
units, north elevation, looking south

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 20
Building 1303 central portion of north elevation, looking southwest

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 41 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 21
Building 1303 north elevation with projecting patios,
looking southwest from second story balcony

Building 1311
Building 1311 sits to the northeast corner of the subject property, abutting North Central Avenue (Figure 22). A tenant access road extends east-west along the building’s north elevation (Figure 23). This building is irregular in footprint, and resembles a U-shaped plan with a shorter south- extending wing at the east, and a longer south-extending wing at the west. Building 1311 and adjacent Building are identical to one another, and are more or less mirrored in plan with slight variations in their unit layouts. The building has a concrete foundation, wood framing, combination stucco and horizontal painted redwood siding. The siding on this building is grouped, which differs from the decorative treatment found on Building 1303 (Figure 24). In the shorter south-extending wing, wood siding extends along a portion of the east elevation straddling the second floor line along North Central Avenue (Figure 23). In the longer south-extending wing, wood siding begins at the upper portion of the second floor elevations and continues to the roofline.

Decorative metal handrails are found at all outdoor staircases (Figure 26). Steel frame windows punctuate the elevations at regular intervals, and single wood doors without paneling serve each apartment unit. A ground floor laundry room sits in the north of this building.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 42 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 22
Building 1311 east elevation, looking southwest

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 23
Building 1311 north elevation, looking west

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 43 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 24
Building 1311 south elevation (left) and east elevation (right), looking northwest

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 25
Building 1311 canted patio overhang at second floor
with parking beyond and laundry room at left

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 44 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 26
Building 1311 upstairs landing with a decorative
handrail
Building 1315
Building 1315 sits to the northwest corner of the subject property, abutting residential development to the west of the project site. A tenant access road extends east-west from the building’s north elevation. This building is irregular in footprint, and resembles a U-shaped plan, with a longer south-extending wing at the east, and a shorter south-extending wing at the west.

Buildings 1315 and 1311 are identical to one another, and are largely mirrored in play with slight differences in their general unit configuration.

A central concrete walkway runs along the courtyard’s ground floor between Buildings 1311 and 1315, beginning about halfway down the central elevations of the respective buildings (Figure 27). On the northern half of the central elevations of both buildings, further carport parking is located at the ground floor, below second floor apartment units (Figure 28). This road is accessed through the east-west access road at the northern extent of the property. Entrances, general unit configuration, materiality, and building massing are all identical to that of Building 1311 (Figure 29). Both buildings 1311 and 1315 have ground floor laundry rooms.

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 45 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 27
Building 1311 at left, and Building 1315 at right with
central walkway in-between, looking south

\
1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 28
Building 1315 at right, with Building 1311 at left, with central road in between looking south

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 46 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 29
Building 1315 recessed unit entryways
Interiors
Units vary between two and three bedroom apartments. Some are split level, while others are contained on single floors. Each has a kitchen and at least one bathroom. Units have brick or stone fireplaces, pass-through windows at the kitchen, and built-in cabinetry at the closets (Figure 30).

1303 N. Central Avenue / D190229.00
SOURCE: ESA 2019
Figure 30
Interior of typical unit with brick fireplace

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 47 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Significance Evaluation
The subject property was reviewed against the following historical and architectural themes for evaluation, including those identified in the “City of Glendale: South Glendale Historic Context Statement” (2014) and the “Garden Apartments of Los Angeles: Historic Context Statement” (2012): Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-1979), Community Planning and Development: Garden City Planning Principles (1937-1955), and Designed Landscapes (1937-1955). ESA evaluated the subject property against the criteria for the National Register, California Register and Glendale Register.

As explained below, ESA found the subject property ineligible under Criteria A/1/1 under the applicable theme of post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-1979); ineligible under Criteria B/2/2, as no persons were identified that met the threshold of significance; ineligible under Criteria C/3/3 as a garden style apartment; ineligible under Criteria D/4/4 as it is unlikely to yield any important information; and finally ineligible under Glendale Register Criterion 5 as it is not a significant historic resource that exemplifies the early heritage of the city.

ESA also found that the subject property does not qualify as a district contributor as there is not a geographic concentration of early multi-family garden style apartment residences in the immediate area.

National Register, California Register, City of Glendale Broad Patterns of History
With regard to broad patterns of history, the following are the relevant criteria:
 National Register Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
 California Register Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.  The proposed historic resource is identified with important events in national, state, or city history, or exemplifies significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, or historic heritage of the nation, state, or city.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 48 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Constructed in 1957, the subject building falls into an established pattern of development as a post-World War II multi-family apartment in nearby South Glendale as it appears that the 1950s- 1960s was the height of apartment building in that particular neighborhood. However, this portion of unincorporated Los Angeles County became incorporated into Glendale by 1950. This general area appears to have had a single-family residence and open, undeveloped surrounding land prior to the construction of Glendale Garden Homes and its surrounding residential buildings.

While the subject property’s development parallels the neighboring South Glendale’s more clearly defined and identified pattern of development, it’s construction within its own West Glendale neighborhood is not individually significant or exemplary to the area for its association with post-World War II residential development expansion, as there were many newly developed residential buildings constructed by prospective developers looking to capitalize by constructing income-generating properties during this period of expansion. The subject property as a residential building constructed during the larger Glendale construction boom following the war does not rise to a level of individual significance necessary for listing on the National Register, California Register, or Glendale Register. As a result, the subject property is recommended ineligible for listing under National Register Criterion A, California Register Criterion 1, and Glendale Criterion 1.

Significant Persons
With regard to associations with important persons, the following are the relevant criteria:
 National Register Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.  California Register Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.  The proposed historic resource is associated with a person, persons, or groups who significantly contributed to the history of the nation, state, region, or city.

There are no owners or tenants that have been identified as significantly contributing to the history of national, state, regional, or city-wide history while residing at or during the construction of the subject property. J.E. Hoeft who later became the founder of the Glendale Federal Savings and Loan and early developer/owner Joseph G. Causey lived here for brief periods, but not during their active years. Civic leader Hoeft lived at the apartment building for two years from 1967 to 1968, roughly six years after the Glendale Federal Savings and Loan building was constructed downtown in 1959. City directories indicate that Hoeft resided at other locations for longer periods of time. Developer Causey resided here in the 1990s, likely in his senior years. Research did not uncover any additional significant tenants or owners associated with the subject property. Therefore, the subject property is recommended ineligible for listing under National Register Criterion B, California Register Criterion 2, nor Glendale Register Criterion 2.

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 49 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
Architecture
With regard to architecture, design, or construction, the following are the relevant criteria:
 National Register Criterion C: Embodies 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.
 California Register Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
 Glendale Register Criterion 3: The proposed historic resource embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represents a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possesses high artistic values.

The Glendale Garden Home apartments are reflective of the later stylistic evolution of a garden apartment in Los Angeles County, with its higher emphasis on unit count than open space, more traditional suburban landscaping that included tropical plantings as opposed to native plants, and ample character defining features including: its architectural modesty, lack of ornamentation, location of building entrances oriented to face the courtyard, and parking and vehicular circulation along the perimeter of the site plan.

The subject property was not the earliest of its style or type and did not set a trend within Glendale, as the style was prevalent by this point with character-defining features and design motifs that had been utilized and translated on many multi-family apartment complexes by this period. The property was built in a period past the height of the garden-style apartment trend in Los Angeles County, as the style was already waning by the time of construction.

Limited written information was found about the firm accredited to the property’s design, Norwood & DeLonge (also spelled DeLong) based in San Marino. Glendale Garden Homes does not appear to be significant within their larger breadth of work, which ranges from the early 1950s through the early 1970s and includes apartment buildings, single-family residences, and commercial buildings. Contractors Causey & Causey appear to have constructed many buildings in the Los Angeles area, and were also listed as income builders, brokers, realtors, having developed many properties in the Glendale and Los Angeles area during this period and in the decades prior. The design of this property does not appear to be notable within Causey & Causey’s body of work either. The identified contractors and designers do not appear to have been important on a larger national, state, or local level for achieving success or recognition in their respective fields for their association with this subject property.

As noted in Glendale’s “Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings in Adopted Historic Districts,” there were many apartment buildings built during the post-World War II era. The subject property does not rise to a level of significance for listing on the National Register, California Register, or local Glendale Register as an exemplary individual example of a garden apartment. Further, more prominent, unique, and notable examples of garden apartments have Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 50 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
been identified for their design innovation and nuance, and for their association with notable mid- century architects, designers, and landscape architects and designers. Therefore, the subject property is recommended ineligible for listing under National Register Criterion C and California Register Criterion 3.

Data
 National Register Criterion D. It yields, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
 California Register Criterion 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
 Glendale Register Criterion 4: The proposed historic resource has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to archaeological pre-history or history of the nation, state, region, or city.

While most often applied to archaeological districts and sites, Criterion D/4 can also apply to buildings, structures, and objects that contain important information. In order for these types of properties to be eligible under Criterion D/4, they themselves must be, or must have been, the principal source of the important information. The subject property, at 1303 North Central Avenue, does not appear to yield significant information that would expand our current knowledge or theories of design, methods of construction, operation, or other information that is not already known about the period of significance of the Residence, its method of construction, or its design. Therefore, the subject property is recommended ineligible for listing under National Register Criterion D California Register Criterion 4, or Glendale Register Criterion 4.

Early Heritage
The proposed historic resource exemplifies the early heritage of the city. (Ord. 5784 § 7, 2012; Ord. 5347 § 7, 2003: Ord. 5110 § 12, 1996: prior code § 21-02).

The subject property was developed to the immediate south, yet largely undeveloped to the immediate north and east by 1950. As the subject area appeared to be more rural in character around the time of construction, it remained part of unincorporated Los Angeles County until sometime in the mid-20
th century. While the Glendale was a town since the 1880s, and became incorporated in 1906, the subject property’s mid-20th century construction does not exemplify the early heritage of Glendale. As such, the subject property is not a proposed historic resources that exemplifies the early heritage of the city and is recommended ineligible for listing under this local criterion.

1303 North Central Avenue 51 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
immediate subject property includes single-family homes from the mid-20th century to the west, several 21st century apartment buildings to the east, and a few mid-20th century apartments to the north and east, with commercial businesses to the south along North Central Avenue. The general residential character of the area remains, with and North Brand Boulevard continuing as a main artery of the neighborhood. As such, there does not appear to be a pattern of development related to post-World War II multi-family residences, or garden apartments in the immediate surrounding area that would warrant this area eligible as a potential historic district. As such, the subject property was not identified as a contributor to a potential district.

Conclusion
The subject property was evaluated under the following historical and architectural themes identified in the neighboring South Glendale Historic Context Statement (2014) and the Garden Apartments of Los Angeles Historic Context Statement (2012): Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-1979), Community Planning and Development: Garden City Planning Principles (1937-1955), and Designed Landscapes (1937-1955).

ESA also conducted research on the subject property’s construction and occupancy history.

Qualified Architectural Historians evaluated the subject property against the criteria for the National Register, California Register, and the Glendale Register. As a result, ESA found the subject property individually ineligible under the applicable federal, state, and local criteria for its historic and architectural associations, or as a contributor to a potential district.

Historic Resources Assessment
1303 North Central Avenue 52 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
References
“Advertisement: Glendale Garden Homes.” Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1958. “Advertisement: Open Today, Sunday.” The Los Angeles Times, August 25, 1957. “Advertisement: Pasadena’s Finest Cooperative Apartments.” Los Angeles Times, November 11, 1962.

Ancestry.com. U.S. Census, California Voter Registration, California Death Index, City Directory, and Street Address Directory records.

Architectural Resources Group. “Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings in Adopted Historic Districts.” City of Glendale, N.D., 10.

Architectural Resources Group. “Garden Apartments of Los Angeles: Historic Context Statement.” Los Angeles Conservancy, 2012.

City of Glendale. “Glendale Register of Historic Resources,” 2015.

City of Glendale. General Plan, Historic Preservation Element. September 1997.

City of Glendale. Historic Preservation Ordinance. Internet Resource. http://qcode.us/codes/glendale/view.php?topic=15-15_20&frames=on Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 36 § 60.2.

Codified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Section 4852©. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov
EP Associates. Letter titled: “Supplemental Information Historic Assessment Glendale Garden Homes 1301, 1311, and 1315 North Central Avenue Glendale, California,” to Timothy Foy, Senior Planner, City of Glendale, April 26, 2005.
“Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms.” in National Register Bulletin 16, U.S.

Department of Interior, National Park Service, 1977, Revised 1997.

Historic Resources Group. “City of Glendale: South Glendale Historic Context Statement.” City of Glendale, ed. 2018.
---------. “Cultural Resources of the Recent Past Historic Context Report.” City of Pasadena, 2007.
---------. “Draft South Glendale Historic Resources Survey.” Prepared for the City of Glendale, 2017.

Howard, Bob. “Winning OK for Hillside Plan Is an Uphill Battle for Gregg.” Los Angeles Times, August 17, 1999.

Kaplan, David. “540, 607, 633 North Central Avenue, 317-327 West Doran Street Glendale, California: Historic Resource Evaluation.” Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 2013.

Historic Resources Assessment

1303 North Central Avenue 53 ESA / D190229.00
Historic Resource Assessment June 2019
National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1990, rev. 1991.

National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 16: Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, 1997.

National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb15.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2013. “Obituary: Frank Alexander Rhodes, Jr.” Los Angeles Times, August 17, 2009.

Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. March 1995.

Office of State Historic Preservation. California Historic Resources Inventory, Survey Workbook (excerpts). Sacramento, CA: State of California, 1986.

Parcher, Carroll W. Glendale Community Book. Glendale: John W. Akers, 1957.

Appendix A
Professional Qualifications

EDUCATION
M.A., Public History
and Teaching,
University of San
Diego, 2008
B.S., Anthropology
and Archaeology,
University of
Wisconsin Madison,
2004
15 YEARS

EXPERIENCE

CERTIFICATIONS/

REGISTRATION/

EDUCATION
Registered
Professional
Archaeologist

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
American Institute of
Certified Planners
American Planning
Association
National Trust for
Historic Preservation
California Preservation
Foundation

Alison is a senior architectural historian with 7 years of professional and academic experience with a background in historic preservation, design, and museum collections. Her work with historic resources and cultural heritage in California has included managing and authoring historic resource assessments, National Register Nominations, historic structure reports, feasibility studies, Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit applications, in addition to extensive archival research and resource documentation. Alison utilizes an understanding of preservation design and historic interiors to inform impacts analyses of proposed development and recommendations for adaptive reuse.

Historic Resource Evaluation for Golden Gate Village, Marin City, CA.

Architectural Historian.

The highly-intact Golden Gate Village low-income housing complex was constructed in 1958. The complex was constructed to house many of the former Marinship workers and their families, as by mid-century the temporary Marinship housing in this location had severely deteriorated. Designed by prominent mid- century designers including architects Aaron G. Green and John Carl Warnecke, and landscape architect Lawrence Halprin, the property today serves as an example of an integrated, well-designed community complex, that included towers built into a Marin hillside, with 1-and 2-story buildings, and landscaped areas oriented around a master plan. The property is significant for its association as a product of post-WWII urban development in Northern California, and for association with its prominent mid-century designers. Alison performed the site visit, documenting the property with photography and detailed notes, and conducted research through various local and private archival repositories, newspaper articles, architectural plan analysis, and interviews. She produced the report narrative and historic evaluation for the property. The property is currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Historic Structure Report for McDonnell Hall, Our Lady of Guadalupe Chapel, San Jose, CA. Architectural Historian.

Constructed as a parish church in 1914, the building moved to its current location in 1953. Here, the building served as a newly formed Catholic Mission, the Center of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The property at this location is strongly associated with budding civil rights activist and labor rights leader Cesar Chavez, in addition to associative significance with ethnic Mexican migrant labor and labor organizing efforts, and the Mexican American civil rights movement of the mid-20th century.

Alison assisted with the research, production, design recommendations, and quality control for the project. Design recommendations included in the report involved bringing the building back to its original appearance during its period of significance, which required a meticulous analysis of the building’s historic

EDUCATION
MS, Historic
Preservation, University
of Pennsylvania
BA, Design, University of
California at Davis
7 YEARS EXPERIENCE

PROFESSIONAL

AFFILIATIONS
California Preservation
Foundation Member

Society of Architectural
Historians Member

National Trust for
Historic Preservation
Member

AWARDS
Albert Binder Travel
Fellowship, 2012 and
2013

PennDesign
Departmental Grant,
2011-2013

integrity. The property today is listed as a National Historic Landmark.

Preservation Consulting, Historic YMCA Hotel in the Embarcadero, San Francisco, CA. Architectural Historian, Project Manager.

Built in the early 20th century, the building was formerly a YMCA hotel used by young navy men and is currently a hotel along the waterfront with an adjacent YMCA recreational center. The hotel was proposing modifications which included rehabilitation work and reconfiguring the interior lobby space. Alison researched and documented how the interior had evolved over time by reviewing old plans, still shots from movies filmed on-location, post cards, and by reviewing the existing fabric. She developed narrative for the construction chronology with a focus on the building’s public spaces at the interior, overseeing the entire production of the report. She identified extant character defining features, creating recommendations to update the client’s proposed plans which included acceptable sensitive modifications to historic features and recommendations for potential future demolition.

Historic American Building Survey for Lockheed Missiles and Space, Sunnyvale, CA. Architectural Historian, Project Manager.

The Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company had an important association with the development of the defense industry and advanced communications systems in the San Francisco Bay Area. Large-scale technological contributions to defense- related pursuits were achieved here through aerospace manufacturing, research, and development. Subject buildings documented for this project were utilitarian, constructed using concrete tilt-up construction and were representative of industrial buildings developed for sensitive defense purposed of the era. Alison conducted the site visit, coordinated professional photography, and conducted extensive archival research to create the narrative for the HABS documentation in accordance with National Park Service standards. She assisted in providing the client with mitigation measures beyond building demolition, and coordinated with local, State, and Federal agencies throughout the project development and submission process.

Historic Preservation Consulting for the Palo Alto History Museum, Palo Alto, CA. Architectural Historian.

The Roth Building was the original location of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation.

The former medical building is undergoing a conversion into a local history museum with gallery space, interpretive areas, and archival and study rooms.

Alison assisted with secondary research efforts of both the medical foundation and the building, upon modifications to the museum’s scope of work. This work helped ongoing efforts to determine the extent of the effect that proposed changes would have on the building’s historic integrity. She conducted a Part 2 Federal historic rehabilitation tax credit application review which included recommendation to best comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation.

Delta Feasibility Study for three historic resources, Walnut Grove, CA.

Architectural Historian, Project Manager.

Three heritage buildings were identified for feasibility studies, including the adaptive reuse of a historic church for artist live/work, including performance and gallery space; the adaptive reuse of a schoolhouse into a community center; and the construction of an outdoor park to commemorate Asian American Heritage.

These studies included a preliminary project description, market demand analysis, conceptual plan, cost estimate, potential partnerships and funding, and actions needed for public and private partners to implement the projects. Serving as the project manager and primary author, Alison coordinated site visits to the property and served as the day-to-day contact for the team of sub consultants.

She undertook research efforts for the three properties, including extensive primary source documentation, and assisted with the creation of architectural recommendations for rehabilitation.

Historic Resource Evaluation and Preservation Consulting for the Half Moon Bay Barn and Jail Museum, Half Moon Bay, CA. Architectural Historian.

The City of Half Moon Bay was working with a local historical society to implement a history museum at the site of its early 20 th century jail and adjacent barn. Alison conducted an in-depth evaluation of the property’s development as the first portion of the work. She reviewed the proposed plans for buildings and site modifications to accommodate gallery space, offices, and archival storage.

Coordinating with project architects, she assisted with the creation of recommendations for the proposed work to best comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

Previous Work Experience
Garavaglia Architecture, Inc. Senior Architectural Historian and Project Manager.

Alison was responsible for coordinating the firm’s preservation studio projects, ranging between 10 and 20 active projects at any given time. She oversaw more than 50 projects from start to finish, managing client relationships and project timelines. Alison strategized with principal daily to define project goals and improve internal high standards of studio contracts and participated in proposal development, project scoping, planning, budgeting, and facilitated communication through all phases of the work. Alison collaborated with the architectural studio to: identify preservation-related issues and constraints, craft rehabilitation recommendations, design sensitive mitigation solutions for new development within historic buildings and districts, and justify approved preservation design solutions with the goal of minimizing adverse effects on the historic resource.

California Preservation Foundation Conference, Panelist on modernism in ‘Becoming Silicon Valley’ and ‘Documenting Hispanic Heritage’ tour leader, 2018.

UC Davis Undergraduate Design Studio Lectures, ‘Historic Preservation in Northern California,’ 2014 and ‘PennDesign Thesis: 20th Century Architectural Lighting and Establishing Guidelines for its Preservation,’ 2013.

DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information

Page 1 of 3 ends

P1. Other Identifier: 1303 North Central Avenue, Glendale, CA *P2. Location: ☐ Not for Publication ☒ Unrestricted *a. County Los Angeles a n d (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ; ☐ of ☐ of Sec ; B.M. c. Address 1303 North Central Avenue C i t y Glendale Z i p 91210 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , m E / mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN: 5633-006-014
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The subject property occupies a parcel on the west side of North Central Avenue. It is improved with three multi-family garden apartment buildings, along with a detached cabana and carport which are located in the western portion of the lot.

The subject property’s site includes the surrounding vehicular access roads at the north and south of the parcel, ground floor parking, a cabana and pool area at the rear, and landscaping along North Central Avenue at the central courtyard.

*P3b. Resource Attributes:
(List attributes and codes)
HP3 Multi family property
*P4. Resources Present:
☒ Building ☐ Structure ☐ Object
☐ Site ☐ District ☐ Element of District
☐ Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) Building 1311, March
2019, looking southwest
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: ☒ Historic ☐
Prehistoric
☐ Both
1957, Glendale Planning Division
*P7. Owner and Address:

Central BWB, LLC
14140 Moorpark Street, Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, California 91423
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) A l i s o n G a r c i a K e l l a r
E S A
550 West C Street, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
*P9. Date Recorded: May 2019

*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive Pedestrian
*P11. Report Citation : (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") none *Attachments: ☐NONE ☐Location Map ☒Continuation Sheet ☒Building, Structure, and Object Record ☐Archaeological Record ☐District Record ☐Linear Feature Record ☐Milling Station Record ☐Rock Art Record ☐Artifact Record ☐Photograph Record ☐Other (List):

State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION H R I #
PRIMARY RECORD T r i n o m i a l
N R H P S t a t u s C o d e 6Z
O t h e r
L i s t i n g s
R e v i e w C o d e Reviewer Date P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)

DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Glendale Garden Homes *NRHP Status Code 6Z

Page 2 of 33 ends

B1. Historic Name: Glendale Garden Homes
B2. Common Name: 1303 North Central Avenue
B3. Original Use: Multi-family residence B4. Present Use: Multi-family residence *B5. Architectural Style: Garden apartment
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Building permits on file with the Glendale Building & Safety Division (Appendix D) and Los Angeles County Assessor’s Records (Appendix E) were reviewed to determine the subject property’s history of construction, including alterations The earliest permit for the subject property dates back to 1954, which mentions that an existing old garage was to be replaced for a retaining wall on the neighboring property. The owner was Edgar N. Gregg, one of the developers associated with the eventual Glendale Garden Homes project. Created in 1956, original drawings for the three-building garden apartment are credited to Norwood and DeLonge of San Marino, California. Original building permits credit Causey & Causey as the building contractors. The first building permit for construction dates to 1957, issued for the construction of Building 1303, the elongated building of the trio. Building 1303 was to consist of 12 rental units, comprising 65 rooms. [See Continuation Sheets]

*B7. Moved? ☒No ☐Yes ☐Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect : Norwood & DeLonge b. Builder: Causey & Causey *B10. Significance: Theme Post WWII Multi-Family Residential Development and Garden Apartments Area Glendale Period of Significance 1957 Property Type Multi-Family Residential Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) Since the City of Glendale currently does not have an approved historic context for the area in which the subject property is located or the architectural style in which the multi-family residence is built, ESA reviewed the following historical and architectural themes for evaluation, including those identified in the “City of Glendale: South Glendale Historic Context Statement” (2014) and the “Garden Apartments of Los Angeles: Historic Context Statement” (2012): Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-1979), Community Planning and Development: Garden City Planning Principles (1937-1955), and Designed Landscapes (1937-1955). ESA evaluated the subject property against the criteria for the National Register, California Register and Glendale Register, ESA found the subject property ineligible under Criteria A/1/1 under the applicable theme of post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-1979); ineligible under Criteria B/2/2, as no persons were identified that met the threshold of significance; ineligible under Criteria C/3/3 as a garden style apartment; ineligible under Criteria D/4/4 as it is unlikely to yield any important information; and finally ineligible under Glendale Register Criterion 5 as it is not a significant historic resource that exemplifies the early heritage of the city.
[See Continuation Sheets]
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:
[See Continuation Sheets]
B13. Remarks:

*B14. Evaluator: ESA
*Date of Evaluation: May 2019
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)

(This space reserved for official comments.)

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 3 of 33 ends

*P3a. Description (continued):

The cabana and pool area includes a 20’ x 40’ rectangular swimming pool, with a one-story semi- enclosed wood structure comprising the cabanas and barbeque patio (Figure 3). The landscaping along North Central Avenue includes manicured hedges adjacent to the sidewalk and the subject property’s lawn. There are mature trees along this front yard, and higher manicured hedges abutting the ground-floor units at Buildings 1303 and 1311.

Pedestrian access is also through the ground-floor carports at the north, south, and west portions of the site. Concrete sidewalks connect pathways through the central courtyard, leading from the main entrance gate, and circulating through the interior courtyard (Figure 5). The courtyard includes lush vegetation, mature trees, and regularly spaced metal lamp posts throughout (Figures 6 and 7). Some ground-floor patio areas off of apartment units are enclosed, some with vertical wood fencing, others with lattice fencing. A stone feature has recently replaced an earlier decorative fountain in the central courtyard.

Building 1303
Building 1303 is the largest of the three apartment buildings comprising the Glendale Garden Homes complex, located in the southern portion of the property. Symmetrically configured and U- shaped in plan, the building has two shorter wings that extend north (Figure 8). The two-story wood frame building has a concrete foundation and a gently sloping hipped roof with overhanging eaves (Figure 9). Brick chimneys extend the roofline. The building has stucco siding, and decorative horizontal and vertical painted redwood.

Several units in Building 1303 feature exterior patios, which project from the main portion of the building, and are clad in horizontal painted redwood siding (Figures 11 and 12). Steel frame windows punctuate the elevations at regular intervals, and single wood doors without paneling serve each apartment unit.

Building 1311
Building 1311 sits to the northeast corner of the subject property, abutting North Central Avenue (Figure 13). A tenant access road extends east-west along the building’s north elevation (Figure 14). This building is irregular in footprint, and resembles a U-shaped plan with a shorter south- extending wing at the east, and a longer south-extending wing at the west. Building 1311 and adjacent Building are identical to one another, and are more or less mirrored in plan with slight State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 4 of 33 ends

variations in their unit layouts. The building has a concrete foundation, wood framing, combination stucco and horizontal painted redwood siding. The siding on this building is grouped, which differs from the decorative treatment found on Building 1303 (Figure 15). In the shorter south-extending wing, wood siding extends along a portion of the east elevation straddling the second floor line along North Central Avenue (Figure 14). In the longer south-extending wing, wood siding begins at the upper portion of the second floor elevations and continues to the roofline.

Apartment units in this building include first and second floor units, in addition to units which are accessed from the ground floor and have interior second floor access. At the corner within the courtyard area, Building 1311 has a canted entrance over a large semi-enclosed patio (Figure 16). Decorative metal handrails are found at all outdoor staircases (Figure 17). Steel frame windows punctuate the elevations at regular intervals, and single wood doors without paneling serve each apartment unit. A ground floor laundry room sits in the north of this building.

Building 1315
Building 1315 sits to the northwest corner of the subject property, abutting residential development to the west of the project site. A tenant access road extends east-west from the building’s north elevation. This building is irregular in footprint, and resembles a U-shaped plan, with a longer south-extending wing at the east, and a shorter south-extending wing at the west.

Buildings 1315 and 1311 are identical to one another, and are largely mirrored in play with slight differences in their general unit configuration.

A central concrete walkway runs along the courtyard’s ground floor between Buildings 1311 and 1315, beginning about halfway down the central elevations of the respective buildings (Figure 18). On the northern half of the central elevations of both buildings, further carport parking is located at the ground floor, below second floor apartment units (Figure 19). This road is accessed through the east-west access road at the northern extent of the property. Entrances, general unit configuration, materiality, and building massing are all identical to that of Building 1311 (Figure 20). Both buildings 1311 and 1315 have ground floor laundry rooms.

Interiors
Units vary between two and three bedroom apartments. Some are split level, while others are contained on single floors. Each has a kitchen and at least one bathroom. Units have brick or stone fireplaces, pass-through windows at the kitchen, and built-in cabinetry at the closets (Figure 21).

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 5 of 33 ends

Figure 1
Building 1311 with adjacent landscaping along North Central Avenue at the northern most extent of property with access road and security gate at right

Figure 2
Building 1303 at southern extent of property, with access road, security gate, and tenant parking beyond

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 6 of 33 ends

Figure 3
Access to cabana and pool area at west portion of property

Figure 4
Contemporary security gate with low stone walls and wood trellis structure, located between Buildings 1311 and 1303, along North Central Avenue, looking east

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 7 of 33 ends

Figure 5
Diagrammatic map of Glendale Garden Homes complex,
located at the contemporary security gate

Figure 6
Courtyard view with Building 1303 east elevation at left and background, with concrete circulation pathway at center and Building 1311 at right, looking southwest

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 8 of 33 ends

Figure 7
Courtyard view with Building 1303 at right and Buildings 1315 and 1311 at left, looking east

Figure 8
Building 1303 south elevation, looking northwest

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 9 of 33 ends

Figure 9
Building 1303 west (left) and north (right) elevations, looking southwest

Figure 10
Building 1303 recessed entry to first and second floor units, north elevation, looking south

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 10 of 33 ends

Figure 11
Building 1303 central portion of north elevation, looking southwest

Figure 12
Building 1303 north elevation with projecting patios, looking southwest from second story balcony

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 11 of 33 ends

Figure 13
Building 1311 east elevation, looking southwest

Figure 14
Building 1311 north elevation, looking west

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 12 of 33 ends

Figure 15
Building 1311 south elevation (left) and east elevation (right), looking northwest

Figure 16
Building 1311 canted patio overhang at second floor with parking beyond and laundry room at left

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 13 of 33 ends

Figure 17
Building 1311 upstairs landing with a decorative handrail

Figure 18
Building 1311 at left, and Building 1315 at right with central walkway in-between, looking south

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 14 of 33 ends

\
Figure 19
Building 1315 at right, with Building 1311 at left, with central road in between looking south

Figure 20
Building 1315 recessed unit entryways

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 15 of 33 ends

Figure 21
Interior of typical unit with brick fireplace
*B6 Construction History (continued):

The building was to have concrete foundations, wood framing, stucco finish, shingle roofs, 8’6” ceilings, and 7 chimneys. The construction cost was $175,000. A second permit filed at the same time was issued for the construction of Building 1315, which was U-shaped in configuration, mirroring that of Building 1311. A temporary sign was erected at the site around February of 1957 which would announce the new complex to be constructed. Later that summer, a building permit was filed for a swimming pool, cabanas, showers, filter rooms, and storage areas at the west of the property. The MacDonald Brothers were listed as the contractors for this work.

Assessor’s records from 1957 offer the best description of how the two-story buildings varied from one another, as each had a slightly different configuration while utilizing the same interior finishes and fixtures throughout (Figure 22). Building 1303, the largest of the three, included 12 2- bedroom units and at least one bedroom “studio” apartment. Four of the apartment units had slump stone room dividers containing both a fireplace and barbeque, with a surmounting copper hood. Each of these four units had an extra bar sink. All units in Building 1303 had wood vanities, and 5-drawer wood dressers built into the closets, with birch paneled walls with folding birch serving windows from the kitchen to dining room. Downstairs units had 6’ high redwood fences, enclosing patios with sliding glass doors.

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 16 of 33 ends

Building 1311 included 9 2-bedroom units, 2 3-bedroom units, and a 2-bedroom “studio” unit.

Eight of these units had either slump stone or brick room dividing walls containing both a fireplace and barbeque. Building 1315 included 2 3-bedroom units, 9 2-bedroom units, and a 2-bedroom “studio.” All units had a central water heater, with parking garages constructed on the first floor of the buildings.

Advertisements from 1957, the year of construction, touted the complex as having “All the graciousness of a modern home. Plus the convenience of an apartment.” The advertisement further read, “Let us show you the breathtaking plans which are now being transformed into Glendale’s most beautiful design for living.”1 Features publicized at the complex included fireplaces, electric kitchens, soundproofed units, air conditioning, ample closets, all-wool carpeting, modern spacious floor plans, heated swimming pool with cabanas and a sunbathing deck, and the possibility to have private parties.2 By 1958, builders Causey & Causey were referred to as the property’s rental agents as well. Advertisements at this time read “Enjoy the graciousness of a modern 2 or 3 bedroom 2 bath home plus the convenience of apartment living.” (Figure 23) In the 1960s, advertisements announcing available rental units continued to be placed in the Los Angeles Times for Glendale Garden Homes’ adults-only community.

Electrical alteration permits were issued in April and December of 1998.

In 2003, an 86-unit high density residential development was proposed to be constructed at the site upon the demolition of Glendale Garden Homes.

1 “Advertisement: Ope n Today, Sunday,” The Los Angeles Times, August 25, 1957. 2 “Advertisement: Gle ndale Garden Homes,” Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1958.

State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 17 of 33 ends

Figure 22
Bird’s eye rendering of Glendale Garden Homes in an
advertisement titled “In Glendale,” Los Angeles Times,
May 19, 1957.

Figure 23
Early photograph of Glendale Garden Homes as
featured in an advertisement in the Los Angeles Times,
March 23, 1958.

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 18 of 33 ends

TABLE 1
1303-1315 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE
GLENDALE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION BUILDING PERMITS3 Issued
Permit
Record Owner
Contractor (C),
Architect (A), or
Engineer (E) Valuation ($) Description
10/23/1954 Edgar N.

Gregg
- Replace existing old garage with a new
retaining wall. New wall to be constructed on
neighboring property
1/9/1957 53944 Edgar N.

Gregg
(C) Causey & Causey - Permit for the construction of the cabana, carport, and dressing room
1/9/1957 59345 Edgar N.

Gregg
(C) Causey & Causey - 1315 Central: Concrete foundation, wood framing, stucco
2/7/1957 53861 Edgar N.

Gregg
(C) Causey & Causey - Permit for temporary billboard sign announcing the new complex to be
constructed
8/15/1957 55423 Edgar N.

Gregg
(C) MacDonald
Brothers
- 20’ x 40’ swimming pool constructed in
cabana area
11/12/1957 Edgar N.

Occupancy and Ownership History
Ownership history for the subject property was compiled from documents at the Glendale City Planning Division and the Los Angeles County Assessor (Table 2). Tract information indicates that Edgar N. Gregg subdivided the subject parcel in 1953. The property was originally owned and developed by Edgar N. Gregg, Gill B. Causey, and Joseph G. Causey. Limited information was found on Edgar N. Gregg, who appeared to be part owner of a development firm, also owned with his brother, J. Lee Gregg, in the Glendale area, since 1934. Their grandfather, father, and later, J. Lee Gregg’s son were also in the contracting and real estate development business.4 According to a newspaper article Edgar N. Gregg left the family business in 1956, just three years

3 Documentation exists for all permits and certificates of occupancy listed in this table. 4 Howard, Los Angeles Times, 1999.

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 19 of 33 ends

after subdividing the subject parcel, a year prior to the completion of the Glendale Garden Homes design drawings.

Gill B. Causey owned the property by 1967. Causey and his brother, Joseph G. Causey, had served as the builders of Glendale Garden Homes about 10 years prior. Limited information was found about Gill B. Causey, however, his brother Joseph G. Causey was considered to be a successful businessman in Glendale by 1957.5 Joseph G. Causey owned contracting firm Causey & Causey, the original contractors of the subject property, and was president of the Verdugo Development Corporation. He was considered to specialize in “income property construction and sales.”6 Joseph G. Causey took ownership of the property 20 years later, in 1987.

Professions of the earliest tenants included personnel managers, veterans, bus drivers, and a landscape gardener. One of the longest tenants was Philip E. Zeiss, a dentist, who lived at the

5 Carroll W. Parcher, Glendale Community Book (Glendale: John W. Akers, 1957), 584. 6 Ibid.

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 20 of 33 ends

complex from 1958 through at least 1977, when the available Glendale City Directories end.

Advertisements indicate that this was an adult-only community through the 1960s.

TABLE 3
OCCUPANCY HISTORY OF 1303-1315 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE7
Source Occupant
1958 Glendale City Directory 1303 N. Central
A – Vacant
B – John H. Verling
C – (none listed)
D - Harmon Baldwin
E – Chas E. Weaver
F – William Goss
G – Harley P. Easley
H – Richard O. Bullis
I – Boyd D. Henry
J – Philip E. Zeiss
K- Lewis I. Reed
L – W. G. Onderdonk

7 Note: tenants in bold resided at the subject property for multiple years.

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 21 of 33 ends

Source Occupant
1960 Glendale City Directory 1303 N. Central
A- Herald H. Beck
B- Mark G. McMahon
C- John H. Verling
D- Harmon W. Baldwin
E- Arthur H. Schneer
F- William J. Goss
G- Harley P. Easley
H- Richard O. Bullis
I- Boyd D. Henry
J- Philip E. Zeiss
K- Lewis I. Reed
L- Clare C. Conzett
M-Sam Spaulding

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 22 of 33 ends

Source Occupant
1967 Glendale City Directory 1303 N. Central
A- Russell T. Burnham
B- Mrs. Blanche C. Albert
C- No listing
D- Perry E. Wright
E- Mrs.Frances Scheer
F- Vacant
G- Harley P. Easley
H- Herman A. Enemark
I- Thomas E. Durant
J- Philip E. Zeiss
K- Ewald B. Rasmussen
L- Michael Nugent, A business consultant
M- J. E. Hoeft
1968 Glendale City Directory 1303 N. Central
A- Russell T. Burnham
B- Mrs. Blanche C. Albert
C- Edith A. Nicklos
D- Perry E. Wright
E- Mrs. Frances Scheer
F- Alvin W. Ray
G- Harley P Easley
H- Lloyd R. Nicholson
I- Thomas E. Durant
J- Philip E. Zeiss
K- Edwald B. Rasmussen
L- Michael A. Nugent, A business
consultant
M- J. E. Hoeft

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 23 of 33 ends

Source Occupant
1969 Glendale City Directory 1303 N. Central
A- Edith A. Ward
B- Mrs. Albert C. Blanche
C- Edith A. Nicklos
D- William D. Wessly
E- Michael Nugent, A business consultant
F- Reginald E. Spicer
G- Harley P Easley
H- Lloyd R. Nicholson
I- Thomas E. Durant
J- Philip E. Zeiss
K- Ewald B. Rasmussen
L- Saml B. Lapin
M- Vacant

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 24 of 33 ends

Source Occupant
1970 Glendale City Directory 1301 N. Central
A - Mrs. Ruth W. Ward
B- Albert W. Nevin
C- Edith A. Nicklos
D – No return
E – Michael Nugent
F - Reginald E. Spicer
G – Harley P. Easley
H – Lloyd R. Nicholson
I – Thomas E. Durant
J - Philip E. Zeiss
K – Ewald B. Rasmussen
L – Burt S. Turney
M – Mrs. Margaret Maher
1977 Glendale City Directory 1301 N. Central
A – Mrs. Ruth W. Ward
B – Mrs. Ruth L. Green
C - Kermit W. Kuhns
D - J. M. Caldwell
F – Reginald E. Spicer
G – Carl C. Monroe
H – H. V. Hedges
I – Thomas E. Durant
J – Philip E. Zeiss
K – Wally E. Rasmussen
L – William H. Donnelly
M – Frederick C Young

*D6. Significance (continued):

The historic contexts included below present the background necessary to evaluate the historical and architectural significance of the subject property, including the history of its construction and alterations, as well as the surrounding neighborhood’s development. The subject property sits outside of the boundaries of both South Glendale and North Glendale, two areas which have established historic context statements. While the property sits within the pending West Glendale Historic Context Statement area, the “City of Glendale: South Glendale Historic Context Statement” includes pertinent information related to multi-family residential developments in the Glendale region. Similarly, as the property does not fall within the City of Los Angeles proper, it is still within Los Angeles County, and for that reason the “Garden Apartments of Los Angeles:

Historic Context Statement” will be reviewed for contextual purposes. In this, ESA identified the following historical and architectural themes from the “City of Glendale: South Glendale Historic Context Statement” (2014) and the “Garden Apartments of Los Angeles: Historic Context Statement” (2012): Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development (1945-1979), Community Planning and Development: Garden City Planning Principles (1937-1955), and Designed Landscapes (1937-1955). An additional context gleaned from Glendale’s “Design State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 25 of 33 ends

Guidelines for Residential Buildings in Adopted Historic Districts,” included a discussion of Glendale’s Residential Character: Multi-Family Residences and Multi-Family Modern Buildings.

The preliminary period of significance associated with garden apartments in Los Angeles County spans from 1937 to 1955, which predates the construction of the subject property.

Glendale
Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development, 1945-19798 The end of World War II brought a wave of migration to Southern California for its booming local economy and pleasant climate, and demand for housing skyrocketed. Many people used this as an opportunity to engage in speculative real estate. Glendale was no exception. South Glendale’s lack of height restrictions, zoning that permitted intermingling of single-family and multi-family residential buildings, and a business community largely based on banking and financial services created the perfect opportunity for apartment developers.

Contributing to what would become a multi-family residential development boom in Glendale was a national climate of economic incentives that encouraged the construction of multi-family housing. In describing the “apartment boom” of the 1950s and early 1960s, Babcock and Bosselman write, “In the present economic and legal climate, incentives are available not only to the landowner, but to the developer, the investor and the lender.” Between 1941 and 1950, the federal government created “Section 608” which “provided Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance for as much as 90% of mortgages on rental housing projects.”211 The FHA began to provide mortgage insurance for apartment buildings having elevators in the late 1940s. By the 1950s apartment buildings were equipped with improved mechanical systems, elevators, up-to-date appliances, central air conditioning, outdoor balconies, and newly available prefabricated components such as steel-framed windows and sliding glass doors. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 “permitted owners to charge off high percentages of the original cost of new building during the early years of the building’s life,” thereby encouraging new construction. In the early 1960s the federal government eased existing restrictions limiting investment in multi-family housing lending by Savings and Loans.

During the first seven months of 1957, Glendale ranked sixth among Southern California cities in terms of the number of apartment units being built.

8 Historic Resources Group, “City of Glendale: South Glendale Historic Context Statement,” City of Glendale, ed. 2018, 99-100.

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 26 of 33 ends

standardization of building types with a maximum of three stories in height, and an emphasis on landscaping and open space.

Characteristics of garden apartments include the use of superblocks in development of the site, the segregation of automobile and pedestrian traffic, low to medium density and building coverage, the standardization of building types with a maximum of three stories in height, and an emphasis on landscaping and open space.

Architecture & Design
Los Angeles Garden Apartments (1937-1955)9
Planned and constructed in Los Angeles between 1937 and approximately 1955, garden apartment complexes generally consist of concentrations of similar multi-unit buildings situated on a large – and often irregularly shaped – property. Complexes range in size from just a few acres to more than a hundred. Though some of Los Angeles’s preeminent architects designed garden apartments at mid-century, the buildings themselves are typically (and deliberately) architecturally modest. Emphasis is placed, rather, on site plan and landscape; the designers relied on color, texture, planting plan, light and shadow to create visual interest. Building entrances face landscaped courtyards rather than the street, and parking and vehicular circulation is relegated to the perimeter of the site plan or within garage courts separate from pedestrian areas. Large, expansive green space is common; typically there are one or two large courtyards or greens at the nucleus of the complexes available to all residents. Garden apartments vary in appearance, size and plan; however, the following character defining features epitomize the property type in its purest expression:
 Superblock site plan, which deviates from the rectilinear urba n grid by combining multiple city blocks or parcels into a single property
 Three acres in si ze or greater
 Low-slung buildings, rarely exceeding two stories in height  Elimination of common interior corridors
 Repetition of nearly identical building models throughout the plan  Stylistic simplicity; buildings are usually minimal in appeara nce with a lack of stylistic details and ornament

9 Architectural Resources Group, “Garden Apartments of Los Angeles: Historic Context Statement,” Los Angeles Conservancy, 2012, 3-4.

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 27 of 33 ends

 Primary building entrances fac e common courtyards rather than the street  Parking at the perimeter of the site plan, typically in detached, enclosed garage buildings or garage courts
 One or more large open spaces, o r greens, located at the interior of the site plan, around which buildings are arranged
 Recreational amenities planned to help foster community  Variety of landscape, often native or drought tolerant; low sh rubs used to delineate outdoor “rooms”; allées; mature trees and the use of climbing vines to add visual interest to buildings Community Planning and Development: Garden City Planning Principles, 1937-195510 The success of the Depression and World War II-era garden apartment developments spurred the construction of similar complexes on a large scale in the post-World War II era, as the housing shortage became more and more acutely felt in Los Angeles. In the late 1940s, the FHA renewed Title 608, which guaranteed developers 90% mortgages on multi-family housing which conformed to FHA guidelines, which favored garden apartments. Title 608 was intended as a temporary solution to insure defense and immediate postwar multi-family housing to ease the housing crisis caused by returning veterans. This made possible the relatively easy financing of large-scale private rental housing, and in the late 1940s several developers took advantage of this temporary extension to build garden apartments. With rumors that funding would soon be cut off, there was a race to get these garden apartments approved before the funding ran out. The two-year period of 1949-1950 alone saw the construction of at least a dozen garden apartments throughout the city, nearly always in suburban areas adjacent to arteries of the city’s growing freeway system. Post-1945 examples are clearly based on the Garden City planning concepts that shaped the early garden apartments; however, due to the urgency of the postwar housing crisis they are typically higher density with more emphasis on unit count than open space. As such, whereas pre-1945 examples averaged 10 to 20 units per acre, most garden apartments constructed between 1945 and 1955 ranged between 20 to 30 units per acre.

Designed Landscapes, 1937-1955
After World War II, as privately funded garden apartments were built in great quantities throughout Los Angeles, the quality of the landscapes changed. Because density was generally higher, many of the developments didn’t provide recreational amenities, instead using that space for more dwellings. Less experienced landscape architects, or in some cases nurseries, provided the design for the landscapes, and the focus turned from functional spaces meant for active participation in the landscape to more traditional suburban landscapes meant to be enjoyed from apartment windows or from pathways. In addition, contrary to the previous focus on using native and drought-resistant plant species, tropical and sub-tropical plantings were used, catering to changing tastes in the post-war period.

10 Ibid., 40.

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 28 of 33 ends

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
1965, as identified in the City of Pasadena’s “Cultural Resources of the Recent Past Historic Context Report” prepared by Historic Resources Group and Pasadena Heritage in 2007.11 Serving as contractors and designers, it appears that Jack Norwood and Jack DeLonge, interior decorator, comprised this company. It is unclear whether Jack Norwood was a registered architect or contractor. The two were credited for the construction of many buildings in the Los Angeles area, including ranch-style homes, and mid-century apartment and commercial buildings where they often were listed as the contractors and developers. One such extant example of their work that is reflective of the design of the subject property at 1303 North Central Avenue are the apartments located at 1066 San Pasqual Avenue, Pasadena which were constructed in 1962 (Figure 3).12 Their relationship with contractors Causey & Causey for the construction on Glendale Garden Homes is unknown, but it is possible that Norwood and DeLonge designed the complex and worked on conjunction with Causey & Causey to develop the property.

Causey & Causey and Causey & Rhodes, Contractors
Contractors Causey & Causey were identified as the contractors for the subject property, Glendale Garden Homes, through newspaper advertisements placed at the time of construction. Causey & Causey was comprised of brothers Gill B. Causey and Joseph G. Causey, whose grandfather and father were successful builders and real estate developers.13 The firm of Causey & Rhodes, the predecessor firm to Causey & Causey, was comprised of Gill B. Causey and Frank Rhodes, Jr. Established in the mid-1940s, Causey and Rhodes continued to work together over the course of 55 years.14 It appears that Causey & Causey and Causey & Rhodes may have used their firm names interchangeably over the course of their partnerships. The following is a firm biography for Causey & Causey as prepared for a historic resource evaluation of another one of their buildings along North Central Avenue in Glendale:

The firm of Causey & Rhodes had a successful business operation developing, leasing and operating commercial buildings. Their projects and investments included development of the Crenshaw Medical Center in the 1950s, Glendale’s Garden Homes, a mid-century apartment complex and Glendale Fashion Center in the 1960s with partner Richard Daugherty. In the 1970s they developed medical office buildings in Newport Center in Orange County. They hired others to design buildings while they sometimes handled the construction contracting and subsequently managed the leasing of the buildings. Causey & Rhodes can be considered successful land developers with full professional careers but their careers and the buildings they developed are typical of the success of land developers during the period they were active. Their buildings did not influence the comm
ercial development patterns or the architectural style of commercial

11 Historic Resources Group, “Cultural Resources of the Recent Pa st Historic Context Report,” City of Pasadena, 2007. 12 “Advertisement: Pasadena’s Finest Cooperative Apartments,” Los Angeles Times, November 11, 1962. 13 Bob Howard, “Winning OK for Hillside Plan Is an Uphill Battle for Gregg,” Los Angeles Times, August 17, 1999. 14 “Obituary: Frank Alexander Rhodes, Jr.,” Los Angeles Times , August 17, 2009.

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 29 of 33 ends

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
development or influence the urban form of Glendale in the post-World War II commercial building boom of Glendale’s central business district.15

California Register of Historic Resources Evaluation
Criterion A/1: Events
Constructed in 1957, the subject building falls into an established pattern of development as a post-World War II multi-family apartment in nearby South Glendale as it appears that the 1950s-1960s was the height of apartment building in that particular neighborhood. However, this portion of unincorporated Los Angeles County became incorporated into Glendale by 1950. This general area appears to have had a single-family residence and open, undeveloped surrounding land prior to the construction of Glendale Garden Homes and its surrounding residential buildings.

Criterion B/2: Significant Persons
There are no owners or tenants that have been identified as significantly contributing to the history of national, state, regional, or city-wide history while residing at or during the construction of the subject property. J.E. Hoeft who later became the founder of the Glendale Federal Savings and Loan and early developer/owner Joseph G. Causey lived here for brief periods, but not during their active years. Civic leader Hoeft lived at the apartment building for two years from 1965 to 1968, roughly six years after the Glendale Federal Savings and Loan building was constructed downtown in 1959. City directories indicate that Hoeft resided at other locations for longer periods of time. Developer Causey resided here in the 1990s, likely in his senior years. Research did not uncover any additional significant tenants or owners associated with the subject property. Therefore, the subject property is recommended ineligible for listing under National Register Criterion B, California Register Criterion 2, nor Glendale Register Criterion 2.

15 David Kaplan, “540, 607, 633 North Central Avenue, 317-327 Wes t Doran Street Glendale, California: Historic Resource Evaluation,” Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 2013.

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 30 of 33 ends

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
Criterion C/3: Design/Construction
The Glendale Garden Home apartments are reflective of the later stylistic evolution of a garden apartment in Los Angeles County, with its higher emphasis on unit count than open space, more traditional suburban landscaping that included tropical plantings as opposed to native plants, and ample character defining features including: its architectural modesty, lack of ornamentation, location of building entrances oriented to face the courtyard, and parking and vehicular circulation along the perimeter of the site plan.

As noted in Glendale’s “Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings in Adopted Historic Districts,” there were many apartment buildings built during the post-World War II era. The subject property does not rise to a level of significance for listing on the National Register, California Register, or local Glendale Register as an exemplary individual example of a garden apartment. Further, more prominent, unique, and notable examples of garden apartments have been identified for their design innovation and nuance, and for their association with notable mid-century architects, designers, and landscape architects and designers.

Therefore, the subject property is recommended ineligible for listing under National Register Criterion C and California Register Criterion 3.

Criterion D/4: Data Potential
While most often applied to archaeological districts and sites, Criterion D/4 can also apply to buildings, structures, and objects that contain important information. In order for these types of properties to be eligible under Criterion D/4, they themselves must be, or must have been, the principal source of the important information. The subject property, at 1303 North Central Avenue, does not appear to yield significant information that would expand our current knowledge or theories of design, methods of construction, operation, or other information that is not already known about the period of significance of State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 31 of 33 ends

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
the Residence, its method of construction, or its design. Therefore, the subject property is recommended ineligible for listing under National Register Criterion D California Register Criterion 4, or Glendale Register Criterion 4.

Early Heritage
The proposed historic resource exemplifies the early heritage of the city. (Ord. 5784 § 7, 2012; Ord. 5347 § 7, 2003: Ord. 5110 § 12, 1996: prior code § 21-02).

The subject area was developed to the immediate south, yet largely undeveloped to the immediate north and east by 1950. As the subject area appeared to be more rural in character around the time of construction, it remained part of unincorporated Los Angeles County until sometime in the mid-20th century. While the Glendale was a town since the 1880s, and became incorporated in 1906, the subject property’s mid-20th century construction does not exemplify the early heritage of Glendale. As such, the subject property is not a proposed historic resources that exemplifies the early heritage of the city and is recommended ineligible for listing under this local criterion.

District
To be considered a district contributor, a geographically linked grouping of properties under either identified theme (Post-World War II Multi-Family Residential Development or garden apartments) must be present. The subject property is located to the west of North Central Avenue, to the south of West Kenneth Road, and to the north of West Stocker Street. Development in the immediate subject property area includes single-family homes from the mid-20th century to the west, several 21st century apartment buildings to the east, and a few mid-20th century apartments to the north and east, with commercial businesses to the south along North Central Avenue. The general residential character of the area remains, with and North Brand Boulevard continuing as a main artery of the neighborhood. As such, there does not appear to be a pattern of development related to post-World War II multi-family residences, or garden apartments in the immediate surrounding area that would warrant this area eligible as a potential historic district. As such, the subject property was not identified as a contributor to a potential district.

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 32 of 33 ends

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
ESA also conducted research on the subject property’s construction and occupancy history. ESA evaluated the subject property against the criteria for the National Register, California Register, and the Glendale Register. ESA found the subject property individually ineligible under the applicable federal, state, and local criteria for its historic and architectural associations, and as a contributor to a potential district.

As a result of the evaluation, the subject property is not considered a historical resource in accordance with CEQA. ESA also recommends that the subject property be assigned a California Historic Resource (CHR) Status Code of 6Z, noting it is ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NR), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register or CR), and local designation, through survey evaluation.
*B12. References (continued):
“Advertisement: Glendale Garden Homes.” Los Angeles Times, March 23, 1958. “Advertisement: Open Today, Sunday.” The Los Angeles Times, August 25, 1957. “Advertisement: Pasadena’s Finest Cooperative Apartments.” Los Angeles Times, November 11, 1962.

Ancestry.com. U.S. Census, California Voter Registration, California Death Index, City Directory, and Street Address Directory records.

Architectural Resources Group. “Design Guidelines for Residential Buildings in Adopted Historic Districts.” City of Glendale, N.D., 10.

Architectural Resources Group. “Garden Apartments of Los Angeles: Historic Context Statement.” Los Angeles Conservancy, 2012.

City of Glendale. “Glendale Register of Historic Resources,” 2015.

City of Glendale. General Plan, Historic Preservation Element. September 1997.

City of Glendale. Historic Preservation Ordinance. Internet Resource. http://qcode.us/codes/glendale/view.php?topic=15-15_20&frames=on Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 36 § 60.2.

Codified in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Section 4852©. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov EP Associates. Letter titled: “Supplemental Information Historic Assessment Glendale Garden Homes 1301, 1311, and 1315 North Central Avenue Glendale, California,” to Timothy Foy, Senior Planner, City of Glendale, April 26, 2005.

Glossary of National Register Terms.
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb16a/nrb16a_appendix_IV.htm. Accessed June 1, 2013.

State of California Natural Resources Agency P r i m a r y # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
T r i n o m i a l

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Glendale Garden Homes

Page 33 of 33 ends

DPR 523L (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013)
“Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms.” in National Register Bulletin 16, U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, 1977, Revised 1997.

Historic Resources Group. “City of Glendale: South Glendale Historic Context Statement.” City of Glendale, ed. 2018.
---------. “Cultural Resources of the Recent Past Historic Context Report.” City of Pasadena, 2007. ---------. “Draft South Glendale Historic Resources Survey.” Prepared for the City of Glendale, 2017.

Howard, Bob. “Winning OK for Hillside Plan Is an Uphill Battle for Gregg.” Los Angeles Times, August 17, 1999.

Kaplan, David. “540, 607, 633 North Central Avenue, 317-327 West Doran Street Glendale, California:

Historic Resource Evaluation.” Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 2013.

National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington DC: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1990, rev. 1991.

National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 16: Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, 1997.

Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. March 1995.

Office of State Historic Preservation. California Historic Resources Inventory, Survey Workbook (excerpts). Sacramento, CA: State of California, 1986.

Parcher, Carroll W. Glendale Community Book. Glendale: John W. Akers, 1957.

APPENDIX B
Traffic, Transportation and Parking Consultant
833 Americana Way
Suite 505
Glendale, CA 91210
Jano@jbatraffic .com
Ph: 818-694-2880
Fax: 818-888-4541

To: Pastor Casanova, T.E., Principal Traffic Engineer, City of Glendale From: Jano Baghdanian, P.E., T.E., JB & Associates
Date: March 15,2024
Subject: Metro Art Glendale Project, 1303-1315 North Central Avenue, Glendale, California

This is a revised Traffic Trip Generation Memo randum for the Metro Art Glendale Project (the "Project") located at 1303-1315 North Central Avenue, Glendale, California. This revised memorandum replaces the one previously approved by the City on October 5, 2023. The reason for the revision is to reflect the changes in the peak-hour and daily Project trip generation estimates due to the increase in Project size from 131 dwelling unit apartments to 149 units. In addition, the new Project will provide approximately 309 parking spaces instead of 266 in the proposed subterranean garage.

The Project location, access arrangements, and the demolition of the existing single and multi-family residential developments on the Project site are the same as previously proposed and shown in Exhibit- 1 - Site Plan. The Project is consistent with the City of Glendale zoning code.

Project Trip Generation Methodology
To estimate the morning, afternoon peak-hour and daily vehicular trips to be generated by the revised Project, trip generation rates from the Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) were used in this analysis.

The calculations of the estimated Project trips are shown in Table 1—Project Trip Generation .

As shown in Table 1,
the Project is estimated to generate 41 trips (10 inbound and 31 outbound) in the morning peak hour, 40 trips (24 inbound and 16 outbound) in the afternoon peak hour, and 427 trips on a typical weekday.

Conclusion
Based on the above trip generation analysis, the net ch ange in trips generated by the proposed project is less than 50 trips in both the morning and the afternoon peak hours. Therefore, in accordance with the City of Glendale, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, dated October 30, 2020, Section 3—Local Transportation Analysis Requirements, “A local transportation analysis is required for projects generating at least 50 new-new peak hour vehicle trips………”, a lo cal transportation analysis will not be required.

In addition, a VMT Screening Analysis Memorandum will be prepared and submitted to Fred Zohrehvand for review and approval.

Rate Total In Out Rate Total In Out Rate Total
23% 77% 61% 39%
13 42 35 23
24% 76% 63% 37%
-3 -11 -11 -7
41 10 31 - 40 24 16 - 427
1 ITE "Trip Generation" Manual, 11th Edition, 2021
Table 1
1315 Central Avenue, Glendale, CA
Metro Art Glendale
Project Trip Generation1
Land Use (ITE Code) Size Units AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips New Project Land Use Added
Multifamily Housing-Mid Rise (221) 149 d.u. 0.37 55 0.39 58 4.54 676 Existing Land Use Removed
Multifamily Housing-Low Rise (220) 37 d.u.

Net Trip Generation

0.40 0.51 -18 6.74 -249-14
Exhibit 1 - Site Plan

NEW PROPERTY LINE

OLD PROPERTY LINE

APPENDIX C

NOISE STUDY

METRO ART GLENDALE PROJECT
1303 – 1315 North Central Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202

PREPARED FOR:

Central BWB, LLC
14140 Moorpark Street, #400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423

PREPARED BY:

Westlake Village Office
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, CA 91361

APRIL 2024

Metro Art Glendale Project i City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1 Project Description .................................................................................................... 2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 4 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 11 Regulatory Compliance Meaasures ................................................................................. 14 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................... 16 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 19 Certification ........................................................................................................... 24

Appendix
A Noise Monitoring Data Sheets
B Construction Noise Worksheet
C Construction Vibration Worksheet

Metro Art Glendale Project ii City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024
Figures
Figure Page
1 Project Site Location ........................................................................................ 3 2 Noise Monitoring Location (Site 1) ......................................................................... 6 3 Noise Monitoring Location (Site 2) ......................................................................... 7 4 Noise Monitoring Location (Site 3) ......................................................................... 8 5 Noise Monitoring Location (Site 4) ......................................................................... 9 6 Sensitive Receptor Map .................................................................................... 10

Tables
Table Page
1 Ambient Noise Measurements .............................................................................. 4 2 Construction Equipment by Phase ........................................................................ 12 3 Construction Maximum Noise Estimates ................................................................. 20 4 On-Site Construction Vibration Impacts .................................................................. 22

Metro Art Glendale Project 1 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this noise analysis is to provide an assessment of the impacts resulting from the Metro Art Glendale Project (Project) and to identify any measures that may be necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts.

On-Site Construction Noise
Construction noise levels would be reduced via Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs), which are existing requirements and reasonably anticipated standard conditions based on local, State, or federal regulations and laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review and serve to offset or prevent specific impacts. RCMs are not included as mitigation measures in the environmental clearance document because the Project is required to comply with RCMs through State and local regulations.

Construction noise sources are regulated by Section 8.36.080 of the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) prohibits construction between the hours of 7:00 PM on one day to 7:00 AM of the next day or from 7:00 PM on Saturday to 7:00 AM on Monday or from 7:00 PM preceding a holiday to 7:00 AM. Modeled construction noise levels with RCMs would reduce noise levels to within acceptable limits. Noise reduction measures include but are not limited to optimal muffler systems, dampening materials, sound aprons and limiting simultaneous operations.

Off- Site Construction Noise
Construction of the Project would require worker, haul, and vendor truck trips to and from the site to work on the site, export soil, and deliver supplies to the site. Trucks traveling to and from the Project site would be required to travel along a haul route approved by the City. At the maximum, approximately 144 hauling trips per day would take place during the grading phase. Haul truck traffic would take the most direct route to the freeway ramp along Central Avenue. The noise level increases from truck trips would be below the significance threshold of 5 dBA above ambient. As such, off-site construction noise impacts would not be considered significant.

Operational Noise
All Project mechanical equipment would be required to be designed with appropriate noise- control devices—such as sound attenuators, acoustics louvers, or sound screens/parapet walls— to comply with noise-limitation requirements provided in the GMC.

Construction Vibration
Compliant with State regulation s, construction activities would incl ude best practices which includes techniques to reduce friction, thus making the penetration for a large range of soils to be less vibration intensive. The forecasted vibration levels due to on- site construction activities would not exceed the vibration perception threshold of 0.01 in/sec over the range of one to one hundred Hertz (Hz).

Metro Art Glendale Project 2 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site is located at 1303 – 1315 North Central Avenue in the City of Glendale, as shown in Figure 1: Project Site Location. The 86,025 square foot (1.97 acre) irregularly shaped double- fronting lot that fronts North Central Avenue for a length of 286 feet, and Viola Avenue for 75 feet at the end of the cul-de-sac. The site is currently developed with an apartment complex consisting of three two-story apartment buildings including 37 units and associated parking garages. The Project site is bounded to the east by North Central venue, to the south by a apartment building, and to the west by a residence along Parkwood Drive, and a commercial building along Viola Avenue.

The proposed development includes removal of the existing apartment complex for a new multi -family residential building consisting of 25 one -bedroom units, 80 two- bedroom units and 44 three- bedroom units for a total of approximately 149 units. Of those units, 14 units are proposed as City of Glendale low income inclusionary and state very low income pursuant to SB 1818 and AB 12345 and 5 units are proposed as moderate income pursuant to AB 1287. The subterranean parking garage would include 310 stalls with 211 accessible spaces.

Project Site Location
FIGURE 1
395-001-23
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2023

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
2001000 400
N
Legend:

Project Site

Metro Art Glendale Project 4 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024

EXISTING CONDITIONS
According to the City’s General Plan Noise Element, the main source of noise in the City is motor vehicle traffic. Other sources of noise in the City can be of concern include railroad, industrial, commercial, loud car stereos, loud car mufflers, individual buses, lawnmowers and leaf blowers, loud parties, and automotive facilities.

Ambient Noise Levels
Short-term sound monitoring was conducted at f our (4) locations to measure the ambient sound environment in the Project vicinity. Measurements were taken over 15-minute intervals at each location during the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) periods and provided in Table 1: Ambient Noise Measurements. Figures 2-6: Noise Monitoring Locations depicts locations where ambient noise measurements were conducted. As shown in Table 2, ambient noise levels during the morning period ranged from a low of 48.9 dBA (Leq-15minute) west of the Project site along Parkwood Drive (Site 3) to a high of 67.7 dBA (Leq-15minute) northeast of the Project site at the corner of N. Central Avenue and W. Mountain Road (Site 4). Additionally, ambient noise levels during the afternoon period ranged from a low of 52.5 dBA (Leq-15minute) west of the Project site along Parkwood Drive (Site 3) to a high of 64.1 dBA (Leq-15minute) at the Project site on the intersection of N. Central Avenue and W. Randolph Street (Site 1).

TABLE 1

AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS
Location Number/Description Nearest Use Noise Source Time Period dBA
Leq-15-
minute
1 At the project site on the
intersection of N. Central
Avenue and W. Randolph
Street
Multi-family residential Vehicle and
pedestrian traffic
along N. Central
Avenue
8:16 AM–8:31 AM 61.0
2:10 PM – 2:25 PM 64.1
2 Southwest of the Project
site along Viola Avenue
Multi-family residential Vehicle traffic
along Viola
Avenue
9:05 AM–9:20 AM 52.5
2:47 PM – 3:02 PM 56.8
3 West of the Project site
along Parkwood Drive
Single-family residential Vehicle traffic
along Parkwood
Drive
9:26 AM–9:41 AM 48.9
3:05 PM – 3:20 PM 52.5
4 Northeast of the Project
site at the corner of N.

Central Avenue and W.

Mountain Road
Multi-family residential Vehicle traffic
along W.

Mountain Street
8:43 AM–8:58 AM 67.7
2:28 PM – 2:43 PM 63.1
Source: Refer to Appendix A for noise monitoring data sheets.

Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = average equivalent sound level.

Metro Art Glendale Project 5 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024
Sensitive Uses
The Project site is predominantly surrounding by single and multi-family residential uses. An overview of the surrounding land uses relative to the noise monitoring location in Table 1 above is provided below.

Additionally, refer to Figure 6: Sensitive Receptor Map for location of the sensitive uses described below:
• Noise Monitoring Site 1: Located at the Project site at the corner of N. Central Avenue and W.

Randolph Street, sensitive uses include the multi-family residential uses to the north and south of N. Central Avenue (refer to REC-A, REC-B and REC-F in Figure 7). • Noise Monitoring Site 2 : L ocated at the cul-de-sac of Viola Avenue, sensitive uses include the multi-family residential uses along Viola Avenue (refer to REC-C in Figure 7). • Noise Monitoring Site 3 : L ocated to the west of the Project, sensitive uses include the single - family residential along Parkwood Drive (refer to REC-D in Figure 7). • Noise Monitoring Site 4: L ocated to the northeast of the Project site at the corner of N. Central Avenue and W. Mountain Street, sensitive uses include the multi-family residential along both N.

Central Avenue and W. Mountain Street (refer to REC-E in Figure 7).

Vibration Conditions
Based on field observations, the primary source of existing ground- borne vibration in the vicinity of the Project site is vehicle traffic on local roadways. According to the Federal Transit Administration,1 typical road traffic–induced vibration levels are unlikely to be perceptible by people. Trucks and buses typically generate ground-borne vibration velocity levels of approximately 63 VdB (at a 50- foot distance), and these levels could reach 72 VdB when trucks and buses pass over bumps in the road. A vibration level of 72 VdB is above the 60 VdB level of perceptibility.

1 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA report no. 0123 (September 2018), https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact- assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed August 2023.

Noise Monitoring Location (Site 1)
FIGURE 2
395-001-23
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2023
North
South
West
East
N Project Site
Noise Monitoring Location (Site 2)
FIGURE 3
395-001-23
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2023
North
South
West
East
N Project Site
Noise Monitoring Location (Site 3)
FIGURE 4
395-001-23
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2023
North
South
West
East
N Project Site
Noise Monitoring Location (Site 4)
FIGURE 5
395-001-23
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2023
North
South
West
East
N Project Site
Sensitive Receptor Map
FIGURE 6
395-001-23
SOURCE: City of Glendale Zoning Map - Sept 2018

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
5002500 1000
N
Legend:

Project Site
Receptor Sites
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Services

REC-EREC-B
REC-F
REC-D
REC-C
REC-A

Metro Art Glendale Project 11 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024

METHODOLOGY
Ambient Noise Measurements
Noise measurements were collected pursuant to Section 8.36.030 of the City’s Municipal Code related to decibel measurement criteria and the American National Standards Institute standard for general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. Random i ncidence microphones with windscreens were used, given the outdoor (i.e., free field) conditions of monitoring. The sound level averages were measured as A -weighted, slow -time-weighted (1 -minute period) sound pressure level variables, commonly used for measuring environmental sounds. Sound levels presented in this report are in terms of dBA. Adhering to Section 8.36.030(d), ambient noise measurements were taken over a period of at least five minutes during the morning and afternoon periods.

Construction
Future dates represent approximations based on the general Project timeline and are subject to change pending unpredictable circumstances that may arise. Construction would occur over the following phases: (1) demolition; (2) grading, (3) building construction, (4) paving, and (5) architectural coating.

Each phase of construction would result in varying levels of intensity and a number of construction personnel. The construction workforce would consist of approximately 13 worker trips per day and approximately 48 hauling trips per day during demolition; approximately 10 worker trips per day and approximately 1 44 hauling trips per day during grading; approximately 155 worker trips per day and approximately 35 vendor trips per day during building construction; approximately 13 worker trips per day during paving; and approximately 31 worker trips per day during architectural coating.

On- Site Construction Equipment
Construction activities typically generate noise from the operation of equipment within the Project Site that is required for the construction of various facilities. Noise impacts from on -site construction equipment as well as the on-site staging of construction trucks were evaluated by determining the noise levels generated by different types of construction activity and calculating the construction-related noise level at nearby noise-sensitive receptor locations. Actual construction noise levels would vary, depending upon the equipment type, model, the type of work activity being performed, and the condition of the equipment.

In order to calculate construction noise levels, hourly activity or utilization factors (i.e., the percentage of normal construction activity that would occur, or construction equipment that would be active, during each hour of the day) are estimated based on the temporal characteristics of other previous and current construction projects. The hourly activity factors express the percentage of time that construction

Metro Art Glendale Project 12 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024
activities would emit average noise levels. Typical noise levels for each type of construction equipment were obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model.2 An inventory of construction equipment, including the number and types of equipment, which would be operating simultaneously within the Project Site was identified for each phase/component of construction and shown in Table 2: Construction Equipment by Phase. It is highly unlikely that all pieces of construction equipment identified in Table 2 would operate simultaneously in any specific location during construction because equipment is generally operated only when needed and space constraints limit the equipment that can be used at any one time in a specific location. Therefore, this modeling is considered a conservative approach to calculate the maximum noise levels that would be generated.

TABLE 2

CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT BY PHASE

Construction
Phase Equipment Type Quantity
Usage
Hours
(per day)
Noise Level at
25 feet (dBA
Leq-1hour)
Calculated Average
Noise Level (dBA
Leq-1hour)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 88.6

93.4 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1 83.7
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 90.8
Grading
Graders 1 8 87.0

91.9 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 83.7
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 89.1
Building
Construction
Cranes 1 6 78.6

91.6 Forklifts 1 6 88.0
Generator Sets 1 8 83.6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6 86.0
Welders 3 8 80.8
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6 80.8

89.1 Pavers 1 6 80.2
Paving Equipment 1 8 80.8
Rollers 1 7 79.0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7 86.0
Architectural
Coating Air Compressors 1 6 79.7 79.7
Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) version 1.1 Refer to Appendix B for construction noise worksheets.

2 U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model Final Report , January 2006, accessed August 2023, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf

Metro Art Glendale Project 13 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024
The calculated average noise levels provided in Table 2 were inputted into the noise model SoundPLAN,3 which generates computer simulations of noise propagation from sources such as construction noise.

SoundPLAN forecasts noise levels at specific receptors using sound power data and three- dimensional topographical data.

Construction noise levels have been calculated at each of the analyzed sensitive receptors as follows:
(1) construction noise levels generated during each of the three construction phases; and (2) construction noise levels during those periods when the three construction phases could po tentially occur concurrently.

Construction Traffic Noise
The analysis of off-site construction traffic noise impacts focuses on: (1) identifying major roadways that may be used for construction worker commute routes or truck haul routes; (2) identifying the nature and location of noise -sensitive receptors along those routes; and (3) evaluating the traffic characteristics along those routes, specifically as related to existing traffic volumes.

Construction Equipment Vibration
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. While ground vibrations from construction activities do not often reach the levels that can damage structures, fragile buildings must receive special consideration.

Impacts due to construction activities were evaluated by identifying vibration sources (i.e., construction equipment), measuring the distance between vibration sources and surrounding structure locations, and making a significance determination.

For quantitative construction vibration assessments related to building damage and human annoyance, vibration source levels for construction equipment are taken from the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
4 Building damage would be assessed for each piece of equipment individually and assessed in terms of peak particle velocity.

The vibration source levels for various types of equipment are based on data provided by the FTA.

3 SoundPLAN model is in compliance with ISO 9613-2 standards for assessing attenuation of sound propagating outdoors and general calculation method.
4 FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018, accessed August 2023 , https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact- assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf

Metro Art Glendale Project 14 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024

REGULATORY COMPLIANCE MEASURES
Noise levels generated by on- site construction equipment can be reduced via Regulatory Compliance Measures (RCMs), which are existing requirements and reasonably anticipated standard conditions based on local, State, or federal regulations and laws that ar e frequently required independently of CEQA review and serve to offset or prevent specific impacts. RCMs are not included as mitigation measures in the environmental clearance document because the Project is required to comply with RCMs through State and local regulations.

RCMs are specific noise control measures which include the following : (1) muffler requirements; (2) equipment modifications that reduce noise levels ; and (3) maintenance and operational requirements.

These noise control measures can be used separately or in combination in order to reduce the noise levels generated by on-site construction equipment.

Most on-site construction-related noise originates from equipment powered by either gasoline or diesel engines. A large part of the noise emitted is due to the intake and exhaust portions of the engine cycle.

Reducing noise from this source can be achieved via muffler systems. This noise control strategy would include the replacement of worn mufflers and retrofitting on-site construction equipment where mufflers are not in use. Using muffler systems on on-site construction equipment reduces construction noise levels by 10 dBA or more.
5 Another effective method of diminishing noise levels associated with individual pieces of construction equipment is by modifying the equipment. Modifications such as the dampening of metal surfaces is effective in reducing on-site construction equipment noise levels. These modifications are typically done by the manufacturer or with factory assistance. Noise reductions of up to 5 dBA are achieved using dampening materials.6
Additionally, faulty or damaged mufflers, loose engine parts, rattling screws, bolts, or metal plates all contribute to increasing the noise level of on -site construction equipment. Regularly inspecting on-site construction equipment for these conditions and making adjustments to the equipment as necessary can also reduce noise levels generated by on-site construction equipment.

5 FHWA, Special Report —Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation , updated June 2017, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn04.cfm, Accessed March 2022. 6 FHWA, Special Report —Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation , updated June 2017, accessed March 2022, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn04.cfm.

Metro Art Glendale Project 15 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024
RCM-1 Adherence to Existing Noise Standards
The Proposed Project shall comply with the City of Glendale General Plan Noise Element, the City of Glendale Noise Ordinance, and any subsequent ordinances that prohibit the emission or creation of noise beyond certain levels at adjacent uses.

To implement RCM -1 and reduce construction noise, the Contractor would be required to implement reduction measures, which may include but are not limited to:
• Schedule construction activities to avoid operating similar pieces of equipment simultaneously, to achieve a minimum noise reduction of 1.5 dBA. • Retrofit mobile equipment with optimal muffler systems capable of reducing construction noise levels by 10 dBA or more.
• Dampen mobile equipment capable of reducing construction noise levels by a minimum of 5 dBA.
• Enclose stationary equipment with shields such as sound skins that are capable of achieving reduction of 20 dBA at high frequencies and 10 dBA in the middle frequency range or sound aprons capable of achieve noise reductions of up to 10 dBA. • Locate all construction areas for staging and warming up as far as possible from adjacent residential buildings and sensitive receivers.

RCM-2 Construction Hours
The Proposed Project shall comply with Section 8.36.080 of the GMC , which prohibits construction between the hours of 7:00 PM on one day to 7:00 AM of the next day or from 7:00 PM on Saturday to 7:00 AM on Monday or from 7:00 PM preceding a holiday to 7:00 AM.

Metro Art Glendale Project 16 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a potentially significant impact related to noise and groundborne vibration if it would result in:
• Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
• Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines also includes:
• For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise?
The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not located within two miles of public airport or public use airport, nor is it within the vicinity of private airstrips. As such, the Project would result in no impacts to this screening criteria and no further analyses of this topic is necessary.

Construction Noise
The City’s General Plan and Municipal Code do not establish numeric acceptable source noise levels or noise level increases at potentially affected receivers. Section 8.36.080 of the City’s Municipal Code regulates construction noise and specifies restrictions from work occurring within certain time periods and specifies dBA limits. Goal 4 of the City’s General Plan establishes policies and programs to change the permitted hours of construction to address concerns expressed by residents about disturbing noise from construction activities on the weekends. To evaluate whether the Project will generate a substantial periodic increase in short -term noise levels at off -site sensitive receiver locations, a construction-related noise level threshold is adopted from the Criteria for Recommended Standard:

Occupational Noise Exposure prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). A division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The construction-related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than eight hours per day, and for every 3 dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half. This results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than four hours per day, 92 dBA for more than one hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. For the purposes of this analysis, the lowest, more conservative construction noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used as an acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. Since this construction -related noise level threshold represents the energy average of the noise source over a given time period, they are expressed as Leq noise levels. Therefore, the noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq over a period of eight hours or more is used to evaluate the potential Project-related construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations.

Metro Art Glendale Project 17 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024
Additionally, with regard to increases above ambient noise levels, The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual 7 provides a general noise assessment guideline to assess potential noise impacts during construction. According to the FTA, a 10 dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately doubling in loudness and can cause adverse response. 8 As such, in addition the NIOSH
Criteria, an increase of 10 dBA or more above morning and afternoon ambient noise levels would be considered significant.

Operation al Noise
The City’s General Plan Noise Element is used to establish satisfactory noise levels of significance for land uses within the City. The exterior noise level criteria for normally acceptable multi -family residential uses range between 50 to 65 dBA CNEL and conditionally acceptable range between 60 to 70 dBA CNEL.9
There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or of the corresponding human reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment (ambient) to which one has adapted.

In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged. As such, the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project -generated increases in noise levels that take into account the ambient noise level. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average -daily noise level (i.e., CNEL). FICON identifies a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project -related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded.

According to the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance.

7 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual . September 2018. Accessed August 2023. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and- vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. 8 California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement. September 2013. Accessed August 2023 . https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf. 9 City of Glendale, Noise Element, Table 1: Noise/Land Use Compatibility Table , accessed August 2023, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/828/635231021922170000

Metro Art Glendale Project 18 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024
Ground borne Vibration
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Bu ildings founded on the soil near the construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results, ranging from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage at the highest levels.

Section 8.36.210 of the City’s Municipal Code prohibits vibration to exceed the perception threshold at or beyond the property boundary of the source or at 150 feet from the source if on a public space or public right of way. Additionally, the City defines vibration perception threshold as the minimal ground or structure borne vibration motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation of moving objects. The perception is presumed to be a motion velocity of 0.01 in/sec over the range of one to one hundred Hz.

Metro Art Glendale Project 19 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024

IMPACT ANALYSIS
Construction
On- Site Construction Noise
Noise from construction activities would be affected by the amount of construction equipment, the location of this equipment, the timing and duration of construction activities, and the relative distance to noise -sensitive receptors. Construction activities that would occur during the construction phases would generate both steady -state and episodic noise that would be heard both on and off the Project site. Each construction phase involves the use of different types of construction equipment and, therefore, has its own distinct noise characteristics. The Project would be constructed using typical construction techniques; no blasting or impact pile driving would be required.

The construction equipment reference noise levels provided in Table 2 above, are based on measured noise data compiled by the FHWA and would occur when equipment is operating under full power conditions. However, equipment used on construction sites typically operate at less than full power. The acoustical usage factor is the percentage of time that each type of construction equipment is anticipated to be in full power operation during a typical construction day. These values are estimates and will vary based on the actual construction process and schedule.

Construction equipment operates at its noisiest levels for certain percentages of time during operation.

As such , equipment would operate at different percentages over the course of an hour. 10 During a
construction day, the highest noise levels would be generated when multiple pieces of construction equipment are operated concurrently.

The estimated construction noise levels were calculated for each of the analyzed receptors (refer to Figure 7: Noise Sensitive Receptors) during each of the construction phases. As mentioned previously, given the physical size of the Project site and logistical limitations, and with the noise equipment located at the construction area nearest to the affected receptors to present a conservative impact analysis.

This is considered a worst-case evaluation because construction of the Project would typically use fewer pieces of equipment simultaneously at any given time as well as operating throughout the construction site (i.e., most of the time construction equipment would be operating at distances further away from

10 Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Noise Model (2006).

Metro Art Glendale Project 20 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024
the off-site receptors than that assumed in the forecasting of Project construction noise levels). As such, Project construction would often generate lower noise levels than reported herein.

Table 3: Maximum Noise Impacts Associated With On- Site Construction Activities presents the maximum noise impacts that are forecasted to occur at each of the receptor sites. As shown, average noise levels during construction would result in a maximum increase of 4.5 dBA (Leq-1hour) above the significance threshold of 85 dBA (Leq-1hour) at the adjacent multi-family residential use (REC-A) without implementation of construction best management practices.

TABLE 3

CONSTRUCTION MAXIMUM NOISE ESTIMATES
Location
Calculated Noise Level (Leq-1hour) by Construction Phase Exceeds 85 dBA Significance
Threshold? Demolition Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating REC-A 88.7 89.5 87.3 61.3 75.4 Yes
REC-B 86.6 86.2 83.8 58.4 72.1 Yes
REC-C 81.5 80.1 78.3 51.8 66.1 No
REC-D 84.4 83.8 81.5 68.3 69.3 No
REC-E 74.4 75.0 73.1 60.9 59.5 No
REC-F 82.0 82.5 78.8 70.2 66.9 No
Refer to Appendix B for Construction Noise Worksheets.

As mentioned previously, i n devising construction noise control strategies, important options include controlling the noise at the source. Source control requirements include added benefits in promoting technological advances in the development of quieter equipment. Source control techniques can include:
(1) muffler requirements , (2) maintenance and operational requirements , and (3) equipment emission level requirements. These control techniques can be used separately or in combination in order to achieve the desired results. Most control noise originates from equipment powered by either gasoline or diesel engines. A large part of the noise emitted is due to the intake and exhaust portions of the engine cycle. A remedy for controlling much of the engine noise is the specification and use of optimal muffler systems. RCM-NOISE-1 would lead to replacement of worn mufflers and to retrofitting where mufflers are not in use. Using optimal muffler systems on all equipment would reduce construction noise levels by 10 dBA or more.
11 Other effective methods of diminishing the noise impacts associated with individual pieces of construction equipment is to employ less noisy machinery. This is accomplished by specifying the quietest available equipment. Modifications such as dampening of metal surfaces or a redesign of a particular piece of equipment is effective in reduction noise due to vibration. These modifications are typically conducted by the manufacturer or with factory assistance. The reduction is controlled by the imposed limits on the technical capabilities of the manufacturer or the equipment user. Noise reductions of up to

11 FHWA, Special Report —Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation , updated June 2017, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn04.cfm. Accessed August 2023.

Metro Art Glendale Project 21 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024
5 dBA can be achieved using dampening materials.12 Additionally, shields such as sound skins may achieve reductions of 20 dBA at high frequencies and 10 dBA in the middle frequency range. Sound aprons may achieve noise reductions of up to 10 dBA. 13 Sound aprons are typically designed from absorptive mats and are draped on the frames attached to the equipment. This material can be constructed from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) layers, lead -filled fabric, or rubber. These aprons are most useful when equipm ent only needs partial shielding or has to be regularly moved.

Additionally, limiting the number of noise -generating, heavy-duty construction equipment to two (2) pieces operating simultaneously would reduce construction noise levels by approximately 5 dB A.

With Implementation of RMC-NOISE-1, construction noise levels resulting in a maximum increase of 4.5 dBA (Leq-1hour) above the significance threshold would be reduced by a minimum of 30 dBA (Leq-1hour).

Moreover, with implementation of RCM-NOISE-2, the Project would comply with Section 8.36.080 of the GMC by ensuring that the operation of construction equipment would only occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays and Saturday. Compliance with the above practices would ensure construction noise levels would be below the significance threshold; thus, construction noise levels would not be considered significant.

Off-Site Construction Noise
Construction of the Project would require worker, haul, and vendor truck trips to and from the site to work on the site, export soil, and deliver supplies to the site. Trucks traveling to and from the Project site would be required to travel along a haul route approved by the City. At the maximum, approximately 144 hauling trips per day would take place during the grading phase. Haul truck traffic would take the most direct route to the freeway ramp along Central Avenue.

Noise associated with construction truck trips were estimated using the Caltrans FHWA Traffic Noise Model based on the maximum number of worker and truck trips in a day. Project haul truck trips, which includes medium- and heavy-duty trucks, would generate noise levels of approximately 58.8 to 63.7 dBA, respectively, measured at a distance of 25 feet from the adjacent sensitive receptor. As shown in Table 1, existing noise levels along Central Avenue (refer to Site 1 and 4) ranged from 61.0 dBA to 67.7 dBA during the morning period and 64.1 dBA to 67.7 dBA during the afternoon period. The noise level increases from truck trips would be below the significance threshold of 5 dBA. As such, off-site construction noise impacts would not be considered significant.

12 FHWA, Special Report —Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation , updated June 2017, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn04.cfm. Accessed August 2023. 13 FHWA, Special Report —Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation , updated June 2017, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn04.cfm. Accessed August 2023.

Metro Art Glendale Project 22 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024
Construction Vibration
As mentioned previously , the Project site is predominantly surround ed by single and multi-family residential uses. As shown in Table 4: On-Site Construction Vibration Impacts, the forecasted vibration levels due to on -site construction activities would not exceed vibration perception threshold of 0.01 in/sec for at the adjacent residential uses. Additionally, compliant with State regulations, construction activities would incl ude best practices which includes techniques to reduce friction, thus making the penetration for a large range of soils to be less vibration intensive. Impacts related from on -site construction vibration would not be considered significant.

TABLE 4

ON-SITE CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS
Site
Nearest Off-Site
Building Structures
Estimated Vibration Velocity Levels at the Nearest
Off-Site Structures from the Project Construction
Equipment Exceeds
Significance
Threshold?

Loaded Trucks Small bulldozer
REC-A
Multi-family
residential adjacent
to the south

0.005 0.001 No
REC-B
Multi-family
residential adjacent
to the north

0.005 0.001 No
REC-C
Multi-family
residential adjacent
to the southwest

0.001 0.001 No
REC-D
Single family
residential adjacent
to the northwest

0.000 0.002 No
REC-E
Multi-family
residential to the
northeast

0.001 0.000 No
REC-F
Multi-family
residential to the
east

0.003 0.000 No
Source: US Department of Transportation, Federal Transportation Authority, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

Refer to Appendix C for construction vibration worksheets.

Metro Art Glendale Project 23 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024
Operation
Fixed Mechanical Equipment Noise
The Project would introduce various stationary noise sources, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, which would be located either on the roof, the side of a structure, or on the ground. All Project mechanical equipment would be required to be designed with appropriate noise- control devices—such as sound attenuators, acoustics louvers, or sound screens/parapet walls—to comply with noise compatibility requirements provided in the GMC.

The stationary equipment would be required to comply with GMC Section 30.34.070, which establishes low-sound intensities from mechanical equipment. Therefore, operation of mechanical equipment on the Project building would not exceed the City’s threshold o f significance and impacts would be less than significant.

Cumulative
For purposes of this analysis, development of the related projects will be considered to contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Noise , by definition, is a localized phenomenon and drastically reduces as distance from the source increases. As a result, only related projects and growth in the general area of the Project site (within 500 feet) would contribute to cumulative noise impacts. Cumulative construction- noise impacts have the potential to occur when multiple construction projects in the local area generate noise within the same time frame and contribute to the local ambient noise environment. It is expected that, as with the Project, related projects would implement noise reduction techniques such as mufflers, shields, sound barriers , which would minimize any noise -related nuisances during construction. In addition, distance attenuation and intervening structures would further reduce construction noise levels and not result in noticeable increases. Therefore, the combined construction -noise impacts of related projects within 500 feet and the Project’s contribution would not cause a significant cumulative impact.

With regard to stationary sources, cumulative significant noise impacts may result from cumulative development. Stationary sources of noise that could be introduced in the area by cumulative projects could include mechanical equipment, loading docks, and parking lots. Given that these projects would be required to adhere to the City ’s noise standards, all stationary sources would be required to have shielding or other noise-abatement measures so as not to cause a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. Moreover, due to distance, it is unlikely that noise from multiple cumulative projects would interact to create a significant combined noise impact. As such, it is not an ticipated that a significant cumulative increase in permanent ambient noise levels would occur.

Metro Art Glendale Project 24 City of Glendale
Noise Study April 2024

CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise study represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed Metro Art Glendale Project. The information contained in this noise study is based on the best available information at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (818) 415-7274.

Sincerely,

Christ Kirikian, INCE
Principal | Director of Air Quality & Acoustics
[email protected]

APPENDIX A
Noise Measurements
Appendix A.1
Short-term (15-minute) Noise Measurements
Monitoring Location: Site 1
Monitoring Date: 8/2/2023 Monitoring Date: 8/8/2023
Monitoring Period Monitoring Period
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
8:16:42 57.5 65.7 47.2 14:10:52 72.4 87.2 57.3
8:17:42 56.8 62.6 48.3 14:11:52 60.6 68.7 56.9
8:18:42 57.9 66.6 46.6 14:12:52 61.8 70.7 57.0
8:19:42 57.2 64.9 48.9 14:13:52 61.2 70.5 57.3
8:20:42 58.2 70.5 47.6 14:14:52 61.3 69.4 57.3
8:21:42 70.2 87.2 46.9 14:15:52 62.5 69.2 57.4
8:22:42 57.9 67.0 47.1 14:16:52 63.5 74.6 57.3
8:23:42 56.8 64.5 47.3 14:17:52 62.9 72.3 57.8
8:24:42 59.8 67.1 50.7 14:18:52 62.6 70.0 57.1
8:25:42 59.6 67.2 48.0 14:19:52 61.6 67.8 56.7
8:26:42 57.3 67.4 47.1 14:20:52 64.2 74.7 57.5
8:27:42 63.4 75.0 47.5 14:21:52 60.5 65.2 57.5
8:28:42 54.5 63.4 50.1 14:22:52 61.7 68.9 57.6
8:29:42 56.4 63.7 46.8 14:23:52 62.1 69.9 56.9
8:30:42 54.2 62.6 46.5 14:24:52 60.5 68.1 52.1
8:31:42 52.2 51.7 50.1 14:25:52 59.9 64.0 54.5

87.2 46.5 87.2 52.1
15-minute LAeq 61.0 15-minute LAeq 64.1
Monitoring Location: Site 2
Monitoring Date: 8/2/2023 Monitoring Date: 8/8/2023
Monitoring Period Monitoring Period
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
9:05:35 54.0 60.0 40.3 14:47:47 55.5 56.4 54.7
9:06:35 46.0 50.9 41.6 14:48:47 55.1 56.4 54.4
9:07:35 45.1 55.6 39.8 14:49:47 54.9 55.8 54.3
9:08:35 47.7 59.3 40.4 14:50:47 55.7 57.3 54.5
9:09:35 48.4 60.7 40.1 14:51:47 57.1 57.7 56.7
9:10:35 49.4 59.4 41.7 14:52:47 57.0 57.3 56.7
9:11:35 50.2 56.1 43.0 14:53:47 57.5 60.2 56.9
9:12:35 54.7 63.0 47.4 14:54:47 57.3 58.8 56.7
9:13:35 56.8 65.2 42.8 14:55:47 56.9 57.6 56.4
9:14:35 44.8 57.0 41.0 14:56:47 56.9 57.3 56.5
9:15:35 47.0 62.2 39.5 14:57:47 56.9 57.3 56.5
9:16:35 60.1 70.1 41.3 14:58:47 57.3 58.0 56.8
9:17:35 50.6 61.1 40.7 14:59:47 57.2 57.9 56.6
9:18:35 44.5 52.3 40.7 15:00:47 57.9 63.3 56.5
9:19:35 48.2 51.1 44.9 15:01:47 57.0 57.6 56.5
9:20:35 51.1 51.3 47.8 15:02:47 57.4 59.6 56.6

70.1 39.5 63.3 54.3
15-minute LAeq 52.5 15-minute LAeq 56.8
Monitoring Location: Site 3
Monitoring Date: 8/2/2023 Monitoring Date: 8/8/2023
Monitoring Period Monitoring Period
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
9:26:36 52.7 58.2 44.8 15:05:41 47.7 53.2 45.3
9:27:36 41.9 47.8 37.6 15:06:41 46.5 50.6 44.9
9:28:36 39.0 45.0 37.0 15:07:41 49.5 54.2 45.7
9:29:36 37.7 40.2 36.7 15:08:41 50.0 50.6 46.3
9:30:36 38.0 39.3 37.2 15:09:41 50.9 57.4 49.9
9:31:36 38.3 41.0 36.6 15:10:41 50.5 51.1 50.0
9:32:36 45.4 58.1 37.5 15:11:41 50.8 51.5 50.1
9:33:36 51.3 59.1 39.0 15:12:41 53.8 55.3 50.3
9:34:36 49.4 53.7 43.3 15:13:41 54.3 55.4 53.3
9:35:36 44.7 50.5 41.1 15:14:41 54.6 57.3 52.6
9:36:36 51.6 59.0 43.9 15:15:41 54.1 54.8 53.2
9:37:36 44.3 49.2 38.8 15:16:41 54.5 55.0 53.6
9:38:36 54.7 61.1 39.8 15:17:41 54.3 54.9 53.5
9:39:36 52.0 59.7 38.4 15:18:41 54.8 56.0 53.8
9:40:36 41.6 51.1 37.7 15:19:41 53.4 54.8 42.5
9:41:36 50.1 49.9 43.7 15:20:41 46.9 54.5 42.5

61.1 36.6 57.4 42.5
15-minute LAeq 48.9 15-minute LAeq 52.5
Monitoring Location: Site 4
Monitoring Date: 8/2/2023 Monitoring Date: 8/8/2023
Monitoring Period Monitoring Period
Time LAeq LASmax LASmin Time LAeq LASmax LASmin
8:43:19 58.0 64.8 55.5 14:28:06 61.8 70.0 51.2
8:44:19 61.0 70.4 55.2 14:29:06 60.2 67.8 48.8
8:45:19 75.4 87.8 56.7 14:30:06 62.3 72.1 53.5
8:46:19 70.7 79.1 57.3 14:31:06 67.2 79.3 54.9
8:47:19 62.9 69.5 59.0 14:32:06 64.0 75.0 53.1
8:48:19 71.0 78.8 59.6 14:33:06 60.9 69.6 52.4
8:49:19 71.4 86.7 58.5 14:34:06 61.1 68.8 54.2
8:50:19 61.1 69.8 47.1 14:35:06 59.8 66.2 52.1
8:51:19 60.1 67.5 48.0 14:36:06 67.2 77.0 54.2
8:52:19 61.5 69.7 49.8 14:37:06 64.3 76.8 55.0
8:53:19 60.8 68.9 47.9 14:38:06 61.5 70.0 53.7
8:54:19 64.4 75.6 52.4 14:39:06 61.1 69.5 53.5
8:55:19 61.4 70.0 51.0 14:40:06 61.6 66.9 55.4
8:56:19 61.2 69.6 51.3 14:41:06 63.9 71.0 54.4
8:57:19 57.9 67.2 50.3 14:42:06 58.3 68.6 52.9
8:58:19 56.8 61.7 52.3 14:43:06 54.7 64.1 48.3

87.8 47.1 79.3 48.3
15-minute LAeq 67.7 15-minute LAeq 63.1

APPENDIX B
Construction Noise Worksheets
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/2/2023
Case Description: Demolition
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
25 feet Residential 75 75 75
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 25 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 25 0
Tractor No 40 84 25 0
Tractor No 40 84 25 0
Tractor No 40 84 25 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 95.6 88.6
Dozer 87.7 83.7
Tractor 90 86
Tractor 90 86
Tractor 90 86
Total 95.6 93.4
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
1303 Central Avenue
Mean propagation Leq - Demolition
10 Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Receiver REC-A Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 88.7 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.0 1436.7 0.0 0.0 3 60.32 -46.6 -3.6 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.6 78.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.3 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.2 1498.7 0.0 0.0 3 76.79 -48.7 -3.9 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.6 75.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.9 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.1 1477.1 0.0 0.0 3 25.73 -39.2 -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.0 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 118.7 339.7 0.0 0.0 3 85.11 -49.6 -4.3 -0.5 -0.2 0.0 0.5 67.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 67.7 Receiver REC-B Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 86.6 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.0 1436.7 0.0 0.0 3 22.95 -38.2 -0.9 -3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.3 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.2 1498.7 0.0 0.0 3 51.46 -45.2 -3.8 -0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.2 78.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.4 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.1 1477.1 0.0 0.0 3 78.56 -48.9 -4.2 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 1.1 75.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.8 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 118.7 339.7 0.0 0.0 3 102.54 -51.2 -4.6 -0.8 -0.2 0.0 1.8 66.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.6 Receiver REC-C Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 81.5 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.0 1436.7 0.0 0.0 3 107.77 -51.6 -4.4 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.1 71.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.4 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.2 1498.7 0.0 0.0 3 77.10 -48.7 -3.8 -2.5 -0.1 0.0 0.1 73.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.1 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.1 1477.1 0.0 0.0 3 66.90 -47.5 -3.4 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.1 77.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.2 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 118.7 339.7 0.0 0.0 3 29.58 -40.4 -1.1 -2.8 -0.1 0.0 0.1 77.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.5 Receiver REC-D Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 84.4 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.0 1436.7 0.0 0.0 3 68.65 -47.7 -4.1 -0.7 -0.1 0.0 1.2 76.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.5 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.2 1498.7 0.0 0.0 3 28.57 -40.1 -0.9 -5.0 -0.1 0.0 0.8 82.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.8 SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 1
1303 Central Avenue
Mean propagation Leq - Demolition
10 Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.1 1477.1 0.0 0.0 3 64.70 -47.2 -3.6 -2.5 -0.1 0.0 1.0 75.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.6 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 118.7 339.7 0.0 0.0 3 39.70 -43.0 -2.8 -15.8 -0.1 0.0 1.4 61.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.5 Receiver REC-E Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 74.4 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.0 1436.7 0.0 0.0 3 85.36 -49.6 -3.9 -2.5 -0.2 0.0 0.1 71.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.9 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.2 1498.7 0.0 0.0 3 113.24 -52.1 -4.2 -9.4 -0.2 0.0 0.5 62.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.7 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.1 1477.1 0.0 0.0 3 133.08 -53.5 -4.4 -0.8 -0.2 0.0 0.6 69.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.8 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 118.7 339.7 0.0 0.0 3 163.76 -55.3 -4.6 -9.7 -0.3 0.0 4.3 56.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.1 Receiver REC-F Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 81.9 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.0 1436.7 0.0 0.0 3 69.35 -47.8 -3.4 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.1 76.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.8 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.2 1498.7 0.0 0.0 3 100.56 -51.0 -4.0 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.3 73.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.1 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 125.1 1477.1 0.0 0.0 3 56.15 -46.0 -2.7 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 79.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.3 Area Leq-8ho
ur 93.4 118.7 339.7 0.0 0.0 3 122.09 -52.7 -4.4 -0.2 -0.2 0.0 0.7 64.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.9 SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 2
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/2/2023
Case Description: Grading
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
25 feet Residential 75 75 75
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Grader No 40 85 25 0
Dozer No 40 81.7 25 0
Tractor No 40 84 25 0
Tractor No 40 84 25 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Grader 91 87
Dozer 87.7 83.7
Tractor 90 86
Tractor 90 86
Total 91 91.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
1303 Central Avenue
Mean propagation Leq - Grading
10 Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Receiver REC-A Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 89.5 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.9 130.1 6640.6 0.0 0.0 3 36.86 -42.3 -1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 89.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 89.5 Receiver REC-B Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 86.2 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.9 130.1 6640.6 0.0 0.0 3 38.30 -42.7 -1.7 -2.7 -0.1 0.0 0.1 86.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.2 Receiver REC-C Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 80.1 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.9 130.1 6640.6 0.0 0.0 3 75.42 -48.5 -3.7 -0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.1 80.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.1 Receiver REC-D Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 83.8 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.9 130.1 6640.6 0.0 0.0 3 44.79 -44.0 -1.9 -4.1 -0.1 0.0 0.9 83.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.8 Receiver REC-E Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 75.0 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.9 130.1 6640.6 0.0 0.0 3 107.03 -51.6 -4.2 -2.5 -0.2 0.0 0.4 75.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 Receiver REC-F Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 82.5 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.9 130.1 6640.6 0.0 0.0 3 66.16 -47.4 -3.2 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.1 82.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.5 SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 1
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/2/2023
Case Description: Building Construction
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
25 feet Residential 75 75 75
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Crane No 16 80.6 25 0
All Other Equipment > 5 HP No 50 85 25 0
Generator No 50 80.6 25 0
Tractor No 40 84 25 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 25 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 25 0
Welder / Torch No 40 74 25 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Crane 86.6 78.6
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 91 88
Generator 86.7 83.6
Tractor 90 86
Welder / Torch 80 76
Welder / Torch 80 76
Welder / Torch 80 76
Total 91 91.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
1303 Central Avenue
Mean propagation Leq - Building Construction
10 Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Receiver REC-A Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 87.3 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.6 124.4 1889.0 0.0 0.0 3 77.81 -48.8 -4.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.3 Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.6 124.5 1943.9 0.0 0.0 3 26.71 -39.5 -0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.1 Receiver REC-B Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 83.8 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.6 124.4 1889.0 0.0 0.0 3 26.77 -39.5 -1.2 -3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.3 Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.6 124.5 1943.9 0.0 0.0 3 78.91 -48.9 -4.3 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.9 Receiver REC-C Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 78.3 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.6 124.4 1889.0 0.0 0.0 3 90.76 -50.2 -4.1 -1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.7 Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.6 124.5 1943.9 0.0 0.0 3 60.91 -46.7 -3.3 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.3 Receiver REC-D Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 81.5 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.6 124.4 1889.0 0.0 0.0 3 36.24 -42.2 -1.6 -3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.3 Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.6 124.5 1943.9 0.0 0.0 3 60.49 -46.6 -3.6 -1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.3 Receiver REC-E Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 73.1 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.6 124.4 1889.0 0.0 0.0 3 92.97 -50.4 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.9 Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.6 124.5 1943.9 0.0 0.0 3 135.38 -53.6 -4.4 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.0 Receiver REC-F Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 78.8 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.6 124.4 1889.0 0.0 0.0 3 88.04 -49.9 -3.8 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.6 Area Leq-8ho
ur 91.6 124.5 1943.9 0.0 0.0 3 63.28 -47.0 -3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.2 SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 1
Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/2/2023
Case Description: Paving
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
25 feet Residential 75 75 75
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Mixer Truck No 40 78.8 25 0
Paver No 50 77.2 25 0
Roller No 20 80 25 0
Tractor No 40 84 25 0
Paver No 50 77.2 25 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Mixer Truck 84.8 80.8
Paver 83.2 80.2
Roller 86 79
Tractor 90 86
Paver 83.2 80.2
Total 90 89.1
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
1303 Central Avenue
Hourly contribution level in dB(A) - Paving 11
Ldn
dB(A)
Leq,d
dB(A)
Leq,e
dB(A)
Leq,n
dB(A)
Leq-8hour
dB(A)
0-1
o'clock
dB(A)
1-2
o'clock
dB(A)
2-3
o'clock
dB(A)
3-4
o'clock
dB(A)
4-5
o'clock
dB(A)
5-6
o'clock
dB(A)
6-7
o'clock
dB(A)
7-8
o'clock
dB(A)
8-9
o'clock
dB(A)
9-10
o'clock
dB(A)
10-11
o'clock
dB(A)
11-12
o'clock
dB(A)
12-13
o'clock
dB(A)
13-14
o'clock
dB(A)
14-15
o'clock
dB(A)
15-16
o'clock
dB(A)
16-17
o'clock
dB(A)
17-18
o'clock
dB(A)
18-19
o'clock
dB(A)
19-20
o'clock
dB(A)
20-21
o'clock
dB(A)
21-22
o'clock
dB(A)
22-23
o'clock
dB(A)
23-24
o'clock
dB(A)
Receiver REC-A Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 61.3 dB(A)

55.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8 58.8

54.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 Receiver REC-B Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 58.4 dB(A)

46.6 49.6 49.6 49.6 49.6 49.6 49.6 49.6 49.6 49.6 49.6 49.6 49.6 49.6 49.6

54.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 57.8 Receiver REC-C Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 51.8 dB(A)

33.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.4

48.6 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 51.7 Receiver REC-D Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 68.3 dB(A)

35.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2 38.2

65.3 68.3 68.3 68.3 68.3 68.3 68.3 68.3 68.3 68.3 68.3 68.3 68.3 68.3 68.3 Receiver REC-E Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 60.9 dB(A)

53.7 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8 56.8

55.8 58.9 58.9 58.9 58.9 58.9 58.9 58.9 58.9 58.9 58.9 58.9 58.9 58.9 58.9 Receiver REC-F Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 70.2 dB(A)

64.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8 67.8

63.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 66.4 SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consulting LLC 920 Hampshire Rd, Ste V Westlake Village, CA 91361 1 Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 8/2/2023
Case Description: Architectural Coating
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
25 feet Residential 75 75 75
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Compressor (air) No 40 77.7 25 0
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Compressor (air) 83.7 79.7
Total 83.7 79.7
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
1303 Central Avenue
Mean propagation Leq - Architectural Coating
10 Source type Time
slice
Li
dB(A)
R'w
dB
L'w
dB(A)
Lw
dB(A)
l or A
m,m²
KI
dB
KT
dB
DO
dB
S
m
Adiv
dB
Agr
dB
Abar
dB
Aatm
dB
Amisc
dB
ADI
dB
dLrefl
dB(A)
Ls
dB(A)
Cmet
dB
dLw
dB
ZR
dB
Lr
dB(A)
Receiver REC-A Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 75.4 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 79.7 112.5 1889.0 0.0 0.0 3 77.81 -48.8 -4.1 -0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.9 63.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.2 Area Leq-8ho
ur 79.7 112.6 1943.9 0.0 0.0 3 26.71 -39.5 -0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.2 Receiver REC-B Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 72.1 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 79.7 112.5 1889.0 0.0 0.0 3 26.77 -39.5 -1.2 -3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.6 Area Leq-8ho
ur 79.7 112.6 1943.9 0.0 0.0 3 78.91 -48.9 -4.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.8 62.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.8 Receiver REC-C Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 66.1 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 79.7 112.5 1889.0 0.0 0.0 3 90.76 -50.2 -4.1 -2.3 -0.2 0.0 0.1 58.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.8 Area Leq-8ho
ur 79.7 112.6 1943.9 0.0 0.0 3 60.91 -46.7 -3.3 -0.4 -0.1 0.0 0.1 65.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.2 Receiver REC-D Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 69.3 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 79.7 112.5 1889.0 0.0 0.0 3 36.24 -42.2 -1.6 -4.0 -0.1 0.0 0.4 68.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.1 Area Leq-8ho
ur 79.7 112.6 1943.9 0.0 0.0 3 60.49 -46.6 -3.6 -3.0 -0.1 0.0 1.0 63.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.3 Receiver REC-E Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 59.5 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 79.7 112.5 1889.0 0.0 0.0 3 92.91 -50.4 -4.0 -5.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 55.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.9 Area Leq-8ho
ur 79.7 112.6 1943.9 0.0 0.0 3 135.38 -53.6 -4.4 -1.1 -0.3 0.0 0.8 56.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 56.9 Receiver REC-F Fl G Leq-8hour dB(A) Leq-8hour 66.9 dB(A) Area Leq-8ho
ur 79.7 112.5 1889.0 0.0 0.0 3 88.04 -49.9 -3.8 -0.1 -0.2 0.0 0.3 61.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.8 Area Leq-8ho
ur 79.7 112.6 1943.9 0.0 0.0 3 63.28 -47.0 -3.3 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 65.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 65.3 SoundPLAN 9.0
Meridian Consultants LLC 1

APPENDIX C
Construction Vibration Worksheets
Meridian Consultants LLC 1303 - 1315 North Central Avenue Construction Vibration Model
(REC-A)
Equipment Pieces of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Distance from
Equipment
PPV at
adjusted
distance
RMS velocity
amplitude in
in/sec at
adjusted
distancea
RMS
Vibration
level in
VdB at
adjusted
distance
Caisson drilling 1 0.089 25 0.089 0.022 87
Jackhammer 1 0.035 25 0.035 0.009 79
Large bulldozer 1 0.089 25 0.089 0.022 87
Loaded trucks 1 0.076 60 0.020 0.005 74
Pile Drive (impact) 1 0.644 25 0.644 0.161 104
Vibratory Roller 1 0.210 85 0.033 0.008 78
Small bulldozer 1 0.003 25 0.003 0.001 58
* Suggested Vibration Thresholds per the Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Meridian Consultants LLC 1303 - 1315 North Central Avenue Construction Vibration Model
(REC-B)
Equipment Pieces of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Distance from
Equipment
PPV at
adjusted
distance
RMS velocity
amplitude in
in/sec at
adjusted
distancea
RMS
Vibration
level in
VdB at
adjusted
distance
Caisson drilling 1 0.089 20 0.124 0.031 90
Jackhammer 1 0.035 20 0.049 0.012 82
Large bulldozer 1 0.089 20 0.124 0.031 90
Loaded trucks 1 0.076 60 0.020 0.005 74
Pile Drive (impact) 1 0.644 20 0.900 0.225 107
Vibratory Roller 1 0.210 85 0.033 0.008 78
Small bulldozer 1 0.003 20 0.004 0.001 60
* Suggested Vibration Thresholds per the Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Meridian Consultants LLC 1303 - 1315 North Central Avenue Construction Vibration Model
(REC-C)
Equipment Pieces of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Distance from
Equipment
PPV at
adjusted
distance
RMS velocity
amplitude in
in/sec at
adjusted
distancea
RMS
Vibration
level in
VdB at
adjusted
distance
Caisson drilling 1 0.089 25 0.089 0.022 87
Jackhammer 1 0.035 25 0.035 0.009 79
Large bulldozer 1 0.089 25 0.089 0.022 87
Loaded trucks 1 0.076 395 0.001 0.000 50
Pile Drive (impact) 1 0.644 25 0.644 0.161 104
Vibratory Roller 1 0.210 365 0.004 0.001 59
Small bulldozer 1 0.003 25 0.003 0.001 58
* Suggested Vibration Thresholds per the Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Meridian Consultants LLC 1303 - 1315 North Central Avenue Construction Vibration Model
(REC-D)
Equipment Pieces of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Distance from
Equipment
PPV at
adjusted
distance
RMS velocity
amplitude in
in/sec at
adjusted
distancea
RMS
Vibration
level in
VdB at
adjusted
distance
Caisson drilling 1 0.089 15 0.191 0.048 94
Jackhammer 1 0.035 15 0.075 0.019 85
Large bulldozer 1 0.089 15 0.191 0.048 94
Loaded trucks 1 0.076 325 0.002 0.000 52
Pile Drive (impact) 1 0.644 15 1.386 0.346 111
Vibratory Roller 1 0.210 275 0.006 0.001 63
Small bulldozer 1 0.003 15 0.006 0.002 64
* Suggested Vibration Thresholds per the Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Meridian Consultants LLC 1303 - 1315 North Central Avenue Construction Vibration Model
(REC-E)
Equipment Pieces of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Distance from
Equipment
PPV at
adjusted
distance
RMS velocity
amplitude in
in/sec at
adjusted
distancea
RMS
Vibration
level in
VdB at
adjusted
distance
Caisson drilling 1 0.089 160 0.005 0.001 63
Jackhammer 1 0.035 160 0.002 0.001 55
Large bulldozer 1 0.089 160 0.005 0.001 63
Loaded trucks 1 0.076 160 0.005 0.001 61
Pile Drive (impact) 1 0.644 160 0.040 0.010 80
Vibratory Roller 1 0.210 160 0.013 0.003 70
Small bulldozer 1 0.003 160 0.000 0.000 33
* Suggested Vibration Thresholds per the Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Meridian Consultants LLC 1303 - 1315 North Central Avenue Construction Vibration Model
(REC-F)
Equipment Pieces of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Distance from
Equipment
PPV at
adjusted
distance
RMS velocity
amplitude in
in/sec at
adjusted
distancea
RMS
Vibration
level in
VdB at
adjusted
distance
Caisson drilling 1 0.089 80 0.016 0.004 72
Jackhammer 1 0.035 80 0.006 0.002 64
Large bulldozer 1 0.089 80 0.016 0.004 72
Loaded trucks 1 0.076 80 0.013 0.003 70
Pile Drive (impact) 1 0.644 80 0.113 0.028 89
Vibratory Roller 1 0.210 80 0.037 0.009 79
Small bulldozer 1 0.003 80 0.001 0.000 42
* Suggested Vibration Thresholds per the Federal Transit Administration, United States Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

APPENDIX D

AIR QUALITY STUDY

METRO ART GLENDALE PROJECT
1303 – 1315 North Central Avenue
Glendale, CA 91202

PREPARED FOR:

Central BWB, LLC
14140 Moorpark Street, #400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423

PREPARED BY:

Westlake Village Office
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, CA 91361

APRIL 2024

Metro Art Glendale Project i City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
Table of Contents
Section Page
Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1 Project Description .................................................................................................... 4 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................................... 5 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................ 7 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 12 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ...................................................................... 14 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................................ 19 Certification ........................................................................................................... 25

Appendix
A CalEEMod Emission Output Files
A.1 Existing
A.2 Proposed

Metro Art Glendale Project ii City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
Figures
Figure Page
1 Project Site Location ........................................................................................ 3 2 Sensitive Receptor Map .................................................................................... 11

Tables
Table Page
1 Air Quality Monitoring Summary ........................................................................... 8 2 South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ................................................................. 9 3 Existing Operational Air Quality Emissions ............................................................... 9 4 Construction Thresholds ................................................................................... 15 5 Localized Significance Thresholds ........................................................................ 16 6 Operational Thresholds ..................................................................................... 17 7 Project Construction Schedule ............................................................................ 19 8 Project Construction Diesel Equipment Inventory ...................................................... 20 9 Maximum Construction Emissions ......................................................................... 21 10 Maximum Operational Emissions .......................................................................... 21 11 Localized Construction and Operational Emissions ..................................................... 22

Metro Art Glendale Project 1 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purposes of this air quality and greenhouse gas analysis is to provide an assessment of the impacts resulting from the Metro Art Glendale (Project) and to identify any measures that may be necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts.

Standard Air Quality, Energy and GHG Regulatory Conditions The proposed project would be required to comply with the following regulatory conditions from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and State of California (State):

South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules
The following lists the SCAQMD rules that are applicable, but not limited to, the proposed project:
• Rule 402 (Nuisance): Controls the emissions of odors and other air contaminants; • Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust): Controls the emissions of fugitive dust; • Rule 1186 (Paved Road and Public Unpaved Roads) : Controls the emissions of fugitive dust generators;
• Rule 1113 (Architectural Coating): Establishes VOC content limits; • Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities): Limit asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities, including removal and associated disturbance of asbestos-containing materials (ACM).

State of California Rules
The following lists the State of California Code of Regulations (CCR) air quality emission rules that are applicable, but not limited to, the proposed project.
• CCR Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9, Section 2449: In use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles • CCR Title 13, Section 2025: On-Road Diesel Truck Fleets; • CCR Title 24 Part 6: California Building Energy Standards; and • CCR Title 24 Part 11: California Green Building Standards.

Metro Art Glendale Project 2 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
Construction Source Emissions
Construction emissions would not contribute to short - or long-term emissions that would increase the carcinogenic effects on sensitive receptors. Construction -source odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would not result in persistent impacts that would affect substantial numbers of people. Potential construction-source odor impacts are therefore not considered significant.

Operational Source Emissions
Operational emissions would not contribute to short - or long-term emissions that would increase the carcinogenic effects on sensitive receptors. Emissions associated with operation would not exceed the SCAQMD-recommended thresholds. Thus, the Project would not result in a regional violation of applicable air quality standards or jeopardize the timely attainment of such standards in the South Coast Air Basin.

Project Site Location
FIGURE 1
395-001-23
SOURCE: Google Earth - 2023

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
2001000 400
N
Legend:

Project Site

Metro Art Glendale Project 4 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024

The proposed development includes removal of the existing apartment complex for a new multi -family residential building consisting of 25 one-bedroom units, 80 two-bedroom units and 44 three-bedroom units for a total of approximately 149 units. Of those units, 14 units are proposed as City of Glendale low income inclusionary and state very low income pursuant to SB 1818 and AB 12345 and 5 units are proposed as moderate income pursuant to AB 1287. The subterranean parking garage would include 310 stalls with 211 accessible spaces.

Metro Art Glendale Project 5 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024

REGULATORY SETTING
In California, jurisdiction over air quality management, enforcement, and planning is divided among 35 geographic regions. Within each region, a local air district is responsible for oversight of air quality monitoring, modeling, permitting, and enforcement to ensure that regulatory violations are avoided wherever possible.

South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) shares responsibility with California Air Resource Board (CARB) for ensuring that all State and federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ( AAQS) are achieved and maintained over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles. This area includes the South Coast and Salton Sea Air Basins, all of Orange County, and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. It does not include the Antelope Valley or the nondesert portion of western San Bernardino County.

SCAQMD is responsible for controlling emissions, primarily from stationary sources. SCAQMD maintains air quality monitoring stations throughout the air basins. SCAQMD, in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is also responsible for developing, updating, and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basins. An AQMP is a plan prepared and implemented by an air pollution district for a county or region designated as being in nonattainment of the NAAQS or CAAQS. The term “nonattainment area” is used to refer to an air basin in which one or more AAQS are exceeded. SCAQMD also prepares the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for its jurisdiction and promulgates rules and regulations. The SIP includes strategies and tactics to be used to attain the federal ozone standards in the South Coast Air Basin . The SIP elements are taken from the most recent AQMP. SCAQMD adopted the 2022 AQMP on December 2, 2022. 1 The AQMP includes transportation control
measures developed by SCAG from its 2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, as well as the integrated strategies and measures needed to meet the NAAQS. The AQMP demonstrates attainment of the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS, as well as the latest 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards.

SCAQMD is responsible for limiting the number of emissions generated throughout the air basins by various stationary, area, and mobile sources. Specific rules and regulations have been adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board that identify specific pollution -reduction measures that must be implemented in association with various uses and activities. These rules regulate not only the emissions of the federal and State criteria pollutants , but also toxic air contaminants ( TACs) and acutely hazardous materials.

The rules are also subject to ongoing refinement by SCAQMD. Among the SCAQMD rules applicable to the

1 SCAQMD, Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan , adopted December 2, 2022, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022- aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=10. Accessed March 2024.

Metro Art Glendale Project 6 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
Project are Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Rule 403 requires the use of stringent best available control measures (BACMs) to minimize PM10 emissions during grading and construction activities. Rule 1113 limits the VOC content of coatings, with a VOC content l imit for flat coatings of 50 grams per liter (g/L). 2 Additional details regarding these rules and other potentially applicable rules are presented as follows.
• Rule 402 (Nuisance). This rule states that a “person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or to the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.” 3 • Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement BACMs for all sources and prohibits all forms of visible particulate matter from crossing any property line. BACMs may include application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils covering haul vehicles; restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph); sweeping loose dirt from paved site- access roadways; cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph; and establishing a permanent gr ound cover on finished sites. SCAQMD Rule 403 is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust (see also Rule 1186). • Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce VOC emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the VOC content of various coating categories. • Rule 1146.2 (Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers and Process Heaters). This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, retailers, refurbishers, installers, and operators of new and existing units to reduce NOx emissions from natural -gas-fired water heaters, boilers, and process heaters as defined in this rule. • Rule 1186 (PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads, and Livestock Operations). This rule applies to owners and operators of paved and unpaved roads and livestock operations. The rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions by requiring the cleanup of material deposited onto paved roads, use of certified street sweeping equipment, and treatment of high-use unpaved roads (see also Rule 403). Stationary emissions sources subject to these rules are regulated through SCAQMD’s permitting process. Through this permitting process, SCAQMD also monitors the number of stationary emissions being generated and uses this information in developing AQMPs.

2 SCAQMD, Rule 1113 Architectural Coating (amended September 6, 2013), http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule- book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf. Accessed March 2024.
3 SCAQMD, Rule 402 —Nuisance, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-402.pdf. A ccessed March 2024.

Metro Art Glendale Project 7 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Ambient air quality emissions present complex environmental issues that require regulatory attention on both large and small scales. The cumulative nature of project-level and localized emissions contributing to greater regional conditions warrants that regulatory policies be instituted on national, State, and regional levels to address air quality concerns. The following sections outline the applicable regulatory framework that exists at the national, State, and regional levels for air quality .

Regional Air Quality
USEPA is the federal agency responsible for overseeing the country’s air quality and setting the NAAQS for the CAPs. The NAAQS were devised based on extensive modeling and monitoring of air pollution across the country; they are designed to protect public health and prevent the formation of atmospheric ozone.

Air quality of a region is considered to be in attainment of the NAAQS if the measured ambient air pollutant levels do not exceed the applicable concentration threshold.

As noted previously, CARB is the S tate agency responsible for setting the CAAQS. Air quality of a region is considered to be in attainment of the CAAQS if the measured ambient air pollutant levels for O3 , CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb are not exceeded, and all other standards are not equaled or exceeded at any time in any consecutive 3-year period.

For evaluation purposes, the SCAQMD territory is divided into 38 source receptor areas (SRAs). These SRAs are designated to provide a general representation of the local meteorological, terrain, and air quality conditions within the particular geographical area. The Project site is within SRA 8 , West San Gabriel Valley.
4 The nearest air monitoring station SCAQMD operates is located at 1630 North Main Street in Los Angeles . This station monitors O3, NO2 and PM2.5. Table 1: Air Quality Monitoring Summary summarizes published monitoring data from 2020 through 2022, the most recent 3-year period available.

The data shows that during the past few years, the region has exceeded the O3 and PM2.5 standards.

4 SCAQMD, General Forecast Areas and Air Monitoring Areas, map, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/default- document-library/map-of-monitoring-areas.pdf. Accessed March 2024.

Metro Art Glendale Project 8 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
TABLE 1

AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY
Air Pollutant Average Time (Units) 2020 2021 2022
Ozone (O3)
State Max 1 hour (ppm) 0.185 0.099 0.138
Days > CAAQS threshold (0.09 ppm) 14 1 1
National Max 8 hour (ppm) 0.118 0.085 0.090
Days > NAAQS threshold (0.075 ppm) 22 2 6
State Max 8 hour (ppm) 0.118 0.086 0.091
Days > CAAQS threshold (0.07 ppm) 22 2 6
Carbon monoxide (CO) — — —
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
National Max 1 hour (ppm) 0.062 0.078 0.075
Days > NAAQS threshold (0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
State Max 1 hour (ppm) 0.061 0.077 0.075
Days > CAAQS threshold (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Respirable particulate matter
(PM10)
National Max (µg/m3) 83.7 64.0 61.0
National Annual Average (µg/m3) 33.1 26.0 29.4
Days > NAAQS threshold (35 µg/m3) 0 0 0
State Max (µg/m3) 185.2 138.5 43.7
State Annual Average (µg/m3) 33.9 30.9 24.1
Fine particulate matter
(PM2.5)
National Max (µg/m3) 175.0 61.0 33.7
National Annual Average (µg/m3) 13.7 12.8 10.9
Days > NAAQS threshold (35 µg/m3) 12 13 0
State Max (µg/m3) 175.0 61.1 38.0
State Annual Average (µg/m3) 15.0 14.8 11.1
Source: CARB, iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics.

Note: (—) = Data not available.

USEPA and the CARB designate air basins where AAQS are exceeded as “nonattainment” areas. If standards are met, the area is designated as an “attainment” area. If there is inadequate or inconclusive data to make a definitive attainment designation, they ar e considered “unclassified.” Federal nonattainment areas are further designated as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme as a function of deviation from standards. The current attainment designations for the Basin are shown in Table 2: South Coas t Air Basin Attainment Status . The Basin is currently designated as being in nonattainment at the federal level for O3 and PM2.5; and at the State level for O3, PM10, and PM2.5.

Metro Art Glendale Project 9 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024

TABLE 2

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutant State Status National Status
Ozone (O3) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Carbon monoxide (CO) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Nonattainment Attainment Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment Source: California Air Resources Board (CARB) Area Designation Maps / State and National, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations. Accessed March 2024.

Existing Operational Emissions
As mentioned previously, the Project Site is currently developed with a 37 -unit apartment complex.

According to the Traffic trip Generation Memorandum, the current use generates approximately 249 daily trips.5 Table 3: Existing Operational Air Quality Emissions identifies the emissions from the existing commercial use. The most current CARB -approved, SCAQMD -recommended air quality modeling software, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), was used to estimate existing air quality operational emissions.

TABLE 3

EXISTING OPERATIONAL AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS
Source
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds/day
Mobile 1.0 0.8 8.0 <0.1 1.5 0.4
Area 10.8 0.8 20.9 <0.1 2.6 2.6
Energy <0.1 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total 11.9 1.8 29.0 <0.1 4.1 3.0
SCAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.

Refer to Appendix A.1: CalEEMod Air Quality Emission Output Files – Existing.

5 Jano Baghdanian & Associates, Metro Art Glendale Project, 1303 – 1315 North Central Avenue, dated March 15, 2024.

Metro Art Glendale Project 10 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
Sensitive Receptors
SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. Sensitive receptors are identified near sources of air pollution to determine the potential for health hazards. Locations evaluated for exposure to air pollution include but are not limited to residences, schools, hospitals, and convalescent facilities. T he Project site and surrounding properties are zoned R -1250 High Density ( refer to Figure 2: Sensitive Receptor Map). More specifically, the Project site is surrounded by single- and multi-family residential uses along N. Central Avenue, W. Randolph Street, W. Loraine Street, Viola Avenue and Parkwood Drive.

Sensitive Receptor Map
FIGURE 2
395-001-23
SOURCE: City of Glendale Zoning Map - Sept 2018

APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
5002500 1000
N
Legend:

Project Site
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Services

Metro Art Glendale Project 12 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024

METHODOLOGY
Construction
Emissions are estimated using the latest CalEEMod software, which is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantity potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions from a variety of land use projects. Detailed construction equipment lists, construction scheduling, and emissions calculations are provided in Appendix A.

Daily regional emissions during construction are forecasted by assuming a conservative estimate of construction activities (i.e., all construction occurs at the earliest feasible date) and applying the mobile source and fugitive dust emissions factors. The input values used in this analysis were adjusted to be project-specific for the equipment and construction schedule. The CalEEMod program uses the CARB on- road vehicle emissions model (EMFAC2021) to calculate the emission rates specific for the Los Angele s County for construction- related employee vehicle trips and the CARB off- road emissions model (OFFROAD2011) to calculate emission rates for heavy truck operations. Emission rates are reported by the program in grams per trip and grams per mile or grams per running hour. Daily truck trips and CalEEMod default trip length data were used to assess roadway emissions from truck exhaust. The maximum daily emissions are estimated values for the worst-case day and do not represent the emissions that would occur for every day of project construction. The maximum daily emissions are compared to the SCAQMD screening numeric indicators.

Fugitive dust emissions vary greatly during construction and are dependent on the amount and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. Vehicles moving over paved and unpaved surfaces, demolition, excavation, earth movement, grading, and wind erosion from exposed surfaces can all be sources of fugitive dust. The Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, which identifies measures to reduce fugitive dust and is required to be implemented at all construction sites located with SCAB. Therefore, the following condition —required to reduce fugitive dust in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403—was included in CalEEMod as a regulatory compliance measure:
• Control Efficiency of PM10 . During construction, methods and techniques should be applied to various operations or equipment when appropriate to reduce estimated emissions related to particulate matter. This includes replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quick as possible, yielding to emission reduction efficiency of 15 – 49 percent. 6 In addition, SCAQMD Staff recommends that the Lead Agency require the use of Tier 4 construction equipment of 50 horsepower or greater during construction. Alternative, applicable strategies include equipment outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices and CARB certified Level 3

6 SCAQMD, CEQA Handbook, Tables 11 -4, p. 11 -15 and A11-9- A, page A11 -77, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-sample-construction-scenario-report.pdf. Accessed March 2024.

Metro Art Glendale Project 13 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF). Level 3 DPFs are capable of achieving at least an 85 percent reduction in particulate matter emissions. 7 Therefore, the following condition would be considered a regulatory compliance measure:
• Construction Equipment Controls. During construction, all off-road construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet USEPA Tier 3 emission standards with Level 3 DPF to minimize emissions of NOx associated with diesel construction equipment.

Toxic Air Contaminant
The greatest potential for toxic air contaminant emissions would be related to diesel particulate emissions associated with heavy equipment operations during construction of the proposed project.

According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)8, health effects from TACs are described in terms of individual cancer risk based on a lifetime (i.e., 30 -year) resident exposure duration. Given the temporary and short -term construction schedule (approximately 7 months), the project would not result in a long-term (i.e., lifetime or 30 -year) exposure as a result of project construction. Furthermore, construction -based particulate matter (PM) emissions (including diesel exhaust emissions) do not exceed any regional thresholds.

The project would comply with the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure that limits diesel powered equipment and vehicle idling to no more than 5 minutes at a location, and the CARB In- Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle Regulation; compliance with these would minimize emissions of TACs during construction. The project would also comply with the requirements of SCAQMD Rule 1403 if asbestos is found during the renovation and construction activities. Therefore, impacts from TACs during construction would be less than significant and not further assessed in this report.

Odors
Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include the application of materials such as asphalt pavement. The objectionable odors that may be produced during the construction process are short-term in nature and the odor emissions are expected to cease upon the drying or hardening of the odor producing materials. Due to the short -term nature and limited amounts of odor producing materials being utilized, no significant impact related to odors would occur during construction of the proposed project. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the project, which are objectionable to some; however, emissions would disperse rapidly from the project site and therefore should not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts from construction-related odor is not further assessed in this report.

7 California Air Resources Board, Verification Procedure: Stationary, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/verification- procedure-warranty-and-use-compliance-requirements-use-strategies-4. Accessed March 2024. 8 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessment , February 2015, https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf, accessed March 2024.

Metro Art Glendale Project 14 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
Operation
The operations-related criteria air quality impacts created by the proposed project have been analyzed through the use of the CalEEMod model. The operating emissions were based on the year 202 8, which is the first year following construction when the project is fully operational. The operations emissions printouts from the CalEEMod model are provided in Appendix A. The CalEEMod analyzes operational emissions from area sources, energy usage, and mobile sources, which are discussed below.

Mobile
Operation of the Project has the potential to generate criteria pollutant emissions through vehicle trips traveling to and from the Project site. The daily trips of 676 forecasted in the traffic trip generation memorandum were used. 9 The Sunday trip rates were assumed to be the weekday rate adjusted by multiplying the ratio of the CalEEMod default rates for those days. In calculating mobile-source emissions, trip-length values were based on the distances provided in CalEEMod.

Area
In addition, emissions would result from area sources on site, such as natural gas combustion, landscaping equipment, and use of consumer products. Area-source emissions are based on natural gas (building heating and water heaters), landscaping equipment, and consumer product (including paint) usage rates provided in CalEEMod. As specifics were not known about the landscaping equipment fleet, CalEEMod defaults were used to estimate emissions from landscaping equipment. Natural gas usage factors in CalEEMod are based on the California Energy Commission’s California Commercial End Use Survey data set, which provides energy demand by building type and climate zone. No other changes were made to the default area source parameters.

Energy
Energy usage includes emissions from the generation of electricity and natural gas used on -site. No changes were made to the default energy usage parameters.

9 Jano Baghdanian & Associates, Metro Art Glendale Project, 1303 – 1315 North Central Avenue, dated March 15, 2024.

Metro Art Glendale Project 15 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024

SCAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
The determination of a project’s significance on air quality shall be made considering the factors provided in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook). The City has not adopted specific Citywide significance thresholds for air quality impacts; rather, the thresholds and methodologies contained in the SCAQMD Handbook for both construction and operational emissions are utilized for evaluating projects in the City. These thresholds are described below.

Construction Emission Thresholds
The Project will have a significant impact if it exceeds the construction thresholds listed in Table 4: Construction Thresholds.

TABLE 4

CONSTRUCTION THRESHOLDS
Pollutant
Construction Emissions
(pounds/day)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 75
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 100
Carbon monoxide (CO) 550
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 150
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 150
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 55
Construction and Operational Local ized Significance Thresholds The local significance thresholds are based on the SCAQMD’s Final Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology (LST Methodology) 10 guidance document for short -duration construction activities. The SCAQMD recommends the evaluation of localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the Project site because of construction activities. The SCAQMD provides voluntary guidance on the evaluation of localized air quality impacts to public agencies conducting environmental review of projects located within its jurisdiction. Localized air quality impacts are evaluated by examining the on -site generation of pollutants and their resulting downwind concentrations. For construction, pollutant concentrations are compared to significance thresholds for particulates ( PM10 and PM2.5), CO, and NO2. The significance threshold for PM10 represents compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). The threshold for PM2.5 is designed to limit emissions and to allow progress toward

10 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology, (June 2003, rev. July 2008).

Metro Art Glendale Project 16 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
attainment of the AAQS. Thresholds for CO and NO2 represent the allowable increase in concentrations above background levels that would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of their respective AAQS .

The LST Methodology provides lookup tables of emissions that are based on construction projects of up to 5 acres in size. These LST lookup tables were developed to assist lead agencies with a simple tool for evaluating the impacts from small typical projects. Ambient conditions for West San Gabriel Valley, as recorded in SRA 8 by the SCAQMD, were used for ambient conditions in determining appropriate threshold levels. Thresholds for each criteria pollutant for construction activity and Project are listed in Table 5:

Localized Significance Thresholds.

TABLE 5

LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
Pollutant
Construction Operational
pounds/day
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 97 97
Carbon monoxide (CO) 545 545
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 6 2
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 4 1
Notes: Based on a distance to sensitive receptors of 25 meters. SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Methodology for CEQA Evaluations guidance document provides that projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters.

Metro Art Glendale Project 17 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
Based on the SCAQMD Handbook, thresholds for each criteria pollutant for the operations of the Project are provided in Table 6: Operational Thresholds.

TABLE 6

OPERATIONAL THRESHOLDS
Pollutant
Operational Emissions
(pounds/day)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 55
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 55
Carbon monoxide (CO) 550
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 150
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 150
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 55
Toxic Air Contaminants
As set forth in the SCAQMD Handbook , the determination of significance of a project with respect TACs shall be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the following factors:
• Regulatory framework for toxic materials and process involved; • Proximity of TACs to sensitive receptors;
• Quantity, volume, and toxicity of the contaminants expected to be emitted; • Likelihood and potential level of exposure; and
• Degree to which project design will reduce risk of exposure.

Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Plans
Section 15125 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires an analysis of project consistency with applicable governmental plans and policies. In accordance with the SCAQMD Handbook, the following criteria were used to evaluate the Project’s consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG regional plans and policies:
• Will the Project result in any of the following:
− Increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations? − Cause or contribute to new air quality violations?
− Delay the timely attainment of the air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP?
• Will the Project exceed the assumptions utilized in preparing the AQMP? − Is the Project consistent with the population and employment growth projections upon which AQMP forecasted emission levels are based?
− Does the Project include air quality mitigation measures? − To what extent is Project development consistent with the AQMP land use policies?

Metro Art Glendale Project 18 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
Cumulative Threshold
SCAQMD recommends that a project be considered to result in a cumulatively considerable impact to air quality if any construction -related emissions and operational emissions from individual development projects exceed the mass daily emissions thresholds for individual projects .11 The SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of the emissions generated by a set of cumulative development projects nor provides thresholds of significance to be used to assess the impacts associated with these emissions.

A project is also considered to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant impacts if the population and employment projections for the project exceed the rate of growth defined in SCAQMD’s AQMP.

11 SCAQMD, White Paper on Regulatory Options for Addressing Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution Emissions, board meeting, Agenda No. 29 (September 5, 2003), Appendix D, p. D-3.

Metro Art Glendale Project 19 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024

IMPACT ANALYSIS
Emissions of air pollutants were estimated for construction and operation of the Project. In California, the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association recommends the use CalEEMod to calculate and organize emissions data for new development projects. CalEEMod is a program that relies on project - specific information pertaining to geographic setting, utility service provision, construction scheduling and equipment inventory, and operational design features to generate estimates of air pollutant an d GHG emissions.

Table 7: Project Construction Schedule provides the dates and durations of each of the activities that will take place during construction, as well as a brief description of the scope of work. Future dates represent approximations based on the general Project timeline and are subject to change pending unpredictable circumstances that may arise. It is important to note project delays that affect the corresponding time period in which construction activities would occur compared to the analysis time period would result in lower emissions due to newer equipment, regulatory requirements, and greater engine efficiencies. Therefore, the reported construction emissions are overstated compared to the emissions associated with a delayed construction schedule.

TABLE 7

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Construction
Activity
Approximate
Start Date
Approximate
End Date
Duration
(Days) Description
Demolition 3/1/2025 3/29/2025 20 Demolition of existing 37-unit apartment complex
Grading 3/30/2025 5/30/2025 45 Excavation of approximately 40,000 cubic yards of soil
Building
Construction 5/31/2025 3/1/2027 456 Construction of Proposed Project Paving 2/15/2027 3/1/2027 11 Paving of asphalt surfaces Architectural
Coating 1/1/2027 3/1/2027 42 Application of architectural coatings to building materials
Note: Refer to Appendix A.2 for CalEEMod Output Sheet.

Construction
An assessment of air pollutant emissions was prepared utilizing the construction schedule in Table 7.

Table 8: Project Construction Diesel Equipment Inventory displays the construction equipment required for each activity described in Table 7. Under regulatory compliance measures in CalEEMod, it was assumed that all construction activities would adhere to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Additionally, regulatory compliance measures not modeled would requi re all heavy-duty diesel equipment engines to meet minimum Tier 3 standards in accordance with CARB fleet requirements.

Metro Art Glendale Project 20 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
TABLE 8

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION DIESEL EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
Phase Off-Road Equipment Type Amount
Daily
Hours
Horsepower [HP]
(Load Factor)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 (0.73)
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 (0.40)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 84 (0.37)
Grading
Graders 1 8 148 (0.41)
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 (0.40)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 84 (0.37)
Building Construction
Cranes 1 6 367 (0.29)
Forklifts 1 6 82 (0.20)
Generator Sets 1 8 14 (0.74)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6 84 (0.37)
Welders 3 8 46 (0.45)
Paving
Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6 10 (0.56)
Pavers 1 6 81 (0.42)
Rollers 1 7 36 (0.38)
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 (0.37)
Paving Equipment 1 8 89 (0.36)
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 37 (0.48)
Refer to Appendix A.2 for CalEEMod Output Sheets.

Metro Art Glendale Project 21 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
Maximum daily emissions of air pollutants during construction of the Project were calculated using CalEEMod. Table 9: Maximum Construction Emissions identifies daily emissions that are estimated for peak construction days for each construction year. Based on the modeling, construction of the Project would not exceed regional concentration thresholds. All criteria air pollutants would be below SCAQMD construction thresholds. As such, construction of the Project would not generate any significant environmental impacts associated with air quality compliance.

TABLE 9

MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Source
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds/day
2025 1.8 26.9 21.4 <0.1 5.4 2.4
2026 1.6 10.5 20.5 <0.1 2.6 0.8
2027 36.9 28.2 28.2 <0.1 3.3 1.1
Maximum 36.9 28.2 28.2 <0.1 5.4 2.4
SCAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.

Refer to Appendix A.2 for CalEEMod Output Sheets.

Operation
Operational emissions would result primarily from passenger vehicles traveling to and from the Project site. As mentioned previously, the vehicle trips associated with the proposed project have been analyzed by inputting the project-generated trips from the Traffic trip Generation Memorandum (dated March 15, 2024). The results presented in Table 10: Maximum Operational Emissions are compared to the SCAQMD-established operational significance thresholds. As shown in Table 10, the operational emissions would not exceed the regional concentration thresholds. Additionally, the operational emissions provided below would be further reduced when taking into account removal of the existing use and trip reductions from public transit options located within the Project vicinity . As such, operation of the Project would not generate any significant environmental impacts associated with air quality compliance.

TABLE 10

MAXIMUM OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
pounds/day
Mobile 2.0 1.4 16.6 <0.1 3.9 1.0
Area 7.0 2.0 14.2 <0.1 0.2 0.2
Energy <0.1 0.5 0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1
Total 9.0 3.9 31.0 <0.1 4.1 1.2
SCAQMD Mass Daily Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes: Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.

Refer to Appendix A.2 for CalEEMod Output Sheets.

Metro Art Glendale Project 22 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
Localized Significance Thresholds
The result s of the LST analysis are provided in Table 1 1: Localized Construction and Operational Emissions. These estimates assume the maximum area that would be disturbed during construction on any given day during Project buildout. It is important to note, emissions presented in Table 1 1 include regulatory compliance measures such as control efficiency of PM10 (dust control measures). As shown in Table 11, emissions would not exceed the localized significance construction and operational thresholds.

TABLE 11

LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Emissions (pounds/day)
Construction
Total maximum emissions 14.1 15.1 3.2 1.5
LST threshold 97 545 6 4
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Operational
Project area/energy emissions 2.5 14.4 0.2 0.2
LST threshold 97 545 2 1
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Notes: Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.

Refer to Appendix A.2 for CalEEMod Output Sheets.

Toxic Air Contaminants
Project construction would result in short -term emissions of diesel particulate matter, which is a TAC.

Off-road heavy -duty diesel equipment would emit diesel particulate matter over the course of the construction period. As mentioned previously, The Project site is surrounded by commercial hotel uses to the north and multi-family residential uses to the east and west. Localized diesel particulate emissions (strongly correlated with PM2.5 emissions) would be minimal and would be substantially below localized thresholds, as shown in Table 11. Project compliance with the CARB anti-idling measure, which limits idling to no more than 5 minutes at any location for diesel -fueled commercial vehicles, would further minimize diesel particulate matter emissions in the Project area.

Project operations would generate only minor amounts of diesel emissions from delivery trucks and incidental maintenance activities. Trucks would comply with the applicable provisions of the CARB Truck and Bus regulation to minimize and reduce emission from existing diesel trucks. In addition, Project operations would only result in minimal emissions of air toxics from maintenance or other ongoing activities, such as from the use of architectural coatings or household cleaning products. As a result, toxic or carcinogenic air pollutants are not expected to occur in any meaningful amounts in conjunction with operation of the proposed uses within the Project site. Based on the uses expected on the Project site, potential long-term operational impacts associated with the release of TACs would be minimal and would not be expected to exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance.

Metro Art Glendale Project 23 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
Odors
As shown in Table 11, the construction of the Project would result in emissions below the localized significance thresholds. Mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1113 would limit the number of VOCs in architectural coatings and solvents. According to SCAQMD, while almost any source may emit objectionable odors, some land uses are more likely to produce odors because of their operation. Land uses more likely to produce odors include agriculture, chemical plants, composting operations, dairies, fiberglass molding manufacturing, landfills, refineries, rendering plants, rail yards, and wastewater treatment plants. The Project does not contain any active manufacturing activities and would not convert current agricultural land to residential land uses. Therefore, objectionable odors w ould not be emitted by the proposed uses.

Any unforeseen odors generated by the Project will be controlled in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 402.

As previously noted, Rule 402 prohibits the discharge of air contaminants that harm, endanger, or annoy individuals or the public; endanger the comfort, health or safety of individuals or the public; or cause injury or damage to business or property.

Failure to comply with Rule 402 could subject the offending facility to possible fines and/or operational limitations in an approved odor control or odor abatem ent plan.

Consistency with AQMP
The Basin is designated nonattainment at the federal level for O3 and PM2.5 and State level for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. SCAQMD developed regional emissions thresholds, as shown in Table 4 and Table 6 to determine whether a project would contribute to air pollutant violations. If a project exceeds the regional air pollutant thresholds, then it would significantly contribute to air quality violations in the Basin.

As shown in Table 9, temporary emissions associated with construction of the Project would fall below SCAQMD thresholds for VOCs, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. As shown in Table 10, long-term emissions associated with operation of the Project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for VOC s, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The Project’s maximum potential NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 daily emissions during construction and operation were analyzed to determine potential effects on localized concentrations and to determine if the potential exists for such emissions to cause or affect a violation of an applicable AAQS. As shown in Table 1 1, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD localized significance thresholds.

The Project is also located in an urban area, which would reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled due to the Project’s urban infill characteristic and proximity to public transit stops. These measures and features are consistent with existing recommendations to reduce air emissions.

Metro Art Glendale Project 24 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024
Cumulative Impacts
Development of the Project in conjunction with the related projects near the Project site would result in an increase in construction and operational emissions in an already urbanized area of the City.

However, cumulative air quality impacts from construction, based on SCAQMD guidelines, are not analyzed in a manner similar to project-specific air quality impacts. Instead, SCAQMD recommends that a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project-specific impacts. According to SCAQMD, individual development projects that generate construction or operational emissions that exceed SCAQMD recommended daily regional or localized thresholds for project -specific impacts , would also cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment.

With the implementation of r egulatory compliance measures such as Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) and Rule 1113 (Architectural Coating), the Project’s construction and operational emissions are not expected to significantly contribute to cumulative emissions for CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. As such, the Project’s contribution to cumulative air quality emissions in combination with the related projects would not be cumulatively considerable.

As discussed previously, the Project would not jeopardize the attainment of air quality standards in the AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin and the Los Angeles County portion of the South Coast Air Basin. As such, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a potential conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of the AQMP regional reduction plans.

Metro Art Glendale Project 25 City of Glendale
Air Quality Study April 2024

CERTIFICATION
The contents of this Air Quality Study represent an accurate depiction of the air quality environment and impacts associated with the proposed Metro Art Glendale Project. The information contained in this study is based on the best available information at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (818) 415-7274.

Christ Kirikian
Principal | Director of Air Quality & Acoustics
[email protected]

APPENDIX A
CalEEMod Air Quality Emission Output Files
APPENDIX A.1
Existing
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
1 / 22
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
2 / 22

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
3 / 22

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
4 / 22

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
5 / 22

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 1303 Central Avenue (Existing)
Operational Y ear 2023
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 20.2
Location 1303 N Central Ave, Glendale, CA 91202, USA
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Glendale
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 3914
EDFZ 18
Electric Utility Glendale Water & Power
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.22

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq
ft)
Population Description
Apartments Low
Rise

37.0 Dwelling Unit 1.97 39,220 21,506 — 110 —
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
6 / 22

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
7 / 22
Mobile 1.03 0.94 0.73 8.01 0.02 0.01 1.44 1.45 0.01 0.37 0.38 — 1,706 1,706 0.09 0.07 7.18 1,736 Area 10.9 10.8 0.79 20.9 0.05 2.64 — 2.64 2.59 — 2.59 347 668 1,014 1.03 0.01 — 1,044 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 568 568 0.03 < 0.005 — 570 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.64 31.9 34.5 0.27 0.01 — 43.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 14.8 0.00 14.8 1.48 0.00 — 51.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total 12.0 11.7 1.67 29.0 0.07 2.67 1.44 4.11 2.62 0.37 2.98 364 2,974 3,338 2.90 0.09 7.46 3,445 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.01 0.92 0.80 7.39 0.02 0.01 1.44 1.45 0.01 0.37 0.38 — 1,633 1,633 0.09 0.07 0.19 1,658 Area 10.7 10.6 0.77 18.8 0.05 2.64 — 2.64 2.59 — 2.59 347 662 1,009 1.03 0.01 — 1,038 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 568 568 0.03 < 0.005 — 570 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.64 31.9 34.5 0.27 0.01 — 43.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 14.8 0.00 14.8 1.48 0.00 — 51.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total 11.7 11.5 1.72 26.3 0.06 2.66 1.44 4.10 2.62 0.37 2.98 364 2,896 3,260 2.91 0.09 0.47 3,361 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.96 0.87 0.77 7.20 0.02 0.01 1.35 1.36 0.01 0.34 0.35 — 1,571 1,571 0.09 0.07 2.95 1,598 Area 0.88 1.70 0.07 2.72 < 0.005 0.18 — 0.18 0.18 — 0.18 23.7 49.2 72.9 0.07 < 0.005 — 75.0 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 568 568 0.03 < 0.005 — 570 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.64 31.9 34.5 0.27 0.01 — 43.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 14.8 0.00 14.8 1.48 0.00 — 51.8 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total 1.85 2.58 0.98 9.99 0.02 0.20 1.35 1.56 0.20 0.34 0.54 41.2 2,221 2,262 1.94 0.08 3.23 2,338 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.17 0.16 0.14 1.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 0.25 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 260 260 0.01 0.01 0.49 264 Area 0.16 0.31 0.01 0.50 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 3.93 8.15 12.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 12.4 1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
8 / 22
Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 94.1 94.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 94.3 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 5.28 5.71 0.05 < 0.005 — 7.16 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 2.45 0.00 2.45 0.25 0.00 — 8.58 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Total 0.34 0.47 0.18 1.82 < 0.005 0.04 0.25 0.28 0.04 0.06 0.10 6.82 368 375 0.32 0.01 0.53 387

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise

1.03 0.94 0.73 8.01 0.02 0.01 1.44 1.45 0.01 0.37 0.38 — 1,706 1,706 0.09 0.07 7.18 1,736 Total 1.03 0.94 0.73 8.01 0.02 0.01 1.44 1.45 0.01 0.37 0.38 — 1,706 1,706 0.09 0.07 7.18 1,736 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise

1.01 0.92 0.80 7.39 0.02 0.01 1.44 1.45 0.01 0.37 0.38 — 1,633 1,633 0.09 0.07 0.19 1,658 Total 1.01 0.92 0.80 7.39 0.02 0.01 1.44 1.45 0.01 0.37 0.38 — 1,633 1,633 0.09 0.07 0.19 1,658 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise

0.17 0.16 0.14 1.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 0.25 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 260 260 0.01 0.01 0.49 264 1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
9 / 22
Total 0.17 0.16 0.14 1.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 0.25 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 — 260 260 0.01 0.01 0.49 264

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 380 380 0.01 < 0.005 — 380
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 380 380 0.01 < 0.005 — 380 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 380 380 0.01 < 0.005 — 380
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 380 380 0.01 < 0.005 — 380 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 62.8 62.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 63.0 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 62.8 62.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 63.0

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
10 / 22
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise

0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 189 Total 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 189 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise

0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 189 Total 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.06 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 189 189 0.02 < 0.005 — 189 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31.3 31.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.4 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31.3 31.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.4

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 10.7 9.66 0.77 18.8 0.05 2.64 — 2.64 2.59 — 2.59 347 662 1,009 1.03 0.01 — 1,038 Consum
er
Products
— 0.84 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
11 / 22
————————————————0.07—Architect
ural
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.21 0.20 0.02 2.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 5.61 5.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.63 Total 10.9 10.8 0.79 20.9 0.05 2.64 — 2.64 2.59 — 2.59 347 668 1,014 1.03 0.01 — 1,044 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 10.7 9.66 0.77 18.8 0.05 2.64 — 2.64 2.59 — 2.59 347 662 1,009 1.03 0.01 — 1,038 Consum
er
Products
— 0.84 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 10.7 10.6 0.77 18.8 0.05 2.64 — 2.64 2.59 — 2.59 347 662 1,009 1.03 0.01 — 1,038 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.13 0.12 0.01 0.24 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 3.93 7.51 11.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 11.8 Consum
er
Products
— 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.03 0.02 < 0.005 0.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.64 0.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.64 Total 0.16 0.31 0.01 0.50 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 3.93 8.15 12.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 12.4

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
12 / 22

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.64 31.9 34.5 0.27 0.01 — 43.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.64 31.9 34.5 0.27 0.01 — 43.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.64 31.9 34.5 0.27 0.01 — 43.3
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.64 31.9 34.5 0.27 0.01 — 43.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 5.28 5.71 0.05 < 0.005 — 7.16 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.44 5.28 5.71 0.05 < 0.005 — 7.16

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
13 / 22
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 14.8 0.00 14.8 1.48 0.00 — 51.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 14.8 0.00 14.8 1.48 0.00 — 51.8 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 14.8 0.00 14.8 1.48 0.00 — 51.8
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 14.8 0.00 14.8 1.48 0.00 — 51.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.45 0.00 2.45 0.25 0.00 — 8.58
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.45 0.00 2.45 0.25 0.00 — 8.58

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
14 / 22
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Low
Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.05 0.05

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
15 / 22

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
16 / 22
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
17 / 22
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
18 / 22
——————————————————Remove
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Low
Rise
249 225 187 86,398 2,031 1,833 1,527 704,746

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
19 / 22
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Low Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 2
Gas Fireplaces 31
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 4
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 2
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 2
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
79420.5 26,474 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
20 / 22
Apartments Low Rise 135,106 1,025 0.0330 0.0040 589,343

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Low Rise 1,379,131 368,642

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Low Rise 27.5 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Low Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential
A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Low Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freez
ers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
21 / 22

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
1303 Central Avenue (Existing) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
22 / 22
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Existing use
Operations: Vehicle Data According to trip generation rate of 249 daily trips (memo dated March 15, 2024) APPENDIX A.2
Proposed
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
1 / 76
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
2 / 76

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.12. Paving (2027) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
3 / 76

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
4 / 76

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
5 / 76

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
6 / 76

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
7 / 76

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
8 / 76

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
9 / 76

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed)
Construction Start Date 3/1/2025
Operational Y ear 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.50
Precipitation (days) 20.2
Location 1303 N Central Ave, Glendale, CA 91202, USA
County Los Angeles-South Coast
City Glendale
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin South Coast
TAZ 3914
EDFZ 18
Electric Utility Glendale Water & Power
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.22

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq
ft)
Population Description
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
10 / 76
Apartments Mid Rise 149 Dwelling Unit 1.97 232,437 21,506 — 441 — Enclosed Parking
with Ele
vator
310 Space 0.00 113,155 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Water W-4 Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures
Water W-5 Design Water-Efficient Landscapes

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.62 1.76 26.4 21.4 0.09 0.77 4.67 5.44 0.72 1.66 2.38 — 12,600 12,600 0.65 1.59 23.7 13,115 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.70 36.9 26.9 28.2 0.09 0.77 4.67 5.44 0.72 1.66 2.38 — 12,596 12,596 0.65 1.59 0.62 13,088 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.38 4.21 8.98 13.9 0.02 0.27 1.74 2.01 0.25 0.47 0.72 — 3,964 3,964 0.19 0.33 3.43 4,070 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.25 0.77 1.64 2.54 < 0.005 0.05 0.32 0.37 0.05 0.09 0.13 — 656 656 0.03 0.05 0.57 674 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
11 / 76
Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 75.0 100 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Av
erage
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 75.0 100 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.62 1.76 26.4 21.4 0.09 0.77 4.67 5.44 0.72 1.66 2.38 — 12,600 12,600 0.65 1.59 23.7 13,115 2026 1.94 1.62 10.4 20.5 0.03 0.31 2.32 2.63 0.28 0.56 0.83 — 4,973 4,973 0.20 0.24 10.0 5,060 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.61 1.75 26.9 19.9 0.09 0.77 4.67 5.44 0.72 1.66 2.38 — 12,596 12,596 0.65 1.59 0.62 13,088 2026 1.94 1.61 10.5 19.1 0.03 0.31 2.32 2.63 0.28 0.56 0.83 — 4,865 4,865 0.21 0.24 0.26 4,942 2027 2.70 36.9 15.4 28.2 0.04 0.46 2.89 3.34 0.42 0.69 1.11 — 6,479 6,479 0.20 0.26 0.28 6,562 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.32 1.03 8.98 11.9 0.02 0.27 1.74 2.01 0.25 0.47 0.72 — 3,964 3,964 0.19 0.33 3.43 4,070 2026 1.38 1.15 7.53 13.9 0.02 0.22 1.63 1.86 0.20 0.39 0.59 — 3,495 3,495 0.15 0.17 3.09 3,554 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
12 / 76
2027 0.27 4.21 1.43 2.74 < 0.005 0.04 0.32 0.36 0.04 0.08 0.11 — 663 663 0.02 0.03 0.53 673 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.24 0.19 1.64 2.18 < 0.005 0.05 0.32 0.37 0.05 0.09 0.13 — 656 656 0.03 0.05 0.57 674 2026 0.25 0.21 1.38 2.54 < 0.005 0.04 0.30 0.34 0.04 0.07 0.11 — 579 579 0.02 0.03 0.51 588 2027 0.05 0.77 0.26 0.50 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 110 110 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 111

2.3. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.62 1.76 26.4 21.4 0.09 0.77 4.67 5.44 0.72 1.66 2.38 — 12,600 12,600 0.65 1.59 23.7 13,115 2026 1.94 1.62 10.4 20.5 0.03 0.31 2.32 2.63 0.28 0.56 0.83 — 4,973 4,973 0.20 0.24 10.0 5,060 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 2.61 1.75 26.9 19.9 0.09 0.77 4.67 5.44 0.72 1.66 2.38 — 12,596 12,596 0.65 1.59 0.62 13,088 2026 1.94 1.61 10.5 19.1 0.03 0.31 2.32 2.63 0.28 0.56 0.83 — 4,865 4,865 0.21 0.24 0.26 4,942 2027 2.70 36.9 15.4 28.2 0.04 0.46 2.89 3.34 0.42 0.69 1.11 — 6,479 6,479 0.20 0.26 0.28 6,562 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.32 1.03 8.98 11.9 0.02 0.27 1.74 2.01 0.25 0.47 0.72 — 3,964 3,964 0.19 0.33 3.43 4,070 2026 1.38 1.15 7.53 13.9 0.02 0.22 1.63 1.86 0.20 0.39 0.59 — 3,495 3,495 0.15 0.17 3.09 3,554 2027 0.27 4.21 1.43 2.74 < 0.005 0.04 0.32 0.36 0.04 0.08 0.11 — 663 663 0.02 0.03 0.53 673 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.24 0.19 1.64 2.18 < 0.005 0.05 0.32 0.37 0.05 0.09 0.13 — 656 656 0.03 0.05 0.57 674 2026 0.25 0.21 1.38 2.54 < 0.005 0.04 0.30 0.34 0.04 0.07 0.11 — 579 579 0.02 0.03 0.51 588 2027 0.05 0.77 0.26 0.50 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.02 — 110 110 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 111 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
13 / 76

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.14 9.07 3.88 31.0 0.06 0.23 3.91 4.14 0.22 0.99 1.22 70.0 10,177 10,247 7.42 0.21 13.2 10,507 Mit. 4.14 9.07 3.88 31.0 0.06 0.23 3.91 4.14 0.22 0.99 1.22 67.9 10,155 10,223 7.20 0.20 13.2 10,477 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% 3% — < 0.5%
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.47 7.50 3.89 16.4 0.05 0.22 3.91 4.13 0.21 0.99 1.21 70.0 9,961 10,031 7.43 0.21 1.96 10,282 Mit. 2.47 7.50 3.89 16.4 0.05 0.22 3.91 4.13 0.21 0.99 1.21 67.9 9,939 10,007 7.21 0.21 1.96 10,251 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% 2% — < 0.5%
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.28 8.35 2.19 24.4 0.04 0.08 3.67 3.75 0.08 0.93 1.01 70.0 7,652 7,722 7.38 0.20 6.42 7,974 Mit. 3.28 8.35 2.19 24.4 0.04 0.08 3.67 3.75 0.08 0.93 1.01 67.9 7,631 7,699 7.16 0.20 6.42 7,943 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% 3% — < 0.5%
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.60 1.52 0.40 4.45 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.68 0.01 0.17 0.18 11.6 1,267 1,279 1.22 0.03 1.06 1,320 Mit. 0.60 1.52 0.40 4.45 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.68 0.01 0.17 0.18 11.2 1,263 1,275 1.19 0.03 1.06 1,315 %
Reduced
— — — — — — — — — — — 3% < 0.5% < 0.5% 3% 3% — < 0.5%
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
14 / 76
——————————————————Exceeds
(Daily
Max)
Threshol
d
— 55.0 55.0 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Mit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Exceeds
(Av
erage
Daily)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Threshol
d
— 55.0 55.0 550 150 — — 150 — — 55.0 — — — — — — —
Unmit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —
Mit. — No No No No — — No — — No — — — — — — —

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.21 2.02 1.39 16.6 0.04 0.02 3.91 3.93 0.02 0.99 1.02 — 4,184 4,184 0.20 0.16 11.6 4,249 Area 1.87 7.03 1.97 14.2 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 0.00 2,387 2,387 0.05 < 0.005 — 2,390 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 3,494 3,494 0.15 0.01 — 3,501 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 112 122 1.09 0.03 — 158 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Total 4.14 9.07 3.88 31.0 0.06 0.23 3.91 4.14 0.22 0.99 1.22 70.0 10,177 10,247 7.42 0.21 13.2 10,507 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
15 / 76
Mobile 2.19 1.99 1.52 15.4 0.04 0.02 3.91 3.93 0.02 0.99 1.02 — 4,011 4,011 0.21 0.17 0.30 4,067 Area 0.22 5.48 1.85 0.79 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 0.00 2,345 2,345 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,347 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 3,494 3,494 0.15 0.01 — 3,501 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 112 122 1.09 0.03 — 158 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Total 2.47 7.50 3.89 16.4 0.05 0.22 3.91 4.13 0.21 0.99 1.21 70.0 9,961 10,031 7.43 0.21 1.96 10,282 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.07 1.88 1.46 15.0 0.04 0.02 3.67 3.69 0.02 0.93 0.95 — 3,857 3,857 0.19 0.16 4.75 3,915 Area 1.15 6.44 0.21 9.22 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 190 190 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 190 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 3,494 3,494 0.15 0.01 — 3,501 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 112 122 1.09 0.03 — 158 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Total 3.28 8.35 2.19 24.4 0.04 0.08 3.67 3.75 0.08 0.93 1.01 70.0 7,652 7,722 7.38 0.20 6.42 7,974 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.38 0.34 0.27 2.73 0.01 < 0.005 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 0.17 0.17 — 639 639 0.03 0.03 0.79 648 Area 0.21 1.18 0.04 1.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 31.4 31.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.5 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 578 578 0.02 < 0.005 — 580 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.76 18.5 20.3 0.18 < 0.005 — 26.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.83 0.00 9.83 0.98 0.00 — 34.4 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total 0.60 1.52 0.40 4.45 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.68 0.01 0.17 0.18 11.6 1,267 1,279 1.22 0.03 1.06 1,320

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
16 / 76
Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.21 2.02 1.39 16.6 0.04 0.02 3.91 3.93 0.02 0.99 1.02 — 4,184 4,184 0.20 0.16 11.6 4,249 Area 1.87 7.03 1.97 14.2 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 0.00 2,387 2,387 0.05 < 0.005 — 2,390 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 3,494 3,494 0.15 0.01 — 3,501 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 8.53 90.0 98.5 0.88 0.02 — 127 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Total 4.14 9.07 3.88 31.0 0.06 0.23 3.91 4.14 0.22 0.99 1.22 67.9 10,155 10,223 7.20 0.20 13.2 10,477 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.19 1.99 1.52 15.4 0.04 0.02 3.91 3.93 0.02 0.99 1.02 — 4,011 4,011 0.21 0.17 0.30 4,067 Area 0.22 5.48 1.85 0.79 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 0.00 2,345 2,345 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,347 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 3,494 3,494 0.15 0.01 — 3,501 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 8.53 90.0 98.5 0.88 0.02 — 127 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Total 2.47 7.50 3.89 16.4 0.05 0.22 3.91 4.13 0.21 0.99 1.21 67.9 9,939 10,007 7.21 0.21 1.96 10,251 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.07 1.88 1.46 15.0 0.04 0.02 3.67 3.69 0.02 0.93 0.95 — 3,857 3,857 0.19 0.16 4.75 3,915 Area 1.15 6.44 0.21 9.22 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 0.00 190 190 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 190 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 3,494 3,494 0.15 0.01 — 3,501 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 8.53 90.0 98.5 0.88 0.02 — 127 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
17 / 76
Total 3.28 8.35 2.19 24.4 0.04 0.08 3.67 3.75 0.08 0.93 1.01 67.9 7,631 7,699 7.16 0.20 6.42 7,943 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.38 0.34 0.27 2.73 0.01 < 0.005 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 0.17 0.17 — 639 639 0.03 0.03 0.79 648 Area 0.21 1.18 0.04 1.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 31.4 31.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.5 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 578 578 0.02 < 0.005 — 580 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.41 14.9 16.3 0.15 < 0.005 — 21.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 9.83 0.00 9.83 0.98 0.00 — 34.4 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total 0.60 1.52 0.40 4.45 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.68 0.01 0.17 0.18 11.2 1,263 1,275 1.19 0.03 1.06 1,315

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.75 1.47 13.9 15.1 0.02 0.57 — 0.57 0.52 — 0.52 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 2.63 2.63 — 0.40 0.40 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
18 / 76
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.08 0.76 0.83 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.14 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 22.6 22.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.7 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 164 164 0.01 0.01 0.02 166 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.25 0.05 4.21 1.59 0.02 0.04 0.88 0.93 0.04 0.24 0.28 — 3,306 3,306 0.18 0.52 0.20 3,465 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.11 9.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.23 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.23 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 181 181 0.01 0.03 0.18 190 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.53 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 30.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 31.5 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
19 / 76

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.75 1.47 13.9 15.1 0.02 0.57 — 0.57 0.52 — 0.52 — 2,494 2,494 0.10 0.02 — 2,502 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 2.63 2.63 — 0.40 0.40 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.08 0.76 0.83 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 137 137 0.01 < 0.005 — 137 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
20 / 76
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 164 164 0.01 0.01 0.02 166 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.25 0.05 4.21 1.59 0.02 0.04 0.88 0.93 0.04 0.24 0.28 — 3,306 3,306 0.18 0.52 0.20 3,465 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.11 9.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 9.23 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.23 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 181 181 0.01 0.03 0.18 190 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.51 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.53 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 30.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 31.5

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.80 1.51 14.1 14.5 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
21 / 76
———————0.890.89—1.861.86——————Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.80 1.51 14.1 14.5 0.02 0.64 — 0.64 0.59 — 0.59 — 2,455 2,455 0.10 0.02 — 2,463 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 1.86 1.86 — 0.89 0.89 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.22 0.19 1.73 1.79 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 303 303 0.01 < 0.005 — 304 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.23 0.23 — 0.11 0.11 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.32 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 50.1 50.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.3 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
22 / 76
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 138 138 0.01 < 0.005 0.51 140 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.78 0.16 12.3 4.78 0.07 0.13 2.68 2.81 0.13 0.73 0.86 — 10,007 10,007 0.54 1.57 23.2 10,511 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 131 131 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 133 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.76 0.15 12.8 4.83 0.07 0.13 2.68 2.81 0.13 0.73 0.86 — 10,011 10,011 0.54 1.57 0.60 10,493 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.4 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.10 0.02 1.59 0.59 0.01 0.02 0.33 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,234 1,234 0.07 0.19 1.24 1,294 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.71 2.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.29 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 204 204 0.01 0.03 0.20 214

3.4. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
23 / 76
Off-Road
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.32 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 50.1 50.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 50.3 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
24 / 76
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 138 138 0.01 < 0.005 0.51 140 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.78 0.16 12.3 4.78 0.07 0.13 2.68 2.81 0.13 0.73 0.86 — 10,007 10,007 0.54 1.57 23.2 10,511 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 131 131 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 133 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.76 0.15 12.8 4.83 0.07 0.13 2.68 2.81 0.13 0.73 0.86 — 10,011 10,011 0.54 1.57 0.60 10,493 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.4 16.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.10 0.02 1.59 0.59 0.01 0.02 0.33 0.34 0.02 0.09 0.11 — 1,234 1,234 0.07 0.19 1.24 1,294 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.71 2.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.75 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.02 < 0.005 0.29 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 204 204 0.01 0.03 0.20 214

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
25 / 76
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.28 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.28 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.54 0.45 3.76 4.22 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 758 758 0.03 0.01 — 760 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.08 0.69 0.77 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 125 125 0.01 < 0.005 — 126 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.74 0.66 0.67 10.8 0.00 0.00 2.02 2.02 0.00 0.47 0.47 — 2,140 2,140 0.09 0.07 7.84 2,172 Vendor 0.08 0.03 1.24 0.61 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,094 1,094 0.05 0.15 2.99 1,144 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
26 / 76
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Worker 0.73 0.66 0.74 9.13 0.00 0.00 2.02 2.02 0.00 0.47 0.47 — 2,029 2,029 0.09 0.08 0.20 2,054 Vendor 0.08 0.03 1.30 0.61 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,094 1,094 0.05 0.15 0.08 1,141 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.31 0.27 0.34 4.03 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 0.20 0.20 — 866 866 0.04 0.03 1.42 878 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.55 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 — 460 460 0.02 0.06 0.55 481 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 143 143 0.01 0.01 0.24 145 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 76.2 76.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 79.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.28 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
27 / 76
Off-Road
Equipment

1.28 1.07 8.95 10.0 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.54 0.45 3.76 4.22 0.01 0.14 — 0.14 0.13 — 0.13 — 758 758 0.03 0.01 — 760 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.08 0.69 0.77 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 125 125 0.01 < 0.005 — 126 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.74 0.66 0.67 10.8 0.00 0.00 2.02 2.02 0.00 0.47 0.47 — 2,140 2,140 0.09 0.07 7.84 2,172 Vendor 0.08 0.03 1.24 0.61 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,094 1,094 0.05 0.15 2.99 1,144 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.73 0.66 0.74 9.13 0.00 0.00 2.02 2.02 0.00 0.47 0.47 — 2,029 2,029 0.09 0.08 0.20 2,054 Vendor 0.08 0.03 1.30 0.61 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,094 1,094 0.05 0.15 0.08 1,141 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.31 0.27 0.34 4.03 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.84 0.00 0.20 0.20 — 866 866 0.04 0.03 1.42 878 Vendor 0.03 0.01 0.55 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.13 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 — 460 460 0.02 0.06 0.55 481 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
28 / 76
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 143 143 0.01 0.01 0.24 145 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 76.2 76.2 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 79.6 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.22 1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.22 1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.87 0.72 6.12 7.11 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,286 1,286 0.05 0.01 — 1,291 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
29 / 76
Off-Road
Equipment

0.16 0.13 1.12 1.30 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 213 213 0.01 < 0.005 — 214 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.64 0.57 0.60 10.00 0.00 0.00 2.02 2.02 0.00 0.47 0.47 — 2,097 2,097 0.09 0.07 7.10 2,129 Vendor 0.08 0.03 1.19 0.57 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,075 1,075 0.04 0.15 2.90 1,125 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.64 0.57 0.67 8.53 0.00 0.00 2.02 2.02 0.00 0.47 0.47 — 1,988 1,988 0.09 0.07 0.18 2,013 Vendor 0.08 0.03 1.24 0.59 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,075 1,075 0.04 0.15 0.08 1,122 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.46 0.40 0.52 6.38 0.00 0.00 1.43 1.43 0.00 0.33 0.33 — 1,441 1,441 0.06 0.05 2.19 1,461 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.89 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.06 — 768 768 0.03 0.11 0.89 802 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.10 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 239 239 0.01 0.01 0.36 242 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 127 127 0.01 0.02 0.15 133 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
30 / 76
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.22 1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.22 1.01 8.57 9.96 0.02 0.29 — 0.29 0.27 — 0.27 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.87 0.72 6.12 7.11 0.01 0.21 — 0.21 0.19 — 0.19 — 1,286 1,286 0.05 0.01 — 1,291 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.16 0.13 1.12 1.30 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 213 213 0.01 < 0.005 — 214 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.64 0.57 0.60 10.00 0.00 0.00 2.02 2.02 0.00 0.47 0.47 — 2,097 2,097 0.09 0.07 7.10 2,129 Vendor 0.08 0.03 1.19 0.57 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,075 1,075 0.04 0.15 2.90 1,125 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
31 / 76
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.64 0.57 0.67 8.53 0.00 0.00 2.02 2.02 0.00 0.47 0.47 — 1,988 1,988 0.09 0.07 0.18 2,013 Vendor 0.08 0.03 1.24 0.59 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.31 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,075 1,075 0.04 0.15 0.08 1,122 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.46 0.40 0.52 6.38 0.00 0.00 1.43 1.43 0.00 0.33 0.33 — 1,441 1,441 0.06 0.05 2.19 1,461 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.89 0.41 0.01 0.01 0.21 0.22 0.01 0.06 0.06 — 768 768 0.03 0.11 0.89 802 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.10 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 239 239 0.01 0.01 0.36 242 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 127 127 0.01 0.02 0.15 133 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.17 0.97 8.25 9.91 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
32 / 76
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.11 0.97 1.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 211 211 0.01 < 0.005 — 212 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.02 0.18 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 35.0 35.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 35.1 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.62 0.54 0.67 7.88 0.00 0.00 2.02 2.02 0.00 0.47 0.47 — 1,950 1,950 0.03 0.07 0.17 1,973 Vendor 0.07 0.03 1.18 0.55 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.30 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,055 1,055 0.04 0.15 0.07 1,099 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 232 232 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 235 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.14 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 124 124 0.01 0.02 0.14 129 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 38.5 38.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 39.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
33 / 76

3.10. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.17 0.97 8.25 9.91 0.02 0.26 — 0.26 0.24 — 0.24 — 1,801 1,801 0.07 0.01 — 1,807 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.11 0.97 1.16 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 211 211 0.01 < 0.005 — 212 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.02 0.18 0.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 35.0 35.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 35.1 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
34 / 76
Worker 0.62 0.54 0.67 7.88 0.00 0.00 2.02 2.02 0.00 0.47 0.47 — 1,950 1,950 0.03 0.07 0.17 1,973 Vendor 0.07 0.03 1.18 0.55 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.30 0.01 0.08 0.09 — 1,055 1,055 0.04 0.15 0.07 1,099 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.05 0.05 — 232 232 < 0.005 0.01 0.32 235 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.14 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 124 124 0.01 0.02 0.14 129 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 38.5 38.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 39.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.54 0.46 4.30 6.49 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 992 992 0.04 0.01 — 995 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
35 / 76
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.13 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.95 4.95 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.96 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 157 157 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 159 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.82 4.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.88 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.80 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.81 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
36 / 76

3.12. Paving (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.54 0.46 4.30 6.49 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 992 992 0.04 0.01 — 995 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.13 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 29.9 29.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 30.0 Paving — 0.00 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
37 / 76
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 157 157 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 159 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.82 4.82 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.88 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.80 0.80 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.81 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 34.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
38 / 76
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.10 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.4 15.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.4 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 3.99 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.54 2.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.55 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.73 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.13 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 390 390 0.01 0.01 0.03 395 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 45.5 45.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 46.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
39 / 76
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.54 7.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 34.6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
40 / 76
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.54 2.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.55 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.73 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.13 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.09 0.09 — 390 390 0.01 0.01 0.03 395 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 45.5 45.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 46.1 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.54 7.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
41 / 76

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

2.21 2.02 1.39 16.6 0.04 0.02 3.91 3.93 0.02 0.99 1.02 — 4,184 4,184 0.20 0.16 11.6 4,249 Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.21 2.02 1.39 16.6 0.04 0.02 3.91 3.93 0.02 0.99 1.02 — 4,184 4,184 0.20 0.16 11.6 4,249 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

2.19 1.99 1.52 15.4 0.04 0.02 3.91 3.93 0.02 0.99 1.02 — 4,011 4,011 0.21 0.17 0.30 4,067 Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator

0.38 0.34 0.27 2.73 0.01 <

0.005 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 0.17 0.17 — 639 639 0.03 0.03 0.79 648 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
42 / 76

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Enclosed Par
king
with
Elev
ator
Total 0.38 0.34 0.27 2.73 0.01 < 0.005 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 0.17 0.17 — 639 639 0.03 0.03 0.79 648

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

2.21 2.02 1.39 16.6 0.04 0.02 3.91 3.93 0.02 0.99 1.02 — 4,184 4,184 0.20 0.16 11.6 4,249 Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator

2.19 1.99 1.52 15.4 0.04 0.02 3.91 3.93 0.02 0.99 1.02 — 4,011 4,011 0.21 0.17 0.30 4,067 Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.19 1.99 1.52 15.4 0.04 0.02 3.91 3.93 0.02 0.99 1.02 — 4,011 4,011 0.21 0.17 0.30 4,067 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
43 / 76
6480.790.030.03639639—0.170.17< 0.0050.670.67< 0.0050.012.730.270.340.38Apartme nts
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.38 0.34 0.27 2.73 0.01 < 0.005 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 0.17 0.17 — 639 639 0.03 0.03 0.79 648

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,661 1,661 0.05 0.01 — 1,664
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,174 1,174 0.04 < 0.005 — 1,176 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,834 2,834 0.09 0.01 — 2,840 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,661 1,661 0.05 0.01 — 1,664
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,174 1,174 0.04 < 0.005 — 1,176 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
44 / 76
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,834 2,834 0.09 0.01 — 2,840 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 275 275 0.01 <

0.005 — 276
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 194 194 0.01 < 0.005 — 195
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 469 469 0.02 < 0.005 — 470

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,661 1,661 0.05 0.01 — 1,664
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,174 1,174 0.04 < 0.005 — 1,176 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,834 2,834 0.09 0.01 — 2,840 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,661 1,661 0.05 0.01 — 1,664
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
45 / 76
1,176—< 0.0050.041,1741,174————————————Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elev
ator
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,834 2,834 0.09 0.01 — 2,840 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 275 275 0.01 <

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.06 0.03 0.52 0.22 <

0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 659 659 0.06 < 0.005 — 661 Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 659 659 0.06 < 0.005 — 661 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
46 / 76
661—< 0.0050.06659659—0.04—0.040.04—0.04< 0.0050.220.520.030.06Apartme nts
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 659 659 0.06 < 0.005 — 661 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 <

0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 109 109 0.01 < 0.005 — 109 Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 109 109 0.01 < 0.005 — 109

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.06 0.03 0.52 0.22 <

0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 659 659 0.06 < 0.005 — 661 Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.06 0.03 0.52 0.22 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 659 659 0.06 < 0.005 — 661 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
47 / 76
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.06 0.03 0.52 0.22 <

0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 659 659 0.06 < 0.005 — 661 Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 <

0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 109 109 0.01 < 0.005 — 109 Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 109 109 0.01 < 0.005 — 109

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.22 0.11 1.85 0.79 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 0.00 2,345 2,345 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,347 Consum
er
Products
— 4.97 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
48 / 76
Architect
Coatings
— 0.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

1.65 1.55 0.12 13.4 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 42.8 42.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 43.0 Total 1.87 7.03 1.97 14.2 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 0.00 2,387 2,387 0.05 < 0.005 — 2,390 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.22 0.11 1.85 0.79 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 0.00 2,345 2,345 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,347 Consum
er
Products
— 4.97 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.22 5.48 1.85 0.79 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 0.00 2,345 2,345 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,347 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 26.6 26.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.6 Consum
er
Products
— 0.91 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.21 0.19 0.02 1.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.86 4.86 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.88 Total 0.21 1.18 0.04 1.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 31.4 31.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.5

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
49 / 76
Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.22 0.11 1.85 0.79 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 0.00 2,345 2,345 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,347 Consum
er
Products
— 4.97 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

1.65 1.55 0.12 13.4 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 42.8 42.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 43.0 Total 1.87 7.03 1.97 14.2 0.01 0.16 — 0.16 0.16 — 0.16 0.00 2,387 2,387 0.05 < 0.005 — 2,390 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.22 0.11 1.85 0.79 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 0.00 2,345 2,345 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,347 Consum
er
Products
— 4.97 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.22 5.48 1.85 0.79 0.01 0.15 — 0.15 0.15 — 0.15 0.00 2,345 2,345 0.04 < 0.005 — 2,347 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 26.6 26.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.6 Consum
er
Products
— 0.91 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
50 / 76
————————————————0.07—Architect
ural
Coatings
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 112 122 1.09 0.03 — 158
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 112 122 1.09 0.03 — 158 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 112 122 1.09 0.03 — 158
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
51 / 76

0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 10.6 112 122 1.09 0.03 — 158 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.76 18.5 20.3 0.18 <

0.005 — 26.1
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.76 18.5 20.3 0.18 < 0.005 — 26.1

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 8.53 90.0 98.5 0.88 0.02 — 127
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 8.53 90.0 98.5 0.88 0.02 — 127 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
52 / 76
127—0.020.8898.590.08.53———————————Apartme
nts
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 8.53 90.0 98.5 0.88 0.02 — 127 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.41 14.9 16.3 0.15 <

0.005 — 21.0
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.41 14.9 16.3 0.15 < 0.005 — 21.0

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
53 / 76
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.83 0.00 9.83 0.98 0.00 — 34.4
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.83 0.00 9.83 0.98 0.00 — 34.4

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
54 / 76
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 59.4 0.00 59.4 5.93 0.00 — 208 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.83 0.00 9.83 0.98 0.00 — 34.4
Enclosed
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 9.83 0.00 9.83 0.98 0.00 — 34.4

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
55 / 76
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.66 1.66
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
56 / 76
Apartme
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.28 0.28

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
57 / 76
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
58 / 76
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
59 / 76
Equipme
Type
T OG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
60 / 76
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
61 / 76
——————————————————Daily,
Winter
(Max)
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
62 / 76
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
63 / 76
Sequest — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
64 / 76

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 3/1/2025 3/29/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Grading Grading 3/30/2025 5/30/2025 5.00 45.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 5/31/2025 3/1/2027 5.00 456 — Paving Paving 2/15/2027 3/1/2027 5.00 11.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/1/2027 3/1/2027 5.00 42.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel A
verage 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
65 / 76
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel A
verage 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel A
verage 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 81.0 0.42
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
66 / 76
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel A verage 1.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 47.7 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 144 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 155 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 34.5 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
67 / 76
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 31.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 47.7 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 10.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 144 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 155 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 34.5 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 12.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
68 / 76
Paving Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 31.0 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 10.2 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44% Sweep paved roads once per month 9% 9%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq
ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 470,685 156,895 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Y ards) Material Exported (Cubic Y ards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square F
ootage)
Acres Paved (acres)
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
69 / 76
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 82,871 —
Grading — 52,000 44.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 3 74% 74%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 1,025 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 1,025 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 1,025 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Mid Rise 676 610 508 234,559 5,514 4,977 4,146 1,913,287 1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
70 / 76
Enclosed Parking
with Ele
vator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Mid Rise 676 610 508 234,559 5,514 4,977 4,146 1,913,287 Enclosed Parking
with Ele
vator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 111
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 13
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
71 / 76
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 111
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 13
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 250
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
72 / 76

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 591,177 1,025 0.0330 0.0040 2,056,946 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 417,704 1,025 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 591,177 1,025 0.0330 0.0040 2,056,946 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 417,704 1,025 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 5,553,796 368,642
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 4,450,257 328,643
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
73 / 76

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 110 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 110 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential
A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freez
ers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential
A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
74 / 76

1.000.000.600.121,430R-134aApartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Y ear Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type
— —

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
75 / 76

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
1303 Central Avenue (Proposed) Custom Report, 4/1/2024
76 / 76
Land Use Development standard includes minimum landscaped open space - 25% of lot area. Subterranean parking garage.

Construction: Construction Phases Construction expected to begin March 2025 and last approximately 24 months Operations: Hearths No woodstoves, no wood fireplaces
Construction: Dust From Material Movement Worst case scenario assumption of 52,000 cy of export, which includes an 18% swell factor Operations: Vehicle Data According to Project Trip Generation rate dated March 15, 2024

City of Glendale
Community Development Department
May 24, 2024

Page 6 ends

Glendale City CouncilFebruary 4, 2025

Glendale City Council
February 4, 2025