CITY OF GLENDALE PLANNING DEPARTMENT … OF GLENDALE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT...

CITY OF GLENDALE PLANNING DEPARTMENTDESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: February 22,2007

TO: Design Review Board 2

PREPARED BY: Erik Krause, Senior Planner

CASE NUMBER: 2-PDR 2007-01O-A

ADDRESS: 295-307 E. Garfield Avenue

APPLICANT: Thomas Safran & Associates

OWNER: City ofGlendale Housing Authority

PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a new three-story 30-unit multifamily rental housing project affordable to households earning between 30 and 60 percent ofmedian income. The project site is located on three adjoining lots totaling approximately 27,550square feet (0.63 acres). A total of 56 parking spaces will be provided in a semi-subterraneanparking garage. Units will range from 605 square foot one bedroom, one bathroom units to 1,180square foot three bedroom, two bathroom units including a dedicated onsite manager's unit. Thefollowing includes a breakdown of each unit:

• 8 - one bedroom/one bathroom (1 BH/lBA) 605 square feet (SF);

• 12 - (2 BH/l.25 BA) 962 SF;

• 9 - (3 BH/2BA) 1,180 SF; and

• 1 - (3 BH/2BA) 1,331 SF (manager's unit).

Public alleys line the site along the eastern and northern edges. Parking spaces will be provided in asemi-subterranean parking garage with access from tbe alley along the eastern edge ofthe property.

CEQA STATUS: A Negative Declaration was prepared for the project. The public commentperiod began on January 4, 2007 and ended on January 24, 2007. No comments were received.The Zoning Administrator will be required to adopt the Final Negative Declaration prior to anyproject approval.

PREVIOUS DECISIONS: First time submittal for final review

A. APPLICABLE POLICY DOCUMENTS

ZONE: R-2250 (Medium Density Residential Zone)

GENERAL PLAN: Medium Density Residential

DRB Case No. PDRB 2007..Q1O-AAddress: 295-307 E. Garfield Avenue

DESIGN GUIDELINES: There are no multi-family guidelines. The subject site is located withinthe boundaries of the South Brand Specific Plan; however, this plan does not .provide guidelines forresidential projects. The project site is also within the East Garfield Neighborhood RevitalizationArea defined by the Community Development and Housing Department as the area bounded byGlendale Avenue, Brand Boulevard, Chevy Chase Drive, and Maple Street. The project site islocated within close proximity to the proposed Maryland Mini-Park.

B. IMMEDIATE CONTEXT

The project site consists of three adjoining lots that are currently undeveloped. The areasurrounding the project includes some single- and multi-family residential dwelling units in additionto commercial uses. Nearby buildings were constructed during various time periods with a varietyof architectural styles and various building heights. However, the craftsman style is the mostprevalent.

There is an existing three-story multi-family building abutting the property to the west. Theproperty directly east and across the public alley consists of a I-story craftsman style single-familyresidence that has been converted for commercial use and is currently occupied by Enterprise RentA-Car. Property south of the subject site and across Garfield consist of 1- and 2- story residentialuses. The properties north of the site and across the alley from the subject property consists ofsimilar uses.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRAINTS:

Slope: Relatively flat

Indigenous Trees: None identified on the site or within 20 feet.

Access & Parking: Access to the semi-subterranean garage will be from the public alley locatedon the eastern edge of the subject property. This alley will be widened to 20 feet from GarfieldAvenue for a distance of approximately 80 feet to allow for two way traffic in and out of theparking garage. The applicant is proposing to provide 56 standard parking spaces consistent withparking requirements provided in Table 30.36-A of Section 30.36 of the zoning code. Oneadditional space is proposed to be used as handicapped parking for a total of57 spaces.

NEIGHBORING ZONES AND USES:

Zoning Existing Uses

North R-2250 Single- and rnulti-fumily residential 1- , 2-, and 3-story

Sontb R-2250 Single- and rnulti-fumily residential 1-, 2-, and 3-story

East CG Commercial I-story car rental

West R-2250 Multi-family residential 2- and 3-story

ORB Case No. PDRB 2007-01O-AAddress: 295-307 E. Garfield Avenue

C. PROPOSED SITE PLANNING, MASSING, SCALE

The proposed project includes three separate buildings connected on the second and third floor bycovered walkways and the roof line. Each building includes three floors with a maximum buildingheight of 41 feet.

The first floor includes a total of 9 units; 2 one bedroom/one bathroom units, 4 two bedroom/oneand one-quarter bathroom units, and 3 three bedroom/two bathroom units. A community room withkitchen, public bathroom, office, maintenance and storage area, and the elevator lobby andmailboxes will be located on the first floor along Garfield Avenue on the southwest side of theproperty.

The second floor will include 11 units: 4 one bedroom/one bathroom units, 4 two bedroom/one andone-quarter bathroom units, and 3 three bedroom/two bathroom units. A laundry room and theelevator lobby will also be located on the second floor along Garfield Avenue in the southwest sideof the property. The third floor includes 10 units: 2 one bedroom/one bathroom units, 4 twobedroom/one and one-quarter bathroom units, 3 three bedroom/two bathroom units, and themanger's unit that includes three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The table below outlines thezoning requirements for the subject property.

Proposed Project Zoning Code

Density 30 units 15 units (Max.)

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.48 0.85

Lot Coverage 50% 50% maximum

Setbacks

Street Front 1st Floor 23 feet 20 feet minimum 23 average

2nd & 3rd Floor 26 feet 23 feet minimum 26 average

Interior 1st floor 5 feet 5 foot minimum 8 average

2nd floor 5 feet 8 feet minimum II average

3rd Floor 5 feet II feet minimum 14 average

Heigbt 4 stories 41 feet 3 stories 41 feet maximum'

Landscaping 25% 25% maximum of lot area

*Includes additional 5 feet of height permitted for any roofed area having a minimum pitch of 3 feet in 12 feet

The applicant has applied for Zoning Administrator approval of a Density Bonus Housing Planunder the City's Density Bonus Ordinance (GMC 30.36) for the purpose of providing multi-familyrental housing affordable to households earning between 30 and 60 percent of median income. Theapplicant has applied for the following concessions and waivers under SB1818:

Concession

I. To construct an apartment building with minimum interior setbacks of 5 feet;2. To construct a fourth story; and

DRB Olse No. PDRB 2007-{)JO-AAddress: 295-307 E. Garfield Avenue

3. To allow up to a 1.48 FAR.

Waiver

1. To provide minimum common open space per Section 30.11.050, not the additional open spacerequired by Section 30.31.020.

D. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, MATERIALS

The applicant identifies the architectural style of the proposed project as craftsman. Materialsutilized will include light sand finished stucco, hardi board shake siding, wrought iron guard rails,dual glazed windows with painted wood trim, and asphalt shingle roof

Comments:

1. This is a joint project between the City of Glendale Community Development and HousingDepartment and the project applicant Thomas Safran and Associates. The purpose of the projectis to provide affordable rental housing to Glendale residents. Funding for the project includesthe City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits, andFederal Home Loan Bank.

2. The project is located within the East Garfield Neighborhood Revitalization Area. This areadefined as the area bounded by Glendale Avenue, Brand Boulevard, Chevy Chase Drive, andMaple Street was identified in March of 2001 by the Glendale Housing Authority as anappropriate area for neighborhood revitalization. The proposed project, along with the proposedMaryland Mini-Park, is one of the first steps in helping to achieve the goal of revitalizing theEast Garfield Neighborhood.

3. The project applicant, Thomas Safran and Associates, was selected as part of a Request forProposals (RFP) process for the purpose of providing affordable housing in the East GarfieldNeighborhood. TSA was selected from a pool of seven proposals, deemed to be within theparameters of the RFP, specifically due to the design of their proposal which was deemed, bythe reviewing panel, to be superior to the other submittals in terms of its detail, style, and themost appropriate for the East Garfield Neighborhood.

4. The architecture of the proposed project incorporates elements of Craftsman style into thebuilding fayade such as wood shingle siding, cross-gabled roof, exposed rafters, and boxcolumns. This is appropriate given that this is the predominate style within the project vicinity.

5. The proposed color variation, building modulation, and elements such as room projections,balconies, and roofprojections effectively reduce the mass ofthe building.

6. The common open space area is provided in the form of a central interior courtyard. Thebuildings are arranged so that the majority of the units face out onto the courtyard. Thiscommon open space area will be designed with amenities and landscaping which are integratedinto the design.

DRB Case No. PDRB 2007-010-AAddress: 295-307 E. Garfield Avenue

7. By providing access to the semi-subterranean garage from the alley, the garage entrance isremoved from the front fayade eliminating the need for stairs, stair rails, and any other railingneed for safety since the entrance to the project is provided at grade. In addition, the garageentrance does not break up the front fayade and become the main focal point. Additionalonstreet parking is provided by the project by removing the three existing driveway curb cutsused as ingress and egress for previous uses onsite.

Respectfully submitted,

Edith M. FuentesZoning Administrator

E~~"'•.."...'----

Senior Planner

EK:LS

ATTACHMENTS:1. Location Map2. Site Plan3. Floor Plans4. Roof Plan5. Elevations6. Environmental Information Form PElF 2006-044

, 3

g~ llAlV£ ~

>00

... P .... 988., .g,. "A0 3 ,..M.B. 11-3

"

••LD S PUR LOTS

Z<4 1.1 1.0 n 16- I! II

CHEVY

~ro" ... ~T 3 §

~:I~ -.- 4 ~

2 -. r'12 l ';,- ,;7 Poa .. LOT'

"

..0

-

~

-

-~

LOCATION MAPCASE NO.:DATE: Dec. 1,2006SCALE: 1" = 200'A.P.N. 5641-015-900, 901, 902SITE ADDRESS; 295-307 E. Garfield Ave.

Glendale, CA 91205

GRUMPY OLD MAN, LLC1218 EIPrado Ave. Ste.128Torrance, CA 90501(310) 618-1999

PUBLIC NOTICE

CITY OF GLENDALE

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATIONENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM/INITIAL STUDY No. 2006-044

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:

The Planning Department, after having conducted an Initial Study, has prepared a Proposed NegativeDeclaration for the following proJect:

The project Involves the development of a 30-unit affordable rental housing complex. The project site ISlocated on three adjoining lots totaling approximately 27,550 sguare feet (063 acre). A total of 56 parkingspaces will be provided In a semi-subterranean parking garage. Access to the parking garage will belocated In the alley along the eastern edge of the property. The applicant is applying for Design ReviewBoard approval and Zoning Administrator approval under the City's Density Bonus Ordinance and isreguesting concessions for interior setbacks height and floor area ratio.

The project is located at: 295-307 E Garfield Avenue, Los Angeles County, California

The Proposed Negative Declaration and all documents referenced therein are available for review in thePlanning Department office, Room 103 of the Municipal Services Building, 633 East Broadway, Glendale,California 91206-4386. Information on public hearings or meetings for the proposed project can beobtained from the Planning Department at (818) 548-2140

Written comments may be submitted to the Planning Department office for a period of twenty (20) daysafter publication of this notice.

Public Notice Published:

Proposed Negative Declaration Comment Period:

Hassan Haghani, Acting Director of Planning

January 4, 2007

January 4 2007 to

January 24, 2007

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIAPlanning Department

PROPOSEDNEGATIVE DECLARATION

PElF 2006·04430"Unit Affordable Multi-Family Residential

295-307 E. Garfield Avenue

The following Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California EnvironmentalQuality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Guidelines andProcedures of the City of Glendale.

Project Title/Common Name: 3D-Unit Affordable Multi-Family Residential

Project Location: 295 - 307 E Garfield Avenue, Glendale, Los Angeles County

Project Description: The project Involves the development of a 3D-unit multi-familydevelopment constructed on three adjoining lots totalingapproximately 27,550 square feet. (See Project Description on page4 for additional Information.)

Project Type: [2:J Private Project [2:J Public Project

Project Applicant: Andrew GrossThomas Safran & Associates11812 San Vicente Blvd., Ste. 600Los Angeles, CA 90049

Findings: The Director of Planning, on January 4, 2007, after conSidering anInitial Study prepared by the Planning Department, found that theabove referenced project would not have a Significant effect on theenvironment and instructed that a Negative Declaration be prepared.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are necessary

Attachments:.

Initial Study Checklist PElF No. 2006-044.

Contact Person: Hassan Haghani, Acting Director of PianningCity of Glendale Planning Department633 East Broadway Room 103Glendale, CA 91206-4386Tel: (818) 548-2140Fax: (818) 240-0392

CITY OF GLeNDALE, CALIFORNIAPlanning Department

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLISTPElF No. 2006-044

3D-Unit Affordable Multi-Family Residential295-307 E. Garfield Avenue

1. Project Title: 30-Unit Affordable Multi-Family Residential

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Glendale Planning Department633 East Broadway, Room 103Glendale, CA 91206

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Erik Krause, Senior Planner

Tel (818) 548-2140Fax: (818) 240-0392

4. Project Location; 295 - 307 E. Garfield Avenue, Glendale, Los Angeles County

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address;

Andrew GrossThomas Safran & Associates11812 San Vicente Blvd., Ste. 600Los Angeles, CA 90049

6. General Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential (South Brand Boulevard Specific Plan)

7. Zoning: R2250 (South Brand Boulevard Specific Plan)

S. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, Including but not limited 10,later phases of the project, and any secondary support or off-site features necessary for itsimplementation.)

The project Involves the development of a 30-unit affordable multi-family rental housing projectto households earning between 30 and 60 percent of median income. The project site is locatedon three adjoining lots totaling approximately 27,550 square feet (0.63 acre), A total of 56parking spaces will be provided In a semi-subterranean parking garage. Access to the parkinggarage will be located in the alley along the eastern edge of the property. The applicant isapplying for Design Review Board approval and Zoning Administrator approval under the City'sDensity Bonus Ordinance. Requested concessions include interior setbacks, height and floorarea ratio. (see Project Description on page 4 for more detail).

9, Surrounding Land Uses and Setting;

North' Single- and multi-fam t1y Residential Uses

South' Single- and Multi-family Residential Uses

East: Multi-family ReSidential and CommerCial Uses

West. Multi-family Residential Uses; Future Public Park

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval orparticipation agreement).

None.

-

PElF No. 2006-044 . JANUARY 2007

11. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, Involving atleast one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on thefollowing pages.

o Aestheticso Biological Resourceso Hazards & Hazardous Malenalso Mineral Resourceso Public Serviceso Utilities I Service Systems

o Agricultural Resourceso Cultural ResourcesD HVdrology f Water QualityD Noiseo Recreation

Mandatory Findings of Significance

D AirQuall\yD Geology I Soilso Land Use I Planningo Population I Housingo Transportation / Traffic

LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this Initial evaluation:

D

D

D

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and aN.EGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there willnot be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreedto by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and anENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significantunless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequatelyanalyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressedby mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets AnENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain tobe addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, becauseall potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVEDECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuantto that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that areimposet;J upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Prepared by: I Date:

Reviewed by: Date:

rj/;/t/7Date:

Signature of Director of Planning or his or her designee authorizing the release of environmental documentfor public review and comment.

C~-;fd-.4? ~ 7/Director of Planm g:

30-UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

295 -307 EAST GARFIELD AVENUE

PAGE 3

PElF No. 2006-044 JANUARY 2007

Project Description

The project site is located at 295 through 307 East Garfield Avenue in the City of Glendale. The projectinvolves the development of a 30-unit affordable multi-family rental housing project to households earningbetween 30 and 60 percent of median income. The project site totals approximately 27,550 square feet (0.63acre). The project site is located within the South Brand Boulevard Specific Plan and is zoned R2250(Medium Density Residential) with a General Plan designation of Multi Family Residential.

Units will range from 605 square foot one bedroom, one bathroom units to 1,180 square foot three bedroom,two bathroom units Including a dedicated onsite manager's unit. The following includes a breakdown of eachunit:

• 8 - one bedroom/one bathroom (1 BH/1 BA) 605 square feet (SF);

12 - (2 BH/125 BA) 962 SF;

• 9-(3BH/2BA)1,180SF,and

• 1 - (3 BH/2BA) 1,331 SF (manager's unit).

Public alleys line the site along the eastern and northern edges. Development of the project requires a 5 footdedication along the alley sides of the property to provide for a 15 foot wide alley. A total of 56 parkingspaces will be provided in a semi-subterranean parking garage. Access to the parking garage will be locatedin the alley along the eastern edge of the property. This alley will be widened to 20 feet from GarfieldAvenue for a distance of approximately 80 feet to allow for two way traffiC in and out of the parking garage.However, the extra 5 feet will be located on the project site and not within the dedicated public right-of-way.

Request Entitlements

The applicant is applying for Design Review Board approval and Zoning Administrator approval under theCit/'s Density Bonus Ordinance (Chapter 30,36 of the Glendale Municipal Code). Requested concessionsinclude Interior setbacks, height, and floor area ratio. Funding fOr the project includes the City of Glendale,County of Los Angeles, Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and Federal Home Loan Bank.

The proposed project includes three separate buildings connected on the second and third floor by coveredwalkways and the roof line. Each building IS three stories in height With a not to exceed height of 41 feetabove the finished grade. The first floor will include a total of 9 units; 2 one bedroom/one bathroom units, 4two bedroom/one and one-quarter bathroom units, and 3 three bedroom/two bathroom units. A communityroom with kitchen, public bathroom, office, maintenance and storage area, and the elevator lobby andmailboxes will be located on the first floor along Garfield Avenue in the southwest side of the property.

The second floor will Include 11 units: 4 one bedroom/one bathroom units, 4 two bedroom/one and onequarter bathroom units, and 3 three bedroom/two bathroom units. A Laundry room and the elevator lobbyWill also be located on the second floor along Garfield Avenue in the southwest side of the property. Thethird floor includes 10 units: 2 one bedroom/one bathroom units, 4 two bedroom/one and one-quarterbathroom units, 3 three bedroom/two bathroom units, and the manger's unit that includes three bedroomsand two bathrooms.

30-UNIT AFFORDABLE MUl l'1-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

295 -307 EAST GARFIELD AVENUEPAGE 4

PElF NO. 2006-044 JANUARY 2007

12. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:

The following section provides an evaluation of the Impact categories and questions contained in thechecklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable.

A. AESTHETICS

Less ThanPotentially Significant Lessl'han

NoWould the project: Significant Impact With SignificantImpactImpact Mitigation Impact

Incorporated

1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X

2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited to, trees, rock Dutcroppings, and Xhistoric bUildings within a state scenic highway?

3. SUbstantially degrade the existing visual character Xor quality of the site and its surroundings?

4 Create a new source of substantial light or glarewhich would adversely affecl day or nighttime views Xin the area?

1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

No fmpact. The project site is located within a heavily urbanized area of the City with relatively fiattopography. No scenic vistas, as identified in the Open Space and Conservation Element (January1993), exist within, or in proximity to, the project site. Therefore, no impacts to scenic vistas wouldresult from project implementation.

Mitigation Measures; No mitigation measures are required.

2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rockoutcroppings, and historic buildings within a state sc:enic highway?

No Impact. No state .scenic highway is located adjacent to, or within view of, the project site. Noimpacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and itssurroundings?

No Impact. The project site consists of three adjoining lots that are currently undeveloped. Thearea surrounding the project Includes some single- and multi-family residential dwelling units inaddition to commercial uses. Nearby buildings were constructed during various time periods with avariety of architectural styles and various building heights. The proposed project will require DesignReview Board approval The Board will review the site planning, architecture, materials andlandscaping to ensure the prOject design IS compatible with the surrounding built enVIronment.Review by the DRB will enSure that no significant impacts would occur associated with the eXistingcharacter of the surrounding area.

Mitigation Measures: No mlligation measures are required.

3D-UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


PElF NO 2006~044 JANUARY 2007

4) Create a new source of substantia/light or glare, which would adversely affect day ornighttime views in the area?

Less Than Significant Impact. Day and nighttime lighting for the project would slightly increase asa result of the proposed project but would be similar to the eXisting multi-family uses within theproject vicinity, Because the surrounding area IS already developed, a large portion of which isdeveloped with multi-family and commercial uses, no significant impacts associaled with light orglare are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required,

B. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES

In determining whefherimpacts to ,agriculturalresources are significant environmental effects, lead LessThanagencies may refer to the CaUfomia Agricultural Land Potentially Significant LessThanEvaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) Significant 'ImpacfWith Significant Noprepared by the California Department of Impact Mitigation Impact ImpactConservation as an optional model to use inf;Jssessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

Incorporated

Would the project, Would the project:

1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland. orFarml~nd of Statewide Importance {Fsrmland}, asshown on the maps prepared pursuant to the XFarmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of theCalifornia Resources Agency, 10 non-agriCUlturaluse?

2, Conflict with eXisting zoning for agricultural use, or a XWlJIiamson Act contract?

3 Involve other changes in the eXisting environmentwhich, due to their localion or nature, could result in Xconversion of Farmland, to nonrsgricullural use?

1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmiand, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Programof the California Resources Agency, to non~agriculturaluse?

No Impact. There is no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide Importancewithin or adjacent to the proposed project site and no agricultural activities take place on the projectsite No agricultural use zone currently exists within the City of Glendale, nor are any agriculturalzones proposed, No impacts would occur,


2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

No Impact. The proposed project 5ite IS located in a highly urbanized area. No portion of theproject site is proposed to include agricultural zoning designations or uses, nor do any such useseXist within the City of Glendale under the current General Plan and zoning. There are noWilliamson Act contracts in effect for the project site or surrounding Vicinity. No conflicts With existingzoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract would result. No impacts would occur,


3D-UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTI .. FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

295 -307 EAST GARFIELD AVENUEPAGE6

PElF No. 2006·044 JANUARY 2007

3) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

No Impact. There is no farmland in the vicinity of or on the proposed project site. No farmiandwould be converted to non-agricultural uses under the proposed project. No Impacts wouid occur.


c. AIR QUALITY

Where available, the significance criteria establfshedLess Than

Potentially Significant less Thanby the applicable air quality management or air Significant Impact With SignificantNo

pollution control distdct may be relied upon to make Impact Mitigation ImpactImpact

the following determinations. Would the project: Incorporated

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of Ihe Xapplicable air quality plan?

2. Viblate any air quality standard or contributesubstantially to an existing or projected air quality X

.

violation?

3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ofany criteria pollutant for which the project region isnon-attainment under an applicable federal or state Xambient air quality standard (including releasingemiSSions which exceed quantitative lhresholds forozone precursors)?

4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant Xconcentrations?

5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial Xnumber of people?

1) Conflict with or obstruct implementatjon of the applicable air quality plan?

No Impact. The project site is iocated within the City of Glendale, which is part of the South CoastAir Basin (Basin) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD), The SCAQMD is the agency responsible for preparing the Air Quality ManagementPlan (AQMP) for the Basin.· Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The most recentcomprehensive plan fully approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S EPA) is the2003 Air Quality Management Plan (2003 AQMP), which inciudes a variety of strategies and controlmeasures.

The 2003 AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of poliutants withinthe areas under the Jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to return clean air to the region, 'lnd to minimize theimpact on the economy. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would notinterfere with attainment because this growth Is inCluded in the projections utilized in the formulationof the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicableassumption used In the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air qualitylevels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily emissionsthresholds.

Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified In

the Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) areconsidered consistent with the AQMP growth projections, since the Growth Management Chapterforms the baSIS of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP.

30-UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMIL.Y RESIDENTIAL

295 -307 EASY GARFIELO AVeNUEPAGE 7

PElF No 2006-044 JANUARY 2007

Population growth associated with the proposed project is included in the Southern CaliforniaAssociations of Government (SCAG) projects for growth in the City of Giendale, The proposedproject does not result in population and housing growth that would cause growth in Glendale toexceed the SCAG forecast Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would beconsistent with AQMP attainment forecasts Therefore, no impact would occur with relation to aconflict with, or obstruction of, the implementation of the SCAQMD AQMP,

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are req'uired

2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected airquality violation?

Less Than Significant Impact Both the stale of California and the federal government haveestablished health based Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria air pollutants, Thesepollutants include ozone (03 ), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (Sax),particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 microns (PM,o) and lead (Pb),Currently, 0 3 , CO, and PM,o are designated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as nonattainment in Los Angeles County, a, (smog) is formed by a photochemical reaction betweenOXides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (RaG), Thus, impacts from a, are assessed byevaluating Impacts from NOx and RaG,

As the agency principally responSible for comprehensive air pollution control In the Basin, theSCAQMD recommends that projects should be evaluated in terms of air pollution control thresholdsestablished by the SCAQMD and published in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, These thresholdswere developed by the SCAQMD to provide quantifiable levels to which individuals projects can becompared The folloWing quantifiable thresholds are currently recommended by the SCAQMD andare used to determme the Significance of air quality impacts associated with the proposed project

Construction - The following significance thresholds for air quality have been established by theSCAQMD on a daily basis for construction emissions:

75 pounds per day of RaG;

• 100 pounds per day of NOx;

• 550 pounds per day of CO;

150 pounds per day of PM,o; and

• 150 pounds per day of SO"

During construction, if any of the identified daily air pollutanllhresholds area exceeded by theproposed project, then the proposed project's air quality im pacts would be considered significant.

Operational -SpecifiC criteria pollutants have been identified by the SCAQMD as pollutants ofspecial regional concern, Based upon this categorization, the following significant thresholds foroperational emission have been established by the SCAQMD for all types of project operations:

55 pounds per day of RaG;

55 pounds per day of NOx;

• 550 pounds per day of CO;

• 150 pounds per day of PM,o;

• 150 pounds per day of SO,; and

California 1-hour or 8-hour CO standards

Projects within the Basin with daily operation-related emissions that exceed any of the aboveemiSSion thresholds may be conSidered significant.

30-UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTl-FAMIL y RESIDENllAL


PAGE 8


Standard Conditions - Construction Activities

The proposed project is required to comply with regional rules that assist In reducing short-term airpollutant emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best availablecontrol measures (BACM) so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in theatmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating anuisance off-Site Applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403 are summarized below.Implementation of these dust suppression techniques would reduce the fugitive dust generation (andthus the PM," component). Compliance with these rules would ensure that impacts to nearbysensitive receptors are less than significant.

The following are the applicable Rule 403 Measures:

Apply nontoxic chemical soit stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to allinactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more);

Water active sites at least twice daily (locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughlywatered prior to earthmoving); and

All trucks hauling dirt. sand. soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shouldmaintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of CaliforniaVehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of theload and top of the trailer).

In addition, compliance with the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations (Rule 1113) on the use ofarchitectural coatings would be required.

Construction Emission Impacts

Construction emissions were calculate according to the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Qua/ity Handbook,and construction emission factors contained In the URBEMIS 2002 Air Quality Impact Model. Tabie1 below identifies the peak daily emissions that would be generated during construction activitiesassociated with the proposed project. These estimates are based on the expected location, size anddevelopment of the project. The analysis assumes that all the construction equipment and activitieswouid occur continuously over the day and that activities would overlap. In reality. thiS would notoccur, as most equipment would operate only a fraction of each workday and many of the activitieswouid not overlap on a daily basis. Therefore, Table 1 represents a worst-case scenario forconstruction actiVities. These calculations also assume that appropriate dust control measureswould be implemented during each construction activity of the project as required by SCAOMD Rule403-Fugitive Dust.

Table 1Highest Daily Estimated Construction Emissions

Emissions in Pounds per Day

Emission Source ROG NO, CO SO, PM10

2007- Maximum Pounds/Day-All Phases 4.45 35.67 32.88 0.00 3.52

SCAOMD Thresholds 7500 100.00 550.00 150.00 150.00

Exceeds Thresholds? NO NO NO NO NO

2008 - Maximum Pounds/Day-All Phases 56.69 33.84 34.14 000 340

SCAOMD Thresholds 7500 100.00 550.00 15000 150.00

Exceeds Tnresholds? NO NO NO NO NO

30~UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTl-FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL

295 -307 EAST GARFIELO AVENUEPAGE 9


The construction emission presented in Table 1 above represent the worst-case daily emissionestimate. Under the worst-case conditions, emissions generated during construction activities wouldnot exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts are considered to be iess than significant.

Operational Emission Impacts

Operational emissions would be generated by both stationary and mobile sources as a result ofnormal day-to-day activity on the project site after occupation. Stationary emissions would begE>nerated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water healing devises, and from electricpower generation sources located elsewhere within Southern California. Mobile emissions would begenerated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site.

The analysis of daily operational emissions using the data and methodologies identified in theSCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook and current motor vehicle emission factors in the URBEMIS2002 Air Quality Impact Model. The predicted emissions are based upon development of theproposed project and are presented in Table 2 below.

Table 2Operational Emissions of Proposed Project


Emission Source ROG NO, CO SO, PM 10

Vehicular Sources 1.69 1.60 17.48 0.01 168

Stationary Source (Area Source) 2.07 0.23 0.79 0.00 0.00

Total 376 1.83 18.27 0.01 1.68

SCAOMD Thresholds 55.00 55.00 550.00 150.00 150.00

Exceeds Thresholds? NO NO NO NO NO

As the operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMO thresholds, the operational emissionsgenerated by the proposed project would not result in a significant impact.


3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which theproject region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air qualitystandard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The SCAQMO's CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies threepossible methods to determine the cumulative significance of land use projects. These methods aredifferent than the analysis in which all-foreseeabie future development within a given serviceboundary or geographical area is predicted and its impacts measured. The SCAQMO has notIdentified thresholds to which the total emissions of all cumulative deveiopment can be compared.The thresholds identified and used eariler in this section only apply to the emissions generated by,ndividual projects rather than the emissions generated by a cumulative project set. Instead, theSCQAMD's recommended methods for determining cumulative impacts are based on performancestandards and emission reduction targets necessary to attain the federal and state air qualitystandards Identified in the AQMP. .

The 2003 AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce high levels of pollutants within theBasin, to meet state and federal air quality standards, and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollutioncontrol measures have on the local economy. If the analysis shows that an individual project ISconsistent With the AQMP performance standards. the project's cumulative impact could beconsidered less than significant. If the analysis shows that the project does not comply with the




standards, then cumulative impacts are considered to be significant, unless there is other pertinentInformation to the contrary,

The following analysis assesses the proposed proJect's cumulative impacts based on theperformance standards and emissions reduction targets that are recommended in the SCAQMO'sCEQA Air Quality Handbook and which are appropriate to the proposed project.

According to the SCAQMO's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the one percent per year reductionanalysis IS performed by calculating a project's total unmitigated emissions and then dividing them bythe reductions from the application of mitigation measures or design features incorporated into theproject. This will proVide the percent reduction in project emissions,

The URBEMIS 2002 Air Quality Model allows for projects to account for specific design andenvironmental factors that result in the incremental reduction of operational emissions As such,design features were accounted for in the calculation of the operational emissions generated by theproposed project. Specifically, features that have been accounted for in the emission modelingconducted for the proposed project include; presence of local service retail and affordable houSingTable 3 below compares the proposed project with and Without accounting for the design andenvironmental features incorporated into the emission modeling.

Table 3Operational Emission Reduction


Emission Source ROG NO, CO SO, PM10

Operational Emissions - without project 1.69 1.60 17.48 0.01 1.68design features

Operational Emissions - with project 1.62 1,50 16.43 0.01 1,58design features .

Percent Reduction 4.1% 6.3% 6.0% 0.0% 6.0%

As indicated In Table 3 above, the projects design features result in a one percent reductionpursuant to the SCAQMO requirements with the exception of SOx, which is far below the SCAQMOoperational thresholds of 150 pounds per day and is not considered as non-attainment in LosAngeles County. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively significant impact.


4) Expose sensitive receptors to sUbstantial pollutant concentrations?

Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive residential receptors are located directly adjacent to theproject site to the west, across the public alley north of the project site, and across Garfield Avenuesouth of the project site. However, as indicated above the project would be required to comply withall applicable rules that govern construction related impacts. In addition, as indicated it the modelrun performed for this proJect, no construction or operational impacts are anticipated. Therefore, theproject would not expose sensitive receptors to a substantial pOllutant concentration; impacts areconsidered less than significant.


5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeople?

Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activity associated with the proposed project maygenerate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust in proximity to sensitive receptorlocations. However, any detectable odors or heavy-duty equipment exhaust would be associatedwith initial construction and would be considered short-term. Significant long-term odor impacts are

30~UNIT AfFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDf;NTIAL295 -307 EAST GARFIELD AVENUE

PAGE 11


not anticipated to occur from the project since It IS a residential use. No significant impacts wouldoccur,


D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Less Than

Would the projectPotentially Si9~ificant Less Than

NoSignificant Impact With SignificantImpact Mitigation Impact Impact

Incorporated

1. Have a substantial adverse effect. either directly orthrough habitat modifications, on any speciesidentified as a candidate, senSitive. or special

Xstatus species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations, or by the California Dep.artment ofFish and Game or U_S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparianhabitat or other sensitive natural communityidentified In local or regional plans, policies, Xregulations or by the California Department 01 FiShand Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

3 Have a substanlial adverse effect on federallyprotected wetlands as defined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Waler Act (including, but not limited to,

Xmarsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc,) through directremoval, filling, hydrological interruption, or othermeans?

4 Interfere Slibstantially with the movement of anynative resident or migratory fish or wildlife speciesor with established native resident or migratory Xwildlife corridors, or impede the use of nativeWildlife nursery sites?

5 Conflict with any local policies or ordinancesprotecting biological resources, such as a tree Xpreservation policy or ordinance?

6. Conflict wHh the provisions of an adopted HabitatConservation plan, Natural Community

XConservation Plan, or other approved local.regional, or state habilat conservation plan 7

1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on anyspecies identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regionalplans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service?

No Impact. The proposed project is located in an area that has been heavily urbanized for manyyears, No natural vegetation exists onslte or adjacent to the site with the exception of non-nativeinvasive vegetation. No wildlife species other than those which can tolerate human activity and/orare typically found in urban environments are known to exist onsite. These human-tolerant speciesare neilher senSitive, threatened, nor endangered Implementation of the project would not resull inany Impacts to species identified as endangered, threatened, senSitive or being of special concernby the California Department of Fish and Game or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Thesite does not provide suitable habitat for endangered or rare species. No impacts wouid occur.


30-UNII AF-FORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

295 -307 EAST GAR"ELD AVENUE

PAGE 12


2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communityidentified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

No Impact. The proposed project is located in an area that has been heavily urbanized for manyyears. No riparian habitat and/or other sensitive natural communities are present within the VICinity,and no such areas are present onsite or adjacent to the project site. No impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required

3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) throughdirect removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

No Impact. The proposed project IS located in an area that has been heavily urbanized tor manyyears. No federally protected wetlands are present within the vicinity, and no such areas are presentonsile or adjacent to the project site No impacts would occur.


4) Intenere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlifespecies or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the useof native wildlife nursery sites?

No Impact. The proposed project is located in an area that has been heavily urbanized for manyyears. The area has been substantially modified by human activity. Implementation of the proposedproject will not interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species orwith established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wiidllfenursery sites. No impacts would occur


5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a treepreservation policy or ordinance?

No Impact. The proposed project lies within an area that has been heavily urbanized for manyyears. No protected biologicai resources are present onsile. In addition, there are no indigenoustrees, as defined pursuant to Chapter 1244 of the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC), located on theproject site implementation of the proposed project will not conflict with any local poiicy designed toprotect biological resources. No impacts would occur.


6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural CommunityConservation Plan, or other approved10'cal, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No Impact. No Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or otherapproved habitat conservation plan has been adopted to include the project site. Therefore, theproject would not conflict with any such plans. No impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required



PAGE 13

PElF NO, 2006-044

E, CULTURAL RESOURCES

JANUARY 2007

Less Than

Would the project:Potentially Significant Less Than


lncorpor';ltad

1, Cause a substantial adverse change in theSIgnificance of a historical resource as defined in XCEQA Guidelines §15064.5?

2, Cause CI substantial adverse change in thesignificance of an archaeological resource Xpursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064,5?

3 Directly or indirectly destroy a uniquepaleontological resource or site or unique Xgeologic feature?

4, Disturb any human remains, including thoseXinterred outside of formal cemeteries?

1) Cause a substantial adverse r;hange in the signifir;anr;e of a historir;al resource as defined inCEQA Guidelines §15064,5?

No Impar;!, The project site is currently undeveloped, No impacts would occur with projectimplementation,

2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resourcepursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064,5?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site has been previously graded and any surficialarchaeological resources, which may have existed at one time, have likely been previously disturbedor destroyed and therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not likely to uncover any suchresources, However, should any such resources be discovered at any time during the developmentof the project, they would be treated in accordance with state and federal gUidelines for disclosure,recovery and preservation, as appropnate, No significant impacts to archaeological resources areanticipated as a result of the proposed project.


3) Directly or indired/y destroy a unique paleonto/ogir;al resourr;e or site or unique geologicfeature?

Less Than Signifir;ant Impact. The project site has been previously graded and any surficialpaleontological resources, which may have existed at one time, have likely been previously disturbedor destroyed and therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not likely to uncover any suchresources However, should any such resources be discovered at any time dunng the developmentof the proJect, they would be treated in accordance with state and federal guidelines for disclosure,recovery and preservation, as appropnate, No significant impacts to paleontological resources areanticipated as a result of the proposed project.


30·-Ut·m AFFORDABLE MULTI~FAMILYRESIDENTIAL

295 ·307 EAST GARFIELD AveNuEPAGE 14


4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within a heavily urbanized area and hasbeen previously developed. Within the project Site, any traditional burial resources, which includedarchaeological sites, burial sites, ceremonial areas, gathering areas, or any other natural areaImportant to a culture forreligious or heritage reasons, would likely be associated with the NativeAmerican group know as the Gabrielino. No known traditional burial sites exist within the projectsite, nor have any resources been identified in the vicinity. However, should any discovery ofresources occur at any time during the development of the project, they would be treated inaccordance with state and federal gUidelines for disclosure, recovery and preservation, asapproprrate, including contacting the Los Angeles County Coroner. No significant impacts to humanremains are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.


F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Less Than

Would the project:Potentially Significant Less Than NoSignificant Impact With Significant

Impact Mitigation ImpactImpact

.Incorporated

1. Expose people or structures to potentialsubstantial adverse effects. including the risk ofloss, injury. or death involving --I) Rupture of a known earthquake faul\, as

delineated on the most recenl Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Mapissued by the Stale Geologist for lrle ares Xor based on other substantial eVidence ofa known fault? Refer to Division of Minesand Geology Special Publication 42,

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Xiii) Seismic-related ground failure, including Xliquefaction?

iv) Landslides? X2. Result in sub-stanlial soil erosion or the loss of Xtopsoil?

3. Be located on a geologic unil or soil Ihat isunstable, or that would become unstable as aresult of the project, and potentially result in on· Xor off~5ite landslide, lateral spreading,SUbsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

4. Be located on expansive soil. as defined InTable 18-1-B of the California Building Code X(2001), creating substantial risks to life orproperty? .

5. Have soils incapable of adequately supportint.lthe use ·of seplic tanks or alternative waste Xwater disposal systems where sewers are notavailable for the disposal of waste water?

~ .._-_.




1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk ofloss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-PrioloEarthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on othersubstantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology SpecialPublication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not within an established Alquist-Priolo FaultZone for surface fault rapture hazards. While the Verdugo Fault is the closest active fault to tileproject site, the closest Alquist-Prrolo Earthquake Fault Zone is located approximately 2.8 miles tothe east-southeast along tile Raymond Fault. Based on the available geologic data, active orpotentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rapture are not known to be located directlybeneath or projecting toward the project site. Therefore, the potential for surface rapture as a resultof fault plane displacement during the design life of the project is less than significant


ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site could be subject to strong ground shaking in theevent of an earthquake originating along one of the faults listed as active or potentially active in theSouthern California area. This hazard exists throughout Southern California and could pose a risk topublic safety and property by exposing people, property, or infrastructure to potentially adverseeffects including strong seismic ground shaking. However. since all structures are required to bedesigned in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) and applicable City codes to ensuresafety in the event of an earthquake, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation meaSures are required.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

No Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated silty to cohesionless saris below thegroundwater table are subject to a temporary loss of strength due to the buildup of excesS porepressure during cyclic loading conditions such as those Induced by an earthquake Liquefaclionrelated effects include loss of bearing strength, amplified ground oscillations. lateral spreading, andflow failures. The project site IS not located Within .an area prone to liquefaction as indicated in theCity's Safety Element (August 2003). Therefore. no impacts associated with liquefaction wouldoccur.


i0 Landslides?

No Impact. The project site and immediate area are relatively flat. The probability of seismicallyinduced landslides occurring on the site is considered to be low due to the lack of elevationdifference and slope geometry across or adjacent to the site. In addition, the project site is nottocated within a designated landslide hazard zone, as indicated in the City of Glendale General PlanSafety Element (August 2003). No landslide impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of theproposed project.


2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project could result in exposure ofonsite soils during construction. Since the project site is relatively flat and soils would be exposed for

3D-UNIT AFFORDABLE: MUL'l!-FAMIL Y RESIDFNTIAl_

295 ~307 EAST GARFIELD AVENUEPAGE 16


a limited amount of time, substanlial erosion IS not expected to occur. An erosion control plan,subject to review and approval by the City Engineer will be required prior to any construction-relatedactivities. Such plans must include procedures and equipment necessary to contain onsite sOils andminimize potential for contaminated runoff from the construction site. As a result, no significantimpacts would occur as a result of the proposed project.


3) Be located on a geologic unit or soii that ;s unstable, or that would become unstable as aresult of the project, and potentially result in an onsile or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

Less Than Significant Impact. Subsidence is the process of lowering the elevation of an area ofthe earth's surtace and can be caused by tectonic forces deep within the earth or by consolidationand densification of sediments sometimes due to withdrawal of fluids such as groundwater. Theproject site is not located in an area of significant subsidence activity and would not include flUidwithdrawal or removal. In addition, as indicated in Response F-1 (iii), above, the soil under theproject site IS not prone to liquefaction. Therefore, no Significant impacts related to unstable soils areanticipated to occur.

Mitigation Measures; No mitigation meaSureS are required.

4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1·8 of the California Building Code(2001), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less Than Significant Impact. The soil around the project site is generally Hanford Sandy Loamthat can be characterized as well-drained soils found on nearly level topography. Hanford SandyLoam has a low shrink-sweli potential because it is well drained and moderately permeable.Compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) would serve to further reduce impacts to lessthan significant levels No significant 1m pacts would occUr as a result of the proposed project.


5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

No Impact. The proposed project site is currently connected to the City's sewer system. No septictanks will be utilized as part of the project No impacts would occur.


G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Less Than

Would the project:Potentially Significant Less Than NoSignificant Impact With Significant

Impact Mitigatioh Impact Impact

Incorporated

1. Crea~e a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment through the routine transport, use, or Xdisposal of hazardous materials?

2. Create a Significant hazard 10 the public or theenvironment through reasonably foreseeable upsetand accident conditions involving the release of Xhazardous materials into the environment?

30-UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTi-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

295 ·307 EAST GARFIELD AVENUE

PAGE 17


Less Than


NoSignificant Impac:tWith SignificantImpactImpact Mitigation Impact

Incorporated

3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous oracutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste Xwithin one·quarter mile of an exfsting or proposedsctlool?

4. Be localed on a site which is inclUded on a list ofhazardous materials sites compiled pursuant toGovernment Code Section 65962.5 and. as a Xresult, would it create a slgnificaQI haz.ard to thepUblic or the environment?

5 For a project located within an airport land use planor, where such .;I plan has not been adopted. withintwo miles of a public airport or public use airport, Xwould the project result in a safety hazard forpeople reSiding or working In the project site?

6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for Xpeople residing or working in the project site?

7. Impair implementation of or physically interterewith an adopted emergency response plan or Xemergency evacuation plan?

8 Expose people or struclures to a significant rIsk ofloss, injury or death Involving wildland fires.including where wildlands are adjacent to Xurbanized areas or vvhere residences areintermixed with wildlands?

1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

No Impact. The project Involves the development of residential uses. Such uses do not generallyinvolve the routine use. transport, or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials. No newhazardous materials will be generated at the site. No impacts are anticipated to occur.


2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeableupset and accident conditions involVing the release of hazardous materials into theenvironment?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project would be required to comply with all applicable rulesestablished by the SCAQMD, included Rule 403 and 402, during the construction phase of theproject that would prevent dust from migrating beyond the project site. Therefore, no significantimpacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed project.


3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, SUbstances,Dr waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

Less Than Significanllmpact. There are two public schools and one private school located withinone-quarter mile of the proJ8ct site. The two public schools include Theodore Roosevelt MiddleSchool and Horace Mann Elementary School located at 222 and 501 East Acacia Avenuerespectfully. The private school includes Glendale Christian School located at 411 East Acacia

30·UNIT AFFORIJABLE MULTI~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


PElF No, 200(;-044 JANUARY 2007

Avenue, However, the project would not emit any new hazardous emissions or handle hazardousmaterials since residential uses are proposed

As indicated above In Response G-3, the project would be required to comply of all appiicable rulesestablished by the SCAQMD, included Rule 403 and 402, during the construction phase of theproject that would prevent dust from migrating beyond the project site. In addition, since theproposed project Includes residential uses no hazardous materials other than household cleaningproducts would be iocated on the project site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated tooccur as a result of the proposed project.


4) Be located on a site which is inc:luded on a list of hazardous materials sites compiledpursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significanthazard to the public or the environment?

No Impact. The project site is not Included on a list of hazardous materials sites com piled pursuantto Government Code Section 65962.5. No impacts would occur.


5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not beenadopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result ina safety hazard for people residing or working in the project site?

No Impact. The proposed project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within twomiles of a public airport or public use airport. No impacts would occur.


6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazardfor people residing or working in the project site?

No Impact. No private airstrips are located in the Cit.y of Glendale or In the vicinity of the projectsite. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any safety hazards forpeople residing on the project site. No impacts would occur.


7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan oremergency evacuation plan?

No Impact. There is no "City Disaster Response Route" or "County Disaster Response Route"located on any streets adjacent to the project site. The nearest designated street is Brand Boulevardwhich as identified as a "City Disaster Response Route" in the City of Glendale General Plan SafetyElement (August 2003). The proposed project does not involve any changes to Brand Boulevard norwould the project result In the alteration of an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan.As such, no impacts to emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans would occur as aresult of the proposed project.


8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury Or death involving wildlandfires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences areintermixed with wildlands?

No Impact. The project site is located within an area that has been heavily urbanized for years andis not classified as a Fire Hazard Area by the City of Glendale Fire Department, as indicated in the

3D-UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL295 -307 EAST GARFIELD AVENUE

PAGE 19


City of Glendale General Plan Safety Element (August 2003) No wildlands or naturally vegetatedareas are located within Or near the project Site, as the area is built out, No impacts associated withwildland fires would occur,


H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Less Than



Incorporated.

1. Violate any water quality standards or waste Xdischarge requirements?-,...

2 Substantially deplete groundwater supplies orinterfere substantially with groundwater rechargesuch that there would be a net deficit in aquifervolume Of a lowering of the local groundwater Xtable level (e.g" trle production rate of pre-existingnearby wells would drop to a level which wouldnot support existing land useS or planned uses forwhich permits have been granted)?

3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe site or area, includIng through the alteration ofthe course of stream or river; In a manner which Xwould result in substantial erosion or siltatior"l Dn·or off-site?

4. Substantially alter the eXisting drainage pattern ofthe site or area, Including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream or river, or substantially Xincrease the rate or amount of surface runoff in amanner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

5. Create Dr contribute runoff water which wouldexceed the capacity of existing or planned Xstormwater drainage systems or providesubstantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

6 Otherwise SUbstantially degrade water quality? X7 Place housing within a 1OO-year flood hazard area

as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard 8oundi3ry Xor Flood Insurance Rate Map or other floodhazard delin~ation map?

8. Place within a 1DO-year flood hazard areastructures which would impede or redirect flood Xflows?

9 Expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss, Injury or death involving flooding, including Xflooding as a result of the failure of a levee ordam? -.-

10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X

1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Less Than Significant Impact. Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) has established regulations under the National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) program to control direct storm water discharges. In City of Glendale,

30 M UNIT AFFORDABLE MUlTI-FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL

295 -307 EAST GAP.FIELD AVENUEPAGE 20


the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWCQB) administers the NPDES permittingprogram and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The NPDES programregulates Industrial pollutant discharges Ihat include construction activities. Implementation of theproposed project will require compliance with all the NPDES requirements Including the submittaland certification of plans and details showing both construction and post-construction BestManagement Practices (BMPs) that are integrated into the design of the project. The submittal of aStandard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), as approved by the City Engineer, will also berequired to be Integrated into the design of the project. Therefore, impiementation of the proposedproject is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste water discharge requirementssince the project will be required to comply With applicable permitting requirements. No significantImpacts are anticipated.


2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwaterrecharge such that there would be a net deficit in aqUifer volume or a lowering of the localgroundwater table level (e.g., the production rate ofpre-existing nearby wells would drop to alevel which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits havebeen granted)?

Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not involve additions or withdrawals ofgroundwater. The amount of hardscape proposed on the project sile wouid be more than the currenton-site conditions but similar to existing conditions on surrounding sites containing multi-familydevelopment. The proposed project would comply with minimum landscape requirements. Theproposed project would not significantly interfere with the recharge of local groundwater or depletethe groundwater supplies relative to eXisting conditions. No significant impacts are anticipated.


3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through thealteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantialerosion or siltation on- or off-site?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is relatively flat and no water courses run through it.Currently, water which falls on the site either is absorbed into the ground on-site or drains either toEast Garfleid Avenue or the public alleys. These conditions wouid not change as a result of theproject. The project will not alter the course of a stream or river since no river or stream is located onthe site nor would the project result in a substantial increase in runoff. No significant impacts wouldocCur.


4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through thealteration of the course of a .stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount ofsurface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Less than Significant Impact. Flood hazards due to heavy precipitation can result in inundation ofdeveloped areas due to overfiow of nearby stream courses or from inadequate local storm drainfacilities, if not sized to accommodate large storm events. However, the City has developed a floodcontrol system that provides protection for its residents. The amount of surface runoff wouldincrease as a result of the project; however, the increase would not be substantial. The proposedproject would not alter the course of a stream or river. In addition, no Federal EmergencyManagement Agency (FEMA)-designated flood zones are iocated within the project site as indicatedin the City of Glendale General Plan Safety Element (August 2003). Therefore, no significantflooding impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project.

30-UNIT AFr-ORDABLE MULTI·FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

295 -307 EAST GARFIELD AVENUEPAGE 21·

PElF No. 2006-044


JANUARY 2007

5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or plannedstorm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Less than Significant Impact Please refer to Responses H-1. H-3 and H-4 above. The amount ofimpervious surfaces would increase resulting In an increase in runoff from the site; however, theIncrease would not be substantial. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposedproject. .


6) Otherwise SUbstantially degrade water quality?

Less than Significant Impact Please refer to Response H-1 above.


7) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood HazardBoundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

No Impact. No portion of the project site is located within a 1DO-year floodplain, as shown on thelatest FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map and in the City of Glendale General Plan Safety Element(August 2003). No Impacts would occur

Mitigation Measures: No mitigalion measures are required

8) Place within a 1DO-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect floodflows?

No Impact. As previously stated in Response H-7 above. the project site is not located within a 100year flood hazard area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in anyimpacts in this regard.


9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

No Impact. Accordmg to the City of Glendale General Plan Safety Element (August 2003), theproject site is not located within inundation zones from failure of upstream dams. Therefore, noImpacts would occur


10) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

No Impact. Tsunamis are large ocean waves generated by sudden water displacement caused by asubmarine earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. A review of the County of Los Angeles Floodand Inundation Hazards Map indicates that the site does not lie within the mapped tsunamiinundation boundaries. Therefore, no seiche, tsunami, or mudflow impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are reqUired:

30-UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL


PAGE 22

PElF No. 2006-044

I. LAND USE AND PLANNING

JANUARY 2007

Less Than

Would the prqject:Potentially Significant Less Than

NoSignlfican~ lmpal;:t .Wj~r- Significant

Impact Mitigati'on Impact . - Impact

Illcorporated

1 Physically divide an established community? X2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy.

or regulation of an agency with jurisdiclion over theproject (including, but nol limited to the general Xplan. specific plan, local coastal program, orzoning ordinance) adopted tor the purpo'se ofavoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservationXplan or natural community conservation plan?

.

1) Physically divide an established community?

No/mpact. The project site is located on an infill site, which is currently undeveloped. The projectsite includes three adjoining lots totaling approximately 27,550 square feet (0.63 acres) and ISsurrounded by existing single- and multi-family residential units. No established community would bedivided as a resull of the project. No impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measureS are required.

2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdictionover the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastalprogram, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating anenvironmental effect?

Less Than Significant Impact. The existing zoning designation on the project site is R2250(Medium Density Residential) and the General Plan designation is Multi-Family Residential (SouthBrand Boulevard Specific Plan). The proposed projact exceeds that allowable density for this zone;however, Section 30.36 of the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) allows for an Increase in the densityprovided that affordable units are included in the project. Section 30.36 of the GMC is consistentwith the states density bonus laws (SB1818) requiring that local agencies allow for increased densitywhen affordable housing is proposed. Since all 30-units will be made available to affordable

, households the project qualifies for such a density bonus. Therefore, no impacts associated withapplicable land use plans and policies would occur.


3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservationplan?

No Impact There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan in theproject site or vicinity. As such, the implementation of the proposed project could not conflict withany such plans. No impacts would occur.



295 -307 EAST GARFIELD AVENUE.PAGE 23

PElF No. 2006·044

J. MINERAL RESOURCES

JANUARY 2007

Less Than



Incorporated

1. Result in the loss of availability of a knownmineral resource that would be of value to Ule Xregion and the residents of the state?

2 Result in the loss of availability of ~ locally-important mineral resource recovery site Xdelineated on a local general plan, specific plan orother land use plan?

1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to theregion and the residents of the state?

No Impact. The project site IS completely urbanized and is not within an area that has beenidentified as containing valuable mineral resources, as indicated in the City's Open Space andConservation Element (January 1993). In addition, residential development has occurred on the siteIn the past. Therefore, development on the project site would not result in the loss of availability of aknown mineral resource No impacts would occur.


2) Result in the Joss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery sitedelineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

No Impact. As Indicated in Response J~1 above, there are no known mineral resources within theproject site. No Impacts would occur.


K. NOISE

Less Than


NoSignificant Impact With Significant

ImpCict Mitigation ImpactImpact

Incorporated

1 Exposure of persons to or generation of noiselevels In eKcess of standards established in the Xlocal general plan or noise ordinance, or applicablestandards· of other agencies? _. .. ...

2. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive Xground borne vibralion or groundborne noise levels?

3 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noiseI.evels in the project vicinily above levels existing XWithout the proJect?

~- .-4 A substantiallemporary or periodic increase in

ambient noise levels in the project vicinity aboveXlevels existing without the project?

30-UNIT AfFORDABLE MUl.TI-FAMllY RESIDENTIAL

295 --307 EAST GARFIELD AVENUE

PAGE 24


Less Than

Would the project:Potentially Significant Less Than NoSignificant Impacl Wilh Significant

Impact Mitigation Impact Impact

Incorporated

5. For a projecllocated within an airport land use planDr, where such a plan has not been adopted, withintwo milesof,a public ,airport or public use.air.pori, Xwould the project expose people residing or workingin the project site to excessive noise levels?

6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working Xin the pro/eel site to excessive noise levels?

--

1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established inthe local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the construction.of a 30-unitaffordable multi-family residential development. This type of use is permitted on the subject site.Surrounding land uses include larger multi-family complexes and commercial uses. While thisresidential use will be more intensive than the by"right density, it is not anticipated to generate nOisein excess of the limits contained in the Noise Element. In addition, common open space would bepartially buffered from roadway noise by the proposed bUildings. Therefore, no significant impactsare anticipated.


2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundbornenoise levels?

Less Than Significant tmpact. Excessive groundborne vibration is typically associated withactivities such as blasting used in mining operations, or the use of pile drivers during construction.The project would not require any blasting activities and any earth movement associated with projectconstruction is not anticipated to require pile driving. Therefore, the project 'is not expected togenerate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No significant impacts areanticipated.


3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levelsexisting without the project?

Less Than Significant Impact. As Indicated in Response K.1 above, significant noise impacts arenot anticipated to result from the long-term operation of the proposed project.


4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinityabove levels existing without the project?

Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term noise impacts could occur as a result of constructionactivities. All development within the project site will be required to comply with the City of GlendaleNoise Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 8.36)' which prohibits construction activities to betweenthe hours of 7:00 p.m. on one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day or from 7:00 p.m. on Saturday to7:00 a.m. on Monday or from 7:00 p.m. preceding a holiday. Compliance with the City's noiseordinance would ensure that no significant impacts would occur.

30-UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL


JANUARY 2007


5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not beenadopted, within two miles of a pUblic airport or public use airport, would the project exposepeople residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of apublic airport or public use airport. No Impacts would occur.


6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residingor work.ing in the project site to excessive noise levels?

No Impact. There are no private airstrips located on or within the vicinity of the project site. Noimpacts wouid occur.


L. POPULATION AND HOUSING

Less Than

Would the project:Potentially Significant less lilan

NoSignificant Impaet-VVith SignificantImpact Mitigation Impact Impact

Incorporated

1 Induce SVQstanllal population growth in an area,either directly (for example, by proposing newhomes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, Xthrough extension of roads or otherinfrastructure)?

2. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement Xhousing elseWhere?

3 Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement Xhousing elsewhere?

1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposingnew homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or otherinfrastructure)?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project proposed involves the construction of 30 affordabiemulti-family residential units. The subject site is zoned R2250 with a General Plan land UseDesignation of Multi Family Residential. The project site has a by-nght density of 15 units (onedwelling unit for each 1,800 square feet of lot area on lots having a width of 90 feet or greater). The·project is inconsistent with the zoning and land use designation of the area however, is it notconSidered growth inducing since it meets the requirements for project requesting a density bonuspursuant to Chapter 30.36 of the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC). Chapter 30.36 allows anadditional 35 percent increase in units provided that the project meets the provisions of 3036.Section 30 36.606(E) allows for density bonus greater than 35 percent at the discretion of the City.The density bonus requested by the applicant for the project site was previously approved by CityCouncil as the proposed density is Within the population forecasts for the City of Glendale.Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.



295 ~307 EAST GAR~IELD AVENUEPAGE 26


2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction ofreplacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The project site is currently undeveloped and therefore, no amount of housing will beremoved as part of the project. No impacts would occur.


3) Displace substantial numbers ofpeople, necessitating the construction of replacementhousing elsewhere?

No Impact No people currently reside on the project site. No impacts would occur


M.

1)

a)

PUBLIC SERVICES

Less Than

Would the project Potentially Significant Less ,han NoSignificant Impact With Significant

Impact Mitigation Impact Impact

Incorporated

1. Would the ·proJect result in substantial adversephysical impacts associated with the provision ofnew or physically altered governmenlal facilities,need for new or physically altered governmentalfacilities. the Construction of which could causesignificant environmental impacts, in order tomaintain acceptable service ratios, responsetimes or other performance objectives for any ofthe public services:

a) Fire protection? Xb) Police protection? Xoj Schools? Xd) Parks? Xe) Other public facilities? X

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with theprovision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physicallyaltered governmental facilities, the construction ofwhich could cause significantenvironmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable setvice ratios, response times orother performance objectives for any of the public setvices:

Fire protection?

Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Glendale Fire Department (GFD) provides fire andparamedic services to the project site. The nearest fire station is Station 22 located at 1201 SouthGlendale Avenue, approximately one quarter mile from the project site. The project will be requiredto comply with the Uniform Fire Code, including installation of fire sprinklers, and to submit plans tothe Glendale Fire Department at the time building permits are submitted for approval. No significantimpacts are anticipated.


3D-UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL295 -307 EAST GARFIELD AVENUE

PAGE 27


b) Police protection?

Less Than Significant Impact. The Glendale Police Department (GPD) provides police services tothe project site. The nearest police facility is located a\ 131 North Isabel Street. Project constructionwill add residential units to the area as well as the people who will live in these units. The site islocated in an urban, heaVily developed area of the City and the additional population that this projectwill bring IS nol anticipated \0 significantly impact Police services. No significant impacts areanticipated.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are reqUIred.

c) Schools?

Less than Significant Impact. Section 65995 of the Government Code prOVides that schooldistricts can collect a fee on a per square foot baSIS for new residential units or additions to existingunits to assist in the construction of or addition to schools. The current fee schedule for residentialdevelopment is $2.14 per square foot. Payment of these fees under the proVisions of GovernmentCode Section 65995.5 reduces potentially significant impacts that could occur as a result of theproject to less than significant ievels.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are reqUIred.

d) Parks?

Less than Significant Impact. See discussion under Sections N.1 and N.2 below.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are reqUired.

e) Other public facilities?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is a previously developed infill parcel and can beadequately served by existing public facilities. No significant impacts wouid occur.


N. RECREATION

Less Than

Would the projectPotentially Significant Less Than

NoSignificant Impact With Significant

Impact Mitigation ImpactImpact

Incorporated

1. Would the project increase the use of existingneighborhood and regional parks or otherrecreational facilities such that substantial Xphysical deterioralion of the facility would OCC'Jr orbe accelerated?

-2. Does the project include recreational facilities or

require the construcllon or expansion of Xrecrealionallacililies which might have anadverse physical effect on the environment?

1) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or otherrecreational facilities such that SUbstantial physical deterioration of the facility would occuror be accelerated?

Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the immediate vicinity of a newpark (Maryland Mini-Park) planned at 810, 812 and 816 S. Maryland Avenue. The park Will be

30~UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY RFSIDENTIAL



developed on three adjacent lots each measuring approximately 50 feet in width and 140 to 145 feetin depth. The total park site is approximately 21,250 square feet (0,49 acres).

The park will include pedestrian walkways, seating areas, children's play area, and picnic area. Themajority of the park will be designed as passive park space primarily in the form of large grass area.The mini-park would be designed to serve residents of all ages primarily within the immediateneighborhood including the future residents of the project site. Direct access to the park isincorporated in the neighborhood plan that wad developed by the Community Housing Departmentand approved by City Council.

Additional recreational opportunities exisl with the two public schools located within '!4 mile of theproject site. The city of Glendale Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department and theGlendale Unified School District are working towards a joint use agreement that would allow publicuse of the recreationai amenities at the local schools during none school hours. These two schoolsinclude Theodore Roosevelt Middle School and Horace Mann Elementary School. Therefore,potential demand for new parks, or increased maintenance and additional improvements at eXistingparks, wouid be minimal and, therefore, is not anticipated to result in a significant impacts associatedwith the demand of existing park facilities.


2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion ofrecreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes a 1,411 square foot community roomdesigned with a kitchen, lounge, and game room. The project also includes an outdoor barbequearea with seating and a large gathering area at the center of the complex as well as other commonopen space areas throughout the site. As Indicated in Response N-1 above, the project ISanticipated to Increase the demand on existing parks; however, this increase would be minimal. Nosignificant impacts to recreation resources are anticipated with implementation of the proposedproject.


O. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC

Less Than

WO(Jld the project:Potentially Significant Less Than

NoSignificallt Impact With Significant

ImpactImpact Mitigation Impact

..Incorporated

1. CaLIse an Increase in traffic which is substantial inrelatio,n to the existing traffic load and capacity ofthe street system (i.e.. result in a substantial Xincrease in either the number of vehicle trips, thevolume to capacity ratio on roads. or congestion atintersections )7

2. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a levelof service standard established by the county Xcongestion management agency for designatedroads or highways?

3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns. includingeither an increase in traffic levels or a change in Xlocation that results tn substantial safety risks?

3D-UNIT AFFORDABLE. MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


PElF No. 2006~044 JANUARY 2007

LessThan

Would the project.'Potentially Si,gnificant Less Thall NoSignificant Impa'ct With Significant ImpactImpact Mitigation Impact

Incorporated

4. Substantially increase hazards due to a designfeature (e .g., sharp curves or dangerous XIntersections) or Incompatible uses (e_g" fermequipment)?

5. Result in'inadequale emergency access? X

6. Result in in~dequate parking capacity? X7. Copflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs

supporting alternative transportation (e.g" bus Xturnouts. bicycle racks)?

1) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load andcapacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number ofvehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

Less than Significant Impact. There would be a slight increase in day time population as a resultof the construction activities. However, the increase In daytime population is nol consideredsubstantial since the construction phase is short~term in nature, approximately 12 months.

The proposed project would result in an Increase of 30 units above the current conditions andtherefore, would result in a slight Increase in the number of vehicles using the area streets. Basedon the trip generation rate of 5.53 triPS per day the project is expected to add approximately 166average daily trips. This increase, however, is anticipated to create a less than significant impact.


2) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by thecounty congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Less than Significant Impact. Garfield Avenue is classified as a "collector street" in the SouthBrand Boulevard Specific Plan and as a "local street" in the City's Circulation Element. As discussedabove in Response 0-1, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant increase intraffic on the area roadway network. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures; No mitigation measureS are required.

3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or achange in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of aprivate air strip. No Impacts on air traffic patterns would occur.


4) 'Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerousintersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

No Impact. The proposed project would not result in any changes to the existing roadway network.No Impacts would occur



295 ~307 EAST GARFIELD AVENUE

PAGE 30


5) Result in inadequate emergency access?

No Impact. The proposed project will be designed to utilize the eXisting network of regional andlocal roadways located in the vicinity of the project site. Access to the proposed semi-subterraneanparking garage would be provided in the public alley on the east side of the property. No changes tothe existing roadway network are proposed as a result of the proJect. Therefore, no impacts toem ergency acceSS would occur.


6) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the development of a low incomereSidential property that would provide 30 affordable units to households earning between 30 and 60percent of the median income. As a result, the project is evaluated under Chapter 30.36 (DensityBonus Incentives) of the Glendale Municipal Code. The following parking concession may beapplied to projects meeting the minimum requirements to qualify for a density bonus.

Number of Bedrooms Minimum Number of Parking Spacesoto 1 bedroom 1 onsite oarkina space2 to 3 bedrooms 2 onsite parkina spaces4 or more bedrooms 2.5 onsile parkinQ spaces

The parking concession provided in the table above is inclusive of handicapped and guest parking.Based on the requirements Chapter 30.36 of the GMC, the project is requirec;! tD provide 51 parkingspaces. As currently proposed, the project would provide 56 parking spaces within a subterraneangarage resulting in a surplus Df 5 spaces.

The project will have access off the public alley located on the easterly edge of the project site andno new curb cuts on the street wiil be made In addition, the existing curb cuts for the three lots thatmake up the project site will be removed and allow for a few additional on-street parking spaces

AdditiDnal Dn-street parking will likely be used by the future residents on the project site: however,this demand is not anticipated tD result in significant impacts.


7) Conflict with adopted pDlicies, plans, Dr programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

ND Impact. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan TransportatiDn Authority (MTA) and GlendaleBeeline prDvide bus service In the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project WDuid not conflictwith any adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding alternative transportation since nO changesto the existing transportation policies, plans, or programs would result from project implementation.Therefore, no impacts would occur. .


3D-UNIT AFFORDABLE MUL'TI-FAMIL Y RESIDENTIAL


PAGE 31

PElF No. 2006~044

P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

JANUARY 2007

LessThan

Would the project:·Potentially Significall.t LeEis Than

NoSignificant ,hn,p'aCt -With S'ignificanthnp<:Ict ,Mitigation Impact

Impact

, Incorporated.

1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of theapplicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X

2 Require or result in the construction of new water orwastewater treatment facilities or expansion of XeXisting facilities, the construction of which couldcause significant environmental effects?

3. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage faciljti~s or expansion of existing Xfacilities, the construction of which could caUsesignificant environmental effects?

4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve theproject from existing entitlements and resources, or

Xare new or expanded entitlements needed?

5. Result in a determination by the wastewatertreatment provider which serves or may serve theproject that it has adequate capacity to serve the Xproject's projected demand in addition 10 theprOVider's existing commitments?

6. Be served by a landfill With sufficient permittedcapacity to accommodate the project's solid waste Xdisposal needs?

7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and Xregulations related to solid waste"

1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality ControlBoard?

Less Than Significant Impact. Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) the RegionalWater Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues National Pollutant Discharge Eliminaliqn System(NPDES) permits to regulate waste discharged to "waters of the nation," which Includes reservoirs,iakes and their tributary waters. Waste discharges include discharges of stormwater andconstruction project discharges. A construction project resulting in the disturbance of more than 1acre requires an NPDES permit. Construction project proposed area also required to prepare aStorm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) In addition, the project will be required to submit aStandard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to mitigate urban storm water runoff. Prior tothe Issuance of building permits, the project applicant will be reqUired to satisfy the requirementsrelated to the payment of fees and/or provisions of adequate wastewater facilities. Because theproject will comply with the waste discharge prohibitions and water quality objectives established bythe RWQCB, impacts are considered to be less than significant.



295 -307 EAST GARFIEI.D AVENUEPAGE 32


2) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities orexpansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significantenvironmental effects?

Less than Significant Impact. The project would connect to the existing sewer line In GarfieldAvenue. Wastewater treatment services are provided to the area in the vicinity of the project site bythe City of Glendale's Public Works Department. Wastewater generated within the City flows to theLos Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant (LAGWRP) and the Hyperion Treatment Plant nearEI Segundo. The LAGWRP has a capacity 10 process 20 million gallons per day (mgd). The City ofGlendale has a capacity of 10 mgd at the LAGWRP facility. Wastewater flows that exceed the City's10 mgd capacity at LAGWRP are treated at the Hyperion Treatment Plant. The Hypenon TreatmentPlant processes and average of 360 mgd and has the capacity for 450 mgd. The areas surroundingthe project site are developed and currently served by sewer lines directing wastewater to therespective treatment plants. The proposed project will generate approximately 4,800 gallons ofwastewater per day (based on a generation factor of 160 per day per multi-family unit). Because thequantity of new wastewater generated by the project is within the limits of existing capacity, impactsto wastewater treatment facilities area considered to be less than significant.


3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion ofexisting facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less than Significant Impact. The project site is currently undeveloped and 100 percentpermeable. Development of the project would result in the addition of impermeable surface to theproject site. As proposed, landscaping would account for approximately 10,280 square feet orapproximately 37 percent of project site. The project would convey onsite runoff during storms to theexisting drainage system and no new drainage facilities would be required, Therefore, impactsassociated with the construction of the drainage facilities associated with the project would not resultIn a significant impact.


4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements andresources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Less than Significant Impact. Glendale Water and Power provides water service for domestic,irrigation, and fire protection purposes to the City of Glendale. The City has four sources of water tomeet existing and projected water demands. These sources consist of water imported from theMetropolitan Water District (MWD), groundwater from the San Fernando Groundwater Basin and theVerdugo Groundwater Basi,n, and recycled water.

The City of Glendale uses approximately 33,000 acre-feet of water on an annual basis, Of this lotal,approximately 78 percent is proVided by the MWD, 12 percent is pumped from the San FernandoGroundwater Basin, 6 percent is pumped from the Verdugo Groundwater Basin, and the remaining 4percent is supplied by the City's water reclamation system.

New development on the project site would result in an increase in demand for operational wateruse, including landscape irrigation, maintenance and other activities on the site. Based on the watergeneration factors of 60 gallons per day for multi-family units, the project require approximately 1.84million gallons or 565 acre-feet of water on an annual basis,

Due to an increasing reliance on local resources, the amount of water the City would purchase fromMWD to meet demand is projected to remain stable or slightly increase between the present timeand the year 2025. However, MWO water would continue to be the main source of supply for the


295 -307 EAST GARFIELO AVENUE

PAGE 33


City Based on available water supplies, the MWD has indicated that is can meet the 100 percent ofits member agencies' needs over the next 20 years.

Overall the status of Glendale's water supply is highly reliable. The San Fernando and VerdugoBasins, to which Glendale possesses water rights, are managed under court order by a courtappointed watermaster in order to preserve water levels in these basins, thereby, assuring reliabilityof those in possession of pumping rights. Glendale is one of the original member agencies of theMWD, and has reliably received water from it over 60 years, and would continue to receive waterfrom MWD into the future. Additionally, Glendale has a sizable source of reclaimed water availableto it, and has recently com pleted a reclaimed water distribution system. The use of reclaimed wateris important, as it frees portable water in Glendale's system to be used to satisfy other water users.These water sources enable the City to meet all its projected demands, including those of theproposed project. Consequently, this impact is considered to be less than significant.


5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may servethe project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in additionto the provider's existing commitments?

Less than Significant Impact. See response provided under Subsection P.2.


6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solidwaste disposal needs?

Less Than Significant Impact. PrOject implementation would result in an increase In residentialdevelopment onsite. The total annual solid waste of the project Is estimated to be 46 tons per year.All solid waste generated on the project site will be deposited at the Scholl Canyon Landfill, which isowned by the City of Glendale. The annual disposal rate at the Scholl Canyon facility is .approximately 360,000 tons per year with a remaining capacity of 8.6 million tons. Combined withthe additional generated by the proJect, the annual disposal rate would increase to apprOXimately360,046 tons per year, and remaining capacity of 8.6 million tons, the Scholl Canyon facility couidmeet the demand of the proposed project and the City for approximately 24 years. Overall, theIncrease in solid waste generation associated with the operation of the proposed project would notexacerbate landfill capacity shortages Therefore, the impact of the project on permitted landfillcapacity IS less than significant.


7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Less Than Significant Impact. As part of the proposed project, the applicant wouid be required toimplement a waste diversion program in an effort to help the City meet it waste diversion goal of 50percent as mandated by Assembly Bill 939. Examples of waste diversion programs efforts includerecycling programs for .cardboard boxes, paper, aluminum cans, and both glass and plastic bottiesthrough the proVisions of recycling areas within garbage disposal areas. In addition, the proposedproject would enclose trash collection areas. No federal statues apply to the project site. Therefore,the Impact of the proposed project on compliance with federal, state, and local statues andregulations Is less than significant.


30~UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


PElF No. 2006-044

Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

JANUARY 2007

.

Less Than

Would the project:Potentially SIgnificant Less Than NoSignificant ImpaclWith Significant

Impact Mitigation .ImpactImpact

Incorporated

1. Does the'project have the potential to degrade thequality of the environment, SUbstantially reduce thehabitat of a fish Dr wildlife species, CaLISe a fish orwildlife population to drop below self-sustaininglevels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal Xcommunity. reduce the number Of restrict the rangeof a rare or endangered plant or animfll or eliminateimportant examples of the major periods of Californiahistory or prehistory?

2. Does the project have Impacts that are individuallylimited I but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable" means that theincremental effects of a project are considerable Xwhen viewed in cOhnection wilh the effects of pastprojects, the effecis of other current projects, and theeffects of probable future projects)?

3 Does the,project have environmental effects whichwill cause substantial adverse effects on human Xbeings, either directly Dr indirectly?

1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantiallyreduce the habitat ofa fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to dropbelow self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce thenumber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate importantexamples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located in a developed urban area. NoImpacts are anticipated to occur to the quality of the environment, fish or wildlife habitats, fish orwildlife populations, plant or animal communities, or to rare, threatened Or endangered plant andanimal species as a result of the proposed project. No historicai resources, as defined by CEQA, arelocated on the project site. No signific:anl impacts would occur.

2) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerablewhen viewed in connection with the effects ofpast projects, the effects of other currentprojects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

Less than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project will not substantially increasetraffic nor would it result in a substantial increase in population. Public facilities are available toaccommodate Ihe slight increase in usage due to the Increase in area population. No significantimpacts are anticipated.

3) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects onhuman beings, either directly or indirectly?

Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would not create direct andindirect adverse effects on humans. Many of the less than significant impacts that were identifiedare considered short-time effects and no significant impacts are anticipated.

30-UNIT AFFORDABLE MULTI~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

295 -307 EAST GARFIELD AVE:.NUE

PAGE 35

PElF No 2006-044

13. Earlier Analyses

None

JANUARY 2007

14. Project References Used to Prepare Initial Study Checklist

One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by reference, and areavailable for review in the Planning division Office, 633 E Broadway, Rm. 103, Glendale, CA 912064386. Items used are referred to by number on the Initial Study Checklist.

Enwonmentallnformation Form application and materials submitted on November 29,2006.

2. The City of Glendale's General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element, January 1993.

3. The City of Glendale's General Plan, Safety Element, August 2003.

4. The City of Glendale's Municipal Code, as amended.

5. "Guidelines of the City of Glendale for the Implementation of the California EnvironmentalQuality Act of 1970, as amended," August 19, 2003, City of Glendale Planning DiVision.

6. Public Resources Code Seelion 21000 et seq and California Code of Regulations, Title 14Section 15000 et seq

7. "CEQA Air Quality Handbook, "April, 1993, South Coast A" Quality Management District.

8 "CEQA Air Qualify Analysis Guidance Handbook," updated October 2003, South Coast AirQuality Management Distnct.

9 The City of Glendale's General Plan, Noise Element, 1978.

30-UNtT AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL


+

+01Sheet

I PRIV, DECK

67 S,F93 SF

120 S,F131 SF

40 spaces25 spaces

6 spaces

7' required

56 spaces, space

57 provided

52 required

400

605 S.F962 S.F

" '80 S,F1,331 SF

UNIT AREA

30

ONTYI

o

"91

200 300

Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP2251 W, 190tt1 StTeelTorrance, Col 90504Tel, (310) 217-6885F""(3'0) 217-0425

scala 1/16" _ 1'-0",

1BDR+'BA2BDR+ 1.25BA3BDR+2BA3BDR+2BA

AERIAL MAPscale: r" 100'-0"

100

AocC,

TYPE I DESCRIPTION

RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIRED, & 2 bedroom units (20 unils) _ 2/ unit

3 bedroom unils (' 0 units) _ 2,5/ unilGUEST SPACES

TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING: !RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIRED FORDENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE

RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROVIDEDSTANDARD SPACEHANDICAPPED SPACE

TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED

I RESIDENnAL BUILDING SUMMARY

JOB NO. A5112,300January 16. 2007

BUILDING SITE PLAN + MAPI PROJECT INFORMATION I

I RESIDENTIAL PARKING SUMMARY

EAST GARFIELD RFPGLENDALE. CALIFORNIA

APPLICANT

THOMAS SAFRAN & ASSOCIATES11812 San Vincente Blvd. Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90049T (31 0) 820-4888

6,000 SF2,863 S,F

6.864 S.F24,9%

5.438 S,F8.624 SF1.411 S,F

392 S.F

'3,710 S,F

497%28.335 S.F

'028%2,863 S,F

20,807 S.F

OPEN SPACE REQUIRED (30 UNITS X 200 S,F)PRIVATE OPEN SPACE (decks / patio)

COMMON OUTDOOR AREAOPEN SPACE PROVIDED (COMMON & PRIVATE)COMMUNITY SPACE

LAUNDRY SPACE

OPEN AREA SUMMARY

LANDSCAPING (WiD hardscapejRATIO (LANDSCAPING I LOT AREA) = (6,864 I 27.550) =

LOT AREA 27,550 sf / 0,63 acresTOTAL UNITS 30 residential unitsDENSITY' 47 Du / acreFAR- (BLDG SF /LDT AREA) (40,894/27,550) _ 1,48

BLDG SF, _ BLDG HABITABLE + CIRCULATIONBUILDING FOOTPRINTLOT COVERAGE'

(BLDG FOOTPRINT/LOT AREA) _ (13,7'0/27,550) BUILDING HABITABLE

(BLDG HABITABLE / LOT AREA) _ (28,335/27,550) BALCONY S.F, (30 UNITS)GARAGE;

D PROPOSED 5'-0" ALLEY DEDICATION

I PROJECT SUMMARY

lIB] PROPOSED BUILDING

PANORAMIC VIEW OF

CONe CURB &.2' GUTTER

PAVED

A.C PAVED

POWER POLE

GUY ANCHORGUY ANCHOR

GARAGEYUCCO EXTERIOR

( RR)

01

CQVEOREOCAR PORT

1-STORY BUILDINGCONG BLOCK EXTERIOR

NO. 801

II

I ( lP)

~---

~1

1

1+----f~11:i-STORY BUILDING JWOOD EXTERIOR.I

NO. 827 I

'LL,r~--t _J\u _~CONCRETE

6" CONC, BLOCK WALL

PANORAMIC VIEW OF ALLEY-----rroRTH OF 295 E. GARFIELD AVE.

POWER POLE WITH STREET LIGHT

~':>~)

~"" A,( PArD__ ~ _

GARAGE: ) 1-STORY BUILDINGSTUCCO I STUCCO EXTERIORE~ERIOR NO. 819

JL~~ I.==".L- -- - - - - -- --

0,u

u "z0

'1° 0u

! "

91011

~0•~~0

0 ffi ffi ~z

t: z I0 0 8 b, , , ,0 0 " 8 0

z

~ ~ ~~

~• • • "

iil- W

E APE '<Ii

6'CONCW~,

18

" FIR

12

1

I

I

II

I

I

III IL J

396CLEAR OF PiL W'L

----;,0

2

+

+

ALLEY (EAST) ELEVATION 4

<!t

,--------

:1

:'il

,~PAINTED WOOD TRIM :'jl

PAlNr.;'O WOOD PLANTER

0,

0"

:1

ALLEY (NORTH) ELEVATION 3 'I:1"

Ii

:1I;

<9

ALLEY (WEST) ELEVATION 2

BUILDING ELEVATIONS

Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP2251 W, 19O11l Streetrorranoe, Ca 90504Tel. (310) 217-8885Fax (310) 217_0425

+08Sheet

32248

V8" '" f-O"1

scale:~o

EAST GARFIELD RFPGlENDALE, CALIFORNlA

APPLICANT

THOMAS SAFRAN & ASSOCIATES11812 Sar> Vincarote Blvd. Suit" 600, L""Angel"e, CA 90049T (310) 820_4688

JOB NO. A5112.300January' 6, 2007

-DUAl GLAZED WINDOWSPAINTED WOOD TRiM

-- HARD! BOARD SHAKE SIDINGPAINTED WOOD TRELLIS

-MACHINE APPLIED STUOCO

PAINTED WOOD TRIM,I STUCCO STOP

WROUGHT IRON GUARDf!AIL

PAINTED FOAM TRIM----PAINTED FOAM CORBEL

~----~~~~~D STONE

----·-WATER HEATER VENT

-------DIMENSlONAl ASPHALTSHINGLE ROOF

---------PAINTED GABLE END +DIAGONAL TIMBER 8R>\CKET

GARFIELD AVE (SOUTH) ELEVATION+

CITY OF GLENDALE PLANNING DEPARTMENT … OF GLENDALE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT...

Documents

Transcript of CITY OF GLENDALE PLANNING DEPARTMENT … OF GLENDALE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT...