UBLIC HEARING: Director of Development ... - City of Glendale

DreamWorks Animation Campus 

Stage t & II Design, First Amendment to DA, second Addendum to EIR 

April 22, 2006 

Page 3 of7 

The proposed expansion of the Lakeside Building will have a maximum height of 93 feet and will be 6 stones. 

A recommendation from the Planning Commission to City Council to approve the First Amendment to Statutory DA 

and Second Addendum to fhe Final Program EIR was approved on a 2-1 vote; Commissioner Ramirez voted 

against the approval of the two documents because he felt more study of soils and liquefacUon should be 

conducted. 

DESIGN REVIEW 

The Project has been reviewed by the City's Principal Urban Designer. He has determined the Project is consistent 

with the design standards established by both the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan and the 

Development Agreement between the City, the Agency, and the Developer. The Project additionally utilizes the 

same materials, colors, and details as the existing architecture on the Campus. It is an architecturally conservative 

extension of the Campus. As such, the Project is consistent with adopted design policies and standards, and could 

be approved as presented. 

The building will have a prominent presence on Flower Street and consequently will serve as the 'gateway' 

structure to the Grand Central District. The initial proposal clearty announced the studio's idenUty to Flower Street 

with a "DreamWorks' wall sign on the eastern fa

BACKGROUND 

DreamWor1

DreamWor!l;s Animation Campus 

Stage I & II Design, First Amendment to DA, Second Addendum to EJR 

April 22, 2008 

Page 5of7 

• Located within a redevelopment area; 

• Controlled by a single land owner; and 

• Developed as a unified project under a disposition and development agreement (GMC 30.70.020.A). 

The Campus qualifies as an "Industrial Mixed Usellarge Scale Project". 

The 128,718 square feet "Lakeside Annex" has an overall height of approXimately 93 feet and is six (6) slories. 

This exceeds the maximum allowed by the existing Development Agreement. Based on the proposed First 

Amendment to Statutory DA, the "Industrial Mixed Usellarge Scale Project" height standard for such projects wouid 

apply, thereby permitting an increase up to 10 stories or 175 feet above existing grade of the site, whichever is less. 

As proposed, the Project would comply with the IND Zone height standards for Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale 

Projects. 

All other terms of the Developmenl Agreement would remain in effect. 

SECOND ADOENDUM TO THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR 

The applicant has completed a Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR for this Project. 

This Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR addresses the designation of the Campus as an Industrial Mixed 

Usellarge Scale Project in the IND zoning district and the modification of the height limit. The Second Addendum 

to the Final Program EIR specifically discusses the potential environmental effects of the following: 

• Application of the "Industrial Mixed Usellarge Scale Project" designation; 

• Proposed change in the height limit on the Campus from 65 feet to 175 feel, in accordance with the 

"Industrial Mixed Use/Large Scale Project" standards; 

• Installation of a new secondary employee and emergency access road from Flower Street, and associated 

surface parking and landscaping along the roadway; and 

• Amendment of the Development Agreement. 

The Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR concludes Ihat the above items do not represent a substantial 

change to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan"), nor do they present any 

new information not previously analyzed or disclosed in the Final Program EIR and the First Addendum to the Final 

Program EIR. The Final Program EIR cited significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and traffic resulting 

from the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. The proposed Projecf would not increase the development's 

contribution to air quality or traffic impacts as identified in the Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR. 

Furthermore, the Project does not alter the total amount of development permitted on the site, nor do the resulting 

conditions or circumstances warrant the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. 

The proposed Project anticipated impacts on shade/shadow, aesthetics and traffiC/circulation. Even with the 

increase in permitted height, the shade and shadow impacts of the Project were determined to be less than 

significant. Furthermore, the Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR determined that the traffic/circulation 

impacts can be reduced to less than significant upon the application of the following two mitigation measures: 

MM 4.9-1 The secondary access gate shall have limited access, as follows: 

• Entry from northbound Flower Street shall be prohibited

RESOLUTION NO. _ 

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE 

CERTIFYING AND ADOPTING A SECOND ADDENDUM TO 

THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 

SAN FERNANDO ROAD CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT 

PROJECT AREA PLAN (DREAMWORKS ANIMATION 

CAMPUS EXPANSION PROJECT) AND MAKING FINDINGS 

IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 

WHEREAS, on November 17. 1992, the Agencycertified and adopted a Final Program Environmental 

Impact Report rProgram FEIR- or MFEIR"}for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area 

Plan, which FEIR analyzed the series of actions contemplated under the Redevelopment Plan, including 

proposed land uses, infrastructure policies, and regulations and examined the proposals for upgrading 

commercial, industrial and public properties within the Plan area including the existing and future development 

of an estimated 2.3 million square feet of commercial and related space, 1.48 million square feet of industrial 

space and 548 residential units; and 

WHEREAS, the FEIRfor the Redevelopment Plan included the allowable land uses and development 

standards for the Redevelopment Plan area in general and the OreamWorks Campus in particular; and 

WHEREAS, on June 4, 1996, the Agency certified a First Addendum to the FEIR which Addendum 

analyzed the OreamWorks Campus proposal within the context of the certified program FEIR and determined 

that the proposal did not require any important revision to the FEIR, did not constitute a substantial change 

in circumstances, and did not create any new significant effects not examined in the Program FEIR; and 

WHEREAS, a Second Addendum to the Program FEIR has been prepared to address the potential 

environmental effects of building out the OreamWorks campus under the Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale 

Project designation in the INO zoning district of the San Fernando Road Corridor Project Area; of revising the 

building height limit of 65 feet to a height of 175 feet or 10 stories permitted under the new Industrial Mixed- 

Use/Large Scale Project zoning designation; of installing a new employee and fire gale access on Flower 

Street and associated surface paving and landscaping activities; and 

WHEREAS, Agency and City staff have evaluated the proposed Project changes pursuant 10 

California Environmental Quality Act rCEQA") and relevant code requirements and have determined that the 

1 

1 A

Project changes do not create any new environmental impacts, do not substantially increase the severity of 

any previously identified significant effects, do not constitute a substantial change to the Redevelopment Plan 

described in the Program FEIR that would require major revisions to the Program FEIR; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed designation ofthe OreamWorks Campus as an Industrial Mixed-Use/Large 

Scale Project in the INO zoning district, the revision of the height limit, and construction ofa secondary access 

gate and associated landscape improvements would not alter the total amount of development permitted on 

the site and none of the conditions or circumstances that would require the preparation of a subsequent or 

supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 exists in connection with the changes 

to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan as proposed by the project under consideration in 

the Second Addendum; and 

WHEREAS, the Agency, exercising its independent judgment has determined that the Project 

changes described herein above do not trigger any conditions requiring either a supplemental EIR, 

subsequent EIR or negative declaration; and that an addendum to the FEIR is necessary and appropriate. 

CALIFORNIA: 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, 

SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines that alt of the recitals set forth herein above are 

true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 

SECTION 2. The Second Addendum was prepared pursuant to the CEQA and State and local 

Guidelines, and is herebyapproved, certified, adopted and incorporated into the FEIRas follows: the proposed 

designation of the DreamWorks Campus as an Industrial Mixed-Use Large/Scale Project in the INO zoning 

district, the revision of the heightlimil, and construction of a secondary access gate do not alter the total 

amount of development permitted on the site and none of the conditions or circumstances that would require 

the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 

exists in connection with the changes to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan as proposed 

by the project under consideration in the Second Addendum. Accordingly, an Addendum is appropriate 

pursuant to Title 14 CCR Div. 6. Chap. 3, § 15164. 

SECTION 3. The mitigation measures identified and set forth in section 4.9 

2 

J:\PILES\DOCI'"ILE:S\R.ESO\DrearnWorks 2nd Addendum City Reso '008.wpd

Transportation/Circulation, specifically MM 4.9.1 to allow only right turns into and out of the secondary access 

driveway, and MM 4.9.2 requiring the applicant to pay fees required to post signs and barriers to enforce these 

turning movements, shall be are incorporated into the project analyzed in the Second Addendum. All prior 

FEIR and First Addendum mitigation measures applicable to the DreamWorks Campus project shall also be 

implemented. 

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby confirms in all respects the certification of the Program FEIR 

and the First Addendum except as modified by the Second Addendum. 

ATIEST: 

City Clerk 

Adopted this day of , 2008. 

3 

Mayor 

J:\FlLE$\OOCrtLES\RE50\Dreamworks 2nd Addendum City Reso 2008 wpd


RESOLUTION OF THE GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 

CERTIFYING AND ADOPTING A SECOND ADDENDUM TO 

THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 

SAN FERNANDO ROAD CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT 

PROJECT AREA PLAN (DREAMWORKS ANIMATION 

CAMPUS EXPANSION PROJECT) AND MAKING FINDINGS 

IN CONNECTION THEREWITH 

WHEREAS, on November 17, 1992. the Agency certified and adopted a Final Program Environmental 

Impact Report ("Program FEIR" or"FEIR") for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area 

Plan, which FEIR analyzed the series of actions contemplated under the Redevelopment Plan, including 

proposed land uses, infrastructure policies, and regulations and examined the proposals for upgrading 

commercial, industrial and public properties within the Plan area including the existing and future development 

of an estimated 2.3 million square feet of commercial and related space, 1.48 million square feet of industrial 

space and 548 residential units; and 

WHEREAS, the FEIR for the Redevelopment Plan included the allowable land uses and development 

standards for the Redevelopment ptan area in general and the OreamWorks Campus in particular; and 

WHEREAS, on June 4,1996, the Agency certified a First Addendum to the FEIR which Addendum 

analyzed the OreamWorks Campus proposal within the context ofthe certified program FEIR and determined 

that the proposal did not require any important revision to the FEIR, did not constitute a substantial change 

in circumstances, and did not create any new significant effects not examined in the Program FEtR; and 

WHEREAS, a Second Addendum to the Program FEIR has been prepared to address the potential 

environmental effects of building out the OreamWorks campus under the Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale 

Project designation in the INO zoning district of the San Fernando Road Corridor Project Area; of revising the 

building heighllimit of 65 feet to a height of 175 feet or 10 stories permitted under the new Industrial Mixed- 

Use/Large Scale Project zoning designation; of installing a new employee and fire gate access on Flower 

Street and associated surface paving and landscaping activities; and 

WHEREAS, Agency and City staff have evaluated the proposed Project changes pursuant to 

California Environmental Quality Act rCEQA-) and relevant code requirements and have determined that the 

1 

1 B

Project changes do not create any new environmental impacts, do not substantially increase the severity of 

any previously identified significant effects, do not constitute a substantial change to the Redevelopment Plan 

described in the Program FEtR that would require major revisions to the Program FEIR; and 

WHEREAS, the proposed designation of the DreamWorks Campus as an Industrial Mixed-Use/Large 

Scale Project in the IND zoning district, the revision of the height limit, and construction ofa secondary access 

gate and associated landscape improvements would not alter the total amount of development permitted on 

the site and none of the conditions or circumstances that would require the preparation of a subsequent or 

supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 exists in connection with the changes 

to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan as proposed by the project under consideration in 

the Second Addendum; and 

WHEREAS, the Agency, exercising its independent judgment has determined that the Project 

changes described herein above do not trigger any conditions requiring either a supplemental EIR, 

subsequent EIR or negative declaration; and that an addendum to the FEIR is necessary and appropriate. 

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF 

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA: 

SECTION 1. The Agency finds and determines that all of the recitals set forth herein above are true 

and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 

SECTION 2. The Second Addendum was prepared pursuant to the CEQA and State and local 

Guidelines, and is hereby approved, certified. adopted and incorporated into the FEIR as follows: the proposed 

designation of the DreamWorks Campus as an Industrial Mixed-Use Large/Scale Project in the IND zoning 

district, the revision of the height limit, and construction of a secondary access gate do not alter the total 

amount of development permitted on the site and none of the conditions or circumstances that would require 

the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 

exists in connection with the changes to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan as proposed 

by the project under consideration in the Second Addendum. Accordingly, an Addendum is appropriate 

pursuant to Title 14 CCR Div. 6. Chap. 3, § 15164. 

SECTION 3. The mitigation measures identified and set forth in section 4.9 

2 

J:\FILES\OOCFILES\RESO\Dreamworks 2nd Addendum ReSD 2008.wpd

Transportation/Circulation, specifically MM 4.9.1 to allow only right turns into and out of the secondary access 

driveway, and MM 4.9.2 requiring the applicant to pay fees required to post signs and barriers to enforce these 

turning movements, shall be are incorporated into the project analyzed in the Second Addendum. All prior 

FEIR and First Addendum mitigation measures applicable to the DreamWorks Campus project shall also be 

implemented. 

SECTION 4. The Agency hereby confirms in all respects the certification of the Program FEIR and 

the First Addendum except as modified by the Second Addendum. 

ATTEST: 

Adopted this day of " 2008. 

Agency Secretary 

3 

Chairman 

J,\f.LES\DOCfILES\RESO\DrearnWorks 'nd Addendum Reso 200S.wpd

ADDENDUM TO THE PROGRAM EIR I 

REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE 

SAN FERNANDO ROAD CORRIDOR 

ADDENDUM REGARDING THE 

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION CAMPUS 

June 1996 

State Clearinghouse # 92041055 

Prepared for: 

Glendale Redevelopment Agency 

633 East Broadway, Room 201 

Glendale, California 91205 

Prepared by: 

Planning Consultants Research 

233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 130 

Santa Monica. California 90401 

peR 

PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. INTRODUCTION 1 

2. PROJECT OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13 

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ' 22 

4.1. EARTH 22 

4.2. AIR 26 

4.3. WATER (HYDROLOGY) " 36 

4.4. NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 

4.5. LIGHT AND GLARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48 

4.6. LAND USE 52 

4.7. RISK OF UPSET 60 

4.8. POPULATION/HOUSING 64 

4.9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION " 68 

4.10. PUBLIC SERVICES 87 

4.10.1. POLICE 87 

4.10.2. FIRE , 90 

4.10.3. SCHOOLS , 93 

4.10.4. LIBRARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97 

4.11. ENERGY " 100 

4.12. UTILITIES....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101 



4.12.1. WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101 

4.12.2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104 

4.12.3. ELECTRICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 107 

4.12.4. NATURAL GAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109 

4.12.5. SOLID WASTE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 111 

Page i 

Page 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR 

June 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

4.13. HUMAN HEALTH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 

4.14. RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 

4.15. CULTURAL RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118 

4.16. ISSUES NOT INCLUDED IN THE FOCUS OF THE PROGRAM EIR 

AS ESTABLISHED IN THE INITIAL STUDY 120 



Page ii 

Page 


June 1996

Figure 

LIST OF FIGURES 

1 Redevelopment Plan Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2 Project Location Within Redevelopment Area 

3 Aerial Photograph of Project Site and Vicinity 

4 Project Site Plan . . . . . . . 

5 Noise Monitoring Locations 

6 View of the Proposed Development from the West 

7 View of the Proposed Development from the Northeast 

8 View of the Proposed Development from the South 

9 Study Area and Location of Analyzed Intersections . 

10 Project Trip Distribution Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . 


Glendale Redevelopment Agen(;y 

Page iii 

Page 

4 

5 

6 

9 

44 

56 

57 

58 

69 

80 


June 1996

Table 

LIST OF TABLES 

1 Summary of San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan Impacts and 

Dreamworks Animation Campus Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

. 2 Pollutant Standards and East San Fernando Valley Ambient Air Quality Data 27 

3 SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds 

4 Redevelopment Plan Post-Construction Occupancy Emissions 

5 Project Emissions 

6 Local Carbon Monoxide Concentration Summary 33 

7 Previous and Future Helicopter Noise Levels .. 46 

8 Combined Helicopter and Existing Ambient Noise Levels -- Helicopter 

Operations Plus Current Ambient Noise Levels . . 46 

9 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections 72 

10 Level of Service Definitions for All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections 72 

11 Existing Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 

12 Year 2027 Intersection Levels of Service from Redevelopment Plan FEIR 75 

13 Estimated Project Site Trip Generation Under Redevelopment Plan .... 77 

14 Year 2010 Intersection Levels of Service with Redevelopment Plan Growth -- 

Without Development on the Project Site 78 

15 Estimated Project Trip Generation. . . . . . . . 81 

16 Year 2010 Intersection Levels of Service - Project Impact Analysis 82 

17 Year 2010 Intersection Level of Service Analysis with Project Mitigation 86 



Page iv 

Page 

28 

28 

30 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addeodwn EIR 

June 1996

1. INTRODUCTION 

This document is an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the San 

Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan (hereafter, Redevelopment Plan) which was 

certified on November 17, 1992 (Resolution No. 480) by the Glendale Redevelopment Agency. 

The Final Environmental Impact Report (hereafter, Program EIR) is comprised of an Initial 

Study, which is appended to the Draft EIR; the Draft EIR with technical appendices dated July 

13, 1992; and the Final EIR volwne dated November 12, 1992. A program EIR is defmed in 

Section 15168(a) of the CEQA Guidelines as an EIR which may be prepared on a series of 

actions which are related to one another and can be characterized as one large project. Under 

Section 15180(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, "An EIR on 

a redevelopment plan is to be treated as a program EIR. .. ". 

The subject of this Addendum is a site specific project, the DreamWorks Animation 

Campus, proposed by DreamWorks SKG on a site located within the San Fernando Road 

Corridor Redevelopment Area. This document is an Addendum to the Program EIR, responsive 

to Section 15168(c) of the CEQA Guidelines addressing program EIRs, which states, 

"...Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to 

determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared." Section 15168(c)4 

of the CEQA Guidelines states further that, "Where subsequent activities involve site specific 

operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the 

evaluation of the site and the activity to detennine whether the environmental effects of the 

operations were covered in the program EIR. " 

The DreamWorks Animation Campus project consists of a site specific project located 

within the Redevelopment Area. As such, it is a subsequent activity to the Redevelopment 

program. An addendum is a more comprehensive form of documentation than a written 

checklist, and has been selected to address the potential environmental consequences of the 

project in the context of those attributable to the Redevelopment Plan, as documented in the 

EIR. Pursuant to Sections 15162(a) and 15164(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, preparation of a 

subsequent EIR was determined not to be appropriate. As evidenced by the analyses and 

conclusions presented in this Addendum, the proposed site specific project does not represent 

substantial change in the underlying Redevelopment Plan assumptions regarding the project site 

made in the EIR, and neither such differences between the project and the Redevelopment Plan 

as will exist, nor new information not available at the time the EIR was prepared, will involve 

Planning ConsultantS Research 


Page 1 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn EIR 

June 1996

'. 

1. Introduction 

new environmental effects not previously considered or cause a substantial increase in the 

severity of significant effects identified in the EIR. 

The environmental analyses in this Addendum review each of the environmental subjects 

evaluated in the EIR, first summarizing the fmdings of the EIR, then analyzing specific impacts 

of the DreamWorks Animation Campus. In all cases, the purpose of the Addendum is to 

determine whether the project's impacts had been sufficiently contemplated in the EIR regarding 

the larger Redevelopment Plan and whether those impacts would or would not be significant 

environmental impacts, in their own right. Mitigation measures are identified as and if 

applicable. Where significant adverse impacts are identified, a determination is made as to 

whether implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce impacts to acceptable nonsignificant 

levels. 



Page 2 


June 1996

2. PROJECT OVERVIEW 

peR 

P LAN N I N G CON S U L TAN T S RES E·A R C H

REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 


The Redevelopment Plan which is analyzed in the Program EIR contains land use and 

infrastructure policies and regulations intended to eliminate conditions of blight in the area and 

revitalize and upgrade the commercial, industrial, and public properties within the project area. 

As identified in Figure 1 on page 4, the 727-acre Redevelopment Plan Area (hereafter, 

Redevelopment Area) extends along the entire length of the San Fernando Road corridor within 

the City of Glendale, and also includes areas west to the Golden State Freeway in the northern 

half and to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way in the southern half, and up to one-half 

east of the corridor along major streets, including Broadway Boulevard and Colorado 

Boulevard. The Redevelopment Plan provides for existing and future development of an 

estimated 2.3 million square feet of commercial and related space, 11.48 million square feet of 

industrial space and 548 residential units. 1 

THE PROJECT SITE 

As shown on Figures 2 and 3 on pages 5 and 6, respectively, the DreamWorks 

Animation Campus site is located northeast of the Golden State (1-5) and Ventura (SR-134) 

Freeway Interchange in the City of Glendale, approximately 500 feet north of Griffith Park 

within the northerly third of the Redevelopment Area. The triangularly shaped property is 

proposed to include the unimproved right-of-way for Victory Truck Boulevard and encompasses 

approximately 13.4 acres at 1000 Flower Street, of which an engineering survey established that 

11.06 acres are in the primary parcel and 2.34 acres are in the Victory Truck Boulevard rightof-way. 

The site adjoins the Los Angeles River on the south, Flower Street on the northeast, 

and private industrial property to the northwest. Surrounding land uses include an array of light 

industrial activities to the east, north and northwest, all in the Redevelopment Area, and, across 

the Los Angeles River, Griffith Park to the southwest in the City of Los Angeles. 

Fonnerly owned by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the 

project site served as a field headquarters for the operation of reservoirs, pumping stations, 

tanks and wells, and as a storage yard for related equipment and materials. Since 1958, the site 

I 

Program EIR, Final EIR Volume. page 1-9. 



Page 3 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddendlBJl EIR 

June 1996

Planning 

Consultants 

Research 

N 

A a 10CXl 

Redevelopment 

Project • 

Boundary 

SOURCE: Katz Hollis 

Page 5 

2000 

o 

a: 

< 

> W..J 

::> 

o CD 

o z 

< cr 

a::I 

Figure 2 

Project Location within 

Redeveloplllent Area

2. Project Overview 

has been heavily utilized for helicopter operations and maintenance. The Los Angeles Police 

Department, Glendale Police Department, Burbank Police Department, and a commercial 

helicopter service have utilized the site as a heliport under Conditional Use Pennirs (CUPs) 

from the City of Glendale and appropriate pennits from the Federal Aviation Administration 

and the California Department of Transponation. Originally, the site was used by Heliport, 

Inc., which utilized the site for helicopter landings and takeoffs from 1958 to 1968. The 

original conditional use application shows that the site had four departure sites and one landing 

site at this time. The Los Angeles Police (LAPD) airborne unit was the major user of the site 

from 1964 until 1972 when the Glendale Police and Burbank Police air support units moved 

their operations to the site. LAPD helicopter operations were moved to a downtown location 

in 1983. In 1988 the Burbank airborne law enforcement unit moved to Burbank Airport, 

followed in 1992 by the Glendale Police air support unit. 

During the peak years of operation (1972 to 1983) when all three police departments 

were operating out of the project site, the LAPD used seven Bell 47G5 piston helicopters, one 

Bell 47G5A, one Bell 47G3B1, 16 Bell 206B single engine turbine models, one UHIB (Bell 

204), and a CH46. From 1972 to 1992, three Hughes 300 piston model aircraft were used by 

the Glendale Police. The Burbank Police shared the use of these three Hughes aircraft with the 

Glendale Police from 1972 to 1988. 2 

Records of police flight operations for the years 1974-1992 were readily available. The 

following flight statistics are based on that infonnation. From 1974 to 1978, there were 

approximately 586 flight events (landings or takeoffs) per week. The LAPD was operating 24 

hours a day and on weekdays during this time. From 1978 to 1983, after which time the LAPD 

moved downtown, the average number of flight events per week was 886. From 1983 to 1988, 

when the Glendale and Burbank Police Departments were operating together, weekly flights 

totalled 300. From 1988 to 1992, when the Glendale Police air support unit was operating 

alone, approximately 200 flight events per week occurred. 3 Existing facilities on the site 

include a helicopter hangar, two temporary office buildings (trailers on concrete foundations), 

a storage shed, and a helipad. 

2 

3 

Helipon Consultams, letter to Glendale Redevelopment Agency dated March 7, 1996 (see Appendix B-2). 

Ibid. 



Page 7 

DreamWorks Animation CanJpus AddeodlDD EIR 

June 1996

THE PROPOSED PROJECT 


The DreamWorles Animation Campus is proposed in order to create new entertainment 

industry facilities, including animation facilities and office use. The objectives of the proposed 

project are as follows: 

• To create and maintain a media and entertainment production complex to meet the 

expanding needs of the entertainment industry in Southern California in a location 

that is conveniently located for a large part of the creative and technical talent that 

forms the industry; 

• To redevelop and enhance the project site within the City of Glendale and the 

Southern California region as a premier entertainment industry center; 

• To strengthen and maintain the economic vitality of the City of Glendale, Los 

Angeles County and adjacent areas by providing business and job opportunities 

associated with the development and operation of the DreamWorks Animation 

Campus; 

• To rehabilitate the physical appearance of the property in order to create an aesthetic 

and functional asset in the City of Glendale; 

• To create an integrated production facility and associated uses that respects 

neighboring land uses and natural resources as well as nearby residential and 

business communities. 

Implementation of the DreamWorks Animation Campus calls for the removal of all 

existing on-site structures and equipment, to be followed with development of up to 495,000 

square feet of building area in two or more phases to be used for the creation and production 

of animated films anq other media. An estimated 1,400 employees are expected to work on the 

campus upon completion of full build-out. Approximately seven buildings and a parking 

structure are proposed with vehicular access via a main entrance and two secondary access 

points, provided on Flower Street. A site plan for the project is presented as Figure 4 on 

page 9. 

The design for the DreamWorks Animation Campus is modelled upon a campus plan 

designed around a series of courtyards that respond to Southern California's Mediterranean 

climate. At full buildout there will be approximately seven buildings and a parking structure, 

interconnected through arcades, verandas, and bridges. Buildings will be two to four stories 

in height with pitched tile roofs, covered terraces and porches. Consistent with the 

Mediterranean theme, several towers or campaniles (the tallest measuring up to 115 feet) may 

be incorporated into the building design as architectural accents. The main buildings, ranging 



Page 8 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn ErR 

Iune 1996


from 30,000 to 85,000 square feet each, will be clustered around a central piazza. Courtyards 

and landscaping are an integral part of the site layout. An ornamental garden/water feature may 

be incorporated into the design of the project. A decorative grove of trees will provide 

landscaped orientation to the adjacent Los Angeles River along the southern boundary of the 

property. 

A parking structure serving the facilities will be situated on the northwestern comer of 

the property and may include five levels above ground, with a helipad to be located just above 

the top level. Helicopter operations, which are currently pennitted for the site, will continue. 

It is proposed that the current unimproved right-of-way easement for Victory Truck Boulevard 

of approximately· 2.34 acres, which extends over the Southern portion ofthe site, be quitclaimed 

prior to project development. 

RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROJECT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 

The Redevelopment Plan defines allowable land uses and development standards for the 

Redevelopment Area in general; and the DreamWorks site in particular. The Redevelopment 

Plan incorporates the development standards (building height, setback criteria, etc.) already set 

forth in the City Zoning Ordinances for each of the zoning districts adopted in the 

Redevelopment Plan. These documents establish a Restricted Industrial land use classification 

(Ml Zone) for the DreamWorks site. Neither the Redevelopment Plan nor the Zoning 

Ordinances establishes a maximum density or intensity of Restricted Industrial usage on any 

individual property. The City, by design, has only established regulations restricting front yard 

setback distances and building heights as applied to individual properties. The Ml zone allows 

heights up to 35 feet and requires ten foot setbacks adjacent to streets. Thus, within these 

parameters and dependent upon the configuration and constraints of any particular site, a range 

of intensities or floor area ratios, which is the ratio ofexisting or expected building area divided 

by associated land area (hereafter, FAR), from as low as 0.3 FAR to as high as 1.5 FAR would 

be expected by the City. 

In order to estimate the total amount of development that should reasonably be expected 

in the Redevelopment Area, and to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Redevelopment 

Plan, the Program EIR made documented assumptions regarding land use intensities for each 

cited land use aggregated across all properties within particular zoning districts. These 

assumptions took the fonn of average densities, expressed in the case of Restricted Industrial 

uses as FAR. 



Page 10 


June 1996


within the DreamWorks Animation Campus were included in the average Restricted Industrial 

development assumptions made as part of the Redevelopment Plan and evaluated in the Program 

EIR. 

The incremental Animation Campus floor area in eXKSS of the average FAR assumption 

for Restricted Industrial uses in TAZ 2 represents only 2.4% of total Restricted Industrial uses 

forecast in the TAZ, only 0.9% of all industrial uses in the Redevelopment Area, and only 

0.7% of all non-residential uses in the Redevelopment Area. By any of these measures, the 

proposed project's density represents an insignificant deviation from the expectations expressed 

in the Redevelopment Plan, one that is well within the range of normal variation to be expected 

in a large area over a 35-year implementation period. 

INTENDED USES OF THIS DOCUMENT 

The proposed project site is consistent with the current Restricted Industrial land use 

designation for the site by the Glendale General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This 

environmental document may be used for all purposes cited in the Program EIR in addition to 

all discretionary approvals and actions which may be required for this project, including but not 

limited to: 

• Statutory Development Agreement. 

• Participation Agreement. 

• Height Variance. 

• Parking Exception. 

• Conditional Use Permit (for the installation and llse of satellite dishes). 

• Design Review Process. 

• Such other discretionary actions as may be required, but cannot be identified at this 

time. 

Planning Consullams Research 


Page 12 


June 1996

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The purpose of this DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum to the Program EIR 

as it pertains to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan is to compare project 

impacts to the impacts identified in the Program EIR for the Redevelopment Plan and to 

determine: (1) whether the Animation Campus project's impacts were adequately addressed in 

the Program EIR and (2) whether this Addendum represents new information, or a change in 

any of the significance conclusions. 

The evaluation in this Addendum has determined that the DreamWorks Animation 

Campus project's impacts are within the parameters of the Redevelopment Plan impacts 

identified in the Program EIR and that there is no new information which would change the· 

conclusions of the Program EIR. The Summary Table on the following pages compares the 

respective impacts, issue by issue, of the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan and 

the DreamWorks Animation Campus project. 



Page 13 


June 1996

4. 1. Earth 

fault, located near the base of the San Gabriel Mountains in the northern part of Glendale. Due 

to the approximately six mile distance of the Redevelopment Area from this fault, potential 

hazards due to fault rupture are not present in the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment 

Area is not in a potential liquefaction area nor are there static fresh water bodies proximate to 

the area in which seiches could occur. Although new development would expose people and 

structures to groundshaking in the event of an earthquake, no unusual or unique risk due to 

groundshaking would be posed by the Redevelopment Plan. 

PROJECT IMPACTS 

Grading. Elevations on the site range from approximately 450 feet to 463 feet above 

sea level. The major soil association extant on the site is Tujunga-Soboba. A geotechnical 

evaluation of the property has determined that the site is generally blanketed by about five to 

20 feet of variable fill consisting predominantly of silty, fme to medium sand with occasional 

gravel and debris. 8 Underlying the fill soils are native deposits consisting of fine to coarse 

silty sand and clean sand. The site is traversed by a 10 to 80 foot wide and 1,100 foot long 

drainage ditch running across the site from west to east, which empties into the Los Angeles 

River, adjacent to the southern border of the site. 

The impact of any inherent soil limitations that may exist on the proposed project site 

would be lessened through standard engineering techniques utilized during site preparation. Due 

to the relatively variable topography of the site, grading work will be required to bring the site 

grade to the desired elevation for construction purposes. In addition, replacement of some of 

the existing fill soils may be required. The acceptability of existing fills would have to be 

determined at the time of construction. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 cubic yards 

of the dirt on site would need to be redistributed in order to bring the site to a level pad and 

that approximately 10,000 cubic yards would need to be imported. 9 The size and scope of the 

proposed grading operation would not be considered significant with implementation of the 

mitigation measures identified in the Earth section of the Program EIR. 

Seismicity. Although additional investigation may need to be performed to obtain more 

precise information on liquefaction potential once specific building layouts have been 

8 

9 

Dames & Moore. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard. 

November 1995. page 5. 

Ibid. page 8. 

Planning ConsullllnlS Research 


Page 23 


. June 1996

4. 1. Earth 

detennined, preliminary indications are that the potential for liquefaction on the site is low. 10 

Therefore, seismic related settlements are expected to be minimal and structures on site should 

perfonn adequately during potential seismic events. Although development of the proposed 

project would expose people and strUctures to groundshaking in the event of an earthquake, no 

unusual or unique risk due to groundshaking would result from development of the proposed 

project. With implementation of the mitigation measures cited in the Program EIR, the seismic 

risk to which the proposed project would be exposed would be consistent with any restricted 

industrial development in the Redevelopment Area, resulting in less than significant impacts. 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

The following grading and seismic mitigation measures were listed in the Program EIR 

and may apply to the proposed project: 11 

1. Proposed developments will be required to comply with all applicable State and 

local building codes relating to seismic design including the seismic design 

criteria contained in the Uniform Building Code. 

2. Complete soils and geotechnical reports shall be conducted by qualified 

engineering soil scientists/geologists prior to project approval for all nonresidential 

projects and residential projects as required by the City Engineer. 

This investigation shall involve surface, subsurface, and laboratory analysis to 

identify any potential hazards. This analysis shall also include, but Dot be 

limited to, investigation of soils and groundwater characteristics necessary to 

detennine hazard potential and identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce 

other seismic hazards to less than significant levels. Any recommendations 

stemming from these investigations shall be considered as conditions of approval. 

3. Development shall be subject to grading permits reviewed and approved by the 

City Engineer or their designers. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a soils 

engineering report conforming to City requirements shall be submitted and 

approved by the City Engineer. 

10 Dames & Moore, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, LADWP Crystal Springs Mainterumce Yard, 

November 1995, page 7. 

11 

Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.1-7 and 3.1-8. 

PlaMing Consultants Research 


Page 24 

DreamWorks ADimation Campus AddcPdWl EIR 

June: 1996

12 

4. 1. Earth 

4. An erosion control plan shall be required and subject to review and approval by 

the City Engineer. This plan shall contain detailed, verifiable procedures and 

methods for implementing this plan. Components of an erosion control plan may 

include, but not be limited to, the following: 

Temporary culverts, ditches, dams, settling ponds, sandbagging, or 

similar measures to be installed where needed during construction 

activities to collect excess water and sediments flowing out of 

construction sites and to reduce erosion; 

Straw, hydroseeding, mulching, soil binders, or other suitably acceptable 

materials or techniques to be instituted for uncovered soils, as needed, 

during construction activities for the duration of these activities; and 

Postponing grading activities during periods when wind gusts exceed 25 

mph and during the rainy season. 12 The rainy season is generally 

considered to run from November 15 through April 15. 

It is understood that this provision is intended to mean that grading activities could be suspended during a rain 

storm, but not throughout the rainy season. 



Page 25 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum Em 

June 1996

REDEVELOP:MENT PLAN Il\1PACTS 

4. ENVffiONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 

4.2. AIR 

The Redevelopment Area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) which 

covers a 6,600 square-mile area including all of Orange County, and the non-desert portions 

of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Maintenance and improvement of 

ambient air quality in the SoCAB is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD). 

Two types of thresholds are used to measure the Redevelopment Area's impact on the 

ambient air quality conditions of both the local area and on the SoeAB as a whole. The fIrst 

set of thresholds is that of the ambient air quality standards (AAQS) promulgated by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA). Both the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the state ambient air 

quality standards (SAAQS) are presented in Table 2 on page 27. Table 2 also compares AAQSs 

to the ambient air quality data as measured for the East San Fernando Valley Source Receptor 

Area. 

The second set of thresholds applies to the Redevelopment Area's total regional 

emissions of criteria pollutants for both construction and post-construction occupancy. These 

thresholds were promulgated by the SCAQMD in their April, 1993 CEQA Air Quality 

Handbook and are presented in Table 3 on page 28. Both the AAQSs and the emission 

thresholds used in the Program EIR are consistent with the. current thresholds. 

Table 4 on page 28 presents the post-eonstruction occupancy emissions for the 

Redevelopment Area as estimated in the Program EIR and compares these emissions to the 

SCAQMD emission thresholds. The Program EIR (page 3.2-10) states that short-term 

(construction) emissions associated with the development plan while significant, can be mitigated 

below the level of significance. However, the long-term impacts (post-construction occupancy, 

page 3.2-11) are significant and adverse, and camlOt be mitigated below the level of 

significance. 



Page 26 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK 

June 1996

Carbon Monoxide 

Nitrogen Oxides 

Reactive Organic Compounds 

Particulate Matter 

Sulfur Oxides 

Table 3 

SCAQMD EMISSIONS TImESHOLDS 

Construction 

(Pounds per Day) 

550 

100 

75 

150 

150 

Table 4 


POST-CONSTRUCTION OCCUPANCY EMISSIONS 


4. 2. Air 

Post-Construction Occupancy 

(Pounds per Dav) 

550 

55 

55 

150 

150 

Reactive Carbon Nitrogen Particulate 

Organic Gases Monoxide Oxides Matter 

4. 2. Air 

and coating, and vehicular emissions from on-site construction equipment and off-site 

construction worker vehicle trips. The SCAQMD Handbook provides screening tables to 

determine potential air quality impacts from construction. The SCAQMD minimum threshold 

for potential significant adverse construction air quality impacts is 559,000 square feet of gross 

floor area. The project has a gross floor area of 495,000 square feet and therefore is below the 

SCAQMD screening level for construction impacts. This is not inconsistent with the Program 

EIR, which states a significant but mitigable impact due to construction of all anticipated 

development within the Redevelopment Area. 

Regional Operational Impacts 

The proposed project is located within the Redevelopment Area, based upon the variable 

distribution of development discussed in Section 2, Project Overview. Therefore, its emissions 

from post-construction occupancy of the project facility are contained in the emission estimates 

generated for the Redevelopment Area as presented in Table 4 on page 28. The emissions 

presented in Table 4 are based on CARB Urban Emission (URBEMIS3) model nms. The 

URBEMIS model calculated emissions based on gross floor area. The project site floor area 

represents approximately 3.33-percent of the area allocated in the Redevelopment Plan for 

Industrial use. Emissions for the Restricted Industrial use were obtained from the URBEMIS3 

printouts from the Program EIR1 3 , and the project related emissions were determined based 

on the assumption that 3.33-percent of the emissions assigned to the Restricted Industrial land 

use were allocated to this proposed project. These project-related emissions are presented in 

Table 5 on page 30. 

The Traffic/Circulation section of this document discusses the fact that the project will 

generate higher levels of tripmaking than those associated with the Program EIR's analysis for 

Restricted Industrial land use. Therefore, the project's emissions were recalculated using the 

methodologies presented in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, trip data from the 

project specific traffic analysis, trip lengths from the Program EIR, and emission factors from 

the CARB emission factor model EMFAC7-F. These emissions are presented in Table 5. The 

calculations used in determining these emissions are included in Appendix A. The recalculated 

emissions as presented, are approximately equal to or less than those originally calculated in the 

Program EIR, even though the project is forecast to increase the number of trips over what was 

originally allocated to the project. This defacto emission reduction is primarily attributable to 

the workings of the URBEMIS3 model used to generate the emissions presented in the Program 

EIR. 

1.3 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. Appendix G. Air Quality Worksheers. 

Planning ConsulranlS Resean:h 


Page 29 


June 1996

Table 6 

LOCAL CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION SUMMARY 

I-hr Concentration - 2010 8-hr Concentration - 2010 

4. 2. Air 

Intersection Receptor No-Prolect With Project Change Background Total Future Change Backeround Total Future 

Flower/Western 

3.5 3.5 0.0 8.2 8.2 0.0 7.1 7.1 

2 4.4 4.5 0.1 8.2 8.3 0.1 7.1 7.2 

3 4.6 4.7 0.1 8.2 8.3 0.1 7.1 7.2 

4 2.7 2.8 0.1 8.2 8.3 0.1 7.1 7.2 

State I-Itr Standard 20 ppm State B-hr Standard 9.0 ppm National I-hr Standard 35 ppm National B-Itr Standard 9.5 ppm 



Page 33 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum Ern 

June 1996

Construction 

4. 2. Air 

unloading. These measures will be implemented by the developer with 

design review by the City; 

• Transit use incentives by employers to encourage public transit use by 

employees; 

• Encouragement of carpooling and vanpooling. 

• Alteration of normal daily truck delivery routes to avoid congestion at peak 

hours; 

• Consideration of developing staggered work hours; and 

• Consideration for providing convenient bus shelters and bus turnouts along 

the major arterials to encourage ridership and improve traffic flow. 

3. Low-pressure sodium lighting using full cut-off luminaries shall be used 

whenever suitable for outdoor security and general illumination lighting when 

such lighting is replaced or newly installed in projects under the Agency's 

jurisdiction. High-pressure sodium lighting, mercury vapor or tungsten 

incandescent lighting shall not be permitted without specific overriding 

justification. This requirement shall apply principally to architectural, space, and 

security lighting, and shall not apply to animation industry or process specific 

activities. 

4. The Developer/Participant shall monitor the SCAQMD's rule making procedure 

to ensure that adequate standards are established for toxic emissions, and that 

abatement of toxic emissions within the project area proceeds in accordance with 

these standards. 

1. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize 

exhaust' emissions and conform to state and federal regulations for emissions 

control. 

2. Grading activities shall be restricted to prevent wind entrailUllent of fugitive dust, 

when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 

3. The SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be complied with to reduce fugitive dust impacts. 

4. Construction activities shall be halted during Stage Two smog alerts and in the 

event of local Stage Two smog forecasts. 

5. During grading activities, topsoil mounds shall be stabilized to prevent wind 

erosion and release of dust and particulates. This may be accomplished through 

regular watering, hydroseeding, netting, chemical applications, or other 

PlalUling Consultants Research 


Page 34 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendmn EIR 

June 1996



4. 2. Air 

acceptable methods. During grading and construction, water trucks or sprinklers 

shall be used to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust 

residue from leaving the site(s). Watering shall include regular morning and 

afternoon applications after work is completed for the day. Chemical palliatives 

may also be used as directed by the Developer/Participant. Truck loads of soil 

or debris shall be covered or wetted. 

Page 35 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElR 

June 1996

REDEVELOPl\1ENT PLAN IMPACTS 

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IM:PACT ANALYSIS 

4.3. WATER (HYDROLOGY) 

Drainage. The Program EIR defmes a significant drainage impact as follows: 15 

"Drainage impacts are considered significant if runoff exceeds the design capacity 

of the drainage works and flows cannot be accommodated by planned drainage 

facilities. " 

The Redevelopment Plan Area lies within the drainage basin for the Los Angeles River. 

Redevelopment Plan drainage impacts, due to increased runoff and/or sediment load during 

grading and construction activities, are considered adverse but less than significant, and can be 

substantially lessened with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the 

Program EIR. 

To mitigate existing drainage deficiencies throughout the entire Redevelopment Area, 

implementation of the Redevelopment Plan includes extensive improvements to the storm drain 

system. Because the area is already nearly completely developed, development in the area is 

not expected to significantly change runoff volumes. With implementation of mitigation 

measures, the short-term adverse drainage impacts that would occur during development of the 

Redevelopment Area can be substantially reduced. Long term flooding impacts would be 

considered less than significant. 

Flood Control. The Program ErR defmes the threshold of significance relative to 

flooding as follows: 16 

"Flooding impacts are considered significant ifdevelopment within the designated 

lOO-year flood zone is subject to future flooding." 

The Los Angeles County DepaI1ment of Public Works and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers are responsible for regional flood control within the County. The City of Glendale 

15 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.3-2. 

16 Ibid. 



Page 36 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddCDClum EIR 

June 1996

4. 3. Water (Hydrology) 

partIcIpates in the National Flood Insurance Administration program through the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA has identified and mapped areas which are 

at risk due to periodic flooding. Areas within the Redevelopment Area identified as being 

within the designated lOO-year flood zone are the Los Angeles Flood Control Channel and the 

Verdugo Wash. The Redevelopment Plan includes construction of capital improvements which 

are expected to reduce flooding. 

Build-out of the Redevelopment Plan would result in less than significant flooding 

impacts. The only areas within the Redevelopment Area that are within the lOO-year flood zone 

are the Los Angeles River and the Verdugo Wash channels. 

Surface/Groundwater Resources. The Program EIR defines significant surface/ 

groundwater resources impacts as follows: 17 

"Impacts to surface/groundwater resources are significant if the project will 

substantially degrade water quality to levels below levels acceptable to the 

Regional Water Quality Control Board." 

There are no dependable surface water sources in the City of Glendale and the 

Redevelopment Area has limited groundwater resources. However, the City does use 

groundwater supplied from wells within the Redevelopment Area for domestic purposes. A 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) remedial investigation ofthe San Fernando Basin, 

an aquifer which underlies the City of Glendale, was completed for the purpose of identifying 

groundwater contamination. 18 Through the use of groundwater monitoring wells it was 

determined that contamination in the groundwater could cause a significant risk to human health 

if the water was consumed without treatment. The largest quantities of these contaminants were 

found in current or previous industrial areas and has reduced the City of Glendale's ability to 

produce water from one of the two wells that the City utilizes for drinking water purposes, 

although only ten percent of the City's potable water supply comes from the ground. The other 

well that the City utilizes is not within the contamination area. The EPA is in the process of 

implementing a Superfund treatment program of the groundwater in the San Fernando Basin so 

that it can again be used for consumption. 19 As part of this remediation program, the EPA 

has proposed use of three wells on the project site for extraction purposes. With 

implementation of the mitigation measures found in the Program EIR, the Redevelopment Plan 

17 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.3-2. 

18 Ibid. 

19 City of Glendale Depanmenr of Public Services, Will Wilson, telephone conversation, February 11, 1996. 

Planning Consullants Resean:h 


Page 37 


June 1996


will not significantly decrease water quality below existing levels because in general new 

development will replace old development, thus not substantially changing the quantity of land 

covered by impervious surfaces, and because of City enforcement of National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. 


Drainage. The DreamWorles Animation Campus site contains a drainage ditch, running 

from west to east across the southern portion ofthe property, which drains the site during heavy 

rains. 20 This swale drains through the southeast comer of the property and enters directly 

into the Los Angeles River. A drainage study will 1?e required to determine what sort of 

replacement drainage structures will be needed to accommodate the runoff associated with the 

project site. 

A new 60-inch storm drain borders the northeast side of the site along Flower Street and 

the 96-inch Paula Avenue storm drain runs under the current easement for Victory Truck 

Boulevard. Both of these drains outfall directly into the Los Angeles River, to the southeast 

and south of the project site, respectively. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District has 

indicated that the Paula Avenue stonn drain has been designed to receive runoff from only the 

western third of the project site. 21 Therefore, a storm drain shall be installed on-site that 

would direct drainage from the eastern two thirds of the property into the adjacent Los Angeles 

River via the existing spillway. The proposed storm drain would also accommodate some storm 

water runoff from the southern end of Flower Street, adjacent to the property. The City of 

Glendale Department of Public Services, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall review project stonn drain plans to ensure that the 

plans meet City, County, and U:S. Army Corps standards and that the Los Angeles River has 

adequate capacity to accommodate project generated runoff. On-site drainage would be 

adequately managed with the construction of the proposed stonn drain and the implementation 

of the other mitigation measures identified at the end of this section. 

Flood Control. The proposed project is not within a lOO-year flood zone and is 

designated within FEMA Flood Zone D. Within Flood Zone n, flood hazards are 

undetermined but flooding is possible. No mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements 

20 Dames & Moore. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard, 

November 3, 1995, page 4. 

21 

B & E Engineers, Paul Mangaudis. telephone conversation, April 3, 1996. 


Glendale RedeveloJHDent Agency 

Page 38 

DreamWorks ADimatiou Campus Addendum EIR 

June 1996


apply in Flood Zone D. The Los Angeles River, which serves as a flood control channel and 

is adjacent to the project site, will accommodate and contain stormwater associated with a 100year 

frequency storm event, according to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps.22 Since the 

proposed project is not in a IOO-year flood zone and the Redevelopment Plan includes capital 

improvements which are expected to adequately reduce flooding potential in the Redevelopment 

Area, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant impact due to potential 

flooding. 

Surface/Groundwater Resources. The project site contains a drainage ditch which 

facilitates drainage of the site during periods of heavy rain.23 Recent borings of the site 

conducted for a Geotechnical Report indicate that groundwater was encountered at a depth of 

28 feet. 24 Although at one time there were four groundwater wells operating on-site, three of 

the wells have been plugged and are considered abandoned dry holes and one has been 

completely removed. Based on the site assessment that was prepared for the project site, there 

is no information to suggest that either historical or current activities have contributed to 

groundwater contamination beneath the site. 25 Maps from the EPA groundwater investigation 

reveal that the project site is in an area of "least (lowest) groundwater contamination...26 The 

three on-site wells that EPA proposed as part of its groundwater remediation program extraction 

system will be relocated to positions along the site's northern boundary where their functions 

will be maintained without interference with proposed structures and activities. Neither the 

existing or proposed uses would present any substantial risk of contamination to surface or 

groundwater on the site. Proposed project impacts on groundwater would, with the mitigation 

measures included in the Program EIR, be less than significant. 

MITIGATION l\1EASURES 

In addition, the following mitigation measures from the Program EIR may be applicable 

to this project.27 

22 A IOO-year storm event is defined as a storm with a one in one-hundred chance ofoccurring within a given 

year. 

23 Dames &: Moore. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard. 

November 3. 1995. page 4. 

24 Ibid, page 5. 

25 Dames & Moore. Phase 11 Site Characterization. January 25. 1996. page 5. 

26 Program EIR Final EIR Volume. Appendices. Section F. Attachment C. 

27 Ibid. pages 3.3-4 and 3.3-5. 

Planning Consull3nts Research 


Page 39 

DrcamWork$ Animation CamPII!i Addendum EIR 

June 1996

Drainage. 


1. The City of Glendale Department of Public Services, Los Angeles County Flood 

Control District, and, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shaH review and approve 

project storm drain plans prior to project construction. 

2. At the project level, developers shall comply with NPDES pennit requirements 

within the construction area, to maintain the existing drainage flow and to collect 

excess water and sediments flowing from construction sites. (Existing 

requirement enforced through standard City procedures). 

3. At the project level, developers shall be required to submit erosion control plans 

if required by the City Engineer for approval prior to the release of a grading 

permit during the rainy season of November 15 - April 15. 

4. Necessary storm drain improvements shall be constructed on site or within the 

adjacent public right of way as practicable as part of the proposed project. 

5. Necessary storm drain improvements shall be constructed as part of the proposed 

project. 

Flooding. No applicable mitigation measures are contained in the Program EIR. 

. Surface/Groundwater Resources. The only appropriate groundwater mitigation 

measure would be review by a hydrological engineer, as indicated below: 28 

6. Specific· projects proposed within the Project Area shall be reviewed for their 

effect on groundwater quality by a hydrology engineer. Mitigation required as 

the result of review shall be implemented by the Developer/Participant. 

28 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, pages 3.3-4 and 3.3-5. 

Planning ConsulranlS Research 


Page 40 

DreamWorks Animation Cam.- Addendum ElK 

JUI1C 1996

REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS 

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 

4.4. NOISE 

The Program EIR defmes the threshold of significance for noise as follows: 29 

"Noise impacts are considered to be significant if the project will increase noise or 

vibration levels to a level considered "nonnally unacceptable" for a given land use as 

established by the General Plan for that use. The noise impact is also significant if 

noise levels on the property exceed acceptable levels for the proposed use. " 

Different land uses have different thresholds for noise level acceptability, as suggested 

in the threshold. The City of Glendale General Plan defmes the "nonnally acceptable" 

threshold for various land uses in tenns of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) with 

a maximum of 75 .decibels (dB) for industrial uses, 70 dB for commercial uses, and 60 dB for 

single family residential uses. 30 

Existing noise sources in the Redevelopment Area include construction activities, rail, 

aircraft, motor vehicle, and stationary sources. Almost all of the Redevelopment Area currently 

experiences CNEL of 60 dB or greater. Parcels along San Fernando Road, near the freeways, 

and the railway regularly experience a noise level of 70 dB CNEL. This range of noise is 

normally acceptable or conditionally acceptable for office or industrial uses, which comprise the 

majority of land uses in the area, although there are some non-conforming residential uses in 

the Redevelopment Area that are exposed to 70 dB CNEL noise levels. 

Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will result in increased noise levels during 

the construction of individual projects. Redevelopment Plan construction noise impacts are 


30 The decibel (dB) is the accepted standard unit for measuring the amplitude ofsound because it accounts for 

the largest variations in sound levels andreflects the way people perceive changes in sound levels. A-weighted 

(dB(A)) sound levels are typically used to account for the response ofthe human ear and are adjusted to human 

hearing characteristics. In California, to evaluate the community noise environment on a daily basis. the 

community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is used as a noise descriptor. The CNEL is the time average ofall 

A-weighted levels for a 24-hourperiod with a 10 dB upward adjustment added to those noise levels occurring 

between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. and a 5 dB adjustment added to those noises that occur between 7:00 P.M. 

and 10:00 P.M. to account for the general increased sensitivity ofpeople to evening and nighttime noise. 



Page 41 

DrcamWorks Aaimation Campus Addendum EIR 

June 1996

4. 4. Noise 

therefore considered to have a short-tenn significant impact when III close proximity to 

residential uses. 

Although the Redevelopment Plan will cause traffic volumes to increase along San 

Fernando Road, the Golden State (1-5) Freeway, and the Ventura (SR-134) Freeway, resulting 

in increased noise levels in the areas adjacent to those roadways, these impacts would be 

considered less than significant since the existing and future land uses (commercial, office, 

industrial) in those areas are not considered noise sensitive and anticipated noise levels are 

under the CNEL of 75 dB "nonnally unacceptable" threshold for those types of uses. 

Redevelopment Plan generated traffic is anticipated to incrementally increase ambient noise 

levels on arterial streets. Sensitive land uses in the Redevelopment Area may be significantly 

affected by traffic generated noise. 

PROJECT Il\1PACTS 

The DreamWorks Animation Campus site is bordered by Ml Zone (Restricted Industrial) 

land uses to the north, east, and west. The Golden State (1-5) Freeway lies further to the west. 

The Los Angeles River borders the site to the south. with City of Los Angeles Griffith Park 

soccer fields and the Ventura (SR-134) Freeway further south. 

A noise study perfonned on the project site included in Appendix B to this document, 

indicates that the existing noise environment on-site is dominated by freeway noise. 31 Other 

noise sources include train noise from the railroad tracks, located approximately 1,300 feet 

away from the project site. although train noise is not easily detected due to distance and the 

predominance of freeway noise. The other contributor to the noise environment on-site is the 

sporadic sound of small propeller aircraft and helicopters. Freeway noise levels currently reach 

a high of 62 dBA Leq32 on the site, sporadic aircraft noise reaches a level of 70 dBA. and 

train noise reaches a high of 70 dBA. 33 Overall, the existing hourly Leq on-site ranges from 

54 to 64 dB with an existing CNEL of 67 dB. 34 Although these noise levels could cause 

constraints for some outdoor activities, they are not so high that indoor activities could not be 

31 Crystal Springs Noise and Vibration Assessment Repon. Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates. October /3. /995. 

32 Leq stands for equivalent sound level. Leq is an equivalent steady-state A-weighted sound level averaged over 

a specified period oftime. 

33 Crystal Springs Noise and Vibration Assessment Repon. Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates. October 13. 1995 

(see Appendix C). 

34 Ibid. 

Planning Consu)umts Re5Carch 


Page 42 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum DR 

June 1996

35 

4. 4. Noise 

made acceptable for sound critical uses with proper design. The "normally unacceptable" 

threshold at an industrial site as established by the City of Glendale, is specified as a CNEL of 

75 dB. 35 

Construction noise on the project site could range anywhere from 70 to 105 dBA at a 

distance of 50 feet from the source, depending on the type of equipment used. Construction 

noise impacts on the project site are anticipated to be less than significant, due to the lack of 

sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the site. The nearest sensitive land use is a residential 

neighborhood, located approximately 1,200 feet away, which due to distance and a dense array 

of intervening industrial buildings acting as sound barriers would not experience any significant 

noise impact due to construction actiVities. 

As indicated in Section 2. of this document, Project Overview, the project site has been 

active since 1958 in the operation of helicopters. The site was used by Helicopters, Inc. from 

1958 to 1964, by the Los Angeles Police Department from 1964 to 1983, by the Glendale 

Police Department from 1972 to 1992, and by the Burbank Police Department from 1978 to 

1988. 36 

A noise study analyzing historical and future helicopter noise levels associated with the 

proposed project was performed by Arup Acoustics and is attached as Appendix B to this 

document. A letter describing the history of helicopter operations at the project site was 

prepared by Heliport Consultants and is included as Appendix B to this document. Helicopter 

flight information for the years 1974 through 1992 was made available by the Los Angeles, 

Glendale, and Burbank police air support units. Based on this information, past and future 

noise levels generated by helicopter operations were estimated for the project site and four offsite 

receptor locations. These receptor locations, depicted in Figure 5 on page 44, Noise 

Monitoring· Locations" consist of single- and multi-family residential areas and represent the 

noise sensitive land uses that are closest to the project site. As indicated on Figure 5, these 

locations, numbered one through four, are approximately 1,200, 1,900, 1,600, and 1,900 feet 

away, from the project site, respectively. 

Table 7 on page 46 shows that the CNEL generated by helicopter operations at the four 

receptor locations ranged from as low as 49 dB in the years 1974 through 1977 to as high as 

62 dB in the years 1978 through 1983. During the entire 18 year period identified on Table 

7, an average of 67 percent of these flight events (landing or take off) occurred between the 

City of Glendale. General Plan. Noise Element. Figure 5. page 36. 

36 Letter from Helipon Consultants. March 7. 1996. page 2. 

PlaMing Consullants Research 

Glrndalr Rfdevelopment Agency 

Page 43 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeoolllJJ EIR 

June 1996

Planning 

Consultants 

Research 

N 

A 

Page 44 

Figure 5 

Noise Monitoring Locations

39 

4. 4. Noise 

hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., 18 percent occurred between 7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M., and 

15 percent occurred between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. The average number of flight events 

per weekday that occurred over the entire 18 year period ranged from a low of 49 in the years 

1989 through 1992 to a high of 159 in the years 1978 through 1983. 37 Although some flight 

events occurred on weekends, the majority of events occurred on weekdays. The helicopter 

noise study prepared for this document was based on weekday trips. Table 7 indicates that 

these flight'events only increased the ambient noise levels at the receptor locations by a 

maximum CNEL of 0.47 dB. 

The existing ambient noise level at all four receptor locations is a CNEL of 66.96. This 

exceeds the significance threshold for a CNEL of 60 dB for residential areas, as established by 

the City of Glendale. 38 It is estimated that the proposed project will generate approximately 

ten flight events per day.39 Almost all of these flight events will occur between the hours 

of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. Approximately one to two flights per month will occur between 

7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. There would be no flights between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. The 

estimated CNEL that would be generated by each of these flight events at the four receptors 

would range from 24 to 35 dB, as indicated on Table 8. However, the existing background 

. noise, in combination with the sound generated by these individual flight events, would not 

increase the ambient noise levels at the four receptor locations, as indicated in Table 8 on page 

46, due to the predominance of freeway and railroad noise. Since the ambient noise levels at 

the receptor locations would not be increased by project helicopter flights, and since the most 

of these flights would occur between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., with none occurring 

between 10 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., project generated helicopter operations would have a less than 

significant impact on noise sensitive land uses in the project vicinity. 

As there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project, project 

generated traffic wop.ld not have a significant impact on ambient noise levels, unlike the 

Redevelopment Plan as a whole which would result in mobile noise impacts in the industrial 

areas adjacent to certain residential areas. Similar to the Redevelopment Plan, stationary noise 

sources on-site are anticipated to have less than significant impacts. 

37 ArupAcoustics, DreamWorks SKGAnimation Campus Glendale Helipon Noise Assessments, May 15,1996, 

page 5, Table 2. 

38 City of Glendale, General Plan, Noise Elemenr, Figure 5, page 36. 

[bid, page 5, Table 5. 



Page 45 


June 1996

Receptor 

1 

2 

3 

4 

a Measured in CNEL. 

Table 7 

PREVIOUS AND FUI1JRE HELICOPTER NOISE LEVELS a 

1974-1977 

54 

51 

59 

49 

Source: Arup Acoustics, May 1996. 

1978-1983 

57 

53 

62 

52 

Table 8 

1978-1988 

59 

57 

59 

55 

1989-1992 

COMBINED HELICOPTER AND EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS a 

(Helicopter Operations Plus Current Ambient Noise Levels) 

57 

55 

57 

53 

4. 4. Noise 

Future 

Receptor 

Existing 

CNEL 

CNEL With Previous Helicopter Operations 

1974-1977 1978-1983 1978-1988 1989-1992 

CNEL 

Future 

with Project 

1 66.96 67.03 67.11 67.21 67.13 66.96 

2 66.96 66.96 67.03 67.15 67.07 66.96 

3 66.96 67.11 67.43 67.29 67.13 66.96 

4 66.96 67.03 66.99 67.06 67.03 66.96 

a Measured in CNEL 



The following noise mitigation measure may be applicable to the proposed project, as 

follows: 40 

40 Telephone conversation with Lonnie Brown, City of Glendale Neighborhood Services, April 2, 1996. 

Planning ConsullanlS Research 


Page 46 

33 

29 

35 

24 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addend\llll ErR 

June 1996

4. 4. Noise 

1. The City of Glendale Public Works Division shall be notified prior to 

construction activities that would occur between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 

A.M. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a legal 

holiday. 

Planning Consultants Rl:5Cart:h 


Page 47 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeDdum ErR 

June 1996


4. ENVmONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 

4.5. LIGHT AND GLARE 

The Program EIR states the following significance tlrreshold for light and glare: 

"A project will generally result in significant light and glare impacts if the 

project includes lighting features that will shine onto adjacent properties, interrupt 

operations of a light sensitive use (such as an obs.ervatory), or produce intrusive 

glare effects. " 

The Redevelopment Area currently consists of residential, commercial and industrial 

development of varying intensities; each of which utilize relatively high levels of lighting for 

interiors and exteriors, security, parking, signage, and landscaping. 41 Traffic in the area may 

produce light and glare effects from headlights and from reflections off vehicle windows and 

chrome. Roadways, sidewalks, and building materials, including windows can also reflect 

sunlight, thereby producing glare. New construction within the Redevelopment Area has the 

potential to increase light and glare from the same type of sources. 


The proposed project consists of approximately seven (7), two to four story buildings, 

each interconnected with arcades, verandas, and bridges and each having courtyards, terraces 

and patios. These buildings will cluster around a piazza in a Mediterranean style and include 

several architectural towers, one of which could be as much as 115 feet in height and located 

in the center of the site. Acting as a visual buffer from the freeways to the south and west, a 

grove of trees will be planted along the southern property boundary, adjacent to the Los 

Angeles River. In addition, there will be a parking structure which will be five levels above 

ground, with a helipad above the top level. 

Each of these elements would require interior and exterior lighting for security, parking, 

walkways, signage, landscaping, etc. Lighting on the DreamWorks Animation Campus will 

41 Program E/R. Final EIR Volume. page 3.5-1. 

Planning Consullllnts Research 


Page 48 


June 1996 

, .

4. 5. Light and Glare 

likely be visible from surrounding properties and may spillover marginally onto adjoining 

properties. However, because the project site is located within an M1 Zone (Restricted 

Industrial) area and is surrounded by uses pennitted in that zone to the west, north and east, 

and by the Los Angeles River, soccer fields beyond the Los Angeles River, and a freeway to 

the south. lighting spillover from the site will not have a significant effect on any uses 

considered sensitive to night lighting. Reflected glare from building materials is not expected 

to produce adverse effects on-site, on neighboring properties, or in the vicinity, due to the site's 

relative isolation and the varied architectural fonns indicated in the preliminary project design 

(see Figure 6 on page 56 in Section 4.6, Land Use.) 

The proposed project's buildings, parking structure, and the towers were also evaluated 

for potential shading impacts to adjacent land uses. .Shading is a common and expected 

occurrence in urbanized areas, including the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Area. 

All buildings, trees, landfonns and other features rise appreciably above grade cast shadows. 

Shading is positive when it provides cooling effects during warm seasons and the Glendale area 

can be quite warm during the summer months. It can also be negative, if shading of sensitive 

uses occurs for extensive periods, particularly in the cooler parts of the year. Redevelopment 

Plan shading impacts were not analyzed in the Program EIR, since shading is directly related 

to building size and location and evaluation on a program level when building masses are 

unknown is not productive. Analyses ofshading impacts are appropriate for individual projects, 

where sensitive uses might be affected. 

To detennine the extent of shadow cast by the project, this analysis examines the project 

elements which are the tallest and closest to the site boundary. Anticipated maximum shadow 

lengths for representative building heights on the DreamWodes Animation Campus are identified 

in the text table below. As shown, on the winter solstice, the highest proposed project 

structure, the 115 foot high central campanile, would project its longest shadow of 348 feet in 

a 45 0 westerly direction at 9:00 A.M. and in a 45 0 easterly direction at 3:00 P.M. At 9:00 

A.M., the shadow would. not extend beyond the northwesterly project property boundary. At 

3:00 P.M., the shadow would extend into the adjacent industrial property across Flower Street 

by approximately 55 feet. This distance exceeds the minimum required street setback line for 

M1 Zone properties by 45 feet. 

Because of their proximity to the property lines, other lower profile project structures 

would also cast shadows onto adjacent properties. For example, assuming a 40-foot height for 

the parking structure, 121 foot shadows would be cast some 91 feet into the adjacent property 

to the northwest and 38 feet into the adjacent property across Flower Street. Project buildings 

along the Flower Street frontage would briefly shade the frontage across Flower Street. 

Planning COlWllrants Rcsurch 


Page 49 


June 1996

MAXIMUM SHADOW LENGTHS AND BEARINGS 

DURING THE SUMMER AND WINTER SOLSTICES 


Summer Solstice Winter Solstice 

9:00 A.M. I 85° W a 9:00 A.M. I 45° W 

Height of Structure 5:00 P.M. 185° E 3:00 P.M. I 45° E 

35 47 106 

40 53 121 

60 80 182 

115 153 348 

a Bearing is identified in degrees from north (e.g.• 85° W means 85 degrees west ofnonh). 

Surrounding land uses are limited to those pennitted in the Restricted Industrial zone and 

are not considered shadow-sensitive, as evidenced by their design and the nature of their 

occupancy. This is also evidenced by the development standards ofthe M-I zone which provide 

no setback criteria from property lines other than along street frontages, and then only ten (10.0) 

feet, which would allow more off-site shading from compliant structures than would occur from 

the proposed project. Accordingly, no significant project shading or other light and glare 

impacts not previously anticipated in the Program ErR are expected. 


The following light and glare mitigation measures, as identified in the Program ErR, may 

apply to the proposed project: 42 

42 

1. The Agency and the City design review of all projects shall include review of 

lighting plans and illuminated signage to ensure minimal spillover and glare. 

(Existing review requirement). 

2. Buildings shall not use reflective glass that will cause excessive glare to motorists 

or residents. 

Program EIR. FinaL EIR Volume. page 3.5-2. 

Planning ConsullaniS Resean:h 


Page 50 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendaan EIR 

June 1996


3. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed so that all direct illumination is 

confined to the site and adjacent properties are protected from spillover 

illumination. The level of lighting in parking lots and along walkways shall 

comply with City code requirements. 



Page 51 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addemlwn EIR 

June 1996



4.6. LAND USE 

The Program EIR defmes the following significance thresholds for land use: 43 

"Land use impacts are considered significant if the project will result in 1) development 

inconsistent with the General Plan land use policy or zoning for a given area; 2) 

conflicts with regional land use plans or policies; 3) substantial land use conflicts, or 4) 

loss of significant open space resources." 

The Redevelopment Area encompasses relatively level terrain and is highly urbanized. 

The area is dominated by industrial, manufacturing, and commercial uses with pockets of 

residential development. The industrial, manufacturing, and commercial uses are a mix ofolder 

and more recent,one- and two-story facilities, often characterized by an architectural simplicity 

and functionality. The residential areas consist of single- and multi-family neighborhoods. 

Existing development in the Redevelopment Area includes 7,804,000 square feet of industrial 

space including the DreamWorks site, 997,000 square feet of commercial space, 511 dwelling 

units, 2.9 acres of parks and open space and 1.6 acres of vacant parcels. The Redevelopment 

Plan provides for an additional 3,676,000 square feet of industrial space, 1,289,000 square feet 

of commercial space, and 37 dwelling units, which upon full development of the Plan would 

result in a total of 11,480,000 square feet of industrial space, 2,286,000 square feet of 

commercial space, and 548 dwelling units. 

The Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the City of Glendale General Plan and relies 

on development standards within a series of zoning districts established by the Zoning 

Ordinances. Objectives of the Redevelopment Plan are as follows: 44 

1. The elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration and the 

conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area in 

accordance with the General Plan, Specific Plans, the Redevelopment Plan, and 

local codes and ordinances. 


44 Ibid. pages 1-6 and 1-7. 

PlaMing ConsulranlS Research 


Page 52 


June 1996

4. 6. Land Use 

2. The promotion of private sector investment within the Redevelopment Area to 

prevent the loss of, and to facilitate, conunercial sales activity. An important 

objective will be the retention of existing and attraction of new industrial 


3. The achievement of an environment reflecting a high level of concern for 

architectural, landscape, urban design, and land use principles appropriate for 

attainment of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. 

4. The retention and expansion of as many existing businesses as possible by means 

ofredevelopment and rehabilitation activities and by encouraging and assisting 

the cooperation and participation of owners, businesses, and public agencies in 

the revitalization of the Redevelopment Area. 

5. The provision for increased revenues to the City of Glendale. 

6. The creation and. development of local job opportUnities and the preservation of 

the area's existing employment base. 

7. The replanning, redesign, and development of areas which are stagnant or 

improperly utilized. 

8. The expansion of the community's supply of housing (inside or outside the 

Redevelopment Area), including opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderateincome 

households. 

9. Improve and enhance the local and regional transportation system. 

The Redevelopment Plan is expected to lead to more efficient use of available land for 

more intensive development, and the elimination of unattractive, poorly maintained structures 

and land uses. Reconsolidation and reassemblage of some existing parcels is also anticipated, 

thus making the parcels more accessible and developable. Although the Redevelopment Plan 

is consistent with adopted local and regional plans and policies, its implementation would alter 

the existing character of the area by developing currently vacant or underutilized land and 

increasing the intensity of development. Such development could result in localized land use 

conflicts, including noise (especially during construction phases), traffic. and the size and 



Page 53 


June 1996

45 


configuration of new buildings. 45 However, mitigation measures should be available at the 

project level that would substantially reduce site specific noise, traffic and aesthetic impacts. 

Mitigation measures identified in the Land Use section and in other impact sections of the 

Program EIR, including Noise, Transportation/Circulation, and Recreation, would reduce the 

Redevelopment Plan's land use iinpacts to acceptable, non-significant levels. 


Land Use Consistency. The project site is located within an industrial/manufacturing 

area, most of which, including the site itself, is designated by the Redevelopment Plan for 

Restricted Industrial Zone uses and accordingly is zoned M-l. The Golden State (1-5) Freeway 

is also to the west and the Los Angeles River, City of Los Angeles Griffith Park soccer fields, 

and Ventura (SR-134) Freeway are to the south. The project site has been used for many years 

by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power for offices, storage, and 

groundwater pumping, and as an active heliport by the Glendale Police Department and Los 

Angeles Police Department. 'This property is not extensively improved, and has only a few 

structures and facilities, as indicated in the Aerial Photograph presented on Figure 3 on page 6. 

The proposed use of the site, an animation studio and related facilities, is entirely 

consistent with the Redevelopment Plan and General Plan, and directly implements all or most 

of each of the aforementioned Redevelopment Plan objectives as they apply to Restricted 

Industrial development on specific properties. The applicant would be required to execute an 

Participation Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency, as described in the Redevelopment 

Plan, in which the applicant agrees to develop the property in conformance with the Plan.46 

The unimproved Victory Truck Boulevard is proposed for inclusion as part of the project site 

adjacent to the Los Angeles River. As indicated in the Plan, "existing streets and alley may 

be abandoned, closed or modified as necessary for proper use and/or development. "47 

Setback requirements in the M-1 zone are limited to a provision that structures shall be 

no closer than five feet and an average of ten feet from any street. The project would meet this 

minimum requirement. Proposed development is approximately 35 feet from the northwestern 

border, adjacent to Restricted Industrial use, and approximately 85 feet from the southern 

Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.6-8. 

46 Redevelopment Plan for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. page 6. 

47 Ibid. page 16. 



Page 54 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn ElK 

June 1996


border. adjacent to the Los Angeles River. There are no floor area ratio restrictions in the t\f-l 

zone. 

The height limitation in the M-l zone is 35 feet. In order to maximize usable open 

space adjacent to and among the individual structures and for either aesthetic purposes, elements 

of the project would be taller than this limit. Each of the primary structures would consist of 

rather complex building forms with multiple roofs at varying levels. These structures would 

vary from 30 to 65 feet in height. Several architectural towers, or campaniles, would be 

approximately 65 feet in height, while one such tower may be as high as 115 feet. A height 

variance is proposed which would allow each on-site structure to exceed 35 feet and the 

campaniles to be 65 feet and, in the one instance, up to 115 feet high. 

In instances when rigorous application of the development standards in a given zoning 

district would serve to frustrate rather than implement the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan 

and/or General Plan, and where no unacceptable adverse consequences are anticipated, variances 

are the mechanism by which appropriate adjustments are made. Supported by appropriate 

findings, variances when approved are not inconsistent with General Plan policy or zoning intent 

in an area. 

Aesthetics. The project site is visible from the adjacent properties to the east and west, 

from Flower Street, and from the levee and proposed bike path along the south side of the Los 

Angeles River chaIlllel. The site can also be seen from traffic on the westbound Ventura (SR 

134) and northbound Golden State (1-5) Freeways. 

The proposed project would improve the appearance of the project site and provide a 

beneficial effect in the Redevelopment Area. The project consists of an integral complex of 

multiple structures articulated with variable heights and roof lines. It has been designed in a 

Mediterranean style clustered around a "piazza II and interconnected with arcades, verandas, and 

bridges. Figures 6, 7 and 8 on pages 56, 57 and 58 depict the project upon completion of the 

structures except those intended at the east and west ends of the site. The proposed buildings 

would be two to four stories high, ranging from 30,000 to 85,000 square feet of floor area 

each. Included among the buildings would be courtyards, terraces, patios, and several 

architectural towers. A parking structure with five levels above ground is also proposed. A 

helipad would be located on top of the parking structure. Landscaping features may include an 

ornamental garden/water feature and a grove of trees adjacent to the Los Angeles River, which 

would act as a visual and acoustic buffer from the freeways to the south and west. The grove 

of trees along the Los Angeles River and other usable landscaped open space areas are estimated 

to occupy approximately 2.5 acres, or twenty percent of the site. Project development would 

Planning ConsulLanlS Resl:arch 

Glendale Redevelopment Agenq' 

Page 55 


June 1996

Planning 

Consultants 

Research SOUF1CE: A. V MedIa. los Angeles. Jan·1996 

Figure 8 

View of the Propose.d Development 

from the South


therefore enhance and improve the existing character of the area in a positive way, due to the 

architectural design and the use of landscaping. 

The proposed project achieves all applicable objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and 

is consistent with the General Plan. It would house an approved land use in the Restricted 

Industrial District (M-I Zone) and would substantially exceed the minimum setback criteria 

established in that zone. To do so and to achieve the Plan objective to reflect II ••• a high level 

of architectural, landscape, urban design and land use principals..., II the project has applied for 

a height variance under the established procedures of the Zoning Ordinance. No resulting 

conflicts with adjacent land uses are anticipated. The project would therefore not have any 

significant land use impacts. 


The following mitigation measure, as identified in the Program EIR, may apply to the 

proposed project: 48 

1. Development will be required to meet all City development standards to ensure 

compatibility with adjacent land uses, adequate infrastructure and parking. 

48 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. pages 3.6-8 and 3.6-9. 

Planning Consuhams ReSQrth 


Page 59 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeDdum Em 

June 1996



4.7. RISK OF UPSET 

The Program EIR defines significance thresholds for the risk of upset as the 

following: 49 

"Impacts are considered significant if the project will result in 1) an unusual or unique 

risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of accident or upset 

conditions; 2) possible interference with an emergency response or emergency evacuation 

plan; 3) creation of potential health hazards to people or animal or plant populations in 

the area affected; 4) locating potentially hazardous facilities in proximity to sensitive 

receptors such as schools, day care facilities, hospitals, and convalescent homes." 

Potential ris.k of upset issues identified in the Redevelopment Area include underground 

storage tanks (UST), hazardous material transport, and urban fires. There are 13 USTs within 

the Redevelopment Area, of which seven were contaminated and were being cleaned up at the 

time that the Program EIR was completed. The sites were contaminated either due to leakage 

or spills. Although the entire Redevelopment Area lies within a "vulnerability zone," defined 

by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency as an area where people may be exposed to 

health hazards in the event of accidental releases of hazardous materials from activities within 

or adjacent to that area, this is considered a normal condition for industrial districts. Any 

Redevelopment Plan sites which have been occupied by uses which pose potential risks of 

contamination will ·be examined and appropriate remediation will be identified and implemented 

prior to new development. The Redevelopment Plan itself does not represent an unusual or 

unique risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances.50 Section 4.3, Water 

(Hydrology), includes an analysis of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Superfund project to remediate groundwater contamination in the Redevelopment Area. 

The potential for transportation accidents involving the transport of hazardous material 

also presents a risk to the Redevelopment Area. Some designated uses within the 

Redevelopment Area include the use and transport of hazardous materials. State and Federal 

49 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.7-6. 

50 Ibid, page 3.7-7. 

Planning Consulranu Research 


Page 60 

DreamWorks Animation CamPIIS Addendum EIR 

June 1996

4. 7. Risk of Upset 

Although there are facilities that use potentially hazardous materials or that have 

experienced leaking USTs in the vicinity of the project site, the likelihood of any of these 

facilities having an impact on the project site is low, due to either the extent of the problem. 

location, distance, or the direction of groundwater flow, as indicated in an assessment prepared 

for the project site. 54 Section 4.3., Water (Hydrology), includes a description of the EPA 

Superfund project as it relates to the project site. 

The risk of upset level of the proposed project would be comparable to that of any other 

Restricted Industrial development in the Redevelopment Area that either would not use or would 

use limited amounts of hazardous materials. Fire prevention standards and procedures for the 

hydrology, storage and disposal of hazardous material for the proposed project would follow 

those prescribed in the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable regulations. Therefore, 

similar to the Redevelopment Plan, the project does not represent an unusual or unique risk of 

explosion or release of hazardous substances, and does not change the conclusions of the 

Program EIR. The project would have a less than significant impact with the implementation 

of the mitigation measures listed below. 


Although the hazardous material assessment found no significant level of contamination 

on-site, to address the possibility that some undetected localized areas of contamination could 

still exist, the following mitigation measures are recommended: 55 

1. If suspect soils (discolored, odorous, or stained) are encountered during 

excavation, sampling and testing of the excavation face or a stockpile for 

profiling and from the base of the excavation area, should beperfonned. 

2. If impacted soils are encountered and conI1.I1l1.ed by testing, special handling and 

disposal to a sanitary dump site or hazardous materials dump site will be 

required. 

54 Dames & Moore. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard. 

November 22. 1995, page 20. 

55 Dames & Moore. Phase II Site Characterization. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard. January 25. 

I996. page 20. 

Planning ConsultanlS Research 

Glendale Redenlopment Agency 

Page 62 


June 1996


3. Contingency plans for worker's protection should be developed, including 

monitoring and response if odors or elevated levels of volatile organic vapors or 

soil contamination are encountered during excavation. These plans should 

include a provision for handling excess amounts of potentially contaminated 

groundwater. 

4. To minimize the possibility of migration of volatile organic vapors from the 

groundwater table up into excavation areas under the proposed structures, slabson-grade 

shall include a visqueen layer, for the purposes of creating a moisture 

seal and vapor barrier. 

Planning Consultams Research 


Page 63 


June 1996

56 



4.8. POPULATION/HOUSING 

The Program EIR defines impacts on population and housing as the following: 

"Impacts on population are significant if population growth exceeds projections 

for the area and results in a demand for housing and private and public services 

which exceed supply in the short- or long-tenn. Housing impacts are considered 

significant if the proposed project would result in the loss of substantial housing 

or if the proposed project would generate an additional demand for housing 

which exceeds regional growth projections. ,,56 

The Redevelopment Area had approximately 511 residential units and 1,323 pennanent 

residents in 1990. At buildout of the Redevelopment Plan, the area's population could increase 

by 96 people, residing in 548 dwelling units. This new population results in an increased 

demand for 37 housing units, based on a household size of 2.59 persons per household, which 

would be accommodated with implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. 57 

Although a very limited amount of housing development is planned within the 

Redevelopment Area, substantial nonresidential development is anticipated. In 1990, the 

Redevelopment Area contained approximately 8.97 million square feet of nomesidential 

development, providing an estimated 16,412 jobs based on a floor area to employee ratio of 2.8 

per 1,000 square feet. The Program EIR states that according to the City's General Plan, the 

Redevelopment Area could include an estimated additional 4.97 million square feet of 

nonresidential development and an additional 12,576 jobs, resulting in a total of 13.94 million 

squire feet and 28,988 jobs at buildout. 58 Of these total employees, 10 percent or 2,899 

employees are expected to reside in the City, requiring 2,376 housing units. The 

Redevelopment Plan activities will therefore result in an increase of 1,258 new residents to the 

Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-2. 

57 Ibid. page 3.6-7. 

58 Ibid. page 3.8-3. 



Page 64 


June 1996

60 Ibid. page 3.8-6. 

61 Ibid. Table 9 page 3.8-4. 

4. 8. Population/Housing 

City, demanding a total of 1,031 housing units, which can be accommodated by the total 

housing growth anticipated by the City's General Plan.59 

Because growth projections are consistent with local plans and because the 

Redevelopment Plan results in an overall increase in housing units for the City and is therefore 

consistent with regional plans, it was concluded in the Program EIR that popUlation and housing 

impacts from redevelopment activities would be considered less than significant.60 

PROJECT IM:PACTS 

The DreamWorks Animation Campus consists of 495,000 square feet of development, 

on land zoned for Restricted Industrial uses. The project is expected to employ 1,400 

employees at build-out, corresponding to the employee generation rate of 2.8 employees per 

1,000 square feet established in the Program EIR for Research and Development Restricted 

Industrial uses (which represents 55 percent of the Restricted Industrial uses proposed in the 

Redevelopment Plan).61 Approximately 140 of these new employees are expected to reside 

in Glendale, according to City trends discussed in the Program EIR. 62 Using the regional 

housing ratio of 1.22 jobs per housing unit in the year 2010 stated in the Program EIR. these 

employees would create a demand for 115 housing units in the City.63 The proposed project 

does not include development of any residential components; therefore. no housing demand will 

be accommodated on-site. Because the projected population growth is consistent with the City's 

General Plan, and the additional housing units demanded from employees of the project can be 

accommodated with the General Plan's housing projections, the proposed project is considered 

consistent with local plans. Furthermore, because the proposed project adds additional 

employment to a "housing rich" area, and does not result in demolition of any housing units, 

the proposed project is also consistent with regional plans. Therefore, the proposed project 

would result in a less than significant impact overall. 

In order to provide a comparison with the Redevelopment Plan, this evaluation ofproject 

population and housing impacts fIrst estimates the population and housing units that would be 

generated on the project site using the Program EIR's average intensity assumptions (FAR) for 

59 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, Table 1, page 1-9. 

62 Ibid. page 3.8-3, slares that 10% ofnew employees in Glendale are expected to also reside in Ihe Cil)'. 

63 Ibid. 

Planning Consulrants Research 


Page 65 

Dn:amWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK 

June 1996


moderate income housing units. 64 However, because the proposed project will not involve 

the demolition of housing units, these measures do not apply. Furthermore. because no 

significant impacts on housing or population are projected with implementation of the proposed 

project, no further mitigation measures are proposed. 

64 Program E1R. Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-8. 

PlaMing Consuhllms Research 


Page 67 

DrumWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR 

. June 1996

4. San Fernando Road & Sonora Avenue 

5. San Fernando Road & Grandview Avenue 

6. San Fernando Road & Highland Avenue 

7. San Fernando Road & Fairmont Avenue 

8. San Fernando Road & Doran Street 

9. San Fernando Road & California Avenue 

10. San Fernando Road & Broadway 

11 . Flower Street & Grandview Avenue 

4. 9. Transponalion/Circularian 

The fIrst ten of these intersections were analyzed in the San Fernando Road Corridor 

Redevelopment Plan FErR. The latter intersection has been included given its proximity to the 

project site and the proposed location of a project egress driveway onto Flower Street opposite 

Grandview Avenue. 

Environmental Setting 

The assessment of existing conditions relevant to this study includes streets and 

highways, traffic volumes, and operating conditions on the street system. 

Street and Highway System 

Regional access to the study area is provided by the Golden State Freeway (Interstate 

5) and the Venmra Freeway (State Route 134). Key freeway interchanges serving the study 

area include the Western Avenue interchange with 1-5 and the Victory Boulevard/Riverside 

Drive and San Fernando Road interchanges with SR 134. Brief descriptions of the major streets 

serving the study area are as follows: 

• Flower Street - Flower Street is a northwest-southeast minor arterial providing 

direct access to the proposed project site. South of the project site, it bends ninety 

degrees and becomes a northeast-southwest street terminating at Air Way. It 

provides four travel lanes and on-street parking. 

• San Fernando Road - San Fernando Road is a four-lane northwest-southeast major 

arterial running through the western part of the City of Glendale. It provides access 

to SR 134 and connects the City of Glendale to City of Burbank to the north and to 

City of Los Angeles to the south. Parking is generally allowed on both sides of San 

Fernando Road north of Fairmont Avenue. South of Fairmont Avenue, parking is 

only allowed on the east side of San Fernando Road, with railroad tracks paralleling 

the west side. 

PlaMing Consullllnts Research 

Glendale Redeyelopment Agency 

Page 70 


June 1996

4. 9. Transportation/Circulation 

• Lake Street - Lake Street is a two-lane local street running parallel to 1-5. It 

continues in the City of Burbank: and tenninates at Magnolia Boulevard. 

• Western Avenue - Western Avenue is a four lane major arterial within the study 

area. Western Avenue has a full cloverleaf interchange with 1-5 and serves as an 

important northeast-southwest corridor. 

• Sonora Avenue - Sonora Avenue is classified as a major arterial serving the study 

area. It provides four lanes and is a major connection between the study area and 

SR 134 via Victory Boulevard/Riverside Drive. 

• Grandview Avenue - Grandview Avenue is a minor arterial between Flower Street 

and Glenoaks Boulevard. It provides four travel lanes and on-street parking. 

Existing Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 

Existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic counts, conducted in 1992, were obtained from 

the San Fernando Corridor Redevelopment Plan FEIR for the ten study intersections analyzed 

in the FEIR. New counts were conducted at the Flower Street/Grandview Avenue intersection 

in January of 1996 as part of this study. The existing intersection peak hour traffic volumes 

are included in Appendix C. 

Intersection Level of Service Methodology 

Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic 

flow, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. Level 

of service definitions are included in Tables 9 and 10 on page 72. The City of Glendale 

considers LOS D to be the minimum acceptable level of service. 

In accordance with City of Glendale procedures, the "Intersection Capacity Utilization II 

(lCU) method of intersection capacity analysis was used to determine the intersection volume 

to capacity (VIC) ratio and corresponding LOS for the turning movements and intersection 

characteristics at the study intersections controlled by traffic signals. A capacity value of 1,600 

vehicles per hour per lane was used, with a clearance interval of 0.1. 

" 

The intersection of Flower Street/Grandview Avenue is controlled by stop signs on all 

approaches. The "All-Way Stop Control" method (Transportation Research Board, 1994) was 

employed to detennine the average vehicular delay and corresponding level of service for this 

location. 

Planning Consultants Re5earch 

Glendale Redevelopment Agen9' 

Page 71 

DreamWork5 Animation Campus Addendum ElR 

June 1996

Existing Intersection Levels of Service 


Table 11 on page 74, summarizes the existing weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour VIC 

ratio or average delay and corresponding level of service at each of the eleven analyzed 

intersections. Under existing conditions, each of the eleven intersections operate at acceptable 

levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better) during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. 

Redevelopment Plan hnpacts at Year 2027 

Table 12 on page 75 summarizes Year 2027 levels of service as projected in the 

Redevelopment Plan FEIR for the ten intersections common to the two studies, both with and 

without implementation of the traffic mitigation program proposed in the Redevelopment Plan 

FEIR. Intersection configurations with the long-term mitigation measures proposed in the 

Redevelopment Plan FEIR are illustrated in Appendix C. With implementation of the 

Redevelopment Plan mitigation program, six of the ten intersections are projected to operate at 

acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) at Year 2027. No mitigation measures were 

identified in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR for the Flower Street/Western Avenue and Flower 

Street/Sonora Avenue intersections. 

Redevelopment Plan Impacts at Year 2010 

Year 2010 Cumulative Base Traffic Forecasts 

The Redevelopment Plan FEIR forecast traffic growth to the Year 2027, including an 

ambient background growth rate of 1% per year (from 1992 to 2027), related projects, and 

development of all uses anticipated in the San Fernando Corridor Redevelopment Plan. Year 

2010 cumulative base (Le., without project) volumes for this addendum were projected by: (1) 

interpolating the traffic growth projected in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR on a straight-line 

basis to the Year 2010 (including the background growth rate, traffic generated by related 

projects, and traffic generated by the Redevelopment Plan uses); and (2) subtracting traffic 

which would be generated by Restricted Industrial development identified in the Redevelopment 

Plan FEIR for the project site. The second step was performed to provide a Year 2010 base 

for analysis assuming no development on the project site. 



Page 73 


June 1996

Table 12 


YEAR 2027 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE FROM REDEVELOPJ.\,1ENT PLAN FEIR 

Redevelopment Plan 

Year 2027 With 


Mitigation Program 

Intersection 

1. Lake St & Sonora Ave 

Hour 

A.M. Peak 

VIC 

0.61 

LOS 

B 

VIC 

a 

LOS 

P.M. Peak 0.79 C 

a 

2. Flower St & Western Ave A.M. Peak 1.55 F 

P.M. Peak 2.22 F 

3. Flower St & Sonora Ave A.M. Peak 0.86 D 

P.M. Peak 1.00 E 

4. San Fernando Rd & Sonora Ave A.M. Peak 0.92 E 0.68 B 

P.M. Peak 1.03 F 0.83 D 

5. San Fernando Rd & Grandview Ave A.M. Peak 1.08 F 0.85 D 

P.M. Peak 1.51 F 0.83 D 

6. San Fernando Rd & Highland Ave A.M. Peak 1.13 F 0.81 D 

P.M. Peak 1.12 F 0.80 C 

7. San Fernando Rd & Fairmon! Ave A.M. Peak 1.14 F 0.96 E 

P.M. Peak 1.18 F 0.90 D 

8. San Fernando Rd & Doran St A.M. Peak 1.04 F 0.80 C 

P.M. Peak 1.67 F 1.02 F 

9. San Fernando Rd & California Ave A.M. Peak 0.74 C 0.56 A 

P.M. Peak 0.94 E 0.72 C 

10. San Fernando Rd & Broadway A.M. Peak 0.82 D 0.66 B 

a Intersection is not impacted. therefore, no mitigation is required. 

P.M. Peak 1.13 F 0.85 D 

b Unavoidable significant impact: no mitigation recommended in the Redevelopment Plan Program EIR. 

Source: Colton/Beland/Associates. Inc., wFinal Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan for the 

San Fernando Road Corridor, W November 1992. 

Planning Consullants Research 


Page 75 

DreamWorks AJWnation CampllS Addendum EIR 

June 1996 

b 

b 

b 

b


The traffic study conducted as part of the Redevelopment Plan FEIR assumes that the 

project site develops as Restricted Industrial use to an FAR of 0.75. Given the site area of 

12.21 acres per County Assessor records (not including the proposed quitclaim of the Victory 

Truck Boulevard easement), it is estimated that the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study 

includes development of about 398,900 square feet of Restricted Industrial uses on the project 

site. 

Using the trip generation rates published in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR, Table 13 on 

page 77, indicates that this level of development would generate approximately 365 trips during 

the A.M. peak hour and 390 trips during the P.M. peak hour. These trips were distributed 

across the street system using distribution patterns from the Redevelopment Plan FEIR, and 

were subtracted from the Year 2010 base traffic forecasts to represent Year 2010 volumes 

without any development on the project site. 

The projected Year 2010 cumulative base traffic volumes at the eleven study 

intersections are included in Appendix C. These forecasts represent projected conditions at 

Year 2010 with development under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan throughout the 

Redevelopment Plan area,· but without any development on the project site. 

Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures 

The Year 2010 cumulative base traffic forecasts were analyzed to detennined the 

projected future peak hour levels of service at the eleven study intersections, without any 

development on the project site and without consideration of the mitigation measures proposed 

in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR. Table 14 on page 78, summarizes the results of this analysis. 

As can be seen in Table 14, four of the intersections (Flower Street/Western Avenue, 

San Fernando Road/Sonora Avenue, San Fernando Road/Grandview Avenue, and San Fernando 

Road/Doran Street) are projected to operate at poor levels of service of E or F during one or 

both of the A.M. and P.M. peak hours under Year 2010 conditions with development throughout 

the Redevelopment Plan area but with no development on the project site. 

The Redevelopment Plan FEIR proposed mitigation measures at three of these locations 

to mitigate Year 2027 conditions. An analysis was conducted to detennine what components 

of the Redevelopment Plan FEIR mitigation program would need to be implemented to mitigate 

the Redevelopment Plan traffic impacts at 2010 with no development on the project site. The 



Page 76 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addeadum EJR 

June 1996

Table 13 

4. 9. Transponation/Circulalion 

ESTIl\lATED PROJECT SITE TRIP GENERATION UNDER REDEVELOPI\1ENT PLAN 

Land Use 

Restricted Industrial 

Size A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour 

Acre Sg.Ft. 

12.2 398,901 Rate 

Trips 

following summarizes those elements considered necessary by the Year 2010 (resultant 

intersection configurations are illustrated in Appendix C): 

In 

0.76 

303 

Out 

0.16 

64 

Total 

0.92 

367 

In 

0.12 

48 

Out 

0.86 

343 

Total 

4. San Fernando Road & Sonora Avenue - Widen the westbound Sonora Avenue 

approach to provide one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through! 

right-turn lane. 

5. San Fernando Road & Grandview Avenue - Widen the northbound San Fernando 

Road approach to provide one left-tum lane, two through lanes, and one shared 

through/right-tum lane. Stripe the westbound Grandview Avenue approach to 

provide one left-turn lane, one shared left-turn/through lane and one shared 

througbJright-turn lane. 

8. San Fernando Road & Doran Street - Widen the southbound San Fernando Road 

approach to provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared 

through/right-tum lane. Widen the eastbound Doran Street approach to provide 

one shared left-turn/through lane and one shared through/right-tum lane. 

Table 14 on page 78, also indicates the projected operating conditions with 

implementation of these mitigation measures. As shown in Table 14, each of tpe intersections, 

except one, is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) under Year 

2010 cumulative base conditions with growth. throughout the Redevelopment Plan area but 

without development of the project site. 

The exception is the intersection of Flower Street/Western Avenue, for which no 

mitigation measures were determined to be feasible in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR. The 

Redevelopment Plan FEIR concluded that Redevelopment Plan impacts at this location would 

constitute a significant unavoidable impact, and adopted a statement of overriding considerations 

regarding the same. 

Planning ConsullalU$ Research 

Glendale Redevelopment Agenc)" 

Page 77 

0.98 

391 


June 1996

Table 14 


YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN GROWTH 

(Without Development on the Project Site) 

Year 2010 

Year 2010 Cumulative Base 

Cumulative Base with Redevelopment 

Existing (Unmitigated) Mitigations 

Intersection Hour VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS 

I. Lake Street & A.M. Peak 0.35 A 0.47 A 

Sonora Avenue P.M. Peak 0.39 A 0.59 A 

2. Flower Street & A.M. Peak 0.59 A 1.01 F 

Western Avenue 

P.M. Peak 0.84 D 1.49 F 

3. Flower Street & A.M. Peak 0.46 A 0.62 B 

Sonora Avenue 

P.M. Peak 0.53 A 0.73 C 

4. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.76 C 0.96 E 0.75 C 

Sonora Avenue P.M. Peak 0.73 C 0.88 0 0.88 0 

5. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.63 B 0.85 D 0.78 B 

Grandview Avenue 

P.M. Peak 0.86 D 1.08 F 0.82 D 

6. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.66 B 0.83 0 

a 

Highland Avenue P.M. Peak 0.68 B 0.86 D 

a 

7. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.61 B 0.74 C 

a 

Fairmont Avenue P.M. Peak 0.67 B 0.78 C 

a 

8. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.70 B 0.83 D 0.79 C 

Doran Street 

P.M. Peak 0.79 C 1.11 F 0.84 D 

9. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.52 A 0.63 B 

a 

California Avenue P.M. 'Peak 0.61 B 0:77 C 

a 


a 

Broadway 

P.M. Peak 0.71 C 0.84 D 

a 

II. Flower Street & A.M. Peak 2.0 A 2.8 A 

a 

Grandview Avenue C 

P.M. Peak 2.2 A 5.3 B 

a 

a Intersection is not impacted, therefore. no mitigation is required. 

b Intersection is impacted, however, no mitigation is recommended in the Redevelopment Plan Program EIR. 

e Intersection controlled by stop signs On all approaches. Indicates average delay (in seconds) and LOS for the 

intersection. 



Page 78 


. June 1996 

a 

a 

b 

b 

a 

a

Land Use acre S9.Ft. 

Animalion Studio 13.4 495,000 Rate a. b 

a Rates are per 1.000 sq.jt. 

Table 15 

ESTIMATED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 

4. 9. TransponalionJCirculalion 


Trips 

In 

1.07 

530 

b Trip generation rates for the proposed project were developed using DreamWorks Playa Vista rates. assuming 

40% office and 60% production/stage suppon. 

Impact Criteria 

In accordance with the evaluation conducted in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR and in 

recognition of City of Glendale level of service standards, a project traffic impact would be 

considered significant if one of the following conditions are met: 

Out 

0.13 

64 

Total 

1.20 

594 

In 

0.19 

94 

Out 

0.90 

446 

Total 

• the addition of project traffic to an intersection operating at LOS A, B, C, or D 

causes the intersection operation to decline to LOS E or F; or 

• the addition of project traffic to an intersection operating at LOS E causes an 

increase in the intersection VIC ratio of 0.02 or more; or 

• the addition of project traffic to an intersection operating at LOS F causes an 

increase in the intersection VIC ratio of 0.01 or more. 

Project Impact Analysis 

The Year 2010 traffic forecasts with development of the proposed project were analyzed 

to determine the projected future peak hour levels of service at the eleven study intersections, 

assuming implementation ofthose elements ofthe Redevelopment Plan FEIR mitigation program 

identified previously as necessary by the Year 2010. Table 16 on page 82 summarizes the 

results of this analysis. As indicated on Table 16, the project is projected to have an impact 

on Year 2010 conditions with the Redevelopment Plan mitigation at one of the eleven analyzed 

intersections: Flower Street/Western Avenue. 

Planning Consultants Rcsearch 

Glendalc RflicYclopmcnt Agcncy 

Page 81 

1.09 

540 

DrcamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR 

June 1996

Table 16 


YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Year 2010 

Cumulative 

Base 

(with Project Additional 

Redevelopment Year 2010 Increase Project 

Peak Mitigated) with Project in VIC Impact 


1. Lake Street & A.M. 0.47 A 0.53 A 0.06 NO 

Sonora Avenue P.M. 0.59 A 0.60 A 0.01 NO 

2. Flower Street & A.M. 1.01 F 1.08 F 0.07 YES 

Western Avenue P.M. 1.49 F 1.54 F 0.05 YES 

3. Flower Street & A.M. 0.62 B 0.74 C 0.12 NO 

Sonora Avenue P.M. 0.73 C 0.89 D 0.13 NO 

4. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.75 C 0.76 C 0.01 NO 

Sonora Avenue P.M. 0.88 D 0.89 D 0.01 NO 

5. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.78 C 0.83 D 0.05 NO 

Grandview Avenue P.M. 0.82 D 0.84 D 0.02 NO 

6. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.83 D 0.88 D 0.05 NO 

Highland Avenue P.M. 0.86 D 0.87 D 0.01 NO 


Fairmont Avenue P.M. 0.78 C 0.82 D 0.04 NO 


Doran Street P.M. 0.84 0 0.86 0 0.02 NO 

9. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.63 B 0.63 B 0.00 NO 

California Avenue P.M. 0.77 C 0.77 C 0.00 NO 


Broadway P.M. 0.84 D 0.84 D 0.00 NO 

11. Flower Street & A.M. 2.8 A 26.90 D 24.10 NO 

Grandview Avenue a 

P.M. 5.3 B 25.20 D 19.90 NO 

a Intersection controlled by stop signs on all approaches. IndicaJes average delay (in seconds) and LOS for the 

most constrained movements. 



Page 82 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Adclemiwn EIR 

June 1996

Project Impacts at Year 2027 


It is estimated that the project site (not including the proposed quitclaim of the Victory 

Truck Boulevard easement) represents approximately 9% of the total area designated for 

Restricted Industrial uses in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study. It also represents 

about 9% of the trips estimated in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for Restricted 

Industrial uses at buildout of the Redevelopment Plan in the Year 2027. 

The higher density of the proposed project (approximately 0.85 FAR as opposed to the 

0.75 FAR assumed in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for Restricted Industrial uses 

in traffic analysis zone [TAZ] 2) would represent about 11 % of the overall Restricted Industrial 

floor area projected in the Redevelopment Plan. The projected higher levels of tripmaking 

associated with the project would represent the equivalent of about 14% of the floor area and 

trips projected in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for Restricted Industrial uses 

throughout the Redevelopment Plan area. 

However, as discussed in Section 2.0, Project Overview, the 0.75 FAR assumed in the 

Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for TAZ 2 represents an average for all Restricted 

Industrial parcels throughout the zone, and it is considered very unlikely that all such parcels 

would fully develop to a uniform level. Since the project site is one of the larger contiguous 

parcels in the area, it provides greater development flexibility and is less constrained by setback 

requirements. As such, the project site is considered to be more apt to develop at a greater 

density than smaller parcels in the area, and it is believed that the higher density and tripmaking 

of the proposed project are already encompassed in the long-term Year 2027 traffic projections 

contained in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study. Therefore, the proposed project is not 

expected to create any additional long-term traffic impacts beyond those previously identified 

in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR. 

Site Access Impacts 

The proposed project site plan includes access to the site from Flower Street at a nwnber 

of locations. The Main Gate would be located on Flower Street approximately 200 feet south 

of Grandview Avenue and would be available for both employee and visitor ingress to and 

egress from the site. Access to a perimeter service road and a secondary egress from the 

proposed parking structure would be provided on Flower Street opposite Grandview Avenue. 

Separate truck access to the project loading dock is proposed to be located further south along 

Flower Street. 



Page 83 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addeadum EIR 

. June 1996


The following summarizes potential impacts associated with the proposed site access 

plan, based on review and evaluation of the potential operation of each access location (as 

discussed in the following section, each of these impacts can be mitigated): 

• Main Gate - It is anticipated that security arrangements for the -project would 

require visitors to check-in with a guard and employees to enter and leave the site 

via card-key operated gates. Given this, adequate storage area should be provided 

on-site to accommodate entering vehicles queuing prior to the guard/gate locations. 

• Secondary Access Opposite Grandview Avenue - Given the potential number of 

project employees (estimated to be approximately 1.400 at full occupancy). the size 

of the proposed projectparking structure (approximately 1.000 spaces). and the 

projected peak hour project trip generation, this second project parking egress is 

considered necessary during periods of peak: exiting traffic. The perimeter service 

road is proposed to be gated for security purposes. and its use is expected to be 

infrequent. The recommended configuration for the project driveway at the Flower 

Street/Grandview Avenue intersection is discussed in the Mitigation Measures Section 

below. 

• Loading Dock Access':' The project site plan as initially proposed does not provide 

adequate space on-site for truck maneuvering and would require trucks to back into 

the loading dock from Flower Street. Trucks backing into the site from Flower 

Street would create conflicts with traffic flows on Flower Street. particularly as 

traffic increases in the future commensurate with redevelopment of the area. 

It is anticipated that, with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed below. 

the project would not create any new unavoidable significant impacts beyond those already 

identified in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR. 



Page 84 

DreamWork$ Animation Campus Addendmn EtR 

June 1996

Table I7 


YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS WITH PROJECT MITIGATION 

Year 2010 

Cumulative Year 2010 

Base With Project 

Peak 

Intersection Hour VIC LOS VIC LOS 

2. Flower Street & A.M. 1.01 F 1.08 F 

Western Avenue P.M. 1.49 F 1.54 F 

Source: Kaku Associates. Inc. 

Year 2010 

With Residual 

Project Mitigation Impact 

Increase Project 

in VIC Impact VIC LOS 

0.07 YES 0.98 E NO 

0.05 YES 1.38 F NO 

inside travel lane to turn left into the project site. (A schematic drawing of the 

proposed Flower Street/Main Gate intersection is included in Appendix C.) 

• Secondary Access Opposite Grandview Avenue - The Flower Street/Grandview 

Avenue intersection should continue to be controlled by stop signs on all approaches, 

with the project's driveway and the existing ingress-only driveway serving the 

adjacent parcel (owned by Prudential) forming the southwest leg of the intersection. 

One inbound lane is proposed to be provided on the project driveway to provide 

access to the perimeter service road. Two stop-controlled exit lanes should be 

provided on the driveway (one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane). 

Since the rightmost exit lane serving project traffic bOWld for Grandview Avenue 

would be offset from the Grandview Avenue eastbound departure by approximately 

eight feet, pavement markings should be used to guide these vehicles both through 

the intersection and past vehicles parked in the curb lane on Grandview Avenue east 

of Flower Street. This may require removal of one on-street parking space on 

Grandview Avenue. (A schematic drawing ofthe proposed Flower Street/Grandview 

Avenue intersection is included in Appendix C.) As indicated in Table 16 on page 

82, it is projected that the Flower Street/Grandview Avenue intersection would 

operate at acceptable levels of service with the project. 

• Loading Dock Access - The project site plan should be designed to permit trucks to 

enter the site in a forward manner, with sufficient area provided on-site for trucks to 

maneuver and back into the loading dock. 

Planning Consultants RCKarch 


Page 86 


June 1996

4. 10. 1. Police 

mitigation measures, the Program EIR concluded that the Redevelopment Plan will result in a 

less than significant impact. 67 No analysis of nonresidential population impacts on police 

services was provided. 


As discussed in Section 4.8 of this Addendum, Population/Housing, the DreamWorks 

Animation Campus is expected to employ 1,400 new employees at project build-out. Based on 

a worst-case analysis, this results in 140 new residents in the City of Glendale. This total 

increased population would result in a need for an additional .14 police officer.68 Because 

the proposed project results in the need for additional officers, which would reduce the officer 

to resident ratio to a slight degree, the proposed project would result in an adverse impact to 

police protection. However, as with the Redevelopment Plan, with implementation of the 

mitigation measures proposed below, the project impact will be considered less than significant. 

Although the demand for additional police protection is included in the Redevelopment 

Area projections of 2.0 officers, a worst case analysis is provided as follows to evaluate the 

projects's increase in police service needs as if it were an increase above and beyond the total 

Redevelopment Plan needs identified in the Program EIR. Under this analysis, Restricted 

Industrial development assumptions for the original 12.21 acre site (per Assessor's parcel data) 

were interpolated from the Redevelopment Plan. Using the Program EIR's average intensity 

assumptions (FAR) for Restricted Industrial uses on a 12.21 acre site (excluding the Victory 

Truck Boulevard right-of-way), would support 1,070 employees and result in 112 new residents 

to the City. This total increased population would result in a need for an additional 0.11 police 

officers. 

Based on the evaluation, the proposed project allows for an increase from the averaged 

growth projection for residential population of 28 (from 112 to 140), as compared to the 

averaged density assumptions. This increase represents a statistically insignificant 1.3 percent 

of the total residential population anticipated with the Redevelopment Plan, which also is well 

within the expected range of outcomes for a buildout redevelopment program over 35-years. 

This difference would indicate a need for an additional 0.04 police officers. This is a small 

demand on its own, as well as a small percentage of the 2.0 additional officers required with 

the entire Redevelopment Plan. 

67 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.10-3. The two (2) officers were based on a total new residential 

population of2. 040. 

68 Based on the Program EIR's two (2) officers per 2,040 residential population. 

Planning Consulranrs Research 


Page 88 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddendlDD ElK 

June 1996

4. 10. I. Police 

Therefore, because the proposed project will not create a substantial additional impact 

on police protection not already addressed in the Program EIR, the proposed project would 

result in an adverse, but less than significant impact on police services. 


The proposed project may be responsible for complying with the applicable mitigation 

measures which were proposed in the Program EIR, including the following: 69 

1. Lighting, landscaping, parking, and building plans for development within the 

Project Area shall be reviewed by the Police Department and/or other appropriate 

City divisions prior to fmal approval and shall be in conformance with all 

applicable City codes, ordinances, and regulations. 

2. The Agency/City shall consider requiring developers to provide private on-site 

security personnel on a project-by-project basis. 


PlaMing ConsullanlS Research 


Page 89 

DreamWorks Animation Campm Addend.... EIR 

June 1996

REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Il\1PACTS 


4.10. PUBLIC SERVICES 

4.10.2. FIRE 

In the absence of City established standards, the Program EIR defmed impacts on flIe 

protection as the following: 

"...impacts on frre protection are considered significant if the proposed project 

will substantially exceed the current level of protection which results in a total 

response time of three minutes and an ISO ranking of Class 3 for the City of 

Glendale and current Class 1 for the Glendale Fire Division. ,,70 

Level of service is ranked by a scale of five classifications (Classes 1 through 5) by the 

Insurance Service Organization (ISO) with Class 1 being the highest and best level of service. 

The ISO has ranked the entire- City at "Class 3" and the Glendale Fire Division at "Class 1." 

Service in the area is currently considered adequate in tenns of staffmg, response time, and the 

availability of water flow for [lIe protection purposes. For the majority of the Redevelopment 

Area, fire protection is provided by the City of Glendale Fire Division. The remainder of the 

area, the far west end, is served by the Burbank Fire Depamnent under a joint agreement with 

the City. The Glendale Division is supported by a fire-fighting force consisting of 50 personnel 

on duty at all times, and total response time to the Redevelopment Area is identified by the Fire 

Chief as three minutes. Also, there are no known deficiencies in the availability of water flow 

for fire fighting purposes. 

Evaluated against the significance threshold, implementation of the Redevelopment Plan 

could adversely impact fire protection due to increased development overall in the City. 

Compensating at least in part for adverse impacts is the beneficial impact of replacing blighted, 

potentially unsafe buildings with newer structures which must be constructed under current, 

safer fire codes. These mitigating features, along with public improvements associated with the 

Redevelopment Plan, and the mitigation measures specified in the Program EIR will reduce 

program impacts to less than significant levels. 71 


71 Ibid, page 3.10-5. 



Page 90 


. June 1996

4. 10. 2. Fire 

2 1 /2 inches. Fire hydrants shall be capable of providing a required fire flow of 

60,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a 

five-hour duration. The distance between hydrants shall not exceed 250 feet, and 

the maximum travel distance along a roadway frontage shall not exceed 150 feet. 

Hydrants shall be placed in the parking area under the same regulations. 

3. All structures in the Project Area shall be protected by separate combined 

standpipe systems, including automatic fire sprinkler systems, designed to the 

standards established by the Glendale Fire Division. Adequate on-site water 

supply shall be capable of supplying fire protection systems for a period of 30 

minutes and shall be used for fire protection purposes only. Fire protection 

systems shall be zoned to provide proper pressures for operations at any level of 

the structure. 

4. Each fire control room shaH be accessible directly from the outside and readily 

accessible for emergency responders. The room shall not be used for other 

purposes and shall be sized in accordance with Fire Division requirements. 

5. Smoke control and removal shall be accomplished through mechanical means 

designed in accordance with methods approved by the Glendale Fire Division. 

6. The fire alarm system must utilize a graphic-type annunciator to provide rapid 

response by emergency equipment and personnel who may be unfamiliar with the 

structure. 

7. Emergency electrical power shall be provided to power all emergency equipment 

including, but not limited to, fire alarms, fire pumps, emergency lighting, 

elevators, and smoke control fans. Emergency power shall be capable of 

providing power to all emergency equipment for a period of eight hours of 

continuous use. 

8. The project's parking facilities shall be approved by the Glendale Fire Division 

for parking adjacent to all structures to determine proper access to all parts of 


9. All structures may be required to have Fire Division access on a minimum of 

two sides. Fire Division connections serving the combined standpipe system 

shall be provided and accessible along each access roadway. Additionally, each 

floor shall have breakable windows with the appropriate indicating signs affixed. 

All breakable windows shall be constructed of tempered glass. 



Page 92 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ErR 

June 1996


4. ENVIRONMENTAL Il\1PACT ANALYSIS 


4.10.3. SCHOOLS 

The Program EIR defmes impacts on schools as the following: 

"Impacts _on school districts are considered significant if the project will result 

in generation of students and demands for school services which exceed the short 

or long-term capacity of district facilities, and normal district fInancing sources 

will not offset project-related costs of providing additional facilities and 

services. ,,73 

The Glendale Unified School District (District) provides public education for children 

residing in the Redevelopment Area. According to the District, all but three (Keppel 

Elementary, Mountain Avenue Elementary and Crescenta Valley High School) of the District's 

26 elementary, junior high, and high schools are currently overcrowded, and all schools within 

the District fall below the "Enrollment Site Standards" set by the Urban Planning and Design 

Criteria. In order to expand District facilities, the District levies developer fees of $1.72 per 

square foot of residential, and $0.28 per square foot of non-residential development.74 In 

addition, school construction costs are estimated to be $10,000 per student. 75 

Student generation occurs both directly from new residential development and indirectly 

from non-residential development. The units proposed in the Redevelopment Plan will generate 

468 new students in the District over the 20-year horizon of the plan, based on the District's 

student generation factor of 0.4 students per residential unit. 76 This will result in a total 

student population in the Redevelopment Area at buildout of 1,169. Due to the current 

overcrowded conditions at District schools, along with the existing extensive use of portable 


74 Ibid, page 3.10-7. 

75 The District in its comments on the Draft EIR indicated that school construction costs $125.00persquarefoot 

and an average of80 squarefeet per student. Therefore on average. school cons/ruction costs $10. ()()(). 00per 

student. 

76 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.J()"J2. 

Planning Consultan!$ Research 


Page 93 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AcIdenclum EIR 

June 1996

4. 10. 3. Schools 

classrooms at District schools, it was concluded that potentially significant impacts would occur 

at all grade levels as a result of redevelopment activities. Because of the gradual rate of 

increase in enrollment of 24 students per year, implementation of the Redevelopment Plan 

should not result in any unique or unusual demands on the District. In addition, nonresidential 

and residential development would result in the District receiving approximately $3,099,000 in 

developer fees from Redevelopment Plan activities. 77 The 468 new students generated by the 

Redevelopment Plan would, at $10,000 per student, require $4,680,000 in construction costs 

over the lifetime of the plan. While the developer fees would not be sufficient to cover all 

construction costs related to the new students, and the District would require additional State 

funds, the fees would substantially mitigate the effect of the additional students. Therefore, the 

Program Em concluded that the Redevelopment Plan would have an adverse, but less than 

significant, impact on schools. 


The Campus is expected to generate 1,400 new employees, and approximately 140 new 

residents, in the City of Glendale at project buildout, as discussed in Section 4.8, Population! 

Housing, of this Addendum. Using the regional housing ratio of 1.22 jobs per housing unit in 

the year 2010, these employees would create a demand for 115 housing units in the City. This 

total housing demand is a worst-case scenario based on average City trends. 78 The Animation 

Campus is being proposed at this location in part because of the existing employee pool of 

animators, managers, and other staff living within the City and in the surrounding communities. 

It is likely that many of the future employees will be drawn from this existing work force 

already living within a close conunuting distance to the project site and that these employees 

would find it uIlllecessary to relocate to the City of Glendale. The actual increase in City 

housing units would likely be less than the 115 projected.. 

In the worse-case scenario, utilizing the student generation rate established by the 

District of 0.4 students per unit, the 115 total housing units resulting from the proposed project 

would increase the student population Districtwide by 46. To accommodate 46 new students, 

construction of new facilities may be necessary, resulting in an average total construction cost 

of $460,000. The proposed project would be responsible for development fees on the 495.000 

77 The total is based on the District's developer fees of$1.65per squarefeet ofresidential, and $0. 27persquare 

foot ofnon-residential development as indicated in the Program EIR. An average 1,000 square feet per unit 

is assumed for residential development. 

78 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-3. states that 10percent ofnew employees in Glendale are expected 

to reside in the City. 



Page 94 


June 1996

4. 10. 3. Schools 

square feet of nonresidential development proposed ($0.27 per square feet) 79, resulting in a 

(Otal fee of $133,650. As with the Redevelopment Plan as a whole, developer fees would not 

cover all construction costs related to the additional 46 students, but would substantially mitigate 

the impact to below a significant level. Remaining construction costs would require additional 

State funds. 

In order to identify how the project impacts relate to the Redevelopment Plan, this 

evaluation estimates the impact generated from development on the project site using the 

Program EIR's average intensity assumptions (FAR) for Restricted Industrial uses on an 12.2 

acre site (per Assessor's parcel data). Based upon these averaged asswnptions, the proposed 

project's site would contain a total of 398,900 square feet of development, 1,116 employees. 

and 112 new residents. These residents would require 88 new housing units based on the 

regional average of 1.22 jobs per housing unit. Utilizing the District's 0.4 students per unit 

generation rate, these units would increase the student population in the District by 35, or 11 

fewer students than the DreamWorks Animation Campus project. 

This difference of 11 new students represents 2.3 percent of the total students generated 

with buildout of the Redevelopment Plan. Similarly. the proposed project would result in 

increased school costs over those required using the Program EIR's average intensity 

assumptions. An additional $110,000 in construction costs would be required; and an additional 

$30,446 in developer fees would in part pay for these added construction costs. As with student 

generation, these figures represented 2.4 percent of the totals for the Redevelopment Plan as 

a whole. These are paid in part by developer fees. Although the student generation and school 

developer fees estimated with implementation of the proposed project would be slightly greater 

than that assumed with the averaging of the Redevelopment Area, it represents a small and 

statistically insignificant proportion of the total growth. 

Although less than significant, this difference in the actual student and school cost 

generation and the averaged student and school cost generation is consistent with the Plan 

because the Redevelopment Plan anticipates variation in development densities on different sites 

and therefore variation in student generation from these sites. Because of the existing 

overcrowding in District schools, and developer fees not fully covering school construction 

costs, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact. The developer fees 

79 

The non-residential development fee is currently $0.28per square fOOl and will go up 10 $0.30persquarefoot 

on June 1, 1996. However, for comparison purposes, the rate of $0.27 per square fOOl, as found in the 

Program EIR, is utilized here. 

Planning ConsulQnlS Rcsealdl 


Page 95 

DreamWorks ADimation Campus Addendlllll EIR 

. June 1996

4. 10. 3. Schools 

would, however, substantially mitigate the effect of the additional students, and therefore an 

adverse, but less than significant, impact is expected. 


The proposed project may be subject to the following mitigation measure as found in the 

Program EIR 80 : 

1. Glendale Unified School District should continue to make regular and timely 

application to the State of California for funding to construct new classrooms and 

other facilities in response to enrollment growth. 

In addition, an agreement between the Glendale Redevelopment Agency and the Glendale 

Unified School District was executed on March 16, 1996, in which the Agency agreed to share 

the increment ofproperty taxes generated by redevelopment activity in the Redevelopment Area 

over the base year equalized assessment role with the District. As a result, the District will 

benefit directly from the increased property value due to development of the DreamWorlcs 

Animation Campus. 

80 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume. page 3.10-13. 



Page 96 

DrumWorks Animation Campus Addeadum EIR 

June 1996




4.10.4. LmRARY 

The Program EIR defmes impacts on libraries as the following: 

"Impacts to library facilities are considered significant if projected resource 

demand is estimated to substantially exceed the supply of library resources at 

buildout, or if resource demands cause the ratio of books per capita to fall below 

the existing 3.48... 81 

Six library facilities are currently available in the City of Glendale, including the Central 

and Grandview libraries, which are located closest to the Redevelopment Area. These facilities 

average 106,826 volumes, providing 3.48 books per capita and circulating 7.51 books per capita 

annually. The library system has an on-going need for staff and materials. 

Additional development resulting from Redevelopment Plan activities has the potential 

to increase the amount of library resources demanded of the Glendale library system, and 

increased funding would be required to afford adequate service. 82 However, the amount of 

the increased demand can not be adequately quantified, and due to budget constraints additional 

needs of the library system will not be available in the near future. The Program EIR 

concluded that the impacts on the library system would be adverse but less than significant with 

implementation of a program by which the business community can donate computers, software 

and other materials for public use to the Central Library.83 


While the city does not have established standards for impacts to libraries in general, 

increases in population result in an increasing demand for library services and facilities. 


82 Ibid, page 3.10-14. 

83 Ibid, page 3.10.14. 



Page 97 

DreamWork'S Animation Campus AddendlllD EIR 

June 1996

4. 10. 4. Library 

Although the DreamWorks Animation Campus project does not include residential development, 

some of the 1,400 anticipated employees may reside locally and utilize the Glendale library 

system. Approximately 140 of these new employees would be expected to reside in Glendale, 

according to City trends discussed in the Program EIR, which yields a conservative, worst-case 

impact assessment for the project. 84 The addition of any new households in the City would 

result in an adverse impact on library services, because this increase would result in a reduction 

of the total volumes per capita without the addition of new volumes. However, the proposed 

mitigation measure below would result in the donation of additional library materials from the 

proposed project,. which would result in a less than significant impact after implementation. 

In order to identify how the DreamWorks project impacts relate to the Redevelopment 

Plan, the plan's employee population should be evaluated against that derived for the site, 

assuming development under the Program EIR's average intensity assumptions (FAR) for 

Restricted Industrial uses and an 12.21 acre site (per Assessor's parcel data). Based upon these 

averaged assumptions, the proposed project's site would contain a total of 398,900 square feet 

of development, 1,116 employees (based on the Program EIR's generation rate of 2.8 

employees per 1,000 square feet), and 112 new residents. 

Thus, the proposed DreamWorks project represents an increase from the averaged 

projection for employment of 284 employees (from 1,116 to 1,400). This increase represents 

a statistically insignificant 0.95 percent of the total employment anticipated with the 

Redevelopment Plan activities which is well within an expected range of outcomes for a large 

Redevelopment program over a 35-year period. In addition, 28 more new residents (from 112 

to 140) would result with implementation of the proposed project, as compared to the averaged 

density assumptions. This increase represents 1.1 percent of the total residential population 

anticipated with the Redevelopment Plan, which also is well within the expected range of 

outcomes for such a redevelopment program. 

Given current City library needs and budget constraints, any additional demand on 

library facilities will result in an adverse impact. However, implementation of the proposed 

mitigation measure would result in the proposed project having an adverse, but less than 

significant impact on library services by assisting the library system with new materials and 

equipment. 

84 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-3, Slales lhallOpercent o/new employees in Glendale are expecled 

10 also reside in lhe City. 

PIaMing ConsullanlS Research 


Page 98 

DreamWorks Animalion Campus Addendwn EIR 

June 1996


4. 10. 4. Library 

Implementation of the Program EIR mitigation measure below 85 may be required to 

reduce proposed project impacts to a level below significance. 

1. A program shall be operated through the business community where businesses 

can donate microcomputers, computer programs, management training videos, 

and other materials for public use to the Central Library business and 

management services collection. 


PJaMing COnsullllnlS Research 


Page 99 

DreamWorks ADimation Campus Addeadum ElK 

June 19%


4.11. ENERGY 

Energy consumption is addressed in Section 4.12.3, Electricity, and in Section 4.12.4, 

Natural Gas. Please refer to those Sections. 



Page 100 


June 1996



4.12. UTILITIES 

4.12.1. WATER 

The Program EIR states the following threshold of significance with regard to water 

supply: 86 

"Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that significant impacts on water 

supply can be expected if implementation ofthe proposed project will involve the 

potential to create demands for water in excess of the City's supply." 

The City of Glendale Department of Public Service provides water for the City of 

Glendale. Ninety percent of this. water is imported from the Metropolitan Water District or 

from City-owned wells. Ten percent is provided by Grandview Wells in the San Fernando 

groundwater basin and Glorietta Wells in Verdugo Canyon Basin, both in the City of Glendale. 

The project area is served by the Western and Diedrich Reservoirs. The City's water system 

consistently meets or exceeds water quality standards set by the State and County Deparnnents 

of Health. To supplement City water supplies, a reclaimed water delivery system is being 

installed in the City of Glendale and may be accessible to the project site. Presently, water 

pressure within the Redevelopment Area is low and limits fire fighting efforts. Water main 

replacements have been made at locations within the Redevelopment Area, and more extensive 

upgrading of the system is needed. New development encouraged by the Redevelopment Plan 

will be reviewed by the Glendale Fire Department and must comply with all water supply and 

pressure requirements to assure adequate fire flows. 

Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan would result in a demand for potable water 

due to occupancy of the various land uses. In areas where development levels increase. system 

upgrades may be necessary. Build-out of the Redevelopment Plan would result in the 

consumption of approximately 3A43,5oo gallons per day (gpd) ofwater. including existing land 

uses. This is a 51 percent increase as compared to the existing 2.281.200 gpd that are currently 

being consumed in the Redevelopment Area. The City of Glendale has adequate water capacity 

to satisfy the needs of the built-out Redevelopment Area. Therefore, impacts on the water 


Planning Consuhanrs Re:scan:h 

Glendale: Redevelopment Agency 

Page 101 

DromWorks Animation Campwi Addendum EIR 

. June 1996

4. 12. 1. Water 

system due to completion of the Redevelopment Plan would be adverse, but less than significant 

with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR. 


The proposed DreamWorks Animation Campus site is currently served by an 8 inch 

water line along Flower Street. A reclaimed water delivery system should be completed before 

project completion and may be accessible to the project site. Due to the currently low water 

pressure within the Redevelopment area, project needs for water pressure for fire flow will need 

to be satisfied. Glendale Fire Department review and Project compliance with fire flow 

requirements will be required. Based upon the Restricted Industrial rates contained in the 

Program EIR, the proposed project would consume 123,750 gpd of water, resulting in less than 

significant impacts with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and the 

reclaimed water delivery system being built by the City of Glendale. 

Although water consumption for the project is included in the Redevelopment Area 

generation projections, a worst case analysis is provided herein to determine the project's impact 

in relation to the Redevelopment Area as a whole and to account for the project's increase in 

water consumption above and beyond the Program EIR's assumptions for the Redevelopment 

Area. An average sized Restricted Industrial use, based on the original 12.21 acre site (per 

County Assessor's records), is taken from the estimated average Restricted Industrial use floor 

area ratio, as discussed in Section 2, Project Overview, of this document. A comparison 

indicates that the proposed project would consume 123,750 gpd of water, while the average 

restricted industrial use on the proposed site would consume 99,640 gpd. This 24,110 gpd 

increase in water consumed by the project represents approximately 0.7 percent of the total 

built-out Redevelopment Plan daily water demand of 3,443.5mgd, including existing uses. As 

a percentage increase in overall demand, the project demand would be less than significant 

representing an anticipated variation in density which is normal and expected within the 

Redevelopment Plan parameters and underlying Program EIR assumptions. Project water 

consumption is almost entirely within the overall Redevelopment Plan projections for water 

consumption, is well within the expected range of results for a program of this magnitude, and 

does not approach the significance thresholds identified in the Program EIR. 


Glendale Redevelopment Agt'ncy 

Page 102 


June 1996


4. 12. I. Water 

Implementation of mitigation measures 1 through 7, as identified in the Program EIR 

and set forth below, may be required for the proposed project.87 

1. Developers shall work with the City during the design phase to ensure adequate 

water supply and service to the proposed project. 

2. Individual development plans shall be submitted to the Glendale Fire Department 

for review to ensure that adequate fire flows are provided to the project site prior 

to final project approval. 

3. Developers shall be responsible for funding the construction of all off-site storage 

. tanks and pump stations as required to adequately serve the subject property. 

4. Building construction shall include water conservation devices such as low flow 

toilets, low volume shower heads, tum off adapters and faucet flow control. 

5. Development projects shall have a minimum of landscaping requiring heavy 

irrigation and shall include drought resistant planting. 

6. Development plans shall be reviewed by the City to ensure that adequate flows 

can be provided prior to project approval. 

7. Sections of Title 20 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations regarding 

water consumption and conservation will be enforced. 




Page 103 


June 1996




4.12.2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL 

The Program EIR defInes the threshold of signifIcance regarding impact on sewage 

disposal as follows: 

"Impact on the sewer system is considered signifIcant if sewage generated by 

development will exceed the existing or planned capacity of the sewer collection 

or treatment system, or extend a sewer nunk line with capacity to serve new 

development...88 

Wastewater generated in the City of Glendale is treated at the Glendale/Los Angeles 

Reclamation Plant and at the Hyperion Treatment Plant (collectively hereafter, HTP) in Los 

Angeles. The HTP has the capacity to provide treatment to approximately 420 million gallons 

per day (mgd) of wastewater, including a 10 mgd capacity for sewage delivery from the City 

of Glendale. To date, the City of Glendale has not exceeded this amount. Currently the HTP 

is treating an average daily flow of 380 mgd. Approximately 7.0 mgd of the sewage generated 

by the City of Glendale are being sent to the HTP, leaving a large unutilized allotment of three 

mgd. 

The City of Glendale's sewer system that lies north of the Ventura Freeway and within 

the Redevelopment Area is considered inadequate, due to undersized sewer lines. However, 

as part of the public improvements included within the Redevelopment Plan, the sewer system 

shall be improved and expanded. A reclaimed water delivery system is being installed in the 

City of Glendale and will be accessible to the project site by July of this year. 89 Reclaimed 

water can be used for irrigation, toilets, and air conditioning systems. 

As indicated in the Program EIR, the Redevelopment Plan would result in the generation 

of approximately 3,344,690 additional gallons per day (gpd) of sewage by the year 2027. In 

areas where development levels increase, system upgrades may be necessary. Adverse effects 


89 Mr. Don Lee, City ofGlendale Departmenl ofPublic Services. Personal communication. March I I, 1996. 



Page 104 

DreamWOl"ks Animation Campus Addendum EIR 

June 1996

4. 12. 2. Sewage Disposal 

on the sewer system due to implementation of the Redevelopment Plan would be mitigated to 

less than significant levels with public improvements and implementation of the mitigation 

measures found in the Program EIR, resulting in sewage impacts that would be adverse, but less 

than significant. 


The DreamWorks Animation Campus site is currently served by an active 12-inch sewer 

line along Flower Street and an 18-inch sewer line (status unknown as of 3/11/96) that runs 

through the southern portion of the property. Based upon the Restricted Industrial rates 

contained in the Program EIR, the proposed project would generate approximately 121,280 gpd 

of sewage. This amount would not present a significant impact on the City's sewer system. 

As with the Redevelopment Plan, implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the 

Program EIR are considered sufficient to reduce proposed project impacts on the sewer system 

to below a level of significance. 

Although project sewage generation is included in the Redevelopment Area generation 

projections, a worst case analysis is provided herein to detennine the project's impact in relation 

to the Redevelopment Area as a whole and to account for the project's increase in sewage 

generation as if it were above and beyond the Program EIR's assumptions for the 

Redevelopment Area. In order to estimate maximum potential sewage generation under a worst 

case scenario, the projected volume of project sewage to be generated on a daily basis was 

compared to the volume that would be generated by an average sized restricted industrial usage 

on the 12.21 acre site (excluding the Victory Truck Boulevard right-of-way) (per the County 

Assessor's records), as discussed in Section 2., Project Overview, of this document. The size 

of this theoretical development was based on the estimated average Restricted Industrial use 

floor area ratio, as identified in the Land Use section of the Program BIR. Utilizing sewage 

generation factors for Restricted Industrial uses cited in the Program EIR,90 the proposed 

project would generate 121,280 gpd, as compared to the 97,647 gpd that would be generated 

by an average Restricted Industrial use on the proposed site. This 23,633 gpd increment 

represents 0.7 percent of the 3,344,600 gpd sewage generation attributable to the 

Redevelopment Plan, a level which is well within an expected range of results for a large 

redevelopment program. over a 35-year period, and is within the parameters of the 

Redevelopment Plan and underlying Program EIR assumptions. 

90 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12·7. 



Page 105 


June 1996



The following mitigation measures were listed regarding this issue in the Program EIR, 

and may be applicable to this project. 91 

1. The projects shall submit plans to the City of Glendale for review pnor to 

recordation of [mal map, if any. 

2. Hook-up fees and system expansion costs, if required, shall be borne by the 

developer. 


Planning COll$Ullllnls Research 


Page 106 


June 1996



4.12. mll..rrIES 

4.12.3. ELECTRICITY 

The Program EIR states that project impacts on electrical services would be considered 

significant under the following circumstances: 92 

"Impacts on electrical utilities are considered significant if the proposed project 

would require significant expansion to existing energy systems, such as a new 

generation plant, or the development of new sources of power. " 

Electrical service is provided by the City of Glendale Department of Public Service. It 

is anticipated that the City can service all the electricity that will be required through the end 

of the century, at which point· other sources of power will need to be obtained. 

Completion ofthe Redevelopment Plan would result in the consumption ofapproximately 

1,499 megawatt hours (mWh) of electricity per day. Such an increase would require 12 

kilovolts of capacity to be added to the project area. 


Based upon the consumption rates for Restricted Industrial uses contained in the Program 

EIR, electricaf consumption for the DrearnWorks project will be 61.03 mWh per day. No 

element of on-site electrical usage would be excessive or wasteful. Therefore, given the current 

and future availability of electricity as stated in the Program EIR, the project would not have 

a significant impact on the City'S supply of electricity with implementation of the mitigation 

measures identified in the Program EIR. 

Although electrical consumption for the project is for the· most part included in the 

Redevelopment Plan generation projections, the increment of electrical consumption attributable 

to the difference between the project, as proposed. and an average Restricted Industrial density 




Page 107 

DreamWorks Animation CamplQ Addendum EIR 

June 1996

4. 12. 4. Natural Gas 

Industrial density assumption in the Program ErR is also identified. The natural gas consumed 

by the average Restricted Industrial use (see Section 2, Project Overview, of this document) on 

the original 12.21 acre (per County Assessor's records) site was determined to be 43,837 cubic 

feet per day, or 10,163 cubic feet per day less than the theoretical project. This small 

increment represents an insignificant 0.06 percent increase in the total 1.61 million cubic feet 

that would be consumed by the entire Redevelopment Area, including existing development. 


. The following mitigation measure from the Program EIR may be applicable to the 


1. Specific measures recommended to reduce natural gas consumption include: 

• Use of an automatic flue gas damper when using a gas heating system; 

• Use of electrically-lighted pilot lights for all gas systems; 

• Insulation of all gas-heated hot water tanks; and 

• Installation or retrofitting with solar water heaters. 




Page 110 


June 1996




4.12.5. SOLID WASTE 

The Program EIR defmes the threshold of significance for solid waste generation as 

, follows: 96 

"Impacts on solid waste/hazardous waste may be considered significant if the proposed 

project will 1) increase solid waste by a substantial amount; 2) result in the substantial 

modification, relocation or closure of an active solid waste facility or hazardous waste 

facility." 

The Integrated Waste Management Section of the City of Glendale Public Wodes 

Division provides refuse, collection service for the City of Glendale, including the 

Redevelopment Area. Collected solid waste is deposited at the Scholl Canyon landfill, the 

capacity of which is estimated to last for another 17 years. 97 As noted in the Program EIR, 

successful implementation of the California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 

(AB) 939) at the local level should result in a 50 percent reduction or diversion of solid waste 

by the year 2000. 

Although additional solid waste generated by the built-out Redevelopment Plan would 

represent a small percentage of the total solid waste generated in the county as a whole, 

cumulative growth would reduce the overall capacity of the, Scholl Canyon landfIll. Thus the 

Redevelopment Plan would have an incrementally adverse impact on solid waste disposal 

facilities. However, successful implementation of AB 939 will result in a 50 percent reduction 

or diversion of solid waste by the year 2000, and would substantially lessen the Redevelopment 

Plan impacts. 


97 Based on the Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-14, published in November of1992, which eSlimated 

a 20 year capaciry. 



Page III 

DreamWorks AnimatioD Campus Addeodum EIR 

June 1996


4. 12. 5. Solid Waste 

Upon completion, the DreamWorks Animation Campus would include approximately 

1,400 employees. Using employee based solid waste generation rates found in the Program 

EIR, the proposed project would generate approximately 42,700 pounds of solid waste per day. 

As with the Redevelopment Plan, the project's potentially adverse effects, when considered 

alone, would be below the significance threshold with the implementation of AB 939 and with 

the utilization of the mitigation measures described in the Program EIR. 

Although solid waste generation for the project is for the most part included in the 

Redevelopment Area generation projections, the increment of solid waste generation attributable 

to the difference between the project, as proposed, and average Restricted Industrial density 

assumptions in the Program EIR is also identified for comparison with the Redevelopment Plan 

as a whole. Solid waste generation of a theoretical project on the original 12.21 acre (per 

County Assessor's records) site using the average Restricted Industrial use floor area ratio, as 

identified in Section 2, Project Overview, of this document would be approximately 34,029 

pounds per day, or 8,671 pounds per day less than the proposed project. Compared with the 

1,094,000 pounds per day of solid waste projected for existing and proposed Redevelopment 

Plan development, the project increment represents an insignificant 0.08 percent increase in 

overall solid waste generation. 


The following mitigation measures were identified for this issue in the Program EIR, and 

may be applicable to this project to meet the goals of AB 939. 98 

1. The Developer/Participant will incorporate applicable measures of the City's 

Source-Reduction and Recycling Element in project approvals including: 

• The project shall submit a Recycling Plan. The Plan shall include the following 

elements: A site plan of the proposed area shall identify location(s) of the 

recycling enclosure(s) relative to the facility or complex. 

• Identify all materials to be collected and recycled. 

98 Program EIR, Final E1R Volume, pages 3.12-16 and 3.12-17. 

Planning ConsulcanlS Research 


Page 112 

DreamWorks Animation Campm Addendmn EIR 

June 1996

• 

• 



4. 12. 5. Solid Wasle 

The developer shall notify in writing the Integrated Waste Management Section 

of the Public Works Division of the recycling enclosure location, and if 

necessary, provide a gate opener or key to gain access to the recycled materials 

storage area. 

The developer shall provide a plan describing what measures will be taken to 

educate and promote the City's recycling programs to the new owner(s), 

manager, and tenants of the building. Recycling rules and regulations shall be 

included as part of all rental, lease, or purchase agreements. This plan shall be 

submitted to Integrated Waste Management Section prior to issuance of 

Certificate of Occupancy. 

Page 113 

DrearnWorks Animation Campus Addendum EJR 

June 1996

4. 13. Human Health 

to expose people to less health hazards than those already extant, and would result in less than 

significant human health impacts. 


Development of the proposed project would not pose any unusual 9r unique human 

health concerns. The project will move existing groundwater monitoring wells from existing 

to new locations along the eastern property line where they will continue to provide the same 

role as at present. There are no habitats on site that would be suitable for any sort of vector 

which would survive the construction process, during which the entire site will be converted 

to buildings, hardscape and landscaped open space. Although it is possible that the soil at the 

project site could contain the fungus responsible for the disease known as Valley Fever, the 

fungus is not unique to the site or to the Redevelopment Area and is endemic to the 

southwestern United States. The likelihood of Valley Fever occurring would be reduced with 

the appropriate mitigation measures identified below. Therefore, proposed project impacts on 

human health, when considered by themselves or as part of the Redevelopment Plan, would be 

less than significant. 


Measures which reduce the formation of fugitive dust from soil which might contain the 

fungus responsible for the disease known as Valley Fever will mitigate potential associated 

human health impacts. The following mitigation measure, from Section 4.2, Air Quality, of 

this Addendum may therefore be applicable. With respect to other potential human health issues 

analyzed above, no additional mitigation measures would be required. 


erosion and release of dust and particulates. 'This may be accomplished through 






may also be used as directed by the Developer/Panicipants. Truck loads of soil 




Page 115 

Dre.amWorks Animation Campus Addendum E1R 

June 1996



4.14. RECREATION 

The Program EIR defines impacts on park and recreation facilities as the following: 

"Impacts on recreation facilities are considered significant if the project creates 

a demand for recreation services which substantially exceeds the existing ratio 

of 1.22 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 permanent residents. Recreation 

impacts are also significant ifa project forecloses important opportunities to meet 

recreation needs or substantially interferes with attainment of recreation 

goals... 101 

The Glendale Parks and Recreation Division operates thirty-three (33) developed park 

and recreation sites in the City. While the City goal is to provide two acres of developed park 

space per 1,000 permanent residents, the current ratio is 1.22. To remedy this deficiency, the 

1990 Recreation Plan identifies the need to develop 11 new parks, two of which are planned 

in the Redevelopment Area. 

The Redevelopment Plan activities will increase the demand for park and recreation 

facilities by increasing the permanent population from both employee generated households and 

new dwelling units. 102 While this demand is considered an adverse impact, based on City 

standards, it is reduced to below a significant level by additional park acreage to be provided 

with implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. 


As stated in Section 4.8, Population/Housing, the DreamWorks Animation Campus is 

conservatively expected to result in 140 new permanent residents in the City of Glendale due 

entirely to employment growth. The pennanent population growth will result in an increased 


102 Ibid. 



Page 116 


June 1996

4. 14. Recreation 

demand for park facilities of 0.28 acres, based on a City standard of 2.0 acres per thousand 

population, or 0.17 acres based on the existing ratio of 1.22 per thousand population. 

To provide a comparison with the Redevelopment Plan, an evaluation can be perfonned 

using interpolated average intensity assumptions for Restricted Industrial uses on the original 

12.21 acre site (excluding the Victory Truck Boulevard right-of-way) (per County assessor 

records), based on an average floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75. On this basis, the project site 

would result in 116 new residents to the City, or 22 fewer new residents than the proposed 

Animation Campus, resulting in a need for an additional 0.22 acres of recreation facilities based 

on the 2.0 acre standard, or 0.14 based on the existing 1.22 acre ratio. 

Using either the 2.0 acre or 1.22 acre ratio, the DrearnWorks Animation Campus' 

incremental increase in residents' park needs represent a 0.08 acre and a 0.03 acre increase, 

respectively, above the theoretical project resident's demand for park space. As a percentage 

of the 6.0 new acres required to serve the entire Redevelopment Plan, 0.08 acre represents a 

maximum 1.3 percent increase. When considered an addition to the total Redevelopment Plan 

demand, this increase would be considered at most marginally adverse were it not mitigable. 

However, the DreamWorks Animation Campus includes some 2.5 acres of usable passive and 

some active on-site open space for the exclusive use of its employees which should more than 

mitigate this very small incremental effect. Consequently, the proposed project should have no 

more recreation impact than was contemplated in the Redevelopment Plan Program EIR, and 

due to on-site passive and active recreation features, likely less. 


The following Program EIR mitigation measure applies to the entire Redevelopment 

Plan, and thus collectively to all projects through tax increment fInancing: 103 

1. The Redevelopment Agency/City shall implement all feasible measures of the 

program outlined in the 1990 Recreation Plan as build-out occurs within the 

Project Area. 

103 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume. page 3.14-4. See also Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. Table 2. Public 

Improvements List. pages I-II through 1-22. 

Planning Consull3Jlts Research 


Page 117 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeDduIn Em 

June 1996



4.15. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Program EIR defined the following significance threshold for cultural resources: 

"Cultural resources are considered significant if the project disrupts or adversely 

effects a prehistoric or historic archaeological site, a property of historic or 

cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group, or a 

paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study. n 

Two of the City's historically significant structures are located in the Redevelopment 

Area: the old Southern Pacific Railroad Station (built in 1923) and the Grand Central Air 

Tenninal (now part of the Grand Central Industrial Centre, built in 1928). Although no known 

historic structures .are located on or near the project site, a comprehensive survey and 

documentation of the pre-1942 buildings is recommended in the Program EIR.I04 

The Redevelopment Area has a low potential for containing undisturbed significant 

prehistoric archaeological resources. Therefore, impacts on archaeological resources are 

considered only potentially adverse, but with implementation of the mitigation measures less 

than significant. Finally, no paleontological resources are known within the Redevelopment 

Area; therefore, impacts on these resources are considered less than significant. 

PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS 

None of the known historically significant structures found in the Redevelopment Area 

are located within the proposed project's boundaries, or would be otherwise affected by the 

project. Further, the existing structures on the project site are recent, post 1942 temporary 

structures which are not considered historically significant. 

As the site lies on the flood plain of the pre-channelized Los Angeles River and is 

covered with fill material varying in depth from five to 20 feet, the potential for undisturbed 


PlaMing Consultants Resean:h 


Page 118 


June ]996

4. 15. Cultural Resources 

on-site arshaeological resources is extremely low. Finally, as with the Redevelopment Area, 

no paleontological resources are believed to exist on the proposed project site. Therefore 

project impacts on cultural resources are considered less than significant. 


Impacts to historical structures are considered less than significant with implementation 

of the proposed project, and no known archaeological or paleontological resources are known 

to exist on the site.. Nonetheless, the following Program EIR-required mitigation measure is 

required of all projects to ensure that no significant impact would result and may apply to the 

proposed project, should archaeological resources be discovered during project 

construction: 105 

1. The Developer or Participant should seek to avoid damaging effects on 

archaeological resources. Should such resources be discovered and avoidance 

prove not feasible, the importance of the site shall be evaluated by a qualified 

archaeologist. Mitigation measures included in Appendix K of the CEQA 

Guidelines shall be incorporated into the project. In general, these guidelines 

require the following: 

• Preservation of sites in-place as the preferred manner of avoiding damage to 

historic and prehistoric archaeological resources; 

• Development and implementation of an excavation plan for sites that cannot 

be preserved; and 

• Stopping of excavation in the event of discovery of human remains until the 

. coroner has detennined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; 

or, if descendants have made a recommendation of the property owner 

regarding proper disposal of the remains, or until descendants have failed to 

make a recommendation within 24 hours of notification. If no 

recommendation is received, remains shall be interred with appropriate 

dignity on the property in a location not subject to future development. 




Page 119 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddendUIII EIR 

June 1996



AS ESTABLISHED' IN THE INITIAL STUDY 

This Addendum follows the outline for the Program EIR, evaluating and reporting the 

DrearnWorks Animation Campus project's impacts in the order in which they appear in that 

document. Three additional issues were evaluated in the Initial Study prepared by the Glendale 

Redevelopment Agency for the Redevelopment Plan 106 and were determined not to be 

potentially significant: Plant and Animal Life, Natural Resources, and Aesthetics. The 

following discussion summarizes why each of these issues was considered not to be potentially 

significant in evaluation of the Redevelopment Plan and how these issues have been addressed 

in this Addendum. 

Plant and Animal Life. The Initial Study states that the Redevelopment Area is 

presently urbanized, little or no natural vegetation exists, and no unique or rare species of plant 

,or animals occur in the area. 107 Riparian vegetation is identified in the Verdugo Wash, an 

area not to be affected by the Redevelopment Plan. Further, removal of indigenous plants is 

regulated by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. 

The DrearnWorks project site has been graded, developed and utilized for many years 

by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. As such, it supports only sparse 

vegetation. This fragment of the property has been previously disturbed and is now fenced off 

from the remainder of the site. Volunteer vegetation has resulted from disuse but includes no 

resources with particular biotic value. No wetlands exist on site, since vegetation on-site 

consists primarily ofupland species, including mustard, red brome grass, sunflower, castor bean 

and eucalyptus and there is no indication of hydrophytic vegetation, wetlands hydrology, or 

hydric soils, or a high water mark indicative of other waters on-site. 108 

106 Program EIR, FifUll EIR Volume. Appendix A. 

107 

Ibid, page 19. 

108 Letters from Woodward-Clyde Consul/ants. April 3, 1996 and February 7, 1996, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, February 26, 1996, and the California Depanmenr ofFish and Game, April 5, 1996, attached 

hereto as Appendix D. 



Page 120 


June 1996

4. 16. Issues Not Included in the Focus of the Program EIR as Established in the Initial Study 

Natural Resources. Development of individual redevelopment projects during the buildout 

period will utilize traditional building materials and consume natural resources during 

construction. The Initial Study concluded that this use was not significant. 

Similarly, the construction of the 13.4-acre DreamWorks Animation Campus project (as 

proposed to include the Victory Truck Boulevard easement) represents a very small portion of 

the natural resources which may be consumed with implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, 

and a statistically insignificant increment of all development and associated natural resource 

consumption which may occur in the region by 2027 when the Redevelopment Plan is expected 

to complete its implementation. 

Aesthetics. The objectives of the Redevelopment Plan include improving the aesthetics 

of the area. Because of this, the Initial Study concluded that aesthetically offensive development 

is not anticipated, 109 and no further discussion of this issue was required of the 

Redevelopment Plan. An evaluation of as yet unknown individual project designs would not 

have been possible; though all future projects would be required to comply with the 

Redevelopment Plan objectives. 

To demonstrate that the DreamWorks Animation Campus complies with Redevelopment 

Plan objectives, a discussion of aesthetic issues regarding the project is addressed in this 

Addendum in Section 4.6, Land Use. 

109 Program EIR. FilUll EIR Volume. Appendix A, page 22. 



Page 121 


June 1996

ApPENDIX 0 

BIOTA LETTERS 

peR 


D. BIOTA LETTERS 

This Appendix contains four letters, the first two being analyses from Woodward-Clyde 

of the plant and animal life on the project site. The third and fourth letters, from the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game respectively, consist 

of their determinations regarding the biota at the project site.

Woodward-Clyde 

Engineering & sciences applied 10 Ihe earth & its environment 

April 3, 1996 

Project No. 9553164U 

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS 

California Department of Fish and Game 

530 East Montecito Street, Room 104 

Santa Barbara, CA 93103 

805-568-1227 

Attention: Ken Wilson 

REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF 

DETERMINATION OF NON-JURISDICTION 

Dear Mr. Wilson: 

This letter is to request that the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) review 

the following information and advise us whether you concur with our determination that the 

CDFG does not have jurisdiction over the following proposed project. 

The subject property is the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ("DWP") Crystal 

Springs Maintenance Yard, located at 1000 Flower Street, Glendale, California (the 

"Property"). (Enclosed as Figure 1 is a site map.) Currently, the Property is being 

considered for development of a low rise office complex. If developed, it is anticipated 

that the Property will have to be regraded because of the bearing capacity of the soils. 

There is a topographical condition on the Property that will be impacted by regrading. 

The topographical condition is a low area running east-west in the southern portion of the 

Property. This low area ranges in size from approximately 20 to 60 feet in width and 2 to 

10 feet in depth, and extends from the eastern boundary of the Property to the boundary of 

the channelized Los Angeles River, which is adjacent to the Property. Portions of the low 

area are lined with concrete. It is our understanding that, when the Property is regraded, 

this low area will be regraded. 

On December 1, 1995, Woodward-Clyde evaluated the topographical condition and 

performed a jurisdictional delineation of waters of the United States and CDFG jurisdiction 

at the Property to determine if wetlands or other waters of the United States were present 

based on methodology described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) 1987 

manual and CDFG guidelines. For the following reasons, Woodward-Clyde determined 

Woodward.C1rde Consultants. A subsidiary of Woodward·Clyde Group, Inc. 

Sunroad Plaza 3, Suite 1000.1615 Murray Canyon Road· San Diego, California 92108 

619-294-9400· Fax 619-293-7920


April 3, 1996 

Page 2 


that the CDFG does not have jurisdiction on site pursuant to Section 1600 of the Fish and 

Game Code. 

Based on a review of historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, it appears that 

the low area is a result of landform modification. The photographs and maps indicate that 

substantial landform modification occurred on the Property when the Los Angeles River 

was channelized. It also appears that additional fIII material was added to portions of the 

Property, further raising the .elevation of other portions of the Property. (Enclosed are 

copies of the historical aerial photographs and topographic maps.) 

At the time of the survey, the low area consisted of dry ground, with portions completely 

devoid of vegetation. Vegetation observed in other portions of this low area consisted 

primarily of upland species, including mustard (Brassica nigra), red brorne grass (Bromus 

madritensis ssp. rubens), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), castor bean (Ricinis communis) 

and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus ssp.). No indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetlands 

hydrology, or hydric soils were observed and no ordinary high water mark indicative of 

other waters was observed. Therefore, pursuant to the 1987 manual, no jurisdictional 

wetlands or other waters of the United States were determined to be present. (Enclosed as 

Figures 2 and 3 are photographs of the Property and the low area taken during the survey.) 

Based on our observations of the Property and the review of historical aerial photographs 

and topographic maps, we believe that this low area is not a jurisdictional wetland or water 

of the United States as defmed by the Corps, nor does it contain jurisdictional areas 

regulated by the CDFG. The Corps has agreed with us and sent us a letter of confirmation 

(Attachment A). If the CDFG does not concur with our detennination, please advise us as 

soon as possible. If we do not receive a response to this request within thirty days, we will 

assume that the CDFG concurs with our determination as stated herein. 

Very truly yours. 

WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 

Bill Magdych, Ph. 

Senior Project Scientist 

Professional Wetland Scientist No. 195 

WPM:hal 

Enclosures 

W\9'i:i3164U\SKG·D·L DOC


April 3, 1996 

Page 3 

bee: Ms. Maria Pilar Hoye, Esq. 

W:\9553164U\SKG·D-L.DOC 

-. Woodward-Clyde

112 

SCALE 1: 24000 

o 

tHISTORIC USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP-1928 

1 

REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, 

"Glendale. California" Quadrangle, 1928 Reprinted 1948. 

I. 

I" 

,r·.

LOOKING ACROSS THE LOW AREA TO THE EAST 

IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROJECT AREA. 

FIGURE 2 

PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE

LOOKING ACROSS THE LOW AREA TO THE NORTHWEST 


LOOKING ACROSS THE LOW AREA TO THE NORTH 


FIGURE 3 


1928 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

W:\9553IMU\SKG·D-L.DOC 

ATTACHMENT A 

.-. 

LETTER FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

CONFIRMING LACK OF JURISDICTION FOR 

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 

Woodward-Clyde

A-I. REGIONAL BURDEN ANALYSIS 

The following data includes a summary of the amount of vehicle trips and vehicle miles 

that would be generated by the proposed project on a daily basis. Also included area the daily 

project generated mobile source emissions. This summary has been incorporated into Section 

4.2, Air of the Addendum to the EIR.

A-2. CALINE ANALYSIS DATA 

The following data consists of the CALINE dispersion model data for estimating carbon 

monoxide concentrations in the project vicinity. These results include Existing and Year 2010 

concentrations, with and without the proposed project. These results have been summarized in 

Section 4.2, Air of the Addendum to the EIR.

A-3. EMFAC7 DATA 

The results of the EMFAC7 emission factor model that was run to estimate potential 

project generated pollutants are included herein. This data has been summarized in Section 4.2, 

Air of the Addendum to the BIR.

lENV028Fl.l 

TIME RATE ADJUSTMENT BAGS 1 " 

YEAR, 2010 DEWPOINT: 10 

INSPECTION" MAINTENANCE, YES 

SEASON, SUMMER 

LIGIlT DUTY AUTOS 

NCAT CAT DIESEL 

CALTRANS DIVISION OF 

NEW TECHNOLOGY, MATERIALS AND RES£l\ROl 

EMFAC7Fl.l Rl\TES AS OF 1/25/94 

OREAMWORKS 2010 SUMMER 

COLD STARTS 

HOT STAATS 

HOT STAB 

20.0 

80.0 

0.0 

LOA 69.0 

llBO o. a 

TABLE 1, ESTIMATED TRAVEL FRACTIONS 

LIGIlT DtrTY TRUCKS MEl) DUTY TRUCKS URBAN BUS 

NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL 

LDT 19.4 

HlX) 1- 2 

MCY 0.5 

RUN DAnS, ENV028Fl.l 

EMFAC7Fl.l 

MOT 

lIDO 

HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS 


VMT 0.02 99.94 0.04 0.00 99.97 0.03 0.00 100.00 100.00 11. 54 88.46 100.00 

TRIP 0.02 ".'4 0.04 0.00 ".97 0.03 0.00 100.00 100.00 11.54 88.46 100.00 

\ VEH 0.05 99.85 0.10 0.00 ".'4 0.06 0.00 100.00 100.00 12.53 87.47 100.00 

lENV028F1.1 CALTRANS DIVISIOl'< OF RUN PATES, ENV028Fl.1 

NEW TECHNOLOGY. MATERIALS AND RESEARCH EMFAC7Fl.l 


EHFAC7F1.1 RATES AS OF 1/25/H 

ORE.lI./1WORKS 2010 SUMMER 

YEAR, 2010 DEWPOINT: 10 \ COLD S.TAATS 20.0 \ LOA 69.0 1 LOT 19.4 1 MDT 6.4 

INSPECTIOl'< " MAINTENANCE: YES 1 HOT STAATS 80.0 1 UBD 0.0 1 IlPG 1-2 1 HOD 3.6 

SEASON, SUMMER , HOT STAB 0.0 \ MCY 0.5 

POLLtrrANT NAME, CARBON MONOXIDE IN GRAMS PER MILE 

TABLE 2, COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS 

SPEED TEMPERA1VRE IN DEGREES FAHRENHEIT 

MPH 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 

IDLE- 2.34 2.24 2.11 1.97 1. 82 1.67 1.53 1.40 1.29 1.21 1.17 1.17 

3 46.82 H.71 42.1$ 39.36 36.39 33.41 30.56 27." 25.84 24.22 23.41 23.4S 

5 30.17 28.87 27.31 25.58 23. 78 21.97 20.25 18.70 17.41 16.45 16.01 16.08 

10 16.04 15.37 14 .58 13.70 12.78 11.87 11.01 10.23 '.58 9.11 8.90 8.97 

15 10.84 10.40 9.87 9.28 8.61 8.06 7.48 6.9. 6.53 6.21 6.08 6.13 

20 8.19 '7 •.85 7.45 7.01 6.55 6.09 5.66 5.27 4.94 4.71 4.61 4.64 

25 6 .•0 6.32 6.00 5.65 5.28 4.91 4.57 4.2. 4.00 3.81 3. 73 3.16 

30 5.55 5.32 S.OS 4.76 4.45 4.14 3.85 3.59 3.38 3.22 3.16 3.18 

35 4.81 4.62 4.39 4.13 3.87 3.60 3.36 3.13 2.95 2.81 2.76 2.78 

40 4.30 4.12 3.92 3.70 3.46 3.23 3.01 2.82 2 .•6 2.54 2.50 2.52 

45 3.96 3. 80 3.62 3.41 3.21 3.00 2.80 2.63 2.49 2.38 2.35 :2. ]7 

50 3.80 3.65 3. 48 3.30 3.10 2.92 2.74 2.58 2.45 2.3. 2.31 2.36 

55 3.88 3.74 3.58 3.40 3.22 3.05 2.88 2.74 2 .•2 2.54 2.53 2.56 

60 4.45 4.30 4.13 3.95 3.77 3.60 3.H 3.31 3.21 ) .14 3.14 3.20 

65 6.37 6.17 5.9. 5.74 5.54 5.35 5.19 5. OS 4.96 •• 92 4.96 5.07 

6.4 

3.6 

1/29/9. 

1/29/9. 

MCY 

ALL 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

1/2'/96 

1/29/96 

"IDLE EMISSIONS IN GRAMS/MIN, DERIVED FROM 3 MPH RATES 

lENV028Fl.l CALTRANS DIVISIOl'< OF RUN DATES, ENV028Fl.1 1/29/96 

NEW TECHNOLOGY. MATERIALS AND RESEARCH EI1FAC7F1-1 1/29/96 

EMFAC7Fl.1 RATES AS OF 1/25/94 

TIME RATE ADJUSTMENT BAGS 1 • DREAMWORKS 2010 SlIMMER 

YEAR, 2010 DEWPOINT, 10 COLD STARTS 20.0 LOA 69.0 LVT 19.4 MDT 6 .• 

INSPECTION" MAINTENANCE, YES HOT STARTS 80.0 llBD 0.0 IlPG 1.2 IiDD 3.6 

SEASOl'

ApPENDIX B 

NOISE ANALYSIS 

peR 


B-1. HELICOPTER NOISE ASSESSMENT 

This assessment includes measurements of on-site ambient noise levels, estimates of 

helicopter noise levels in the past at the project site, and predictions of project generated 

helicopter noise levels. The results of this assessment have been incorporated into Section 4.4, 

Noise of the Addendum to the EIR.






Arup Acoustics 

Consultants in Acoustics • Noise • Vibration 

May 15, 1996 

Ms. Ricarda Bennen 

Heliport Consultants 

148 Gazania Court 

Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 

DreamWorks SKG Animation Campus Glendale 

Heliport Noise Assessments 

Dear Ms. Bennett: 

2440 South Sepulveda BoulEMlfd 

Suite 180 

los Angeles 

California 90064 

(310) 312·5040 

Facsimile (310) 312-5788 

This report presents the results of our noise study of the proposed DreamWorks Heliport, which is 

to be located on the Department of Water and Power site (Crystal Springs Site) at the intersection 

of Ventura and Golden State Freeways, within the city of Glendale. The purpose of this stUdy was 

to evaluate: 

a. Potential noise impacts of the DreamWorks proposed heliport operation on the surrounding 

neighborhood communities, and 

b. The historical flight noise levels associated with the previous use of the heliport. 

ON SITE NOISE MEASUREMENTS 

Background noise measurements were conducted at the Crystal Springs Site (on site) and four 

surrounding neighborhood locations as shown in Figure 1. The neighborhood sites are found to 

the North, East and West of the Crystal Springs Site and were selected to represent the 

residential properties near the heliport. At these locations, exterior sound readings were 

undertaken for periods of 10 minutes during the early afternoon of Thursday and Friday, February 

29 and March 1, 1996. The on site measurements were conducted continuously for a 24-hour 

period, starting at 3:00 p.m. Thursday, February 29 through March 1,1996. 

DATA ACQUISITiON SYSTEM 

The ambient noise survey was carried out using a Larson-Davis model 870 portable noise monitor 

and associated microphone. The data acquisition system used to measure the background noise 

levels meet and exceed the requirements for the Type I standard instruments as defined in the 

American National Standard Institute (ANSI) specifications S14, IEC651, and IEC804. The 

microphone was calibrated prior to and after completion of the survey to ensure the accuracy of 

measurements. 

NOISE DESCRIPTORS 

In evaluating and describing ambient noise, se.veral metrics are used to describe the noise 

measurements. In this report the results of measurements and calculations are presented in terms 

0... "'",p & ".""... e-no. lid. 

90' t.4...... 51_ '260. Son F.- CA 94103 

Pnono (4IS) 951-11445. F_(4IS) 951·909Il


Ms. Ricarda Bennett 

May 15, 1996 

Page 2 

of two widely used metrics, Equivalent continuous sound level and Community Noise Equivalent 

Level as follows: 

Equivalent Sound Level- Symbolized by Leq, this measure represents the level of a continuous 

steady sound which over a specified time period contains the same total sound energy as the 

actual time varying sound of interest, 

Community Noise Equivalent Level- Symbolized by CNEL, this rating represents an energy 

averaged noise level over a 24-hour period. Noise levels measured during evening hours of 7:00 

p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and night time hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. are adjusted (increased) by 5dB 

and 10dB, respectively. These time of day adjustments are included to account for the apparent 

increased sensitivity to and annoyance at noise during the evening and night time hours. 

EXISTING AMBIENT SOUND ENVIRONMENT 

The existing noise levels at the Crystal Springs Site and neighboring residential areas are 

influenced primarily by the Ventura and Golden States Freeways, street and railroad traffic. In 

particular, the sound environment at the neighboring homes (North and East of the Crystal Spring 

Site) is dominated by vehicular traffic noise from San Fernando Way and frequent train operations 

along San Fernando Way. 

Overall, on an hourly Leq basis the current sound environment ranges between 54 dBA 

(recorded at 1:00 a.m.) and 64 dBA (recorded at 6:00 a.m.). On a 24-hour CNEL basis, the current 

sound environment was calculated at 67 dBA. The results of the field noise measurements are 

shown in Table 1. 

Table 1 - Ambient Noise Measurements, Leq (1 hour) 

Location Starting Time Leq (dBA) Starting Time Leq (dBA) Starting Leq (dBA) 

(Hrs) (Hrs) Time 

(Hrs) 

On site 1500 62.7 1600 62.9 1700 61.7 

1800 62.7 1900 62.3 2000 62.6 

2100 62.0 2200 59.5 2300 59.7 

2400 56.7 0100 54.3 200 55.0 

0300 56.8 0400 60.4 0500 62.2 

0600 64.0 0700 63.6 0800 63.6 

0900 61.2 1000 61.1 1100 60.1 

1200 61.6 1300 61.1 1400 60.3 

Neighborhood Duration Leq (dBA) 

1 1520-1530 64.0 

2 1410-1420 61.0 

3 1545-1555 66.0 

4 1600-1610 68.0 

"



May 15, 1996 

Page 3 

PAST HELIPORT OPERATIONS 

OPERATION INFORMATION 

Historical flight operation information from Heliport Consultants shows that the Heliport at Crystal 

Springs Site has been active since 1958 facilitating flight activities by Heliport Inc. and various 

police departments. The actual flight information, however, is available only for the time period of 

1974 through 1992. During this period the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the 

combined Glendale/ Burbank Air Support Units used the heliport facility, for various helicopter 

operations such as patrol, sUNeiliance and training. Table-2 presents the historical flight 

operations classified into three time categories of daytime. evening time and night time to 

correspond to the time categories associated with calculation of the CNEL noise metric. 

These ,time classifications illustrate the number of takeoff and landings (noise events) associated 

with the weekday use of the heliport during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m.- 7:00 p.m., 7:00 p.m. 

10:00 p.m., and 10:00 p.m.- 7:00 a.m. In general, the heliport site was used more frequently 

during weekdays than weekends. Thus, in order to represent the worst noise scenario, the 

weekday operation volumes were used to calculate the previoUS CNEL values. 

Table 2 - Historical Operation Flight-Events at Glendale Crystal Springs DWP Site 

Operation Number of Events Per Day 

Period (Year) Police Department (Per Time Category) Total 

0700-1900 1900-2200 2200-0700 (Per Week Day) 

1974-1977 LAPD 65 13 16 94 

1978-1983 LAPD/Glendale/Burbank 105 28 26 159 

1984-1988 Glendale/Burbank 40 15 10 65 

1989-1992 Glendale 35 '10 4 49 

TYPES OF HELICOPTERS 

Different types of helicopters utilized the heliport site in connection with previous flight operations 

by LAPD and Glendale/Burbank police departments. Information from Heliport Consultants 

indicates that, during the "peak" years of operation (i. e. the highest number of helicopters per 

year), LAPD employed a fleet of helicopters that included primarily the Bell 47 and Bell 206. The 

Glendale/ Burbank air support fleet included mainly Hughes 300 helicopters. 

Table 3 represents the fleet mixture for "peak" years and for both LAPD and Glendale/Burbank Air 

Support units. A statistical analysis of the helicopter fleet mixture was carried out in order to 

calculate the probability of a specific type of helicopter being used in a typical weekday flight 

operation. Table 3 illustrates the estimated probability of occurrence of various helicopter types in 

a typical operation. As can be seen, the results of the statistical analysis indicate that LAPD's fleet 

operation used Bell 206 and Bell 47 helicopters more frequently than Bel! 204 and Hughes 500 

helicopters. 

"



May 15, 1996 

Page 5 

employed by DreamWorks operation has not been determined, thus the noise calculation of 

future heliport operations is based on the Sikorsky S76 helicopter. A common helicopter for 

passenger transportation, a Sikorsky S76, is used for calculation purposes. According to FAA 

tests (ibid.), in general the twin turbine S76 generates about 3 dBA (SEL) 2 higher noise level 

than the single turbine Bell 206L helicopter. The CNEL results for a possible day of helicopter 

flights is illustrated in Table 5 where there are 4 daytime trips and 1 evening trip for a total of 10 

landings and takeoffs. 

Table 5 - Future Flight Operation and Estimated CNEL Values (possible operation scenario) 

Based on Sikorsky S76 Helicopter 

Number of Flight-Events per Day Estimated CNEL at 

(oer Time Cateaories Neic hborhood Locations 

0700-1900 I 1900-2200 I 2200-0700 Total Per Day 1 2 I 3 I 4 

8 I 2 I 0 10 33 29 I 35 I 24 

CONCLUSIONS 

A comparison of the estimated CNEL values of the previous and proposed flight operations is 

presented in Table 6 for neighborhood locations 1, 2, 3 and 4. As can be seen, the flight 

operations proposed by DreamWorKs produces, on average, noise levels 23dB-28dB lower than 

previous use of the heliport, as shown by the values given in the last row of Table 6. 

Table 6 - Difference in CNEL Values Between Historical and 

Proposed DreamWorks Flight Operations 

Neighborhood Difference in CNEL 

Locations (Previous Operations - Proposed Operations) 

1974-1977 1978-1983 1978-1988 1989-1992 

1 21 24 26 24 

2 22 24 28 26 

3 24 27 24 22 

4 25 28 31 29 

Averaae 23 25 28 25 

The noise impact from the historical and proposed helicopter flight operations on the existing 

sound environment is shown in Table 7. As illustrated by CNEL values in Table 7, the proposed 

DreamWorKs helicopter flight operations would not increase the current overall sound 

environment (CNEL (24-hrs)) of the neighborhood residential communities. The results of noise 

calculations further indicate that the previous use of heliport could have increased the current 

CNEL level by less than 1 dB. In contrast, the DreamWorks projected helicopter operation will 

have no measurable impact on the current CNEL sound environment. 

2 SEL = Sound Exposure Level 

"

site. 

B-3. HELICOPTER OPERATIONS LETTER 

This letter describes the history of helicopter operations that have occurred at the project 

"


Glenndale Heliport 

The plans for the Dream Works Campus calls for the ground 

level landing site to be replaced by the rooftop helipad on 

the top floor of the parking structure in the northern 

quadrant of the lot. The advantages to an elevated rooftop 

helipad is that it will be more secure from people wandering 

onto the landing site and the flight paths will be protected 

from any future building on the campus in the vicinity of the 

helipad. 

COMPARISON OF FLIGHT ACTIVITY: 

The Glendale Heliport has been available for helicopter 

flight activities at this site for over 38 years. The 

conditional use for the heliport was originally obtained by 

Heliport, Inc. who utilized the heliport site for about six 

years beginning in 1958. The property was then leased by DWP 

to the respective air support units of Los Angeles, Burbank 

and Glendale police departments from approximately 1964 to 

1992. The LAPD airborne unit were the major users and sole 

occupants of the site from 1964 to 1972 when the Glendale 

Police air support moved their unit to the Glendale Heliport. 

The Burbank Police 'air support unit came to the site in 1972 

and shared equipment and flights schedules with Glendale. 

The LAPD left Glendale in 1983 for Hooper Heliport in 

downtown Los Angeles. Five years later, in 1988, the Burbank 

airborne law enforcement unit moved to Burbank Airport. They 

were followed four years later by the Glendale Police 

Department air support. 

There was a period of time from 1978 (after Burbank came to 

the site) until 1983 (before LAPD moved to Hooper Heliport) 

that all three police agencies conducted operations from the 

heliport. The heliport site then reverted to the property 

owner, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP), 

which maintained the helistop to this date. 

since the operation of helicopters from this site covers an 

expanse in time of approximately 38 years, it is 

understandable that some of the operational records have been 

archived, lost or just never existed. Information on 

helicopter operations by the airborne law enforcement units 

2 

"



for the years 1974 through 1992 was the data that was most 

readily available either through documentation or through 

interviews with personnel who were familiar with the flight 

operations. 1 

Flight data for the past 18 years (1974-1992) was gathered 

through extensive interviews with representative of the 

airborne police departments who were knowledgeable about the 

daily operations schedule. Information was obtained on the 

number of aircraft in use, the hours of operations and the 

number of operations and scheduled shifts. The original 

number of flight operations combined both a takeoff and 

landing event into one operation. For this report, the 

number of operations was doubled (or, multiplied by "2") in 

order to determine the number of flight events (see Tables 1, 

2 and 3). 

The type of aircraft ranged from single engine, piston driven 

rotorcraft such as a Bell 47 to twin engine, twin rotor 

military model aircratt such as a CH46. During the peak 

years of operation (1974 to 1983), the LAPD used seven (7) 

Bell 47G5 piston helicoptersi one Bell 47G5Ai one Bell 

47G3Bli 16 Bell 206B single engine turbine models; one (1) 

UH1B (Bell 204); and on an infrequent basis, a CH46. At the 

site, Glendale and Burbank shared three (3) Hughes 300 piston 

model aircraft from 1972 to 1992. 

Tables 1,2, and 3 provides a summary of the number of 

aircraft by shift segregated by weekend and weekday. As can 

he seen in the three tables, the flights for the LAPD 

occurred 24 hours a day over 7 days a week, except for 

weekends. In addition to the three regularly scheduled 

patrols (Patrol Day, PM and AM) with varied shifts, there 

were surveillance flights along with maintenance and training 

flights. As might be expected, there were less flights on 

the weekend than during the week. 

A more detailed review of the Tables reveals there were 

approximately 94 flight events (a landing or a takeoff) per 

24 hour period during the week. The number of flights 

decreased on a weekend day to 58 takeoffs or landings. A 

total of 586 flights occurred per week just from the LAPD 

1 

Interviews with Officer/Pilot Charles perriquey and 

Sergeant/Pilot Dick Eyster, LAPDi captain Ron Allison, 

and Senior pilot John Parmann, Glendale Police Dept. 

3



aircraft alone. This combined with the 300 weekly flights 

from the Glendale/Burbank airborne law enforcement 

helicopters brought the total to 886 flights per week during 

those years of dual occupancy at the Glendale Heliport site. 

These numbers translate into 2519 flights per month for the 

LAPD operations and, for the Glendale/Burbank units, 1290 

(for the years 1978 to 1988) and 860 (for the years 1988 to 

1992). It should be noted that during the span of 1978 to 

1983 the operations of LAPD and Glendale/Burbank can be 

combined for a total of 3809 takeoffs or landings per month. 

since the studio has not begun operations, it is difficult to 

state with certainty how many flights will occur per day. 

However, even if Dream Works SKG flew every day in an average 

month (i.e. 30 days), the resulting 120 to 240 flight events 

(or, 4 to 8 flight events per day) would be considerably 

below the previous flights which ranged from 860 to 3809 

flights for a given month. Further, the flights related to 

Dream Works are not apticipated to occur in the early morning 

hours after 12 AM. 

While no helicopter has been selected at this time, the 

typical charter aircraft will be a single or a twin turbine 

engine aircraft in the weight category of 5,000 to 12,000 

pounds. 

If I can be of any further assistance, or should you have any 

questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Best regards, 

Ricarda L. Bennett, Esq. 

RLB: 

4 

"

TABLE 1 

Total Number of Flight Events for 

Los Angeles Police Dept Air Support 

at 

Glendale Helistop, Crystal Springs DWP Site 

Period: 1974 -1983 

Operating Classir. Time Period (A) (B) (e) (D) 

by Shift EventsIWeek EventslWk Events/7 Events! 

Day End Day Day Week Month 

C=5(Al+2CBI D=4.3ICI I 

Patrol Day 9AM-5PM 24 16 152 654 

Patrol PM 5PM-1 AM 24 24 168 7Z1. 

Patrol AM 1 AM-4AM -4 2 24 103 

OnCaU 4AM-9AM Varied 

SurveUlance Oaf 9AM-5PM 18 12 114 490 

Surveillance PM! 5PM-1 AM 8 4 48 206 

Training Oay/90% 12 0 60 258 

NighV10% 

Maintenance Oay18AM-5 4 0 20 86 

PM 

TOTAL EVENTS 94 68 686 2619 

1. Avg. number of weeks In a month equals 4.3 

2. Operations varied 

Harch 21, 1996 

C:\UORK\HElCON\063GRA\HIST\OPSHrST.Tal 

"

TABLE 2 " 


Glendale and Burbank Police Air Support 

at 

Glendale Helistop, Crystal Springs OWP Site 

Period: 1978 -1988 

Operating (A) (8) (C) (D) (E) 

Classif. Avg. Tot. Evts Tot.Evts. Eventsl7 Eventsl 

by Shift EventslWeek for fi Day Week forWk Day Week Month 

by Time Day End D=B+C E=-C.3(D)' 

Period A=Bl5 Sun Evts=O 

7AM.4PM 2S 100 0 100 .4JO 

3 PM·11 PM 20 96 ',- 100 430 

4 

5PM·1 AM 20 96 4 100 430 

Total Events N.A. 292 8 300 1290 

1. Avg. number or weeks per month equals 4.3 

TABLE 3 


Glendale Police Air Support 

at 


Period: Mid-19BB - 1992 

Operating (A) (8) eC) (0) (E) 

Classlf. Avg. EventslWeek Day Tot. Evts for Tot. Evts Eventsl7 Eventsl 

byShift A-Bl-4 fi oayWeek forWkEnd Day Week Month 

Mon.CO Evts SunEvtscO D=B+C E.....3(o)· 

7AM·4PM 2S 100 0 100 430 

4PM-11 PM 24 96 4 100 430 

Total Events N.A. 196

ApPENDIX C 

TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND 

LANE CONFIGURATIONS 

peR 

PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH 

'.

C-l. PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES 

The following data includes AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the traffic srudy 

intersections, broken down into left tum, right tum, and through bound traffic, including 

Existing and Year 2010 traffic. The Year 2010 traffic volumes consist of traffic volumes with 

and without project generated traffic. This data is summarized and incorporated into Section 

4.9, Transportation/Circulation of the Addendum to the EIR. 

"

C-2. LANE CONFIGURATIONS 

The following figures depicts the existing and post-mitigation traffic study intersections. 

This infonnation is summarized and incorporated into Section 4.9, Transportation/Circulation 

of the Addendum to the EIR.

MOnO!!. 

Moved by Agency Member , seconded by Agency Member 

____________, that the Stage I and II design proposal for a 128,716 square fool 

addition to the previously approved DreamWorks Campus Lakeside Building, expansion of the existing 

parking structure from 667 to 882 parking spaces and associated improvements including a secondary 

employee-only and fire access gale connected to Flower Street for the DreamWorks Campus and 

associated landscaping located al 1000 Flower Street, be and the same is hereby approved as outlined in 

the April 22, 2008 staff report from the Director of Development Services subject to comments and 

recommendations from the City's Principal Urban Designer as included in the slaff report, and subject 10 

any Agency comments and/or conditions. 

Vote as follows: 

Ayes: 

Noes: 

Absent: 

Abstain: 

J;\FILES\OOCF1LES\FACTFlND\DreamWorks Stages 1&11 Mm 2008.wpd 

1 C

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

ORDINANCE NO. _ 

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 

GLENDALE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A FIRST 

AMENDMENT TO THE STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND 

PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF 

GLENDALE TOGETHER WITH THE GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT 

AGENCY AND DREAMWORKS ANIMATION, LLC 

WHEREAS, on June 4, 1996, the City Council of the City of Glendale adopted an ordinance approving 

execution of a Statutory Development Agreement and Participation Agreement by and between the City of 

Glendale together with the Glendale Redevelopment Agency and DreamWorks Animation, LLC (the 

"Developer") for development of the DreamWorks Animation campus project (the "Project"); and 

WHEREAS, on June 4,1996, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Glendale adopted a resolution 

approving execution of a Statutory Development Agreement and Participation Agreement by and between the 

City of Glendale together with the Glendale Redevelopment Agency and DreamWorks Animation, LLC (the 

"Developer") for development of the Project (the "Development Agreement"); and 

WHEREAS, in connection therewith, on June 6,1996 the City's zoning administrator approved, with 

conditions, a standards and setback variance to allow construction within the Project of up to 495,000 square 

feet of building area (gross) within seven (7) buildings and a 1,000 space parking garage structure with a 

varying building height between 40 feet to a maximum of 65 feet with architectural features up to 115 feet high 

where a maximum of 35 feet is allowed; to allow up to 10 feet high fence/wall where not more than 18" in height 

above ground surface is allowed to be located along Flower Street at a zero setback where a minimum of 5 

feet and an average setback of 10 feet is required to any property line abutting a street in the M1 Restricted 

Industrial Zone; and 

WHEREAS, in connection therewith, on June 3,1996 the zoning administrator approved, with 

conditions, a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction within the Project of a privately operated 

transmission facility and to install up to five (5) satellite dishes each with a diameter of up to 18 feet in the M1 

Restricted Industrial Zone; and 

28 J:\FILESIDOCFlLES\ORD\Oreamworks DA First Amend Ord.\\-pd 

1 

1 D

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WHEREAS, in connection therewith. on June 6,1996, the Glendale Redevelopment Agency approved 

findings for a parking exception to permit 1,000 parking spaces at a ratio of 2 spaces per 1.000 square feet of 

floor area where the City code required 1,337 parking spaces for the Project; and 

WHEREAS, on June 6,1996, the City Council adopted a resolution releasing and quit claiming a 

portion of a right of way easement along a portion of Victory Truck Boulevard to Developer for incorporation 

into the Project; and 

WHEREAS, on June 6,1996, the Agency and the City certified a First Addendum to the Final Program 

Environmental Impact Report (-FEIR M 

) for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area Plan 

in connection with the development of the Project, and pursuant to the requirements of the California 

Environmental Quality Act rCEQA-); and 

WHEREAS, on April 22, 2008, the City and Agency certified the Second Addendum to the Final 

Program Environmental Impact Report (-FEIW) for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project 

Area Plan in connection with the on-going development of the Project under the Industrial Mixed-Use/Large 

Scale Project designation in the IND zoning district adopted in 2004 in the San Fernando Road Corridor 

Redevelopment Project Area, and which environmental analysis in the Second Addendum was completed and 

certified pursuant 10 the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CECA"); and 

WHEREAS, amendment to the Development Agreement is necessary to in order to apply the current 

INO zone standards for Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Projects to the continued development of the Project 

to replace the M1 Restricted Industrial standards that were applicable to the Project pursuant to the original 

Development Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, after due notice, on April 2, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on 

this mailer and pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et. seq., the Planning Commission has 

transmitted its findings and recommendations on the proposed First Amendment to the Development 

Agreement to the City Council; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Government Code, the City has duly noticed a public 

hearing on the proposed First Amendment to the Development Agreement: and 

J;\fIL.ES\[)()CFILES'()Rl)\J)reamworks DA First AlfICt1d Ood.wpd 

2

1 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the First Amendment to the Development 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

2 Agreement and the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission; and 

3 WHEREAS, the City has duly considered all terms and conditions of the First Amendment 10 the 

4 Development Agreement and believes that implementation of the First Amendment of the Development 

5 Agreement is consistent with the Cily's General Plan, as amended, and is in the besl interests of the City and 

6 the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of 

7 applicable slale and local law. 

8 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT OROAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, 

9 CALIFORNIA; 

Act. 

1. 

(a) 

(b) 

(e) 

The City Council hereby finds and determines as follows: 

All the recitals herein above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. 

The City has complied with the applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality 

The First Amendment to the Development Agreement is within the scope of the certified 

Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area 

Plan, and does not constitute any substantial change in the Project analyzed in the First Addendum to the 

FEIR, and does not result in any new significant environmental effects or in a substantial increase in the 

severity of previously identified significant effects identified in either the First Addendum to the FEIR or in the 

FEIR. 

Plan. 

(d) The First Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the City's General 

(e) The First Amendment to the Development Agreement fUlly complies with all currently 

applicable provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code. 

(f) The First Amendment to the Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the public 

health, safety and general welfare because it encourages the construction of a project which is desirable and 

beneficial to the public. 

(g) The First Amendment to the Development Agreement is compatible with the orderly 

development of property in the surrounding area. 

28 J:IFILES\DOCFlLESIORDlDreamworks DA First Amend Ord.wpd 

3


A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF 

GLENDALE AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF A FIRST AMENDMENT 

TO THE STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND 

PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF 

GLENDALE TOGETHER WITH THE GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT 

AGENCY AND DREAMWORKS ANIMATION, LLC 

WHEREAS, the Glendale Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is engaged in activities necessary to 

effectuate the Redevelopment Plan for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area 

rProject Area") by providing for the development of real property located within the boundaries of the 

Project Area; and 

WHEREAS, on June 4,1996, the Agency adopted a resolution approving execution of a Statutory 

Development Agreement and Participation Agreement by and between the City of Glendale together with 

the Glendale Redevelopment Agency and DreamWorks Animation, LLC (the "Developer") for 

development of the 13.3 acre OreamWorks Animation campus in the Project Area (the "Development 

Agreement"); and 

WHEREAS, on June 4,1996, the City Council of the City of Glendale adopted an ordinance 

approving execution of the Development Agreement for development of the DreamWorks Animation 

campus project (the "Project"); and 

WHEREAS, in connection therewith, on June 6, 1996 the City's zoning administrator approved, 

with conditions, a standards and setback variance to allow construction within the Project of up to 

495,000 square feet of building area (gross) within seven (7) buildings and a 1,000 space parking garage 

structure with a varying building height between 40 feet to a maximum of 65 feet with architectural 

features up to 115 feet high where a maximum of 35 feet is allowed; to allow up to 10 feet high fencelwall 

where not more than 18" in height above ground surface is allowed to be located along Flower Street at a 

zero setback where a minimum of 5 feet and an average setback of 10 feet is required to any property line 

abutting a street in the M1 Restricted Industrial Zone; and 

WHEREAS, in connection therewith, on June 3, 1996 the zoning administrator approved, with 

1 

1 E

EXHIBIT A 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION L.L.C. 

STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 

AND PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT 

This FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DREAMWORKS ANIMATION L.L.C. STATUTORY 

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (this 

"Amendment") is entered into as of , 2008 by and between the following 

parties: (I) CITY OF GLENDALE (the "City"), (2) GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 

(the "Agency"), and (3) DREAMWORKS ANIMAnON L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability 

company ("Participant"). 

RECITALS 

WHEREAS the City, the Agency and Participant entered into that certain Statutory 

Development Agreement and Participation Agreement (the "Agreement") effective as ofJune 

26, 1996 (the "Effective Date"). 

WHEREAS the Agreement provides that Participant will comply with, among other 

things, the City's MI Restricted Industrial Zone regulations in effect as of the Effective Date of 

the Agreement, except where specifically modified by City's approval of Conditional Use Pel111it 

Nos. 991-U and 9558 and Zone Variance No. 9557. 

WHEREAS on August 26, 1997, the City amended certain portions of the M I 

Restricted Industrial Zone, adding a new lndustrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Project designation 

that amended the height and other regulations governing development in the M I Zone, for a 

project that is classified as an Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Project. 

WHEREAS on September 16,2004, the City amended the Glendale Municipal Code (the 

"Code") to eliminate the M I Restricted Industrial Zone regulations and to substitute the IND 

Industrial Zone regulations, including an Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Project designation for 

a project meeting the requirements ofan Industrial Mixed-Usc/Large Scale Project, as defined in 

Notc (I) afTable 13.13 - B afSection 30.13.030 afthe Code. 

WHEREAS the City and Agency have detennined that Participant's Project that is the 

subject of the Agreement is an Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Project. 

WHEREAS the City, Agency and Participant desire that the Code provisions for 

Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Projects within the IND Zone apply to Participant under the 

Agreement so that Participant may develop its campus in accordance with the height limits 

applicable to an Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Project. 

WHEREAS the City, the Agency and Participant desire to amend the Agreement on the 

terms and subject to the conditions set forth below. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Agency, the City and Participant. and each of them, agree as follows: 

-1-

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment and it shall become 

effective as ofthe date it is attested by I.he City Clerk ofthe City ofGlendale. 

GLE DALE REDEVELOPMENT 

AGENCY ("Agency") 

By: 

Date: 

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORN1A 

("City") 

By: 

Date: _ 

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION, L.L.c., 

a Delaware limited liability company 

("Participant") 

By: 

Date: 

-3- 

APPROVED: 

Agency Special Counsel 

By: _ 

APPROVED AS TO FORM 

City Attorney 

By: -------- 

ATTEST 

City Clerk 

By: 

Date-:------------

development of the Project will provide many public benefits to the City through the imposition 

of the development standards and requirements under the provisions and conditions of this 

Agreement, including without limitation increased tax revenues (direct and indirect), installation 

of on-site and off-site improvements, and location of a desirable industry and jobs within the 

City. In exchange for these and other benefits to the City, Participant will receive assurance that 

the Project may be developed during the term of this Agreement sUbject to the temIS and 

conditions of this Agreement. 

c. [§ 103] Glendale General Plan 

The Land Use Element of the Glendale General Plan designates the Site for Restricted 

Industrial uses. The General Plan states that certain non-industrial uses are appropriately located 

within industrial zones, and that commercial use associated with industry is not only acceptable, 

but at times desirable. Further, the General Plan acknowledges that growth in industrial zones. 

creales employment opportunities and broadens the Ciry's tax base. The General Plan provides 

for development with adequate streets, freeway access, underground utilities and development 

standards, including off-street parking and landscaping requirements. The zoning and site 

developmem provided for in this Agreement are consistent with and help to implement the 

policies of the General Plan. Other than the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan, there 

are no other "specific plans" applicable to the Site as that phrase is used in Government Code 

§ 65867.5. 

D. [§ 104] The Redevelopment Plan 

This Agreemem is SUbject to the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan which was 

approved and adopted on December 15, 1992, by the City Councilor the City by Ordinance 

No. 5003, recorded in Official Records of Los Angeles County, California. The Redevelopment 

Plan is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as though fully set f0l1h herein. 

The Redevelopment Plan requires the Agency to provjde owners of real property in the 

Project Area with opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of the Project Area. 

This Agreement is consistent with the current provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. 

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 33457.1, any amendment to the Redevelopment Plan 

which changes the possible use of eminent domain at the Site, or changes the uses or 

development permitted on the Site, or which otherwise changes the restrictions or controls that 

apply to the Site shall require the prior written consent of Participant provided that Participant 

is nol in default under this Agreement and this Agreement has not been temIinated by this City 

in accordance with Section 510. Amendments to the Redevelopment Plan applying to other 

property in the Project Area which do not affect the Site and Participant's use thereof shall not 

require the consent of Participant or its successors; provided, however, City and Agency shall 

provide Participam wilh written nOlice as required by law. 

LWLA]\]JJ.x..I< 2

E. [§ 105] The Project Area 

The Project Area is located in the City of Glendale, California, and the exact boundaries 

of the Project Area are specifically described in the Redevelopment Plan. 

F. [§ 106] The Site 

The Site currently is controlled by Panicipant under the terms of a seven-year ground 

lease between FBTe Leasing Corp., a New York corporation (the "Fee Owner") and Participant 

dated as of May 17. 1996, and is that portion of the Project Area commonly known as 1000 

Flower Street, and comprised of and designated as: Assessor Parcel No. 5627-018-270, as 

illustrated on the "Site Map," attached herelo and incorporated herein as AuacluneOl lA, and 

legally described in the Legal Description, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 

lB. Participant has the right to purchase the Site from the Fee Owner at the end of the term of 

the ground lease. 

The Site may be expanded to include property contiguous to the Site, as described and 

provided for in Section 305 of this Agreement, when and if such contiguous property comes 

under the control of Participant. 

G. {§ 1071 Parties to the Agreement 

J. [§ 108] The City 

The City is a municipal corporation operating with an adopted City Charter 

pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution and with all powers and prerogatives 

granted thereby. 

2. [§ 109] The Agency 

The Agency is a public body, COflJorate and politic, exercising governmental 

functions and powers, and organized and existing under Chapter 2 of the Community 

RedevelopmcntLaw of the State of California (Health and Safety Code § 33000 el seq.). The 

principal office of the Agency is located at City Hall Complex, 633 East Broadway, Glendale, 

California 91206-4387. "Agency" as used in this Agreement includes the Glendale 

Redevelopment Agency and any assignee of, or successor to its rights, powers ami 

responsibilities. 

3. [§ 110J The Participant 

The principal address of the Participant for purposes of this Agreement is: 

DreamWorks Animation L.L.c., 100 Universal Plaza, Bungalow 479, Universal City, Califomia 

91608, Phone: (818) 777-4600. Fax: (818) 733-5252. "Participant" as used in this Agreement 

shall mean DrcamWorks Animation LL.C., a Delaware limited liability company. 

LWLM \ 37JXJ I' 3

Participant shall be responsible for the performance of each and every obligation, 

covenant, and agreement herein contained which is the responsibiliry of Participant. 

Participant and the persons controlling the Participant also reserve the right, at 

their discretion, to reform, reorganize, transfer, purchase, or repurchase shares or interests 

amongst themselves regarding the Site without notice to or consent of the Agency or the City. 

Whenever the term "Participant" is used herein, such term shall include any 

nominee or assignee designated by Participant. 

H. [§ I11J Limitation on Changes by City and AQency 

During the duration of this Agreement and so long as the development and use of the Site 

remains in accordance with the Scope of Development, attached hereto as Attacmnent No.2 and 

made a part hereof by reference, as of the date of this Agreement, the City and the Agency shall 

impose only those policies, rules, regulations and laws of the City and Agency, respectively, 

except as they may be specifically waived or modified by Agency's approval of a parking 

exception and City'S approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 991-U, Conditional Use Permit 

No. 9558 and Zone Variance No, 9557, (Attachment 3) which are in force as of the Effective 

Date of this Agreement (and any companion action by the Design Review Board reviewing the 

architectural design of the project), and shall not impose any additional requirements or 

restrictions on the use or development of the Site except as expressly authorized under this 

Agreement. 

1. Uses of the Site shall be those "permitted uses" as defined by City zoning 

for [he "M I" Restricted Industrial Zone in effect at the time of execution of this Agreement by 

the parties hereto, The City and Agency agree that the uses contemplated by the Scope of 

Development are permitte'd uses as defined by the City zoning for the "MI" Restricted Industrial 

Zone. The development standards, including development standards of the City Zoning Code 

which arc in effect and existing as of the Effective Date of thi,s Agreement, except as they may 

be specifically waived or modified by Agency's approval of a parking exception and City's 

approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 991-U, Conditional Usc Permit No, 9558 and Zone 

Variance No. 9557 (and any companion action by the Design Review Board reviewing the 

architectural design of the project), and which are incorporated herein by reference as though 

fully set forth herein, shall be the policies, rules, regulations, standards and guidelines to be 

applied by the City and the Agency, respectively, 10 development of the Site. Notwithstanding 

any provision to the contrary in this Agreement, local ordinances mandated by Slate or federal 

law shall also apply to the development. The M1 Restricted InJustrial Zone regulations in effect 

at the time of ex.ecution of this Agreement are attached as Attachment 3A. 

2, Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement to the contrary, 

development of the Project shall be subject to changes 'occurring from time to time in the 

Uniform Building Code and other uniform construction codes involving fire, life and safety 

which are generally applicable on a citywide basis. 

l WL"l \ l1J:KI." 4

3. The City and Agency may impose only those restrictions on future 

development of the Site as provided in this § 111. 

ARTICLE II. [§ 200] DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE 

A. [§ 201] Scope of Development 

Each phase of the Site shall be developed by Panicipant in accordance with and within 

the limitations established therefor in the Scope of Development and the Schedule of 

Perfonnance (Attachment No.4) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 

Participant agrees to use its best efforts, in accordance with irs own business judgement, taking 

into consideration financing and other economic considerations influencing its business decision, 

to implement the Scope of Development and pursue the construction of the necessary 

improvements in accordance with the overall conceptual design plans for the development of the 

entire Site. 

The foregoing notwithstanding, Participant represents that it presently intends to construci 

improvements on the site totalling 495,000 square feet of floor area, and reserves the right 10 

construct such improvements in phases. However, Participant agrees that it shall develop and 

construct a first phase ("First Phase") upon the Site containing at least 250,000 square feel of 

floor area. Construction of the First Phase improvements shall corrunence no laler than March 

1997, except as this date may be extended pursuant to Section 608 of this Agreement. 

Participant anticipates the completion of the First Phase of construction by approximately June 

1999. 

Notwithstanding any contrary provision or implication contained in this Agreement, In 

the Scope of Development or in the Schedule of Perfonnanee: 

J. Except with respect 10 the perfonnance of obligations hereunder where 

time is expressly made of the essence, this Agreement shall nO! be conslrued or enforced so as 

to create a forfeirure of rights of the party obligated 10 perform where perfonnance has been 

substantial and the rights of the other pany have not been materially prejudiced; and 

2. All references in this Agreement (including the Schedule of Perfonnance) 

to a number of days in which either party shall have lo consent, approve or perform shall mean 

calendar days unless specifically stated to be business days. 

B. [§ 202] City Project Mana[!er 

The City Manager and the Executive Director of the Agency shall appoinl a City or 

Agency Employee to serve as Project Manager ("City Project Manager") for the City's and 

Agency's review and approval of the Project. The City Project Manager shall be the single 

point of contact and reference at the City, and shall have the authority to coordinate and organize 

all City Departments 10 assist in expediting the required approvals and inspections for the 

Project. The City Manager shall have the authority to settle disputes between any City 

LWL...1 171:!!l.14 5

Department in the event of conflicting interprelation of the various codes and regulations, unless 

otherwise required by law. 

C. [§ 203] Segmentation of Construction Permits 

City agrees to issue separate construction permits for construction of each building or 

structure located within the Project site, including but not limited to demolition permits, grading 

permits, foundation only permits, steel frame permits, shell and core permits and tenant 

improvement permits. The foundation only permits may include all work up to and including 

the first floor slab of any building, so that any basement portion of a building may be 

constructed as part of the foundation only permit. Sufficient information shall be submitted to 

the City as reasonably requested by the City to enable the City to issue such permits. 

D. [§ 204] Design Review Approval 

Participant shall prepare and submit to the City, and the City shall review under the 

applicable design review process (the "Design Review Approval"), drawings and related 

documents containing the plan for development of the Site. The design review process shall 

review and provide comments, if any, on the architectural design of the project. The Site shall 

be developed as generally established in the Design Review Approval, except for such changes 

which may be mutually agreed upon between the Participant and the City and Agency. 

E. l§ 205] Construction Drawings and Relaled Documents 

As and at the times eSlablished in the Schedule of Performance, Participant shall prepare 

and submit to City for review construction drawings and related documents for the development 

of the Sile consistent with the Design Review Approval and the Scope of Development. 

Approval or disapproval shall be based solely upon those standards and guidelines of the City 

agreed to be applied to the Site in accordance with this Agreement. The construction drawings 

and related documents may be submitted in stages consistent with the Design Review Approval 

and the Scope of Development. Final drawings, plans and specifications are hereby defined as 

those in sufficient detail to obtain a building permit from the City. 

During the preparation of all drawings and plans, the Agency slaff, City staff and 

Participant shall be available for progress meetings as needed to coordinate the preparation and 

review of conslruction plans and related documents to be submitted to the Agency and City. The 

Agency staff, City Staff and Participant shall communicate and consult informally as frequently 

as is necessary to insure that the fonnal submittal of any documents to the City can receive 

prompt and speedy consideration. 

If any revisions or corrections of plans approved by the Agency or City shall be required 

by any other government official, agency, department or bureau having jurisdiction over the 

development of the Site, Participant, Agency and City shall cooperate in good faith to obtain 

waiver of such requirements or to develop a mutually acceptable alremative, or revise, the plans, 

as they deem appropriate. 

6

F. I§ 206] City Approval of Plans. Drawings and Related Documents 

As referred to in § 205 of this Agreement, City shall have the right of review of all 

plans, drawings and related documents for the development of the Site. City shall reasonably 

approve or disapprove such plans, drawings, and related documents referred to in this 

Agreemem (and any proposed changes therein) within the times established in the Schedule of 

Performance. Sufficient plan checkers shall be provided to check construction plans. If 

requested by Participant, the plans shall be checked on an expedited basis, at the standard plan 

check fee rates. An in-house lead plan checker, and additional plan checkers and outside 

consultams as needed, shall be assigned to this Project to give prompt attemion and make 

decisions to maimain the schedule and to provide consistency during design and final drawing 

submittals through construction. The Ciry Project Manager shall hold coordination meetings 

between the plan checkers and field inspectors, at the plan check stage, to minimize field 

inspection corrections due to design related code requirements. To eliminate conflicts or 

interpretations during construction, the approved plans shall be binding and not subject to 

interpretation during inspections unless required for fire or life safety reasons. City agrees that 

the Project shall be plan checked and inspected based on the codes and regulations that are in 

effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement. All reviews and approvals shall be processed 

by City within a reasonably expeditious time (not longer than ten (lO) working days following 

each submission by Participant), and Participam shall be charged only standard processing fees 

in effect at the time of plan submission for such review and approvals. Such approval shall not 

unreasonably be withheld or delayed. Any construction drawings and related plans and documents 

which are consistent with a logical evolution of previously approved basic concept 

drawings and related plans and documents, shall not be disapproved by City. Any items so 

submitted and approved in writing by City shall not be subject to subsequent disapproval. Any 

disapproval shall state in writing the reasons for disapproval. 

Participant upon receipt of a disapproval shall revise such pOJ1ions of the plans, drawings 

or related documents in a manner that satisfies the reasons for disapproval or suggesls alternate 

solutions to the reasons for disapproval, and shall resubmit suc.h revised portions to City as soon 

as possible after receipt of the notice of disapproval. City shall approve or disapprove such 

revised portions in the same manner and within the same times as provided in this § 206 for 

approval or disapproval of plans, drawings, and related documents initially submitted to CilY. 

Any inspection or approval of plans, specifications and drawings made or granted 

pursuant to this Agreement shall not constitute an inspection or approval of the quality, 

adequacy, or suitability of such plans, specifications or drawings, nor of the labor, materials, 

services, or equipment to be furnished or supplied in connection with actual construction. 

Agency or City do not have any right, and hereby expressly disclaim any right, of super 

VISion or control over the architects, designers, engineers, contractors or other persons 

responsible for the drafting or fonnulation of lhe plans, drawings, and related documents of 

Participant. 

7

City agrees to provide a sufficient number of qualified building inspectors to 

inspect the construction work on an as needed basis. Inspection shall be provided as necessary 

to maintain the construction schedule. 

G. [§ 207) Schedule of Performance 

Participant shall begin and complete or cause to be begun and completed all construction 

of the First Phase within the times specified in the Schedule of Perfonnance, or as such times 

may be extended pursuant to Section 608 of this Agreement. The Schedule of Perfonnance is 

also SUbject to revision from time to time as mutually agreed upon in writing by and between 

Participant, Agency and City. 

H. [§ 208J Indemnification During Construction; Bodily Injury and Property Damage 

Insurance 

During periods of construction on the Site pursuant to this Agreement, Participant agrees 

to, and shall, indemnify and hold the Agency and the City hannless from and against all 

liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses (including attorneys' fees and court costs) arising from 

or as a result of the death of any person or any accident, injury, loss and damage whatsoever 

caused to any person or to the property of any person which shall occur on or adjacent to the 

Site and which may be caused by the performance of Participant, its agents, servants, employees 

and contractors or anyone d.irectly or indirectly employed by Participant, and whether such 

damage shall accrue or be discovered before or after the tennination of this Agreement. Nothing 

in this Section shall be construed to mean· that Participant shall hold the City or the Agency 

hannless and/or defend either from any claims arising from, or alleged to arise from, the 

negl igent acts, or negligent failure to act, on the part of the City or the Agency. The City and 

Agency agree [0 fully cooperate with Participant in the defense of any matter in which 

Participant is defending and/or holding the City and/or the Agency harmless. 

Prior to the commencement of construction on the site, Participant shall furnish or shall 

cause lO be furnished, to the Agency and City, duplicate originals or appropriate certificates of 

bodily injury and property damage insurance policies in the amount of at least $1,000,000 

combined single limits, naming the Agency and the City as additional insureds. Such insurance 

shall be maintained and kept in force until the Agency and City has issued a Certificate of 

Completion (pursuant to § 220) for the First Phase. Additional certificates of insurance shall 

be provided in connection with subsequent phases of construction and shall be similarly released 

by the City. 

All policies or certificates issued by the respective insurers for insurance shall provide 

that such policies or certificates shall not be canceled or materially changed without at least 

thirty (3D) days' prior written notice to the City and the Agency. Copies of such policies or 

certificates shall be deposited with the City and the Agency together with appropriate evidence 

of payment of the premiums therefor; and, at least thirty (30) days prior 10 expiration dates of 

expiring policies or contracts held by said City and Agency, copies of renewal or new policies 

or contracts or certificates shall be deposited with said City and Agency. 

tWL")1)7lW.IO 8

damages arising out of any activity of any such representatives perfonned and conducted on the 

Site pursuant to this § 212. 

M. [§ 213] City and Agency Approvals 

1. [§ 214] Approval By City Ordinance 

Upon adoption of the ordinance approving this Agreement by the City Council, 

this Development Agreement shall be recorded as provided by Section 603. The ordinance shall 

be consistent with the fonn shown in Attachment No.5 hereto and shall find and declare that 

the use of the Site in compliance with this Agreement shall be deemed to comply with the 

General Plan of the City and all ordinances of the City. The rules, regulations, and official 

policies governing pennined uses of the Site, governing density, and governing design, 

improvement and construction standards and specifications, applicable to development of the 

Site, shall be those rules, regulations and official policies in force as of the Effective Date of 

this Agreemen[ pursuant [0 Government Code § 65866 (other than Unifonn Building Code and 

other unifonn construction codes and issues involving fire, life and safety which are generally 

applicable on a citywide basis). The rules, regulations and policies specified in Government 

Code § 65866 shall be deemed to be vested in Participant and its successors and assigns pursuant 

to Government Code § 65865.4. 

2. [§ 215] Aporoval by Agency Resolution 

This Agreement shall also be approved by a resolution of the Agency consistent 

with the fonn shown in Auachment NO.6 hereto which resolution shall find and declare that the 

use of the Site in compliance with this Agreement shall be deemed to comply with the 

Redevelopment Plan. The rules, regulations and policies specified in Government Code § 65866 

shall be deemed to be vested in Panicipant and its successors and assigns pursuant to Health & 

Safety Code § 33339.5 and § 333.80. 

N. I§ 216] Agency Waiver of Eminent Domain 

Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for Phase 1 pursuant 

to Section 220, the Agency shall adopt a resolution pursuant to Health and Safety Code 

§ 33399(g) consistent with the form of resolution attached hcreto as Attachment No.7, whieh 

shall exempt the Site, during the term of this Agreement, provided that the site is occupied and 

maintained, from the use of eminent domain by the Agency for any purpose. 

O. I§ 217] Reimbursement of Glendale Costs 

1. Participant shall reimburse to the Agency and the City certain costs and 

expenses ("Glendale Costs") incurred by the Agency and the City, subject to the payment 

provision of § 218. The Glendale Costs eligible for reimbursemem by Participant shall only 

include the following costS incurred after OCIober 24, 1995: 

tWU.J )7l:!tll' 10

6. In any year, if the combination of the Estimated Property Tax Increment 

Amount and the Lease Payment is less than the Total Amount, no Excess monies will be paid 

to Participant, and any deficit (the "Deficit") will be added to the next year's Total Amount 

(with simple interest at a six (6) percent rate), and no future year's Excess will be paid to 

Participant until all Deficits have been repaid; provided, however, that at any time Agency may 

demand repayment of the Deficits (plus accrued interest) up to the total cumulative Excess paid 

to the Participant (less any amounts previously repaid to Agency). 

7. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prohibit Participant from 

contesting the validity or amounts of any tax assessment, encumbrance or lien, or to limit the 

remedies available to Participant in respect thereto, including an appeal of the amount of the 

assessed fair cash value of the Site. 

8. In the event that Participant receives any refunds of Real Property Taxes, 

then promptly upon written request by Agency, Participant shall pay to Agency Agency's Share 

of such refunds, provided that Agency's Share of such refunds to the Los Angeles County Tax 

Assessor has been debited from Agency. 

Q. [§ 219] Utility Service, Rate and Infrastructure Agreements 

City shall use its best efforts to facilitate and enter into utility service, rate and 

infrastTUchlTe agreements with affected City Departments (including elecrricity, water and sewer) 

10 ensure sufficient capacity to service the Project at full buildout and to set rates faT the Project. 

The City and Participant shall negotiate in good faith to enter into such utility service, rate and 

infrastructure agreements. In connection with any agreement for water or use of water well 

easements on the Site, Participant agrees 10 make the water well easements available at no 

charge to the City for a period beginning at the termination of the Group's use of the water well 

easements and extending no longer than fifty (50) years from the Effective Date of this 

Agreement. As between the City and Participant, the City agrees that Participant shall have the 

right to use the water pumped from wells on-site for landscapil)g and/or the City agrees to make 

available to Participant an equivalent amount of reclaimed water subject 10 agreement between 

the parties as 10 the cost of bringing a reclaimed water line to the Site. 

R. [§ 220] Certificate of Completion 

Promptly after completion of construction and development of the improvements 10 be 

completed by Participant under the First Phase of development of the Site, as generally and 

specifically required by this Agreement and in particular the Scope of Development and the 

approved plans and specifications, the Agency shall furnish Participant with a Certificate of 

Completion upon written request therefor by Participant after issuance by the City of a Final Use 

and Occupancy Permit for the First Phase. The Agency shall not unreasonably withhold such 

Certificate of Completion. This section shall not prevent the issuance of a Temporary Use and 

Occupancy Permit for portions of any individual building, provided, however, that such 

occupancy does not pose a threat to life safety or the issuance of a Use and Occupancy Permit 

for an individual building while other buildings are under construction. 

LWLA] )11:!{j.1< 14

Such Certificate of Completion shall be, and shall so state, conclusive detennination of 

satisfactory completion of all of the construction required by this Agreement for the Site and of 

full compliance with the terms hereof with respect to such First Phase development. After the 

recordation of the Certificate of Completion, any parry then owning or thereafter purchasing, 

leasing or otherwise acquiring any imerest therein shall not (because of such ownership, 

purchase, lease, or acquisition) incur any obligation or liability under this Agreement with 

respect to the First Phase development. . 

In the event of Participant's election to develop additional phases of the Project and upon 

completion of construction of said future phases, the provisions of this § 220 shall apply. 

Any Certificate of Completion shall be in such form as to permit it to be recorded in the 

Recorder's Office of Los Angeles County. 

If the Agency refuses or fails to furnish a Certificate of Completion after written request 

from Participant, the Agency shall, within thirty (30) days of the wriuen request, provide 

Participant with a wrinen statement of the reasons the Agency refused or failed to furnish a 

Certificate of Completion. The statement shall also contain the Agency's opinion of the action 

Participant must take to obtain a Certificate of Completion. If the reason for such refusal is 

confined to the immediate unavailability of specific items or materials for landscaping. and/or 

other minor items as determined by the Agency, the Agency will issue its Certificate of 

Completion upon the posting of a bond by Participant with the Agency in an amount representing 

a fair value of the work not yet completed. If the Agency shall have failed to provide such 

written statement within said 30-day period, Participant shall be deemed entitled to the 

Certificate of Completion for the Site. 

ARTICLE III.[§ 300] USE OF THE SITE 

A. [§ 301] Uses 

Participant covenants and agrees (for itself, its successors, its assigns, and every 

successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof) that during construction and thereafter, 

Participam, such successor and such assigns shall devote the Sile (or any part thereof) to the uses 

specified therefor in the Redevelopment Plan (as amended), the uses specified therefor in § 111 

of this Agreement, the Scope of Development and the plans approved by the Agency and City 

under this Agreement. 

B. I§ 302] Maintenance of the Site 

Participant covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, assigns, and every successor 

in interest to the Site or any part thereof, that the Participant and such successors and assigns 

shall reasonably maintain the improvements on the Site and shall keep the Site free from any 

accumulation of debris, graffiti or waste materials, except subject to periods of construction to 

normal conslructionjob site conditions, and except subject to nonnal operations of the businesses 

that may be located al the Site. 

15

C. [§ 303] ObliQation 10 Refrain from Discrimination 

Pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 33435, Participanl covenants and agrees for itself. 

its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof, that 

there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person, or group of persons on 

account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the 

sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Site nor shall 

Participant, itself or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such 

practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, 

number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees of the Site. 

D. [§ 304] Fonn of Non-discrimination and Non-segregation Clauses 

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 33436, Participant and such successors shall refrain 

from restricting the sale, lease, sublease, rental, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment 

of the Site (or any part thereof) on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, 

national origin, or ancestry of any person. All deeds, leases, or contracts pertaining thereto 

shall cOnlain or be subject to substantially the following non-discrimination or non-segregation 

clauses: 

1. In deeds: "The grantee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and 

assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination 

against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, 

religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, 

use, occupancy, lenure or enjoyment of the land herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee itself or 

any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices of 

discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy 

of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees in the land herein conveyed. The 

foregoing covenants shall run with the land." 

2. In leases: "The lessee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and 

assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, and this lease is made and accepted 

upon and subject to the following conditions: That there shall be no discrimination against or 

segregation of any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, 

marital Matus, national origin, or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, renting, transferring, use, 

occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the land herein leased, nor shall lessee itSelf, or any person 

claiming under or through it, eSlablish or permit such practice or practices of discrimination or 

segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, or occupancy of tenants, lessees, 

sublessees, tenants, or vendees in the land herein leased." 

3. In contracts entered into by the Agency: "There shall be no discrimination 

against, or segregation of, any person, or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, 

religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, rental, 

transfer, use, occupancy, lenure or enjoyment of the land, nor shall the transferee itself or any 

person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices of 

LWL") )1J:'IlI< 16

discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy 

of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees of the land. n 

E. [§ 305] Transfer of Glendale Property 

As of or as soon after the Effective Date of this Agreement as is practicable, City or 

Agency shall transfer to Participant or its nominee fee title to the property consisting of an 

approximately one-half acre corner parcel adjacent to the southeast corner of the Site, including 

Assessor Parcel No. 5627-018-013 (llJe "Glendale Parcel") as more particularly described in 

Attachment No. Ie. City shall transfer, at no cost to Panicipam, fee title to the Glendale Parcel 

and to the adjacent portion of Victory Truck Boulevard resulting from the termination of the 

easement for Victory Truck Boulevard. Upon the transfer of the Glendale Parcel, the Glendale 

Parcel shall be included in the Site and shall be governed by the terms of this Agreement. The 

City and the Agency acknowledge that the developmeOl of the Site as contemplated under this 

Agreement, and Participan('s obligations under this Agreement, are dependent upon said 

property being acquired by Participant. In the event that no portion of the Project is constructed 

on the Glendale Parcel by the fifteenth armiversary of the Effective Date of this Agreement, title 

to the Glendale Parcel shall revert to the Agency. 

F. [§ 306J Quitclaim of Victory Truck Boulevard 

As of or before the Effective Date of this Agreement, CilY shall release that portion of 

the Victory Truck Boulevard righl-of-way easements as recorded with the Office of the Los 

Angeles County Recorder on October 6, 1933 in Book 12433, Page 58, Official Records, and 

on October 31, 1957, in Book 14195, Page 337, Official Records, but only as said easement 

deeds affect the Sile and shall affect no other panion of ViclOry Truck Boulevard. Said release 

shall not affect any other rights, titles or interests the City or any other entity holds in said 

described property including public utilities and fire accessways. The City and Agency 

acknowledge that the development of the Site as contemplated undt:r this Agreement, and 

Participant's obligations under this Agreement, are dependent upon said easements being 

quitclaimed. In the event thal no ponion of the Project is construcled on the Site by lhe fifteenth 

anniversary of the Effective Dale of this Agreement, Participant shall grant 10 City a right-ofway 

easement for ViclOry Truck Boulevard under the same terms and conditions as set forth in 

the above-referenced easements. 

G. [§ 307] Effect and Duralion of Covenants 

The covenants established in this Agreement shall, without regard to Lechnical 

classification and designation, be binding on Participant and any successor in interest to the Site 

or any part thereof for the benefit and in favor of City and/or Agency, its successors and 

assigns, and on the City and/or Agency. Except as otherwise limited herein or by law, the 

covenants contained in this Agreement shall remain in effect during the duration of this 

Agreement in accordance with § 604 of this Agreement, unless this Agreement provides for their 

earlier lennination. 

17

The covenants against discrimination (as described in § 303 and § 304) shall remain in 

perpetuity. The covenants set forth in § 301 and § 302 shall remain in effect for the duration 

of the Redevelopment Plan. 

ARTICLE IV. [§ 400J EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURES 

A. I§ 401] Exemption from Future A2ency Eminent Domain 

In accordance with § 216 of this Agreemer", the Agency shall adopt a resolution which 

waives the Agency's power of eminent domain that could involve taking all or part of the 

property interests in the Site during the term of this Agreement and after the issuance of a 

Certificate of Completion for the First Phase. Providing that the Site remains occupied and 

maintained, such resolution shall have the effect of preventing the Agency from considering or 

initiating any proceeding in eminem domain regarding the Site unless and until the City Council 

approves an amendment to the Redevelopmelll Plan which specifically re-establishes such 

eminent domain powers over the Site as provided under Health and Safety Code § 33399(g). 

ARTICLE V. [§ 500] ANNUAL REVIEW, DEFAULTS, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION 

A. [§ 501] Annual Review. 

1. During the Term of this Agreement, the City shall review annually 

Participant's compliance with this Agreement. Such periodic review shall be limited in scope 

to good faith compliance with the provisions of this Agreement as provided in the Development 

Agreement Act, and Participant shall have the burden of demonstrating such good faith 

compliance. 

2. Pre-Determination Procedure. Participanl's submission of evidence of 

compliance with this Agreement, in a form which the Director of Development Services lTlay 

reasonably establish, shall be made in wriling and transmitted to the Director of Development 

Services not later than thirty (30) days prior to the yearly anniversary of the Effective Date of 

this Agreement. 

3. Evidence for Annual Review. Agency shall deliver to Participant a copy 

of any staff report and any other documents to be used or relied upon in conducting the annual 

review concerning ParticipanI's performance hereunder prior to comrnem.:ement of any such 

annual review by the Director of Development Services, or if any such dOl:llmenI is subsequently 

created or received, within 48 hours of its creation or receipt by the Agency. ParticipanI shall 

be permitted a reasonable opportunity to respond (0 Agency's evaluation of its performance at 

each stage of the review process, either orally or in writing, at Participant's election. 

4. Director's Determination. On or before the yearly anniversary of the 

Effective Date of this Agreement, the Director of Development Services shall make a 

determinalion regarding whether or not Participant has complied in good faith with the 

provisions and conditions of this Agreement. This determination shall be made in writing with 

reasonable specificity, and a copy of the determination shall be provided to Participant in the 

1 WI.A) ]1):lO 14 18

manner prescribed in § 602. Copies of the determination shall also be available to members of 

the public. Unless the Director finds evidence of non-compliance with the Agreement by 

Participant, no further action by the Director, the Planning Commission or the City Council shall 

be required and the annual review process for such year shall end. 

5. Appeal By Participant. In the event the Director of Development Services 

makes a finding and determination of non-compliance, Participant shall be entitled to appeal that 

determination to the City Council. After a public hearing on the appeal, the City Council shall 

make wrinen findings and determinations, on the basis of subst.antial evidence, whether or not 

Participant has complied in gOQd faith with the provisions and conditions of this Agreement. 

B. l§ 502] Defaults - General 

1. Subject to the extensions of time set forth in § 608 of this Agreement, and 

subject to the expiration of the curative periods set forth in §§ 508 through 510, failure or delay 

by either party to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement constitutes a default 

under this Agreement. The party who so fails or delays must immediately, upon written notice 

in the manner prescribed in § 602, corrunence to cure, correct, or remedy such failure or delay 

and shall complete such cure, correction or remedy with reasonable diligence and during any 

period of curing shall not be in default. 

2. The injured parry shall give wrinen notice of default in the manner 

prescribed in § 602 to the party in default, specifying the default complained of by (he injured 

party. Delay in giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver of any default nor shall it change 

the time of default. Upon receipt of [he notice of default, the party in default shall promptly 

commence 10 cure the identified default(s) at the earliesl reasonable time after receipl of the 

notice of default and shall complete the cure of such default(s) not later than ninety (90) days 

after receipt of the nOlice of default, or such longer period as is reasonably necessary to remedy 

such defau1t(s), provided that lhe party shall continuously and diligently pursue such remedy ,It 

all limes until such default(s) is cured. 

3. Any failures or delay by either party in asserting any of its rights and 

remedies as 10 any default shall noL operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or 

remedies. Delays by either party in asserting any of iLS rights and remedies shall nOI deprive 

either pany of its righL La institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem 

necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. 

C. l§ 503] Legal Actions 

1. [§ 504] Institution of Le[!al AClions 

Except as rights or remedies are limited by the provisions of this Article V, in 

addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to cure, correct, 

or remedy any default to recover damages for any default, or to obtain any other remedy 

consistent with the purpose of this Agreement including actions for specific performance, to 

quiel title and injunctive relief. Such legal actions must be inst.ituted in the Superior Coun of 

LWL"J )71.'0.1' 19

the County of Los Angeles, State of California, in any other appropriate court in that County, 

or in the Federal District Court in the Central District of California. 

2. [§ 505J Applicable Law 

The laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement 

of this Agreement. 

3. [§ 506] Acceptance of Service of Process 

In the event that any legal action is corrunenced by Participant against the Agency. 

service of process on the Agency shall be made by personal service upon the Executive Director 

or Chairman of the Agency, or in such other manner as may be provided by law. 

In the event that any legal action is commenced by the Agency against the 

Participant, service of process on Participant shall be made by personal service upon Participant 

or in such manner as may be provided by law, and shall be valid whether made within or 

without the State of California. 

D. [§ 507] Rights and Remedies are Cumulative 

Unless the rights or remedies are limited by the provisions of this Agreement, the rights 

and remedies of the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party of one or more of 

such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of 

any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. 

E. [§ 508] Damages 

If either party defaults with regard to any of the provisions of this Agreement, the nondefaulting 

party shall serve written notice of such default in the manner prescribed in § 602 upon 

the defaulting party. In the event that any party to this Agreement defaults under the material 

provisions of this Agreement, the party nOl in default shall have all rights and remedies provided 

herein or by applicable law, which shall include, but not be limited to, compelling the specific 

performance of the party's obligation under this Agreement as provided in § 509. 

F. [§ 509) Specific Performance 

If either party default'; under any of the provisions of this Agreement, the non-defaulting 

parry shall serve written notice of such default in the manner prescribed in § 602 upon such 

defaulting party. If the default is not commenced to be cured within ninety (90) days after 

service of the notice of default and is not cured promptly within a reasonable time after the 

commencement, the non-defaulting parry, at its option, may institute an action for specific 

performance of the tenns of this Agreement. 

I.Wl.") \ l1)10.1' 20

G. [§ 510] Remedies and Rights of Tennination 

In addition to any other remedies the Agency and/or City may have, the Agency and/or 

City. at their option may tenninate this Agreement upon wrinen notice to the Participant if: 

1. Participant fails to timely perfonn any of its material obligations as 

provided in this Agreement and such failure is not cured within ninety (90) days after the date 

of written demand therefor by the Agency. Provided, however, if Participant is diligently 

attempting to cure such failure and continues to do so until the cure is completed. then the ninety 

(90) day curative period shall be extended for such reasonable time as may be required to 

perfonn such cure. 

ARTICLE VI. [§ 600] GENERAL PROVISIONS 

A. [§ 601] Effective Date 

This Agreement shall be effective upon the date on which this Agreement is auested by 

the City Clerk of the City of Glendale after execution by Participant. the Agency and the Mayor 

of the City (the "Effective Date"). As provided in Section 65868.5 of the Development 

Agreement Act, and as provided in § 603, a copy of this Agreement shall be recorded with the 

Los Angeles County Recorder. 

B. [§ 602] Notices, Demands, Communications Between the Parties 

Formal notices, demands, and communications between the Agency and Participant shall 

be sufficiently given if sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid. return receipt 

requested, to the principal offices of the Agency and Participant, as designated in § 106 and 

§ 107 hereof. with a copy to Participam's counsel: George J. Mihlsten, Latham & Watkins, 633 

West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, California 9U071, Phone: (213) 485-1234, Fax: 

(213) 891-8763. Such writlen notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same 

manner to such other addresses as either party may from lime to time designate by mail as 

provided in this § 602. Any such notice. demand or communication shall be deemed to have 

been received upon delivery. if given by personal delivery. 

C. [§ 603] Agreemenl Recordable 

This Agreement shall be recordable with the Los Angeles County Recorder pursuant to 

Government Code § 65868.5. 

D. I§ 604] Duration of Agreement 

This Agreement shall have a duration and remain in effect fifteen (5) years from the 

Effective Date of this Agreement. The duration of this Agreement may be extended, modified, 

or terminated by mutual written agreement of the panies hereto or their assigns. 

l WLI\)', 3n:!O.I' 21

commence and diligently process all required steps necessary for the implementation of this 

Agreemem and development of the Site in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 

Panicipam shall, in a timely manner, provide the City and Agency with all documents, plans, 

fees, and other information necessary for the City to carry out its processing obligations. The 

City and Agency shall perform all ministerial acts and issue all pemits necessary to effectuate 

this Agreement. Processing of all permits and approvals required to be obtained from the City 

and {he Agency shall be done on an expedited basis. No additional fees or costs, over and above 

the standard fees and costs in effect at the time of submittal for such permits and approvals, shall 

be charged to Participant for such expedited processing. 

2. Other Governmental Permits. Panicipant may apply in a timely roaMer 

for such other permits and approvals as may be required from other governmental or quasigovernmental 

agencies having jurisdiction over the Project as may be required for the 

development of, or provision of services to, the Project. The City and Agency shall cooperate 

with Participant in its endeavors to obtain such pennits and approvals and shall, from time to 

rime at the request of Participant, attempt with due diligence and in good faith to cooperate to 

ensure the availability of such pennits and approvals, or services, provided such agreements are 

reasonable and not detrimental to the City or Agency. 

3. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge. In the event of any legal 

action instituted by another party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity 

of any provision of this Agreement, the parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in 

defending said action; provided that each party shall bear its own costs. 

J. [§ 610] Amendments 

This Agreemem may be amended from rime to time by mutual consent in writing of the 

parties to this Agreement in accordance with Section 65868 of the Development Agreement Act. 

Participant shall reimburse the City for its actual eosls, reasonably and necessarily incurred, 

including the COSI of any public hearings, LO review any amendments requested by Participant. 

K. [§ 611] Assignment 

J. The Site, or portions of the Site in the event of subdivision, as well as the 

rights and obligations of Participant under this Agreement, may be transferred or assigned in 

whole or in part by Pal1.icipant in accordance with the tenns of this Section 611. The consent 

of the City and Agency to an assignment of the rights under this Agreement shall not be 

unreasonably withheld or delayed in accordance with [he following agreed standards which 

provide that the assignee or transferee is a significant, high quality user of the space (taking into 

consideration the character, experience and financial viability of the assigm:e) and that there will 

be an adequate supply of parking to serve the use. The issue of whether, under the agreed 

standards, the Agency is unreasonably withholding its consent to the assignment shall be 

submitted to arbitration. Upon assignment or transfer of the rights under this Agreement, the 

obligations of Participant and the assignee or transferee shall be joint and several; provided, 

however, that upon Agency's approval of the assignee, then the:; assignor shall be relieved of 

liability with respect to and obligations with respect to the Site of portions thereof transferred 

I WI.....l' )lHO.I< 23

to the assignee. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the Fee Owner's rights to sell, transfer 

or otherwise dispose of its interest in the Site. 

2. In the event Participant's rights under this Agreement are transferred to 

another entity, and such entity assumes in writing the obligations of Participant under this 

Section 218, then Panicipant shall be released from such Obligations. Unless such entity 

assumes the Obligations under Section 218, Participant will retain the Obligations, unless 

Participant agrees to repay the principal balance of the Glendale Costs remaining to be repaid. 

3. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, the Site, or 

portions of the Site in the event of subdivision, as well as the rights and obligations of 

Participant under this Agreement, may be transferred or assigned by Participant to a financing 

entity or entities or to a Wholly-owned subsidiary or other affiliate controlled by Participant or 

the persons controlling Participant without the consent of the City and Agency or the City, 

providing that the name "DreamWorks" be identified as the user of the Site, the assignee be 

properly capitalized and financed, that the intended use of the Site remains the same and thai 

Participant itself remains fully responsible to the Agency for the obligations of Participant under 

this Agreement. 

4. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, Participant and 

Fee Owner reserve the right, at their discretion, to join and associate with other persons or 

entities in joint ventures, partnerships, or otherwise to develop the Site, or portions thereof, or 

10 convey the Site, or portions thereof, or assign the rights to the Site, or portions thereof, or 

under this Agreement to a financing entity or to an entity owned or controlled by Participant or 

the persons controlling Participant. 

L. [§ 612] Inducement Agreemem 

DreamWorks L.L.c. shall assume the financial obligations of Participant under Section 

218 of this Agreement in the evem Participant fails to meet or otherwise satisfy these 

obligalions. Such Inducement Agreement shall be in the fonn attached to this Agreement as 

Attachment No. 10. 

ARTICLE VII. [§ 7(0) ENTIRE AGREEMENT, WAlVERS AND AMENDMENTS 

This Agreement shall be executed in five duplicate originals each of which is deemed to 

be an original. This Agreement includes twenty·five (25) pages and thirteen (13) attachments 

which constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the parties. 

This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental 

hereto, and supersedes all negmialions or previous agreements between the parties with respect 

to all or any pan of the Sile, including, without limitation, the Preliminary Agreement. 

All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the 

appropriate authorities of City, Agency and Participant and all amendments hereto must he in 

l.....l ...l }7}:'!l.14 24

ATTACHMENT lA 

SITE MAP 

1

ATTACHMENT IB 

SITE LEGAL DESCRlPTION 

ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 7, BLOCK 81, SUBDIVISION OF RANCHO PROVlDENCIA 

AND SCOTT TRACT, SHOWN ON MAP OF SAID TRACT, IN THE CITY OF 

GLENDALE, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED IN 

THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, IN BOOK 43 PAGES 

47 ET SEQ., OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTH 

LINE OF THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC STREET PURPOSES CONVEYED 

BY DEED RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID 

COUNTY, IN BOOK 14195 PAGE 337, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND THE 

SOUTHWESTERLY 30 FEET OF FLOWER STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT MAP 

BETWEEN THE LIMITS OF THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE 

NORTHWESTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LINES, RESPECTIVELY OF SAID LOT 7. 

EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE DWP ALL 

WATER AND WATER RlGHTS APPURTENANT WHETHER SURFACE OR SUBSURFACE 

AND ALSO RESERVING ALL OIL, GAS, AND PETROLEUM OR OTHER MJNERAL OR 

HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE 

SURFACE OF SAID LAND, WITHOUT THE RlGHT TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE 

OF SAID LAND FOR SUCH USE, WHICH RESERVATIONS REPLACE AND SUPERSEDE 

THE RESERVATIONS RESERVED BY THE BOARD OF WATER AND POWER 

COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST TO 

THE DWP) CONTAINED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED AUGUST 16, 

1930 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 86! IN BOOK 10269, PAGE 36, OFFICIAL RECORDS. 

IC-!

ATTACHMENT lC 

GLENDALE PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION 

1B-1

I. ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN 

ATTACHMENT 2 

SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT 

The Site shall be designed and developed as an integrated complex as indicated on the 

preliminary site plan attached as Attaclunent lAo The improvements to be constructed on the 

Site shall be of architectural quality, shall be landscaped, and shall be effectively and 

aesthetically designed. The shape, scale of volume, exterior design. and exterior finish of each 

building, slruclUre and any other improvement must be consonant with, visually related 10, 

physically related to, and an enhancement to each other. The Participant's plans, drawings and 

proposals submitted 10 the Agency for approval shall describe in reasonable detail the 

architectural character intended for the improvements. 

The open spaces between buildings where they exist shall be designed, landscaped and 

developed consistent with the quality to which the Project is developed and maimained. The 

Project shall be in conformity with Article IV (Land Uses and Development Requirements) of 

the Redevelopment Plan for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project. 

The City and Agency agree that the Basic Concept drawings described in § 204 conform 

to these architecture and design criteria. 

II. PARTICIPANT'S RESPONSIBILITIES 

A. Participant's Improvements 

Panicipanl shall develop the Site with a complex for tbe production of animated media 

and entertainment production uses and office, administration and accessory uses. 'me Project 

will be developed in two or more phases. 

1. Facilities 

The facilities will be developed in two or more phases. The Participant shall have 

the sole discretion, in accordance with its business judgement, to dctennine the facilities and 

uses to be developed in each phase. The First Phase shall contain no less than 250,000 square 

feet of noor area. The remaining development will consist of no more than 245,000 square feet 

of noor area, for a maximum development of 495,000 square feel. Development occurring 

beyond the First Phase development may be constructed in phases. 

The buildings will have a 65-foot overall height limit above the existing average 

grade of the Site, with up to twelve (12) architectural features, each with a maximum footprint 

of 1,500 square feet, with six (6) pennined to a height of 85 feet and one (1) permitted to a 

height of 115 feet. 

?_1

adjacent to the Los Angeles River. Following the grant of such pedestrian easement to City 

and/or Agency, City and/or Agency shall improve and maintain the pedestrian easement in good 

condition and repair, consistent with the quality to which the Project is developed and 

maintained. Participant shall not be responsible for any COSts relating to physical improvements 

or maintenance costs with respect to the pedestrian easement. 

B. Sewer Encroachment Pennit 

Upon request by Participant, City shall gran! Participant a permanent encroachment permit 

or other permit necessary to build above the sewer line or lines, provided that Participant 

encases the below-building portion of the line to protect it structurally. 

C. Utilities 

The City shall consult with Participant prior to rerouting any utilities through, around or 

adjacent to the Site. 

D. Transfer of Glendale Property and Adjacent Victory Truck Boulevard 

As of or before the Effective Date of this Agreement, City and Agency shall transfer to 

Participant or its assignee fee title to the Glendale Parcel, consisting of an approximately onehalf 

acre comer parcel adjacent to the southeast comer of the Site, including Assessor Parcel 

No. 5627-018-013, and shall use best efforts to expeditiously complete such transfer. City shall 

transfer, at no cost 10 Participant, fee title to the Glendale Parcel and the adjacent portion of 

Victory Truck Boulevard resulting from the termination of the easement for Victory Truck 

Boulevard. The City and the Agency acknowledge that the development of the Site as 

contemplated under this Agreement is dependent upon said property being acquired by 

Participant. 

E. Child Care Facility 

City and Agency shall use their best efforts to work with Participant in finding a suitable 

child care facility, including the possible use of Agency or City property ,where available at the 

sale discretion of City and/or Agency. 

2-1

ATTACHMENT 3 

AGENCY AND CITY APPROYALS 

,-,

CITYOF Glendale CALIFORNIA 

Planmng DiVIsIOn 

633 E. Broadway, Room 103. Glendale, CA 91206·4386 

June 6, 1996 

DreamWorks Animation, L.L.C. 

Attention: Mr. Rob Vogel 

100 Universal Plaza 

Bungalow 479 

Universal City, CA 91608 

Gentlemen: 

Re; Case No. 9557-5 

1000 Flower Street 

(818)548-2140 (818)548-2144 

(818) 548-21 15 FAX (818)240-0392 

On June 3. 1996, the Zoning Administrator conducted and 

closed a public hearing, pursuant to the provisions of the 

Glendale Municipal Code, Title 3D, Article IV, on your 

application for a Standards and Setback Variance requesting 

to allow construction within a proposed animation campus a 

project consisting of up to 495,000 square feet of building 

area (gross) within seven (7) buildings and a 1.000 space 

parking garage structure with varying building height 

between 40 feet to a maximum of 65 feet with architectural 

features of up to 115 feet high where a maximum building 

height of 35 feet is allowed; to allow up to 10 feet high 

fence/wall where not more than 18 H in height above ground 

surface is allowed to be located along Flower Street at 0'0" 

setback where a minimum of 5 feet and an average setback of 

10 feet is required to any property line abutting a street 

in the "M1" Restricted Industrial Zone being All that 

Portion of lot 7, Block 81, of the Subdivision of Rancho 

Providencia and Scott Tract, and a portion of Victory Truck 

Boulevard located at 1000 Flower Street. 

After considering the evidence presented with respect to 

this application, the zoning Administrator has GRANTED 

WITH CONDITIONS your request based on the following 

findings: 

I. The strict application of the provisions of the 

ordinance would result in practical difficulties or 

unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general 

purposes and intent of the ordinance. The Code intends 

to promote reasonable development of property and to 

deny the request would unduly restrict the flexibility 

for such development. The applicant would be unable to 

achieve an architectural design maximizing landscape 

and open areas in proportion to built space if Code 

limits are strictly observed. The Code does not amply

Case No. 9557-$ 


anticipate the unique needs of a research (animation) campus 

environment which is essential to the creative dynamics which the 

project is attempting to achieve, therefore ample "practical 

difficulty" is present with respect to the application to justify 

a variance. 

II. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to 

the property involved or to the intended use or development of the 

property that do not apply generally to other property in the same 

zone or neighborhood. The 13+ acre and triangle-shaped site is 

located adjacent to the Los Angeles River. It is bounded on two 

sides by Flower Street and Victory Truck Boulevard with varying 

topography and is across the street from commercial/industrial 

buildings within the Redevelopment Project Area. The site can be 

accessed via the Ventura (134) Freeway then through San Fernando 

Road. The size and location situations of this property afford 

unique opportunities for the proposed campus-style development 

project while maximizing open space areas on the property. More 

often than not, neighbors support this kind of development because 

they find this type of facility exceptional and an asset for the 

community. The project's location, adjacent to the freeway and 

the Los Angeles River provides a positive feature function for 

this neighborhoQd in the Redevelopment Project Area. 

Additionally, the isolation of the site (spatially) is unique in a 

way that contributes to justifying the highest variance sought . 

• 

III. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental 

to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements 

in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located. 

Existing industrial and office building facilities are existing in 

the area and have provided good service to neighborhoods and the 

community. The proposed development will provide office services 

and facilities useful to the community and in accord with General 

Plan objectives as well as specific plan for the Redevelopment 

Project Area and the City's strategic direction. It is noted that 

the maximum height proposed for the office building is at 65 feet 

and it is only the architecture (non-usable) features on top of 

the building (usable) that will go as high as 115 feet as shown on 

elevations of the buildings. The variances will not conflict with 

adjacent offices or neighbors or adversely affect them because of 

the substantial separation of the higher elements of the project 

from adjacent property. 

IV. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the 

objectives of the ordinance. The variance is the minimum 

necessary to afford the highest and efficient use of the property 

for the function the applicant wishes to have. Height and setback 

criteria are intended to promote compatibility among neighboring 

uses. The minimal impact of the project will be consistent with 

the goals of the ordinance. This variance will allow for best use 

of the property while providing a use that will be consistent with 

the Redevelopment Project Area and of service to the community. 

2

Case No. 9557-5 


APPROVAL of this Standards and Setback variance shall be subject to 

the following conditions: 

1. That the development shall be in substantial accord with the plans 

submitted with the application and presented at the hearing except 

for any modifications as may be required to meet specific Code 

standards or other conditions stipulated herein. 

2. That all necessary permits shall be obtained from the Permit 

Services Center and all construction shall be in compliance with 

the Glendale Building Code and all other applicable regulations. 

3. That Design Review Board approval shall be obtained prior to the 

issuance of a building permit for all structures. 

4. That all music or other sound produced on the premises shall not 

be audible off-site so as not to disturb persons in other 

occupancies/businesses or on the public right-of-way. 

5. That noise be contained to the site, such that persons of normal 

sensitivity off-site are not disturbed. The Zoning 

Administrator's opinion shall prevail to arbitrate any conflicts. 

6. That if any buildings, sidewalks, curb or gutter, fencing or 

landscape areas, etc., adjacent to the site are damaged during the 

course of construction on public or private property, the damage 

shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator 

for private property and the Director of Public Works for public 

property. 

7. That any proposed exterior lighting shall be directed onto the 

driveways, walkways, plazas and parking areas within the 

development and away from adjacent properties and the public 

right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. 

8. That parking and plaza areas shall be kept in good condition at 

all times, free of weeds and trash, with the landscaping areas 

maintained with live plants and an irrigation system. 

9. That landscaping areas shall be maintained in good condition with 

live plants and free of weeds and trash. 

10. That the planting of street trees as required, size, species, and 

spacing are to be determined by the Urban Forester/City's Public 

Works l1aintenance Services Section, shall be provided. A tree 

planting permit and street tree removal permit shall be obtained 

prior to planting or removing of trees from this section. 

11. That the premises be maintained in a clean and orderly condition, 

free of weeds, trash, and graffiti. 

3

Case No. 9557-$ 


12. That adequate means be provided for the collection of solid waste 

generated at the site and that all recyclable items be collected 

and properly disposed of to the satisfaction of the Integrated 

Waste Management Administrator of the City of Glendale. 

13. That all pertinent mitigation measures listed in the DreamWorks 

Animation Campus Addendum to the Program EIR for the Redevelopment 

Plan for the San Fernando Road Corridor shall be met. 

14. That parking as required and provided herein shall be for the 

exclusive use of occupants/guests for the buildings on campus 

only. Any other uses of parking spaces will require prior 

approval of the Zoning Administrator. 

15. That a grading permit shall be obtained and site grading done to 

the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 

16. That minimum vertical clearance for accessibility and location of 

path to accessible parking spaces, ramps and entrance 

accessibilities as required by the accessibility requirements of 

the California Building Standards Code and Permit Services Section 

shall be met. 

17. That uniformed security guard service shall be provided 24 hours 

per day on site during construction to the satisfaction of the 

Chief of Police. 

18. That on-site construction work with the exception of interior 

tenant improvements or other interior work after the building 

shell is completed shall commence at 7:00 a.m. and end at 7:00 

p.m. during summer months and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. after summer. 

Any deviations from this schedule shall be approved by the 

Director of Public Works. 

19. That construction workers shall be required to park inside the 

construction site and not on the streets. 

20. That loading and unloading of materials and deliveries during and 

after construction shall occur on-site and scheduling must be 

coordinated to avoid stacking of any trucks on the streets. 

21. That no storage of goods, materials, equipment, etc., shall be 

done on the public right-of-way without proper permits and 

approval from the Director of Public Works. 

22. That the five (S) transmission facility equipment shall be located 

a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line. They shall be 

constructed of open mesh material unless otherwise required by the 

data transmission requirements and as approved by the Zoning 

Administrator. Antennas and supporting structures shall be a 

neutral color which blends with the surrounding colors as approved 

by the Zoning Administrator. 

4

I 

CITYOF Glendale CALIFORNIA 

Planning Division 

633 E. Broadway, Room 103. Glenaale, CA 91206·4386 

June 6, 1996 

DreamWorks Animation, L.L.C. 

Attention: Mr. Rob Vogel 

100 Universal Plaza 

Bungalow 479 

Universal City, CA 91608 

Gentlemen: 

Re: Case No. 9558-CU 


(818) 546·2140 (818) 548·2144 

(818) 548·21 1S FAX (618l240.0392 

On June 3, 1996, the Zoning Administrator conducted and 

closed a public hearing, pursuant to the provisions of 

Glendale Municipal Code, Title 30, Article VI, on your 

application for a Conditional Use Permit requesting to allow 

construction within an animation campus of a privately 

operated transmission facility and to install up to five (S) 

satellite dishes each with a maximum diameter of up to 18 

feet in the "MIN Restricted Industrial Zone being all that 

portion of Lot 7, Block 81, of the Subdivision of Rancho 

Providencia and Scott Tract, and a portion of Victory Truck 

Boulevard located at 1000 Flower Street. 

After considering the evidence presented with respect to 

this application, the Zoning Administrator has GRANTED 

WITH CONDITIONS your request based on the following 

findings: 

a. The proposed use is consistent with the various 

elements of the General Plan and specific plan for the 

area. The use of the property as an animation campus 

with office structures and parking garage are 

consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and in 

keeping with the various elements and objectives of the 

General Plan. A transmission facility is an allowed 

use subject to a conditional use permit approval. 

b. The use and its associated structures and facilities 

will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, 

the general welfare, or the environment. The proposed 

development meets the intent of the zoning ordinance 

and will not be detrimental to the public health or 

safety. This facility will be beneficial and desirable 

for the public and the community. Similar uses and 

facilities in other areas of the City and within the 

vicinity have not proven to be detrimental to the 

general wel=are of the neighborhood or the environment.

Case No. 9558 CU 


The EIR and addendum indicate the project will not unduly impact 

the area in ways that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. 

c. The proposed use and facility will not adversely affect or 

conflict with the adjacent uses or impede the normal development 

of surrounding property. The facility and equipment are well 

situated and no substantial evidence was submitted to indicate 

that the use and facility adversely impacts existing facilities, 

property values or normal development within the surrounding area. 

d. Adequate public and private facilities, such as utilities, 

landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation measures are 

or will be provided for the proposed use. Utilities, landscaping, 

parking spaces and good traffic circulation will be provided for 

the use. The facility and equipment is well planned and properly 

accommodated and located on the site. 

APPROVAL of this Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to the 

following conditions: 

1. That the development shall be in substantial accord with the plans 

submitted with the application and presented at the hearing except 

for any modifications as may be required to meet specific Code 

standards or other conditions stipulated herein. 

2. That all necessary permits shall be obtained from the Permit 

services Center and all construction shall be in compliance with 

the Glendale Building Code and all other applicable regulations. 

3. That Design Review Board approval shall be obtained prior to the 

issuance of a building permit for all structures. 

4. That all music or other sound produced on the premises shall not 

be audible off-site so as not to disturb persons in other 

occupancies/businesses or on the public right-of-way. 

5. That noise be contained to the site, such that persons of normal 

sensitivity off-site are not disturbed. The Zoning 

Administrator's opinion shall prevail to arbitrate any conflicts. 

6. That if any buildings, sidewalks, curb or gutter, fencing or 

landscape areas, etc., adjacent to the site are damaged during the 

course of construction on public or private property, the damage 

shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator 

for private property and the Director of Public Works for public 

property. 

7. That any proposed exterior lighting shall be directed onto the 

driveways, walkways, plazas and parking areas within the 

development and away from adjacent properties and the public 

right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. 

2



8. That parking and plaza areas shall be kept in good condition at 

all times, free of weeds and trash, with the landscaping areas 

maintained with live plants and an irrigation system. 

9. That landscaping areas shall be maintained in good condition with 

live plants and free of weeds and trash. 

10. That the planting of street trees as required, size, species, and 

spacing are to be determined by the Urban Forester/City's Public 

Works Maintenance Services Section, shall be provided. A tree 

planting permit and street tree removal permit shall be obtained 

prior to planting or removing of trees from this section. 

11. That the premises be maintained in a clean and orderly condition, 

free of weeds, trash, and graffiti. 

12. That adequate means be provided for the collection of solid waste 

generated at the site and that all recyclable items be collected 

and properly disposed of to the satisfaction of the Integrated 

Waste Management Administrator of the City of Glendale. 

13. That all pertinent mitigation measures listed in the DreamWorks 

Animation Campus Addendum to the Program EIR for the Redevelopment 

Plan for the San Fernando Road Corridor shall be met. 

14. That parking as required and provided herein shall be for the 

exclusive use of occupants/guests for the buildings on campus 

only. Any other uses of parking spaces will require prior 

approval of the Zoning Administrator. 

15. That a grading permit shall be obtained and site grading done to 

the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 

16. That minimum vertical clearance for accessibility and location of 

path to accessible parking spaces, ramps and entrance 

accessibilities as required by the accessibility requirements of 

the California Building Standards Code and Permit Services Section 

shall be met. 

17. That uniformed security guard service shall be provided 24 hours 

per day on site during construction to the satisfaction of the 

Chief of Police. 

18. That on-site construction work with the exception of interior 

tenant improvements or other interior work after the building 

shell is completed shall commence at 7:00 a.m. and end at 7:00 

p.m. during summer months and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. after summer. 

Any deviations from this schedule shall be approved by the 

Director of Public Works. 

19. That construction workers shall be required to park inside the 

construction site and not on the screecs. 

3



20. That loading and unloading of materials and deliveries during and 

after construction shall occur on-site and scheduling must be 

coordinated to avoid stacking of any trucks on the streets. 

21. That no storage of goods, materials, equipment, etc., shall be 

done on the public right-of-way without proper permits and 

approval from the Director of Public Works. 

22. That the five (5) transmission facility equipment shall be located 

a minimum of ten (10) feet from any property line. They shall be 

constructed of open mesh material unless otherwise required by the 

data transmission requirements and as approved by the Zoning 

Administrator. Antennas and supporting structures shall be a 

neutral color which blends with the surrounding colors as approved 

by the Zoning Administrator. 

23. That transmission facility equipment shall be screened by 

landscaping or structures to minimize visual impact/intrusion 

while maintaining practical operation of the facilities. 

24. That all existing unused driveway aprons shall be closed by the 

applicant and an alley type apron be constructed in the main 

entrance as approved by the City Engineer. 

25. That all improvements in the public right-of-way that are to be 

abandoned or unused, primarily in the southeast corner of the 

property, shall be removed by the applicant at their expense. 

26. That any expansion or modification of the facility or use shall 

require a new variance/CUP application. Expansion shall 

constitute adding of floor area, additional unit or structure or 

any physical changes as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 

Under the provisions of Glendale Municipal Code, Title 30, Article IX, 

any person affected by the above decision has the right to appeal said 

determination to the Board of Zoning Adjustments if it is believed that 

the decision is in error or that procedural errors have occurred, or if 

there is substantial new evidence which could not have been reasonably 

presented at the hearing. Any appeal must be filed within fifteen (15) 

days following the actual date of such action. Information regarding 

appeals and appeal forms will be provided by the Permit Services Center 

upon request and must be filed with the prescribed fee prior to expiration 

of the 15-day period, or until June 21, 1996 at the Permit Services 

Center, 633 E. Broadway, Room 101. Section 30.16.610 of the 

Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, provides for the Zoning 

Administrator to have continuing jurisdiction over any 

Conditional Use Permit which is or has been granted and may 

revoke any Conditional Use Permit in whole or in part at any 

time for failure to comply \olith any condition or requirement 

imposed at the time of approval. 

4

WHEREAS, the Program EIR has the advantage of allowing 

more exhaustive consideration of impacts, including cumulative 

impacts, and major alternatives than would be available in a 

case-by-case environmental review, while avoiding duplicative 

reconsideration of basic policy considerations and allowing for 

consideration of broad policy issues at an early stage when 

greater flexibility exists (State CEQA Guidelines, § 1516B(b)); 

and 

WHEREAS, CEQA provides that an EIR prepared in 

conjunction with the adoption of a redevelopment plan is to be 

treated as a Program EIR (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15180(b))j and 

WHEREAS, under CEQA all activities furthering a 

redevelopment plan must be considered to be a single Project, 

whose environmental impacts are to be examined when the plan is 

adopted (Public Resources Code § 21090); and 

WHEREAS, when a specific activity within an approved 

redevelopment area is proposed, under CEQA the lead agency (in 

this case the Glendale Redevelopment Agency) is required to 

prepare a written checklist or similar device to document its 

evaluation of the activity to determine whether the environmental 

impacts of the activity were covered in the Program EIR (State 

CEQA Guidelines, § 1516B(c) (4)); and 

WHEREAS, a written checklist has been prepared for the 

Activity and attached to the Addendum to the Program EIR as 

Table 1; and 

-2-

WHEREAS, this checklist demonstrates that the Activity 

will cause no new significant impacts and will require no new 

mitigation measures; and 

WHEREAS, in such circumstances the lead agency may 

approve the project as being within the scope of the Program EIR 

and no new EIR is required (State CEQA Guidelines, 

§ 15168 Ie) (2)); and 

WHEREAS, in this case, an Addendum to the Program EIR 

for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan has been 

prepared because there are no important revisions needed to the 

Program EIR, no substantial changes in circumstances, and no new 

significant effects not examined in the Program EIR (State CEQA 

Guidelines, § 15164(a)); and 

WHEREAS, the Addendum addresses only minor technical 

changes or additions to the Program EIR; and 

WHEREAS, the density at the site, if all improvements 

proposed by the applicant are constructed, will be greater than 

the average density throughout the Project Area, this is not 

deemed to be a new impact because the ultimate build-out in the 

Project Area is unchanged, and because some other activities in 

the Project Area over the next decades will build at less than 

the average density; and 

WHEREAS, in approving the Program EIR a statement of 

overriding considerations was adopted regarding, among other 

matters, traffic congestion at the intersection of Flower Street 

and Western Avenuei and 

-3-

WdEREAS, it was deemed that no mitigation would be 

feasible at this intersection, given the ultimate build-out 

proposed under the Redevelopment Plan; and 

WHEREAS, while this is still the case, and the Addendum 

does not identify mitigation measures that would be feasible at 

ultimate build-out, the Addendum does identify mitigation 

measures at this intersection to mitigate the activities proposed 

by the applicant, as further set forth at pages 6-7 of the 

activity-specific traffic analysis performed by Kaku Associates 

dated May 17, 1996; and 

WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to construct a helipad 

on the site and to undertake helicopter landing and take off 

operations at the site; and 

WHEREAS, the Addendum discloses that a Conditional Use 

Permit was issued by the City in 1958 (Case No. 991-U) allowing 

for four departure locations and one landing location at the 

site; and 

WHEREAS, helicopter landing and take-off activities 

have been available for users of the site for over 38 years and; 

and 

WHEREAS, the Addendum includes at Appendix B-2 an 

acoustical analysis dated May 15 1996, performed by Arup 

Acoustics analyzing the noise impacts of the proposed helicopter 

take off and landings at the site and determines that the impacts 

would not be significant and would not increase the current 

overall sound environment (Community Noise Equivalent Level 

(24-hours» of the neighborhood residential communities; and 

-4-

longer required by the City. 

SECTION 2: The issuance of the quitclaim deed for release 

and reversion of the right-of-way easement along Victory Truck 

Boulevard adjacent to the Crystal Springs site owned by FETC 

Leasing Corp., attached hereto and incorporated herein by this 

reference as Exhibit A, is hereby approved subject to the 

following conditions: 

(al That said quitclaim deed shall only affect those 

rights, titles and interest in that portion of described real 

estate adjacent to the Crystal Springs site owned by FBTC Leasing 

Corp. and no other portion of Victory Truck Boulevard; and 

(b) That said quitclaim deed shall expressly except and 

reserve all other rights, titles and interests ·the City holds in 

and to said described property including pUblic utility purposes 

and fire access and all other portions of said easements which 

are not included in said described property. 

SECTION 3: The City Manager is hereby authorized and 

directed to execute and deliver said quitclaim deed to FETe 

Leasing Corp. and to execute any other documents relevant to the 

release and reversion of said right-af-way easement. 

SECTION 4: This transaction is exempt from bidding or 

auction procedures pursuant to Glendale Municioal Code, 1995, 

Section 4.52.040(A) (3). 

III 

III 

III 

G:\FllES\OOCFILES\RESO\VTB.CSR 

2

RECORDING REQUESTED BY 

When Recorded Mail To 

Re: Quitclaim Deed to Portion 

of Victory Truck Blvd 

SPACE ABOVE TInS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE 

VALUE & CONSIDERAnON -NONE 

Documentary Transfer tax - NONE 

Signature of declarant-f+1 day of :JuNE: .1996.

Quitclaim Deed from City ofGlendale 

to FBTe Leasing Corp., as to a 

Portion ofVictory Truck Blvd. 

EXHIBIT "A" 

LEGAL DESCRIPTION 

All ulat portion ofLot 7, Block 81, Snbdivision ofRancho Providencia and Scott Tract, 

shown on ule map ofsaid Tract, in ule City ofGlendale, Connty ofLos Angeles, State 

ofCaJifomia, recorded in the office ofthe County Recorder ofsaid county, in Book 43, 

Pages 47, et seq., ofMiscellaneous Records, lying northerly of the south line ofthat 

certain easement for public street purposes conveyed by deed to the City of Glendale, 

recorded in the office ofthe County Recorder ofsaid county, in Book 14195, Page 337, 

Official Records, and the southwesterly 30 feet of Flower Street, as shown on said 

Tract Map between ule limits ofthe northeasterly prolongation ofthe norrllwesterly and 

southeasterly lines, respectively of said Lot 7. 

-3-

ATTACHMENT 3A 

Ml ZONE REGULATIONS 

"' ,

30.840,0 

Chapter 30.84 

"M1" RESTRICTED INDUSTRL"L ZONE 

Sections: 

30.84.010 

30.84.020 

30.84.030 

30.84.040 

30.84.050 

30.84.060 

30.84.070 

30.84.080 

30.84.090 

30.84.100 

30.84.110 

30.84.120 

30.84.130 

30.84.140 

30.84.010 Description and purpose. 

The M 1 zone is intended as a zone for restricted 

industrial development including research. development 

and testing, limited manufacturing, assembly 

and service activilies in conformance with the comprehensive 

general plan of the city. In order to 

protect the public health, safety and generaJ welfare. 

landscaping and performance standards' have been 

established to foster compatibility between uses and 

the orderly and planned use of land resources. (Prior 

code § 30-2500) 

30.84.020 Permitted primary uses and 

structures. 

a, No building, structure or land shall be used 

and no building, structure or use in the M I zone 

shall be erected. structurally altered. enlarged or 

eSLablished, except the following permined uses and 

SlJUcrures. 

O. Ambulance services. 

Description and purpose, 

Permitted primary wes and 

structures. 

Permitted accessory uses and 

structures. 

Permitted temporary uses and 

structures. 

Conditional uses and 

structures. 

Perfonnance standards. 

Design review. 

Height. 

Setback requirements. 

Landscaping and screening. 

Parking. 

Lighting. 

Rooftop equipmenL 

Trash collection aTea'>. 

788 

I. Audio and visual products manUfacturing, including 

recording. 

2. Bookbinderies. 

3. Chemical products manufacturing, including 

cosmetics, perfume blending and toiletries (except 

soap). 

4. Clothing apparel and fabricated textile manufacturing. 

5. Copying services. inclUding but not limited 

to photostating and blueprinting. 

6. Data processing fmns. 

7. Day care centers. 

8. Elecrronic instrument manufacturing and assembly. 

9. Emenainment production (audio/visual). 

10. Food and beverage processing plants, except 

feed and flour mills. 

II. Jewelry manufacturing. 

12. Laboratories (experimental or testing); 

13. Leather products manufacturing, excepllear.her 

tanning. 

14. Offices (all). 

15. Optical device manufacturing and assembly. 

16. Packaging plants. 

17. Parking lots or structures in compliance with 

lhe provisions of chapter 30.124 of this litle. 

18. Photographic equipment and supplies manufacturing, 

including film reels, screens, chemicals, 

etc. 

19. Plastic products manufacturing, excluding 

stamping processes. 

20. Precision connector manufacturing, including 

electrical cables and conduit systems. 

21. Precision instnlments manufacturing, 

22. Printing, publishing and lithographic services. 

23. Publicly and privately operated public utility 

uses. 

24. Recording and sensory instrument or device 

manufacturing and assembly. 

25. Recycling and processing centers, municipal. 

26. Research, development and testing, including 

scientific research or experimenlal development of 

maLerials, methods and products. 

27. Specialty melal prototype and machine development 

and testing.

30.84.060 

in any manner so as to create or maintain any dangerous. 

lnjUriOllS. noxious or otherwise objectionable 

coodmon caused by fire, ex.plosion or other hazards: 

noise or vibration; smoke. dust or other fonn of air 

pollution; liqUid or solid refuse or wastes: or any 

other substance, condition or element used in such 

a manner or in such amount as to adversely affect 

the surrounding area or adjoining premises. 

b. Air Quality. Any activity. operation or device 

which causes or te.lds to cause !.he release of air 

contarrunants into the atmosphere shall comply wilh 

lhe rules and regulations of !.he South Coast Air 

Quality Management District and with the follow 

Ing: 

1. Visible Emissions. No visible emissions of air 

contaminants or particulate m.aner shall be discharged 

into the atmosphere. No combustible refuse 

incineration shall be permitted. 

2. Dust. Windborne dusts and debris across lot 

lines shall be prevented by planting, wetting, com· 

pacting, paving or other suitable treatment of land 

surface: storing, treating or enclosing materials; 

controlling sources of dust and debris by cleaning; 

or such orner measures as may be required. 

3. Odors. No odorous material shall be: pennitted 

so as to be obnoxious to persons of norma.l 

sensitivity as readily det.ectible at the property line 

or at any point off-site where the odor is greater. 

c. Waste and Contaminants. No wastewater, 

radioactive material or other potential groundwater 

contaminant shall be discharged into or under the 

ground surface except for such groUDdwater recharge 

operations as may be conducted by or under 

the supervision of the Los Angeles County Rood 

Conlrol DiSlnct and/or the city of Glendale. ArJy 

discharge into a public sewer. private sewer, private 

sewerage disposal system or intO the ground of any 

materials that may contaminate any water supply. 

interfere with bacterial processes in sewerage treal· 

ment, or otherwise cause the emission of dangerous 

or offensive elements is prohibited. All indusoi.a.l 

uses shall comply with the provisions of chapters 

8.32, 8.44, 8.56 and 13.40 penaining to refuse, 

weeds. sewer construction and sewer use. LiqUid 

wastes shall be disposed of only by authorized dis- 

790 

charge to a public sewer system or by transport to 

an acceptable disposal facility. Burning. dumping, 

or littering of solid wastes is prohibited. Solid 

wastes shall be disposed of only by l!'arlsport to an 

acceptable disposal facility, except that inert solid 

materials may be utilized in landfLils and construe. 

tion when specifically authorized by a grading per· 

mit or building permit.. and organic materials may 

be utilized in connection with normal and customary 

landscaping and agricultural activities providing that 

such activities meet all the requirements of the 

Glendale Municipal Code and these environmental 

perfonnance standards; and do not endanger ground· 

water quality. 

d. Vibration. No activities shall be permitted 

which cause objectionable vibration to adjoining 

property except for construction activities in connection 

with an effective building permit. 

e. Noise. No noise shall be generaled in the MI 

zone which causes the maximum sound level [0 

exceed the noise levels specified in chapter 8.36 of 

this Code. Funher, when a Ml zone boundary line 

abuts a residential zone, no increase: in the ambient 

noise base level for industrial zones shall be permitted. 

Such noise measurements shall be taken al the 

residential zone property line or at any point within 

the residential zone where the noise level from the 

industrial use is greater. No steady impulse noise 

(such as hammering or riveting) or steady audible 

lone components (such as whines, screeches or 

hums) shall be detectible from any residentially 

zoned property which is adjacent to a MI use. 

r. Outdoor Uses. All uses except parking, stor· 

age of shopping carts. vending machines. and inci· 

dental or temporary uses, subject to very specific 

standards contained within this cbapter, shall be 

conducted entirely within a building. 

Shopping can storage shall be located adjacent 10 

the entry of a building and shaJI be screened with 

a minimum three (3) foot.. six (6) inch high solid 

walVfence or combination of fence and landscaping 

to obscure the visibility of shopping carts from the 

adjacent public rigbts-of·way. Where the ZOning 

administrator. in his/her discretion. determines thal 

screening interferes with the can re:movallremevaJ

PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE 

1. ExecUlion of the Agreement By 

AQ:ency and City. 

First Phase 

2. Approval - Firsl Phase Plans - First 

Phase. The City shall approve the 

Stage I and Stage II Design Review 

for the First Phase. 

3. Approval - Construction Pennirs 

First Phase. The City shall respond 

with plan check corrections (initial 

or back-check) and approve the 

Building Pennits (including 

structural steel, foundation, shell 

and core, grading, and tenant 

improvements, together or 

separately). 

4. Completion - First Phase. 

Participant shall complete 

construc(ion of First Phase. 

Additional Phases of Development 

5. Notification of Development of 

Additional Phases. Participant shall 

provide nOlice to Agency of 

Participant's intent to proceed with 

development of additional phases of 

the Project as authorized under the 

provisions of this Agreement. 

6. Exercise of Option to Proceed with 

Additional Phases. Participant shall 

provide notice to the Agency of 

Participant's election to exercise its 

option to proceed with the 

additional developmem of the Site. 

ATIACHMENT 4 

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE 

Within fifteen (15) days after approval 

of this Agreement by the Glendale City 

Council. 

By City within ten (l0) working days 

after receipt of complete plans by City. 

By City within ten (10) working days 

after receipt of complete plans (or 

responses to corrections) by City. 

Five (5) years after the Effective Dale 

of this Agreement, unless extended 

pursuant to Section 608 of this 

Agreement. 

Within tcn (10) years of Ihe Effeclive 

Dale of this Agreement. 

Within fifteen (15) years of the 

Effective Dale of this Agreement in 

accordance with Section 111 of this 

Agreement.

ATTACHMENT 5 

FORM OF ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AGREEMENT

. The adoption of the Statutory Development Agreement and 

Participation Agreement contained herewith as Exhibit 1 and the 

provisions of the Statutory Development Agreement and Participation 

Agreement and Participation Agreement itself are consistent with the 

standards, policies and goals of the Redevelopment Plan for the San 

Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area as last amended 

by Ordinance No. 5003 on December 15, 1992. 

c. The adoption of the Statutory Development Agreement and 

Participation Agreement itself are consistent with the goals of the 

Glendale Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 30 1995, of the Glendale 

Municipal Code. 

d. The adoption of the Statutory Development Agreement and 

Participation Agreement contained herewith as Exhibit 1 and the 

provisions of the Statutory Development Agreement and the 

Participation Agreement itself are consistent with the goals of all other 

specific plans applicable to the Site. 

e. Other than as set forth above, there are no other specific or land use 

controls adopted by the City or the Glendale Redevelopment Agency 

applicable to the Site described in the Statutory Development 

Agreement and Participation Agreement. 

f. The Site described in the Agreement is not within any zone or 

jurisdiction governed by any regional Coastal Zone Conservation 

Commission. 

g. The provisions of the Statutory Development Agreement and the 

Participation Agreement comply with all applicable laws of the State of 

California and the United States of America. 

h. The approval and implementation of the Statutory Development 

Agreement and Participation Agreement are necessary for the effective 

redevelopment of the San Fernando Road Corridor Glendale 

Redevelopment Project Area and otherwise are necessary for the 

protection of the fiscal health of the City and the health, safety, and 

general welfare of the people of the City of Glendale. 

SECTION 2. Public Hearing Conducted. 

a. A public hearing on this ordinance and the accompanying Statutory 

Development Agreement and Participation Agreement was held by the 

(2 )

ATTACHMENT 6 

FORM OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AGREEMENT 

< •

ATIACHMENT 7 

FORM OF RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO 

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE § 33399(G)1 

, ,

Recording Requested by: 


DRAFT FORM ONLY 

RESOLUTION NO. __ 

A RESOLUTION OF THE GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 

PURSUANT TO HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 33399(g) 

WAIVING THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN 

REGARDING PROPERTY SUBIECT TO A STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AND 

PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, 

THE GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 

AND DREAM WORKS ANIMATION, L.L.C. 

WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code § 33399(g) provides thaI the 

Redevelopment Agency may exempt certain property from the future use of eminent domain 

if the owners participate in the redevelopment of their propeny in conformity with the 

Redevelopment Plan; 

AND WHEREAS, [he site described below will be redeveloped by the owners 

pursuant to a Statutory Development and Participation Agreement in conformity with the 

Redevelopment Plan; 

NOW THEREFORE, THE GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLVES AS 

FOLLOWS: 

SECTION 1. Owner of the Parcels. 

The owner of the propeny included within the scope of the waivers and agreements provided 

by this resolution is: 

(1) FBTe Leasing Corp., a New York corporation. 

SECTJO 2. Findinl!s and Determinations. 

The Glendale Redevelopment Agency fmds and determines as follows:

a. Redevelopment of the property described below as contemplated in the 

Statutory Development and Participation Agreement will be consistent with the tenns and 

restrictions of the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. 

b. Such redevelopment will eliminate all aspects of the property that may 

be considered blighted within the meaning of Health and Safery Code § 33030 through 

33033, inclusive. 

c. Such redevelopment will render tile property unnecessary for any other 

effective redevelopment of the Project Area as set forth in Health & Safety Code § 

33367(d)(lO). 

SECTION 3. Exemption From Furure Eminent Domain. 

Pursuant to Health and Safely Code § 33399(g) all of the property described in Section 4 

below is hereby made exempt from the use of eminent domain by the Glendale 

Redevelopment Agency. The Glendale Redevelopment Agency shall have no power of 

eminent domain as to rhat property unless the redevelopment plan is hereafler amended 10 

expressly make the property subject to eminent domain. 

1996. 

APPROVED AS TO FORM 

Agency Counsel 

Date: 

ATTEST: 


Passed by the Glendale Redevelopment Agency on the day of__ 

Chairman

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 

) ss. 

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 

I, AILEEN B. BOYLE, Secretary to Glendale Redevelopment Agency, certify 

that the foregoing resolution was passed by the Glendale Redevelopment Agency by a vote of 

a majoriry of its members held on the _ day of , __' and !.hal the same 'was 

adopted by the following vote: 


Ayes 

Noes 

Absent 

, A

ATTACHMENT 8 

LIST OF IMPROVEMENTS 

The costs of the following Improvements shall be considered Public Improvement 

CostS in accordance with Paragraph 1(f) of Section 217 of this Agreement and may be paid 

for by any Excess, in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 5 of Section 218 of this 

Agreement. 

A. Sound walls adjacent to any freeway or highway within the vicinity of the Site. 

B. Child care facilities for the benefit of employers within the San Fernando 

Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. 

In addition to the foregoing Improvements, lhe following additional Improvements 

may be included as Public Improvement Costs or paid for with any Excess subject to 

agreement between Agency and Participant. This list is illustrative and not exhaustive. The 

cos! of Olher Improvements nO( listed may be paid for with the mutual wriuen consent of 

Agency and Participant. 

1. Pedestrian/bicycle path/access road improvements along the Los Angeles River 

adjoining and in the vicinity of the Site. 

2. Landscaping improvements within the public rights-of-way adjoining and in the 

vicinity of .the Site. 

3. Street, sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements within the pUblic rights-of-way 

adjoining and in the vicinity of the Site. 

4. Ulilily improvements upon the Site and in areas adjoining and in the vicinilY of 

the Site. 

" .

ATTACHMENT 9 

GLENDALE COSTS REPAYMENT SCHEDULE

FISCAL YEAR ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX TOTAL AMOUNT 

JULY I INCREMENT AMOUNT 

1997 25,000 41,928 

1998 78,490 107,510 

1999 249,684 278,704 

2000 192,310 221,330 

2001 195,943 224,963 

2002 199,669 231,228 

2003 203,488 236,861 

2004 207,400 240,773 

2005 211,406 244,779 

2006 215,506 248,879 

2007 219,701 255,994 

2008 223,992 262,371 

2009 228,381 266,760 

2010 232,867 271,246 

2011 237,452 275,831 

2012 242,137 258,128 

2013 246,925 246,925 

2014 251,815 251,815 

2015 256,809 256,809 

2016 261,910 26] ,910 

2017 267,118 267,118 

2018 272,435 272,435 

2019 277,864 277,864 

2020 283,405 283,405 

2021 289,062 289,062 

2022 294,835 294,835 

2023 300,727 300,727 

2024 306,740 306,740 

2025 312,876 312,876 

2026 3J9,137 319,137 

2027 325,526 325,526 

TOTAL 7,430,610 7,934,469

ATTACHMENT 10 

INDUCEMENT AGREEMENT

EXHIBIT C 

Second Addendum 

to the 

Program Environmental Impact Report 

for the 

Redevelopment Plan for the San Fernando 

Road Corridor 

DreamWorks Animation Campus 

SCH #92041055 

March 2008 

PI1:paredfOr 


633 E. Broadway, Room 201 

Glendale, CA 91206 

Prepared try 

PlJ5&J 


Los Angeles, C1\ 90025

Second A.ddendum to the Program EIR, DreamWorks Campus 

Page 13 

Sile Specific Analysis in the First Addendum 

Grading The size and scope of the proposed site grading operation would result in less 

than significanl impacts, consislent 'wlth the profile ofgrading impacts in the Program EIR 

Seismic. There is no indication of unusual seIsmic risk associated with the development of 

the proposed site. which would be COnSlrLlcted in accordance with all applicable seismic 

safety codes. 11,e development of the Drcam\'\'orks campus would result in less than 

significant impacts and is, therefore. consistent with the SClsnuc impacts identified in the 

Prograrr. EI R. 

Analysis of Proposed Project Impacts 

lbe proposed designation of the DreamWorks campus as an Indusuial Mixed Use/L:uge 

Scale Prajl-oct in the lND zoning district, revision of the height lim.it, and construction of a 

secondary access gate wilh aSSOCIated pa,'ing acti"jties would not result in any new grading 

or SeIsmic impacts not preVIOusly anal),zt.-d and disclosed in the Program EIR. Ibe tOial 

amount of de\'elopment permitted on the site would not change, and future development on 

me DreamWorks campus would be subject to Ihe mitigation measures in the Program EIR. 

4.2 Air Quality 

Redevelopment Plan Program EIR Impacts 

ConslrllcfiOfF. Consrruction emissions

Second Addendum to the Program EIR, DreamWorks Campus 

Page 21 

resources, such as the nearby Santa Monica or Verdugo Mountains, would only be partially 

or mtermittently obstructed. 

As noted, above, future development on the Dream\\iorks campus would not conflict with 

applicable City policies related to visual resources. The proposed project achieves all 

applicable objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and is consIstent wuh the General Plan, 

including the General Plan objective of reflecting " ...a high level of architectural, landscape, 

urban design, and land lise prmciples..." Further, it would comply with devdopmcnt 

stnndards set forth III City Ordinances for the Industrinll\1ixed Ulie/Largc Scale Project in 

the JND zoning dilitnct (i.e., comply with established minimum setback criteria). Tl1crefore, 

hmd use Impacts of the proposed deSIgnation of the Dream\Vorks campus as an Industrial 

r..lixed Usc/Large Scale Project in the IND zorung district, increase in the pennated height 

linut, and limited use of a new driveway on Flower Street for secondalY access to the campus 

would be less tlUlll significlllt, consistent with the profile of l:lIld use impacts identified 111 

the Prognim EIR and First Addendum. 

4.7 Risk of Upset 

Redevelopment Plan Program EIR Impacts 

Risk of upset impacts would be less than significant and would be further reduced wilh 

implementatiun of the mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR. 

Site Specific Analysis in the First Addendum 

The Dream\'Xlurks campus dues not tepresent a risk of upset and would result in a Jess than 

significant impact. The development is comistent with the profile of risk of upset impacls 

identified in the Progr:lln Rllt 


The proposed designation of the Dream\Vurks campus as an IndusLrial Mixed Use/Large 

Scale Project in the IND zoning district, revision of the height limit, and construction uf a 

secondary access gale would not result in any new risk of upset impacls not previously 

analyzed and disclosed in the Program EIR The total amount of development permitted on 

Glendale Redevelopment Agt:m;y 

LEGAL_US_\V # 58371827.1 

March 2008

Second Addendum to the Program EIR, DrcmnWorks Campus 

Page 2] 

previously identified in the Program ElR. The development of the Dream\XIorks campus 

falls within the prof.t.le of traffic impacts in the Program EIR. 


The proposed designation of the Dream\X/orks campus as an Industrial Mixed Use/Large 

Scale Project In rhe IND zomng district, revision of the heighr limit, and construction of a 

scconJalY access gate would noT result in any new transportation and circulation impacTs not 

previously analyzed :md disclosed ill the Program ElR. The total amount of Jevelopment 

permitted on the site would not change, and furore development on the Dream\Vorks 

campus would be subject to the mitib>

Second Addendum to the Program EIR, DreamWorks Campus 

Page 24 

significant level. This mitigation would allow only right t11rm tnto and out of the secondary 

access driveway. 

Mil! 4.9-1 'fbe suolldary aa('ss gale sball!JJlIt lin/it,d arrus, asjol!ows: 

• Enlry ji"OlIJ /IOrtbboll//(! FIGJ/Jfr SJrut sball be pmbibited 

• Exit 10 lIorthbollnd Flown Jlmt sball be pwliibilrd 

111lv14.9-2 He pro/ul applicant sliall be rrspomible for papllellt offers to the City reql/irrd to pOSI 

apprOpliaf( sigm as l/lrll as pli)'Jiral bameT:> to fIIj()1"((' tlint IlImiJlg lIl()b'eIllmts. 

As there are no other turning movements that would be affected by the proposed projeec 

other than entrance to and exit from this secondary gate, implementation of the above 

mitigation measures to eliminate potential safety hnards would reduce this impact to less 

than sigOlficant. 

4.10.1 Police Services 

Redevelopmcnt Plan Program EIR Impacts 

Police service impacts would be ,ubstantiaUy lessened with the mitigation measures 

ider.tificd 111 the Program EIR and the benefiClal1l11pacts of redevelopment. 

Site Specific Analysis in the First Addendum 

The development is comistent with the police protection issues as addressed in The Program 

ElR. Therefore, less than significant Impacts on pulice services would occur. 


The propused designation of the Dream\X'orks campus as an lndustrial11ixed Use/Large 

Scale Project m the IND zoning district, revision of the heighT limit, and consl1'llction of a 

secondary access gate would not result in any new police services impacts !lot previously 

analyzeJ and disclosed in the Program Ellt The total amount of devdopment permitteJ on 

the site would nor change, and future developmenr on the Dream\V'orks campus would be 

subject to the mitigation measures 111 the Program ElR. 


LEGAL us W # 58171827 I 

March 2008

Second Addendum to the Program EIR, DrcamWorks Campus 

Page 38 

which would substantially reduce one or mOre significant effects of the project, are feasible, 

but not adopted as part of the proJcct, or (iv) mitigation measures or ahernatives which are 

new and would substantially reduce am: or mort: significant effects of the project are 

avaJ.1ablt:, but not adopted as part of tbe project; and 2) changes to the EIR made by the 

Second Addendum do nOI raise important new issues about the significant effects on the 

environment. NOlle of the abm-e conditions would be met as a result of the changes to the 

proJcct (the designation of Ihe Dream\Vorks campus as an Industrial Mixed Use/Large Scale 

Project III the li"JD zolling district and revision of the height limit), and no additional 

environmenlal analysis or rn-iew is required, other than as Jlrovided in this Second 

Addendum. 

No substantja! changes h3\'e becn proposed to the Redt.'vclopmelll Plan described in the 

Program EIR thai would requirc major revisions to the Program ElK The project described 

in Ihe Program EJR included the development of the DreamWlorks campus. 1be proposed 

Jcsignation of rhe Dream\Xlork:; campus :IS an Industrial t>.1.ixcd Usc/Large Scale Projcci in 

the IND zoning district and revision of the hcight limit in accordance with the City 

standards fa! an Industriall\1ixed Use/Large Scale Project in Ihe IND zoning district woult! 

not alter lhe IOtal amount of development permitted on the site. None of lhe conditions or 

circulTlstancl:s that would require preparation of a subsccluel11 or supplemental El R pursuant 

to Public l{csourccs Code Section 21166 exists in connection with the changes to Ihe San 

Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan. 


LI:.(jAL us W _ SlJ71127I 

March 2008

DD 

• •0 ;; 

" u 

c 

;l 

..lnrl...a

..11:>

ADDENDUM TO THE PROGRAM EIR I 

REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE 

SAN FERNANDO ROAD CORRIDOR 

ADDENDUM REGARDING THE 

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION CAMPUS 

June 1996 

State Clearinghouse # 92041055 

Prepared for: 


633 East Broadway, Room 201 

Glendale, California 91205 

Prepared by: 



Santa Monica. California 90401 

peR 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. INTRODUCTION 1 

2. PROJECT OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13 

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ' 22 

4.1. EARTH 22 

4.2. AIR 26 

4.3. WATER (HYDROLOGY) " 36 

4.4. NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 

4.5. LIGHT AND GLARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48 

4.6. LAND USE 52 

4.7. RISK OF UPSET 60 

4.8. POPULATION/HOUSING 64 

4.9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION " 68 

4.10. PUBLIC SERVICES 87 

4.10.1. POLICE 87 

4.10.2. FIRE , 90 

4.10.3. SCHOOLS , 93 

4.10.4. LIBRARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97 

4.11. ENERGY " 100 

4.12. UTILITIES....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101 



4.12.1. WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101 

4.12.2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104 

4.12.3. ELECTRICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 107 

4.12.4. NATURAL GAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109 

4.12.5. SOLID WASTE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 111 

Page i 

Page 


June 1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

4.13. HUMAN HEALTH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 

4.14. RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 

4.15. CULTURAL RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118 


AS ESTABLISHED IN THE INITIAL STUDY 120 



Page ii 

Page 


June 1996

Figure 

LIST OF FIGURES 

1 Redevelopment Plan Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2 Project Location Within Redevelopment Area 

3 Aerial Photograph of Project Site and Vicinity 

4 Project Site Plan . . . . . . . 

5 Noise Monitoring Locations 

6 View of the Proposed Development from the West 

7 View of the Proposed Development from the Northeast 

8 View of the Proposed Development from the South 

9 Study Area and Location of Analyzed Intersections . 

10 Project Trip Distribution Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . 


Glendale Redevelopment Agen(;y 

Page iii 

Page 

4 

5 

6 

9 

44 

56 

57 

58 

69 

80 


June 1996

Table 

LIST OF TABLES 

1 Summary of San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan Impacts and 

Dreamworks Animation Campus Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

. 2 Pollutant Standards and East San Fernando Valley Ambient Air Quality Data 27 

3 SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds 

4 Redevelopment Plan Post-Construction Occupancy Emissions 

5 Project Emissions 

6 Local Carbon Monoxide Concentration Summary 33 

7 Previous and Future Helicopter Noise Levels .. 46 

8 Combined Helicopter and Existing Ambient Noise Levels -- Helicopter 

Operations Plus Current Ambient Noise Levels . . 46 

9 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections 72 

10 Level of Service Definitions for All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections 72 

11 Existing Intersection Levels of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 

12 Year 2027 Intersection Levels of Service from Redevelopment Plan FEIR 75 

13 Estimated Project Site Trip Generation Under Redevelopment Plan .... 77 

14 Year 2010 Intersection Levels of Service with Redevelopment Plan Growth -- 

Without Development on the Project Site 78 

15 Estimated Project Trip Generation. . . . . . . . 81 

16 Year 2010 Intersection Levels of Service - Project Impact Analysis 82 

17 Year 2010 Intersection Level of Service Analysis with Project Mitigation 86 



Page iv 

Page 

28 

28 

30 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addeodwn EIR 

June 1996

1. INTRODUCTION 

This document is an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the San 

Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan (hereafter, Redevelopment Plan) which was 

certified on November 17, 1992 (Resolution No. 480) by the Glendale Redevelopment Agency. 

The Final Environmental Impact Report (hereafter, Program EIR) is comprised of an Initial 

Study, which is appended to the Draft EIR; the Draft EIR with technical appendices dated July 

13, 1992; and the Final EIR volwne dated November 12, 1992. A program EIR is defmed in 

Section 15168(a) of the CEQA Guidelines as an EIR which may be prepared on a series of 

actions which are related to one another and can be characterized as one large project. Under 

Section 15180(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, "An EIR on 

a redevelopment plan is to be treated as a program EIR. .. ". 

The subject of this Addendum is a site specific project, the DreamWorks Animation 

Campus, proposed by DreamWorks SKG on a site located within the San Fernando Road 

Corridor Redevelopment Area. This document is an Addendum to the Program EIR, responsive 

to Section 15168(c) of the CEQA Guidelines addressing program EIRs, which states, 

"...Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to 

determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared." Section 15168(c)4 

of the CEQA Guidelines states further that, "Where subsequent activities involve site specific 

operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the 

evaluation of the site and the activity to detennine whether the environmental effects of the 

operations were covered in the program EIR. " 

The DreamWorks Animation Campus project consists of a site specific project located 

within the Redevelopment Area. As such, it is a subsequent activity to the Redevelopment 

program. An addendum is a more comprehensive form of documentation than a written 

checklist, and has been selected to address the potential environmental consequences of the 

project in the context of those attributable to the Redevelopment Plan, as documented in the 

EIR. Pursuant to Sections 15162(a) and 15164(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, preparation of a 

subsequent EIR was determined not to be appropriate. As evidenced by the analyses and 

conclusions presented in this Addendum, the proposed site specific project does not represent 

substantial change in the underlying Redevelopment Plan assumptions regarding the project site 

made in the EIR, and neither such differences between the project and the Redevelopment Plan 

as will exist, nor new information not available at the time the EIR was prepared, will involve 

Planning ConsultantS Research 


Page 1 


June 1996

'. 

1. Introduction 

new environmental effects not previously considered or cause a substantial increase in the 

severity of significant effects identified in the EIR. 

The environmental analyses in this Addendum review each of the environmental subjects 

evaluated in the EIR, first summarizing the fmdings of the EIR, then analyzing specific impacts 

of the DreamWorks Animation Campus. In all cases, the purpose of the Addendum is to 

determine whether the project's impacts had been sufficiently contemplated in the EIR regarding 

the larger Redevelopment Plan and whether those impacts would or would not be significant 

environmental impacts, in their own right. Mitigation measures are identified as and if 

applicable. Where significant adverse impacts are identified, a determination is made as to 

whether implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce impacts to acceptable nonsignificant 

levels. 



Page 2 


June 1996


peR 

P LAN N I N G CON S U L TAN T S RES E·A R C H



The Redevelopment Plan which is analyzed in the Program EIR contains land use and 

infrastructure policies and regulations intended to eliminate conditions of blight in the area and 

revitalize and upgrade the commercial, industrial, and public properties within the project area. 

As identified in Figure 1 on page 4, the 727-acre Redevelopment Plan Area (hereafter, 

Redevelopment Area) extends along the entire length of the San Fernando Road corridor within 

the City of Glendale, and also includes areas west to the Golden State Freeway in the northern 

half and to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way in the southern half, and up to one-half 

east of the corridor along major streets, including Broadway Boulevard and Colorado 

Boulevard. The Redevelopment Plan provides for existing and future development of an 

estimated 2.3 million square feet of commercial and related space, 11.48 million square feet of 

industrial space and 548 residential units. 1 

THE PROJECT SITE 

As shown on Figures 2 and 3 on pages 5 and 6, respectively, the DreamWorks 

Animation Campus site is located northeast of the Golden State (1-5) and Ventura (SR-134) 

Freeway Interchange in the City of Glendale, approximately 500 feet north of Griffith Park 

within the northerly third of the Redevelopment Area. The triangularly shaped property is 

proposed to include the unimproved right-of-way for Victory Truck Boulevard and encompasses 

approximately 13.4 acres at 1000 Flower Street, of which an engineering survey established that 

11.06 acres are in the primary parcel and 2.34 acres are in the Victory Truck Boulevard rightof-way. 

The site adjoins the Los Angeles River on the south, Flower Street on the northeast, 

and private industrial property to the northwest. Surrounding land uses include an array of light 

industrial activities to the east, north and northwest, all in the Redevelopment Area, and, across 

the Los Angeles River, Griffith Park to the southwest in the City of Los Angeles. 

Fonnerly owned by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the 

project site served as a field headquarters for the operation of reservoirs, pumping stations, 

tanks and wells, and as a storage yard for related equipment and materials. Since 1958, the site 

I 

Program EIR, Final EIR Volume. page 1-9. 



Page 3 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddendlBJl EIR 

June 1996

Planning 

Consultants 

Research 

N 

A a 10CXl 

Redevelopment 

Project • 

Boundary 

SOURCE: Katz Hollis 

Page 5 

2000 

o 

a: 

< 

> W..J 

::> 

o CD 

o z 

< cr 

a::I 

Figure 2 

Project Location within 

Redeveloplllent Area


has been heavily utilized for helicopter operations and maintenance. The Los Angeles Police 

Department, Glendale Police Department, Burbank Police Department, and a commercial 

helicopter service have utilized the site as a heliport under Conditional Use Pennirs (CUPs) 

from the City of Glendale and appropriate pennits from the Federal Aviation Administration 

and the California Department of Transponation. Originally, the site was used by Heliport, 

Inc., which utilized the site for helicopter landings and takeoffs from 1958 to 1968. The 

original conditional use application shows that the site had four departure sites and one landing 

site at this time. The Los Angeles Police (LAPD) airborne unit was the major user of the site 

from 1964 until 1972 when the Glendale Police and Burbank Police air support units moved 

their operations to the site. LAPD helicopter operations were moved to a downtown location 

in 1983. In 1988 the Burbank airborne law enforcement unit moved to Burbank Airport, 

followed in 1992 by the Glendale Police air support unit. 

During the peak years of operation (1972 to 1983) when all three police departments 

were operating out of the project site, the LAPD used seven Bell 47G5 piston helicopters, one 

Bell 47G5A, one Bell 47G3B1, 16 Bell 206B single engine turbine models, one UHIB (Bell 

204), and a CH46. From 1972 to 1992, three Hughes 300 piston model aircraft were used by 

the Glendale Police. The Burbank Police shared the use of these three Hughes aircraft with the 

Glendale Police from 1972 to 1988. 2 

Records of police flight operations for the years 1974-1992 were readily available. The 

following flight statistics are based on that infonnation. From 1974 to 1978, there were 

approximately 586 flight events (landings or takeoffs) per week. The LAPD was operating 24 

hours a day and on weekdays during this time. From 1978 to 1983, after which time the LAPD 

moved downtown, the average number of flight events per week was 886. From 1983 to 1988, 

when the Glendale and Burbank Police Departments were operating together, weekly flights 

totalled 300. From 1988 to 1992, when the Glendale Police air support unit was operating 

alone, approximately 200 flight events per week occurred. 3 Existing facilities on the site 

include a helicopter hangar, two temporary office buildings (trailers on concrete foundations), 

a storage shed, and a helipad. 

2 

3 

Helipon Consultams, letter to Glendale Redevelopment Agency dated March 7, 1996 (see Appendix B-2). 

Ibid. 



Page 7 

DreamWorks Animation CanJpus AddeodlDD EIR 

June 1996

THE PROPOSED PROJECT 


The DreamWorles Animation Campus is proposed in order to create new entertainment 

industry facilities, including animation facilities and office use. The objectives of the proposed 

project are as follows: 

• To create and maintain a media and entertainment production complex to meet the 

expanding needs of the entertainment industry in Southern California in a location 

that is conveniently located for a large part of the creative and technical talent that 

forms the industry; 

• To redevelop and enhance the project site within the City of Glendale and the 

Southern California region as a premier entertainment industry center; 

• To strengthen and maintain the economic vitality of the City of Glendale, Los 

Angeles County and adjacent areas by providing business and job opportunities 

associated with the development and operation of the DreamWorks Animation 

Campus; 

• To rehabilitate the physical appearance of the property in order to create an aesthetic 

and functional asset in the City of Glendale; 

• To create an integrated production facility and associated uses that respects 

neighboring land uses and natural resources as well as nearby residential and 

business communities. 

Implementation of the DreamWorks Animation Campus calls for the removal of all 

existing on-site structures and equipment, to be followed with development of up to 495,000 

square feet of building area in two or more phases to be used for the creation and production 

of animated films anq other media. An estimated 1,400 employees are expected to work on the 

campus upon completion of full build-out. Approximately seven buildings and a parking 

structure are proposed with vehicular access via a main entrance and two secondary access 

points, provided on Flower Street. A site plan for the project is presented as Figure 4 on 

page 9. 

The design for the DreamWorks Animation Campus is modelled upon a campus plan 

designed around a series of courtyards that respond to Southern California's Mediterranean 

climate. At full buildout there will be approximately seven buildings and a parking structure, 

interconnected through arcades, verandas, and bridges. Buildings will be two to four stories 

in height with pitched tile roofs, covered terraces and porches. Consistent with the 

Mediterranean theme, several towers or campaniles (the tallest measuring up to 115 feet) may 

be incorporated into the building design as architectural accents. The main buildings, ranging 



Page 8 


Iune 1996


from 30,000 to 85,000 square feet each, will be clustered around a central piazza. Courtyards 

and landscaping are an integral part of the site layout. An ornamental garden/water feature may 

be incorporated into the design of the project. A decorative grove of trees will provide 

landscaped orientation to the adjacent Los Angeles River along the southern boundary of the 

property. 

A parking structure serving the facilities will be situated on the northwestern comer of 

the property and may include five levels above ground, with a helipad to be located just above 

the top level. Helicopter operations, which are currently pennitted for the site, will continue. 

It is proposed that the current unimproved right-of-way easement for Victory Truck Boulevard 

of approximately· 2.34 acres, which extends over the Southern portion ofthe site, be quitclaimed 

prior to project development. 

RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROJECT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN 

The Redevelopment Plan defines allowable land uses and development standards for the 

Redevelopment Area in general; and the DreamWorks site in particular. The Redevelopment 

Plan incorporates the development standards (building height, setback criteria, etc.) already set 

forth in the City Zoning Ordinances for each of the zoning districts adopted in the 

Redevelopment Plan. These documents establish a Restricted Industrial land use classification 

(Ml Zone) for the DreamWorks site. Neither the Redevelopment Plan nor the Zoning 

Ordinances establishes a maximum density or intensity of Restricted Industrial usage on any 

individual property. The City, by design, has only established regulations restricting front yard 

setback distances and building heights as applied to individual properties. The Ml zone allows 

heights up to 35 feet and requires ten foot setbacks adjacent to streets. Thus, within these 

parameters and dependent upon the configuration and constraints of any particular site, a range 

of intensities or floor area ratios, which is the ratio ofexisting or expected building area divided 

by associated land area (hereafter, FAR), from as low as 0.3 FAR to as high as 1.5 FAR would 

be expected by the City. 

In order to estimate the total amount of development that should reasonably be expected 

in the Redevelopment Area, and to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Redevelopment 

Plan, the Program EIR made documented assumptions regarding land use intensities for each 

cited land use aggregated across all properties within particular zoning districts. These 

assumptions took the fonn of average densities, expressed in the case of Restricted Industrial 

uses as FAR. 



Page 10 


June 1996


within the DreamWorks Animation Campus were included in the average Restricted Industrial 

development assumptions made as part of the Redevelopment Plan and evaluated in the Program 

EIR. 

The incremental Animation Campus floor area in eXKSS of the average FAR assumption 

for Restricted Industrial uses in TAZ 2 represents only 2.4% of total Restricted Industrial uses 

forecast in the TAZ, only 0.9% of all industrial uses in the Redevelopment Area, and only 

0.7% of all non-residential uses in the Redevelopment Area. By any of these measures, the 

proposed project's density represents an insignificant deviation from the expectations expressed 

in the Redevelopment Plan, one that is well within the range of normal variation to be expected 

in a large area over a 35-year implementation period. 

INTENDED USES OF THIS DOCUMENT 

The proposed project site is consistent with the current Restricted Industrial land use 

designation for the site by the Glendale General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This 

environmental document may be used for all purposes cited in the Program EIR in addition to 

all discretionary approvals and actions which may be required for this project, including but not 

limited to: 

• Statutory Development Agreement. 

• Participation Agreement. 

• Height Variance. 

• Parking Exception. 

• Conditional Use Permit (for the installation and llse of satellite dishes). 

• Design Review Process. 

• Such other discretionary actions as may be required, but cannot be identified at this 

time. 

Planning Consullams Research 


Page 12 


June 1996

3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The purpose of this DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum to the Program EIR 

as it pertains to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan is to compare project 

impacts to the impacts identified in the Program EIR for the Redevelopment Plan and to 

determine: (1) whether the Animation Campus project's impacts were adequately addressed in 

the Program EIR and (2) whether this Addendum represents new information, or a change in 

any of the significance conclusions. 

The evaluation in this Addendum has determined that the DreamWorks Animation 

Campus project's impacts are within the parameters of the Redevelopment Plan impacts 

identified in the Program EIR and that there is no new information which would change the· 

conclusions of the Program EIR. The Summary Table on the following pages compares the 

respective impacts, issue by issue, of the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan and 

the DreamWorks Animation Campus project. 



Page 13 


June 1996

4. 1. Earth 

fault, located near the base of the San Gabriel Mountains in the northern part of Glendale. Due 

to the approximately six mile distance of the Redevelopment Area from this fault, potential 

hazards due to fault rupture are not present in the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment 

Area is not in a potential liquefaction area nor are there static fresh water bodies proximate to 

the area in which seiches could occur. Although new development would expose people and 

structures to groundshaking in the event of an earthquake, no unusual or unique risk due to 

groundshaking would be posed by the Redevelopment Plan. 


Grading. Elevations on the site range from approximately 450 feet to 463 feet above 

sea level. The major soil association extant on the site is Tujunga-Soboba. A geotechnical 

evaluation of the property has determined that the site is generally blanketed by about five to 

20 feet of variable fill consisting predominantly of silty, fme to medium sand with occasional 

gravel and debris. 8 Underlying the fill soils are native deposits consisting of fine to coarse 

silty sand and clean sand. The site is traversed by a 10 to 80 foot wide and 1,100 foot long 

drainage ditch running across the site from west to east, which empties into the Los Angeles 

River, adjacent to the southern border of the site. 

The impact of any inherent soil limitations that may exist on the proposed project site 

would be lessened through standard engineering techniques utilized during site preparation. Due 

to the relatively variable topography of the site, grading work will be required to bring the site 

grade to the desired elevation for construction purposes. In addition, replacement of some of 

the existing fill soils may be required. The acceptability of existing fills would have to be 

determined at the time of construction. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 cubic yards 

of the dirt on site would need to be redistributed in order to bring the site to a level pad and 

that approximately 10,000 cubic yards would need to be imported. 9 The size and scope of the 

proposed grading operation would not be considered significant with implementation of the 

mitigation measures identified in the Earth section of the Program EIR. 

Seismicity. Although additional investigation may need to be performed to obtain more 

precise information on liquefaction potential once specific building layouts have been 

8 

9 

Dames & Moore. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard. 

November 1995. page 5. 

Ibid. page 8. 



Page 23 


. June 1996

4. 1. Earth 

detennined, preliminary indications are that the potential for liquefaction on the site is low. 10 

Therefore, seismic related settlements are expected to be minimal and structures on site should 

perfonn adequately during potential seismic events. Although development of the proposed 

project would expose people and strUctures to groundshaking in the event of an earthquake, no 

unusual or unique risk due to groundshaking would result from development of the proposed 

project. With implementation of the mitigation measures cited in the Program EIR, the seismic 

risk to which the proposed project would be exposed would be consistent with any restricted 

industrial development in the Redevelopment Area, resulting in less than significant impacts. 


The following grading and seismic mitigation measures were listed in the Program EIR 

and may apply to the proposed project: 11 

1. Proposed developments will be required to comply with all applicable State and 

local building codes relating to seismic design including the seismic design 

criteria contained in the Uniform Building Code. 

2. Complete soils and geotechnical reports shall be conducted by qualified 

engineering soil scientists/geologists prior to project approval for all nonresidential 

projects and residential projects as required by the City Engineer. 

This investigation shall involve surface, subsurface, and laboratory analysis to 

identify any potential hazards. This analysis shall also include, but Dot be 

limited to, investigation of soils and groundwater characteristics necessary to 

detennine hazard potential and identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce 

other seismic hazards to less than significant levels. Any recommendations 

stemming from these investigations shall be considered as conditions of approval. 

3. Development shall be subject to grading permits reviewed and approved by the 

City Engineer or their designers. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a soils 

engineering report conforming to City requirements shall be submitted and 

approved by the City Engineer. 

10 Dames & Moore, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, LADWP Crystal Springs Mainterumce Yard, 

November 1995, page 7. 

11 

Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.1-7 and 3.1-8. 



Page 24 

DreamWorks ADimation Campus AddcPdWl EIR 

June: 1996

12 

4. 1. Earth 

4. An erosion control plan shall be required and subject to review and approval by 

the City Engineer. This plan shall contain detailed, verifiable procedures and 

methods for implementing this plan. Components of an erosion control plan may 

include, but not be limited to, the following: 

Temporary culverts, ditches, dams, settling ponds, sandbagging, or 

similar measures to be installed where needed during construction 

activities to collect excess water and sediments flowing out of 

construction sites and to reduce erosion; 

Straw, hydroseeding, mulching, soil binders, or other suitably acceptable 

materials or techniques to be instituted for uncovered soils, as needed, 

during construction activities for the duration of these activities; and 

Postponing grading activities during periods when wind gusts exceed 25 

mph and during the rainy season. 12 The rainy season is generally 

considered to run from November 15 through April 15. 

It is understood that this provision is intended to mean that grading activities could be suspended during a rain 

storm, but not throughout the rainy season. 



Page 25 


June 1996

REDEVELOP:MENT PLAN Il\1PACTS 


4.2. AIR 

The Redevelopment Area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) which 

covers a 6,600 square-mile area including all of Orange County, and the non-desert portions 

of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Maintenance and improvement of 

ambient air quality in the SoCAB is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD). 

Two types of thresholds are used to measure the Redevelopment Area's impact on the 

ambient air quality conditions of both the local area and on the SoeAB as a whole. The fIrst 

set of thresholds is that of the ambient air quality standards (AAQS) promulgated by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA). Both the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the state ambient air 

quality standards (SAAQS) are presented in Table 2 on page 27. Table 2 also compares AAQSs 

to the ambient air quality data as measured for the East San Fernando Valley Source Receptor 

Area. 

The second set of thresholds applies to the Redevelopment Area's total regional 

emissions of criteria pollutants for both construction and post-construction occupancy. These 

thresholds were promulgated by the SCAQMD in their April, 1993 CEQA Air Quality 

Handbook and are presented in Table 3 on page 28. Both the AAQSs and the emission 

thresholds used in the Program EIR are consistent with the. current thresholds. 

Table 4 on page 28 presents the post-eonstruction occupancy emissions for the 

Redevelopment Area as estimated in the Program EIR and compares these emissions to the 

SCAQMD emission thresholds. The Program EIR (page 3.2-10) states that short-term 

(construction) emissions associated with the development plan while significant, can be mitigated 

below the level of significance. However, the long-term impacts (post-construction occupancy, 

page 3.2-11) are significant and adverse, and camlOt be mitigated below the level of 

significance. 



Page 26 


June 1996

Carbon Monoxide 

Nitrogen Oxides 

Reactive Organic Compounds 

Particulate Matter 

Sulfur Oxides 

Table 3 

SCAQMD EMISSIONS TImESHOLDS 

Construction 


550 

100 

75 

150 

150 

Table 4 


POST-CONSTRUCTION OCCUPANCY EMISSIONS 


4. 2. Air 

Post-Construction Occupancy 

(Pounds per Dav) 

550 

55 

55 

150 

150 

Reactive Carbon Nitrogen Particulate 

Organic Gases Monoxide Oxides Matter 

4. 2. Air 

and coating, and vehicular emissions from on-site construction equipment and off-site 

construction worker vehicle trips. The SCAQMD Handbook provides screening tables to 

determine potential air quality impacts from construction. The SCAQMD minimum threshold 

for potential significant adverse construction air quality impacts is 559,000 square feet of gross 

floor area. The project has a gross floor area of 495,000 square feet and therefore is below the 

SCAQMD screening level for construction impacts. This is not inconsistent with the Program 

EIR, which states a significant but mitigable impact due to construction of all anticipated 


Regional Operational Impacts 

The proposed project is located within the Redevelopment Area, based upon the variable 

distribution of development discussed in Section 2, Project Overview. Therefore, its emissions 

from post-construction occupancy of the project facility are contained in the emission estimates 

generated for the Redevelopment Area as presented in Table 4 on page 28. The emissions 

presented in Table 4 are based on CARB Urban Emission (URBEMIS3) model nms. The 

URBEMIS model calculated emissions based on gross floor area. The project site floor area 

represents approximately 3.33-percent of the area allocated in the Redevelopment Plan for 

Industrial use. Emissions for the Restricted Industrial use were obtained from the URBEMIS3 

printouts from the Program EIR1 3 , and the project related emissions were determined based 

on the assumption that 3.33-percent of the emissions assigned to the Restricted Industrial land 

use were allocated to this proposed project. These project-related emissions are presented in 

Table 5 on page 30. 

The Traffic/Circulation section of this document discusses the fact that the project will 

generate higher levels of tripmaking than those associated with the Program EIR's analysis for 

Restricted Industrial land use. Therefore, the project's emissions were recalculated using the 

methodologies presented in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, trip data from the 

project specific traffic analysis, trip lengths from the Program EIR, and emission factors from 

the CARB emission factor model EMFAC7-F. These emissions are presented in Table 5. The 

calculations used in determining these emissions are included in Appendix A. The recalculated 

emissions as presented, are approximately equal to or less than those originally calculated in the 

Program EIR, even though the project is forecast to increase the number of trips over what was 

originally allocated to the project. This defacto emission reduction is primarily attributable to 

the workings of the URBEMIS3 model used to generate the emissions presented in the Program 

EIR. 

1.3 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. Appendix G. Air Quality Worksheers. 

Planning ConsulranlS Resean:h 


Page 29 


June 1996

Table 6 

LOCAL CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION SUMMARY 

I-hr Concentration - 2010 8-hr Concentration - 2010 

4. 2. Air 

Intersection Receptor No-Prolect With Project Change Background Total Future Change Backeround Total Future 

Flower/Western 

3.5 3.5 0.0 8.2 8.2 0.0 7.1 7.1 

2 4.4 4.5 0.1 8.2 8.3 0.1 7.1 7.2 

3 4.6 4.7 0.1 8.2 8.3 0.1 7.1 7.2 

4 2.7 2.8 0.1 8.2 8.3 0.1 7.1 7.2 

State I-Itr Standard 20 ppm State B-hr Standard 9.0 ppm National I-hr Standard 35 ppm National B-Itr Standard 9.5 ppm 



Page 33 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum Ern 

June 1996

Construction 

4. 2. Air 

unloading. These measures will be implemented by the developer with 

design review by the City; 

• Transit use incentives by employers to encourage public transit use by 

employees; 

• Encouragement of carpooling and vanpooling. 

• Alteration of normal daily truck delivery routes to avoid congestion at peak 

hours; 

• Consideration of developing staggered work hours; and 

• Consideration for providing convenient bus shelters and bus turnouts along 

the major arterials to encourage ridership and improve traffic flow. 

3. Low-pressure sodium lighting using full cut-off luminaries shall be used 

whenever suitable for outdoor security and general illumination lighting when 

such lighting is replaced or newly installed in projects under the Agency's 

jurisdiction. High-pressure sodium lighting, mercury vapor or tungsten 

incandescent lighting shall not be permitted without specific overriding 

justification. This requirement shall apply principally to architectural, space, and 

security lighting, and shall not apply to animation industry or process specific 

activities. 

4. The Developer/Participant shall monitor the SCAQMD's rule making procedure 

to ensure that adequate standards are established for toxic emissions, and that 

abatement of toxic emissions within the project area proceeds in accordance with 

these standards. 

1. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize 

exhaust' emissions and conform to state and federal regulations for emissions 

control. 

2. Grading activities shall be restricted to prevent wind entrailUllent of fugitive dust, 

when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 

3. The SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be complied with to reduce fugitive dust impacts. 

4. Construction activities shall be halted during Stage Two smog alerts and in the 

event of local Stage Two smog forecasts. 


erosion and release of dust and particulates. This may be accomplished through 


PlalUling Consultants Research 


Page 34 


June 1996



4. 2. Air 





may also be used as directed by the Developer/Participant. Truck loads of soil 


Page 35 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElR 

June 1996

REDEVELOPl\1ENT PLAN IMPACTS 


4.3. WATER (HYDROLOGY) 

Drainage. The Program EIR defmes a significant drainage impact as follows: 15 

"Drainage impacts are considered significant if runoff exceeds the design capacity 

of the drainage works and flows cannot be accommodated by planned drainage 

facilities. " 

The Redevelopment Plan Area lies within the drainage basin for the Los Angeles River. 

Redevelopment Plan drainage impacts, due to increased runoff and/or sediment load during 

grading and construction activities, are considered adverse but less than significant, and can be 

substantially lessened with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the 

Program EIR. 

To mitigate existing drainage deficiencies throughout the entire Redevelopment Area, 

implementation of the Redevelopment Plan includes extensive improvements to the storm drain 

system. Because the area is already nearly completely developed, development in the area is 

not expected to significantly change runoff volumes. With implementation of mitigation 

measures, the short-term adverse drainage impacts that would occur during development of the 

Redevelopment Area can be substantially reduced. Long term flooding impacts would be 

considered less than significant. 

Flood Control. The Program ErR defmes the threshold of significance relative to 

flooding as follows: 16 

"Flooding impacts are considered significant ifdevelopment within the designated 

lOO-year flood zone is subject to future flooding." 

The Los Angeles County DepaI1ment of Public Works and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers are responsible for regional flood control within the County. The City of Glendale 


16 Ibid. 



Page 36 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddCDClum EIR 

June 1996


partIcIpates in the National Flood Insurance Administration program through the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA has identified and mapped areas which are 

at risk due to periodic flooding. Areas within the Redevelopment Area identified as being 

within the designated lOO-year flood zone are the Los Angeles Flood Control Channel and the 

Verdugo Wash. The Redevelopment Plan includes construction of capital improvements which 

are expected to reduce flooding. 

Build-out of the Redevelopment Plan would result in less than significant flooding 

impacts. The only areas within the Redevelopment Area that are within the lOO-year flood zone 

are the Los Angeles River and the Verdugo Wash channels. 

Surface/Groundwater Resources. The Program EIR defines significant surface/ 

groundwater resources impacts as follows: 17 

"Impacts to surface/groundwater resources are significant if the project will 

substantially degrade water quality to levels below levels acceptable to the 

Regional Water Quality Control Board." 

There are no dependable surface water sources in the City of Glendale and the 

Redevelopment Area has limited groundwater resources. However, the City does use 

groundwater supplied from wells within the Redevelopment Area for domestic purposes. A 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) remedial investigation ofthe San Fernando Basin, 

an aquifer which underlies the City of Glendale, was completed for the purpose of identifying 

groundwater contamination. 18 Through the use of groundwater monitoring wells it was 

determined that contamination in the groundwater could cause a significant risk to human health 

if the water was consumed without treatment. The largest quantities of these contaminants were 

found in current or previous industrial areas and has reduced the City of Glendale's ability to 

produce water from one of the two wells that the City utilizes for drinking water purposes, 

although only ten percent of the City's potable water supply comes from the ground. The other 

well that the City utilizes is not within the contamination area. The EPA is in the process of 

implementing a Superfund treatment program of the groundwater in the San Fernando Basin so 

that it can again be used for consumption. 19 As part of this remediation program, the EPA 

has proposed use of three wells on the project site for extraction purposes. With 

implementation of the mitigation measures found in the Program EIR, the Redevelopment Plan 


18 Ibid. 

19 City of Glendale Depanmenr of Public Services, Will Wilson, telephone conversation, February 11, 1996. 

Planning Consullants Resean:h 


Page 37 


June 1996


will not significantly decrease water quality below existing levels because in general new 

development will replace old development, thus not substantially changing the quantity of land 

covered by impervious surfaces, and because of City enforcement of National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. 


Drainage. The DreamWorles Animation Campus site contains a drainage ditch, running 

from west to east across the southern portion ofthe property, which drains the site during heavy 

rains. 20 This swale drains through the southeast comer of the property and enters directly 

into the Los Angeles River. A drainage study will 1?e required to determine what sort of 

replacement drainage structures will be needed to accommodate the runoff associated with the 

project site. 

A new 60-inch storm drain borders the northeast side of the site along Flower Street and 

the 96-inch Paula Avenue storm drain runs under the current easement for Victory Truck 

Boulevard. Both of these drains outfall directly into the Los Angeles River, to the southeast 

and south of the project site, respectively. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District has 

indicated that the Paula Avenue stonn drain has been designed to receive runoff from only the 

western third of the project site. 21 Therefore, a storm drain shall be installed on-site that 

would direct drainage from the eastern two thirds of the property into the adjacent Los Angeles 

River via the existing spillway. The proposed storm drain would also accommodate some storm 

water runoff from the southern end of Flower Street, adjacent to the property. The City of 

Glendale Department of Public Services, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall review project stonn drain plans to ensure that the 

plans meet City, County, and U:S. Army Corps standards and that the Los Angeles River has 

adequate capacity to accommodate project generated runoff. On-site drainage would be 

adequately managed with the construction of the proposed stonn drain and the implementation 

of the other mitigation measures identified at the end of this section. 

Flood Control. The proposed project is not within a lOO-year flood zone and is 

designated within FEMA Flood Zone D. Within Flood Zone n, flood hazards are 

undetermined but flooding is possible. No mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements 

20 Dames & Moore. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard, 

November 3, 1995, page 4. 

21 

B & E Engineers, Paul Mangaudis. telephone conversation, April 3, 1996. 


Glendale RedeveloJHDent Agency 

Page 38 

DreamWorks ADimatiou Campus Addendum EIR 

June 1996


apply in Flood Zone D. The Los Angeles River, which serves as a flood control channel and 

is adjacent to the project site, will accommodate and contain stormwater associated with a 100year 

frequency storm event, according to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps.22 Since the 

proposed project is not in a IOO-year flood zone and the Redevelopment Plan includes capital 

improvements which are expected to adequately reduce flooding potential in the Redevelopment 

Area, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant impact due to potential 

flooding. 

Surface/Groundwater Resources. The project site contains a drainage ditch which 

facilitates drainage of the site during periods of heavy rain.23 Recent borings of the site 

conducted for a Geotechnical Report indicate that groundwater was encountered at a depth of 

28 feet. 24 Although at one time there were four groundwater wells operating on-site, three of 

the wells have been plugged and are considered abandoned dry holes and one has been 

completely removed. Based on the site assessment that was prepared for the project site, there 

is no information to suggest that either historical or current activities have contributed to 

groundwater contamination beneath the site. 25 Maps from the EPA groundwater investigation 

reveal that the project site is in an area of "least (lowest) groundwater contamination...26 The 

three on-site wells that EPA proposed as part of its groundwater remediation program extraction 

system will be relocated to positions along the site's northern boundary where their functions 

will be maintained without interference with proposed structures and activities. Neither the 

existing or proposed uses would present any substantial risk of contamination to surface or 

groundwater on the site. Proposed project impacts on groundwater would, with the mitigation 

measures included in the Program EIR, be less than significant. 


In addition, the following mitigation measures from the Program EIR may be applicable 

to this project.27 

22 A IOO-year storm event is defined as a storm with a one in one-hundred chance ofoccurring within a given 

year. 

23 Dames &: Moore. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard. 

November 3. 1995. page 4. 

24 Ibid, page 5. 

25 Dames & Moore. Phase 11 Site Characterization. January 25. 1996. page 5. 

26 Program EIR Final EIR Volume. Appendices. Section F. Attachment C. 

27 Ibid. pages 3.3-4 and 3.3-5. 

Planning Consull3nts Research 


Page 39 

DrcamWork$ Animation CamPII!i Addendum EIR 

June 1996

Drainage. 


1. The City of Glendale Department of Public Services, Los Angeles County Flood 

Control District, and, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shaH review and approve 

project storm drain plans prior to project construction. 

2. At the project level, developers shall comply with NPDES pennit requirements 

within the construction area, to maintain the existing drainage flow and to collect 

excess water and sediments flowing from construction sites. (Existing 

requirement enforced through standard City procedures). 

3. At the project level, developers shall be required to submit erosion control plans 

if required by the City Engineer for approval prior to the release of a grading 

permit during the rainy season of November 15 - April 15. 

4. Necessary storm drain improvements shall be constructed on site or within the 

adjacent public right of way as practicable as part of the proposed project. 

5. Necessary storm drain improvements shall be constructed as part of the proposed 

project. 

Flooding. No applicable mitigation measures are contained in the Program EIR. 

. Surface/Groundwater Resources. The only appropriate groundwater mitigation 

measure would be review by a hydrological engineer, as indicated below: 28 

6. Specific· projects proposed within the Project Area shall be reviewed for their 

effect on groundwater quality by a hydrology engineer. Mitigation required as 

the result of review shall be implemented by the Developer/Participant. 

28 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, pages 3.3-4 and 3.3-5. 



Page 40 

DreamWorks Animation Cam.- Addendum ElK 

JUI1C 1996



4.4. NOISE 

The Program EIR defmes the threshold of significance for noise as follows: 29 

"Noise impacts are considered to be significant if the project will increase noise or 

vibration levels to a level considered "nonnally unacceptable" for a given land use as 

established by the General Plan for that use. The noise impact is also significant if 

noise levels on the property exceed acceptable levels for the proposed use. " 

Different land uses have different thresholds for noise level acceptability, as suggested 

in the threshold. The City of Glendale General Plan defmes the "nonnally acceptable" 

threshold for various land uses in tenns of Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) with 

a maximum of 75 .decibels (dB) for industrial uses, 70 dB for commercial uses, and 60 dB for 

single family residential uses. 30 

Existing noise sources in the Redevelopment Area include construction activities, rail, 

aircraft, motor vehicle, and stationary sources. Almost all of the Redevelopment Area currently 

experiences CNEL of 60 dB or greater. Parcels along San Fernando Road, near the freeways, 

and the railway regularly experience a noise level of 70 dB CNEL. This range of noise is 

normally acceptable or conditionally acceptable for office or industrial uses, which comprise the 

majority of land uses in the area, although there are some non-conforming residential uses in 

the Redevelopment Area that are exposed to 70 dB CNEL noise levels. 

Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will result in increased noise levels during 

the construction of individual projects. Redevelopment Plan construction noise impacts are 


30 The decibel (dB) is the accepted standard unit for measuring the amplitude ofsound because it accounts for 

the largest variations in sound levels andreflects the way people perceive changes in sound levels. A-weighted 

(dB(A)) sound levels are typically used to account for the response ofthe human ear and are adjusted to human 

hearing characteristics. In California, to evaluate the community noise environment on a daily basis. the 

community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is used as a noise descriptor. The CNEL is the time average ofall 

A-weighted levels for a 24-hourperiod with a 10 dB upward adjustment added to those noise levels occurring 

between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. and a 5 dB adjustment added to those noises that occur between 7:00 P.M. 

and 10:00 P.M. to account for the general increased sensitivity ofpeople to evening and nighttime noise. 



Page 41 

DrcamWorks Aaimation Campus Addendum EIR 

June 1996

4. 4. Noise 

therefore considered to have a short-tenn significant impact when III close proximity to 

residential uses. 

Although the Redevelopment Plan will cause traffic volumes to increase along San 

Fernando Road, the Golden State (1-5) Freeway, and the Ventura (SR-134) Freeway, resulting 

in increased noise levels in the areas adjacent to those roadways, these impacts would be 

considered less than significant since the existing and future land uses (commercial, office, 

industrial) in those areas are not considered noise sensitive and anticipated noise levels are 

under the CNEL of 75 dB "nonnally unacceptable" threshold for those types of uses. 

Redevelopment Plan generated traffic is anticipated to incrementally increase ambient noise 

levels on arterial streets. Sensitive land uses in the Redevelopment Area may be significantly 

affected by traffic generated noise. 

PROJECT Il\1PACTS 

The DreamWorks Animation Campus site is bordered by Ml Zone (Restricted Industrial) 

land uses to the north, east, and west. The Golden State (1-5) Freeway lies further to the west. 

The Los Angeles River borders the site to the south. with City of Los Angeles Griffith Park 

soccer fields and the Ventura (SR-134) Freeway further south. 

A noise study perfonned on the project site included in Appendix B to this document, 

indicates that the existing noise environment on-site is dominated by freeway noise. 31 Other 

noise sources include train noise from the railroad tracks, located approximately 1,300 feet 

away from the project site. although train noise is not easily detected due to distance and the 

predominance of freeway noise. The other contributor to the noise environment on-site is the 

sporadic sound of small propeller aircraft and helicopters. Freeway noise levels currently reach 

a high of 62 dBA Leq32 on the site, sporadic aircraft noise reaches a level of 70 dBA. and 

train noise reaches a high of 70 dBA. 33 Overall, the existing hourly Leq on-site ranges from 

54 to 64 dB with an existing CNEL of 67 dB. 34 Although these noise levels could cause 

constraints for some outdoor activities, they are not so high that indoor activities could not be 

31 Crystal Springs Noise and Vibration Assessment Repon. Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates. October /3. /995. 

32 Leq stands for equivalent sound level. Leq is an equivalent steady-state A-weighted sound level averaged over 

a specified period oftime. 

33 Crystal Springs Noise and Vibration Assessment Repon. Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates. October 13. 1995 

(see Appendix C). 

34 Ibid. 

Planning Consu)umts Re5Carch 


Page 42 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum DR 

June 1996

35 

4. 4. Noise 

made acceptable for sound critical uses with proper design. The "normally unacceptable" 

threshold at an industrial site as established by the City of Glendale, is specified as a CNEL of 

75 dB. 35 

Construction noise on the project site could range anywhere from 70 to 105 dBA at a 

distance of 50 feet from the source, depending on the type of equipment used. Construction 

noise impacts on the project site are anticipated to be less than significant, due to the lack of 

sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the site. The nearest sensitive land use is a residential 

neighborhood, located approximately 1,200 feet away, which due to distance and a dense array 

of intervening industrial buildings acting as sound barriers would not experience any significant 

noise impact due to construction actiVities. 

As indicated in Section 2. of this document, Project Overview, the project site has been 

active since 1958 in the operation of helicopters. The site was used by Helicopters, Inc. from 

1958 to 1964, by the Los Angeles Police Department from 1964 to 1983, by the Glendale 

Police Department from 1972 to 1992, and by the Burbank Police Department from 1978 to 

1988. 36 

A noise study analyzing historical and future helicopter noise levels associated with the 

proposed project was performed by Arup Acoustics and is attached as Appendix B to this 

document. A letter describing the history of helicopter operations at the project site was 

prepared by Heliport Consultants and is included as Appendix B to this document. Helicopter 

flight information for the years 1974 through 1992 was made available by the Los Angeles, 

Glendale, and Burbank police air support units. Based on this information, past and future 

noise levels generated by helicopter operations were estimated for the project site and four offsite 

receptor locations. These receptor locations, depicted in Figure 5 on page 44, Noise 

Monitoring· Locations" consist of single- and multi-family residential areas and represent the 

noise sensitive land uses that are closest to the project site. As indicated on Figure 5, these 

locations, numbered one through four, are approximately 1,200, 1,900, 1,600, and 1,900 feet 

away, from the project site, respectively. 

Table 7 on page 46 shows that the CNEL generated by helicopter operations at the four 

receptor locations ranged from as low as 49 dB in the years 1974 through 1977 to as high as 

62 dB in the years 1978 through 1983. During the entire 18 year period identified on Table 

7, an average of 67 percent of these flight events (landing or take off) occurred between the 

City of Glendale. General Plan. Noise Element. Figure 5. page 36. 

36 Letter from Helipon Consultants. March 7. 1996. page 2. 


Glrndalr Rfdevelopment Agency 

Page 43 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeoolllJJ EIR 

June 1996

Planning 

Consultants 

Research 

N 

A 

Page 44 

Figure 5 

Noise Monitoring Locations

39 

4. 4. Noise 

hours of 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., 18 percent occurred between 7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M., and 

15 percent occurred between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. The average number of flight events 

per weekday that occurred over the entire 18 year period ranged from a low of 49 in the years 

1989 through 1992 to a high of 159 in the years 1978 through 1983. 37 Although some flight 

events occurred on weekends, the majority of events occurred on weekdays. The helicopter 

noise study prepared for this document was based on weekday trips. Table 7 indicates that 

these flight'events only increased the ambient noise levels at the receptor locations by a 

maximum CNEL of 0.47 dB. 

The existing ambient noise level at all four receptor locations is a CNEL of 66.96. This 

exceeds the significance threshold for a CNEL of 60 dB for residential areas, as established by 

the City of Glendale. 38 It is estimated that the proposed project will generate approximately 

ten flight events per day.39 Almost all of these flight events will occur between the hours 

of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. Approximately one to two flights per month will occur between 

7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. There would be no flights between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. The 

estimated CNEL that would be generated by each of these flight events at the four receptors 

would range from 24 to 35 dB, as indicated on Table 8. However, the existing background 

. noise, in combination with the sound generated by these individual flight events, would not 

increase the ambient noise levels at the four receptor locations, as indicated in Table 8 on page 

46, due to the predominance of freeway and railroad noise. Since the ambient noise levels at 

the receptor locations would not be increased by project helicopter flights, and since the most 

of these flights would occur between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., with none occurring 

between 10 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., project generated helicopter operations would have a less than 

significant impact on noise sensitive land uses in the project vicinity. 

As there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the proposed project, project 

generated traffic wop.ld not have a significant impact on ambient noise levels, unlike the 

Redevelopment Plan as a whole which would result in mobile noise impacts in the industrial 

areas adjacent to certain residential areas. Similar to the Redevelopment Plan, stationary noise 

sources on-site are anticipated to have less than significant impacts. 

37 ArupAcoustics, DreamWorks SKGAnimation Campus Glendale Helipon Noise Assessments, May 15,1996, 

page 5, Table 2. 

38 City of Glendale, General Plan, Noise Elemenr, Figure 5, page 36. 

[bid, page 5, Table 5. 



Page 45 


June 1996

Receptor 

1 

2 

3 

4 

a Measured in CNEL. 

Table 7 

PREVIOUS AND FUI1JRE HELICOPTER NOISE LEVELS a 

1974-1977 

54 

51 

59 

49 


1978-1983 

57 

53 

62 

52 

Table 8 

1978-1988 

59 

57 

59 

55 

1989-1992 

COMBINED HELICOPTER AND EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS a 

(Helicopter Operations Plus Current Ambient Noise Levels) 

57 

55 

57 

53 

4. 4. Noise 

Future 

Receptor 

Existing 

CNEL 

CNEL With Previous Helicopter Operations 

1974-1977 1978-1983 1978-1988 1989-1992 

CNEL 

Future 

with Project 

1 66.96 67.03 67.11 67.21 67.13 66.96 

2 66.96 66.96 67.03 67.15 67.07 66.96 

3 66.96 67.11 67.43 67.29 67.13 66.96 

4 66.96 67.03 66.99 67.06 67.03 66.96 

a Measured in CNEL 



The following noise mitigation measure may be applicable to the proposed project, as 

follows: 40 

40 Telephone conversation with Lonnie Brown, City of Glendale Neighborhood Services, April 2, 1996. 



Page 46 

33 

29 

35 

24 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addend\llll ErR 

June 1996

4. 4. Noise 

1. The City of Glendale Public Works Division shall be notified prior to 

construction activities that would occur between the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 

A.M. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a legal 

holiday. 

Planning Consultants Rl:5Cart:h 


Page 47 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeDdum ErR 

June 1996


4. ENVmONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 

4.5. LIGHT AND GLARE 

The Program EIR states the following significance tlrreshold for light and glare: 

"A project will generally result in significant light and glare impacts if the 

project includes lighting features that will shine onto adjacent properties, interrupt 

operations of a light sensitive use (such as an obs.ervatory), or produce intrusive 

glare effects. " 

The Redevelopment Area currently consists of residential, commercial and industrial 

development of varying intensities; each of which utilize relatively high levels of lighting for 

interiors and exteriors, security, parking, signage, and landscaping. 41 Traffic in the area may 

produce light and glare effects from headlights and from reflections off vehicle windows and 

chrome. Roadways, sidewalks, and building materials, including windows can also reflect 

sunlight, thereby producing glare. New construction within the Redevelopment Area has the 

potential to increase light and glare from the same type of sources. 


The proposed project consists of approximately seven (7), two to four story buildings, 

each interconnected with arcades, verandas, and bridges and each having courtyards, terraces 

and patios. These buildings will cluster around a piazza in a Mediterranean style and include 

several architectural towers, one of which could be as much as 115 feet in height and located 

in the center of the site. Acting as a visual buffer from the freeways to the south and west, a 

grove of trees will be planted along the southern property boundary, adjacent to the Los 

Angeles River. In addition, there will be a parking structure which will be five levels above 

ground, with a helipad above the top level. 

Each of these elements would require interior and exterior lighting for security, parking, 

walkways, signage, landscaping, etc. Lighting on the DreamWorks Animation Campus will 

41 Program E/R. Final EIR Volume. page 3.5-1. 

Planning Consullllnts Research 


Page 48 


June 1996 

, .


likely be visible from surrounding properties and may spillover marginally onto adjoining 

properties. However, because the project site is located within an M1 Zone (Restricted 

Industrial) area and is surrounded by uses pennitted in that zone to the west, north and east, 

and by the Los Angeles River, soccer fields beyond the Los Angeles River, and a freeway to 

the south. lighting spillover from the site will not have a significant effect on any uses 

considered sensitive to night lighting. Reflected glare from building materials is not expected 

to produce adverse effects on-site, on neighboring properties, or in the vicinity, due to the site's 

relative isolation and the varied architectural fonns indicated in the preliminary project design 

(see Figure 6 on page 56 in Section 4.6, Land Use.) 

The proposed project's buildings, parking structure, and the towers were also evaluated 

for potential shading impacts to adjacent land uses. .Shading is a common and expected 

occurrence in urbanized areas, including the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Area. 

All buildings, trees, landfonns and other features rise appreciably above grade cast shadows. 

Shading is positive when it provides cooling effects during warm seasons and the Glendale area 

can be quite warm during the summer months. It can also be negative, if shading of sensitive 

uses occurs for extensive periods, particularly in the cooler parts of the year. Redevelopment 

Plan shading impacts were not analyzed in the Program EIR, since shading is directly related 

to building size and location and evaluation on a program level when building masses are 

unknown is not productive. Analyses ofshading impacts are appropriate for individual projects, 

where sensitive uses might be affected. 

To detennine the extent of shadow cast by the project, this analysis examines the project 

elements which are the tallest and closest to the site boundary. Anticipated maximum shadow 

lengths for representative building heights on the DreamWodes Animation Campus are identified 

in the text table below. As shown, on the winter solstice, the highest proposed project 

structure, the 115 foot high central campanile, would project its longest shadow of 348 feet in 

a 45 0 westerly direction at 9:00 A.M. and in a 45 0 easterly direction at 3:00 P.M. At 9:00 

A.M., the shadow would. not extend beyond the northwesterly project property boundary. At 

3:00 P.M., the shadow would extend into the adjacent industrial property across Flower Street 

by approximately 55 feet. This distance exceeds the minimum required street setback line for 

M1 Zone properties by 45 feet. 

Because of their proximity to the property lines, other lower profile project structures 

would also cast shadows onto adjacent properties. For example, assuming a 40-foot height for 

the parking structure, 121 foot shadows would be cast some 91 feet into the adjacent property 

to the northwest and 38 feet into the adjacent property across Flower Street. Project buildings 

along the Flower Street frontage would briefly shade the frontage across Flower Street. 

Planning COlWllrants Rcsurch 


Page 49 


June 1996

MAXIMUM SHADOW LENGTHS AND BEARINGS 

DURING THE SUMMER AND WINTER SOLSTICES 


Summer Solstice Winter Solstice 

9:00 A.M. I 85° W a 9:00 A.M. I 45° W 

Height of Structure 5:00 P.M. 185° E 3:00 P.M. I 45° E 

35 47 106 

40 53 121 

60 80 182 

115 153 348 

a Bearing is identified in degrees from north (e.g.• 85° W means 85 degrees west ofnonh). 

Surrounding land uses are limited to those pennitted in the Restricted Industrial zone and 

are not considered shadow-sensitive, as evidenced by their design and the nature of their 

occupancy. This is also evidenced by the development standards ofthe M-I zone which provide 

no setback criteria from property lines other than along street frontages, and then only ten (10.0) 

feet, which would allow more off-site shading from compliant structures than would occur from 

the proposed project. Accordingly, no significant project shading or other light and glare 

impacts not previously anticipated in the Program ErR are expected. 


The following light and glare mitigation measures, as identified in the Program ErR, may 

apply to the proposed project: 42 

42 

1. The Agency and the City design review of all projects shall include review of 

lighting plans and illuminated signage to ensure minimal spillover and glare. 

(Existing review requirement). 

2. Buildings shall not use reflective glass that will cause excessive glare to motorists 

or residents. 

Program EIR. FinaL EIR Volume. page 3.5-2. 

Planning ConsullaniS Resean:h 


Page 50 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendaan EIR 

June 1996


3. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed so that all direct illumination is 

confined to the site and adjacent properties are protected from spillover 

illumination. The level of lighting in parking lots and along walkways shall 

comply with City code requirements. 



Page 51 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addemlwn EIR 

June 1996



4.6. LAND USE 

The Program EIR defmes the following significance thresholds for land use: 43 

"Land use impacts are considered significant if the project will result in 1) development 

inconsistent with the General Plan land use policy or zoning for a given area; 2) 

conflicts with regional land use plans or policies; 3) substantial land use conflicts, or 4) 

loss of significant open space resources." 

The Redevelopment Area encompasses relatively level terrain and is highly urbanized. 

The area is dominated by industrial, manufacturing, and commercial uses with pockets of 

residential development. The industrial, manufacturing, and commercial uses are a mix ofolder 

and more recent,one- and two-story facilities, often characterized by an architectural simplicity 

and functionality. The residential areas consist of single- and multi-family neighborhoods. 

Existing development in the Redevelopment Area includes 7,804,000 square feet of industrial 

space including the DreamWorks site, 997,000 square feet of commercial space, 511 dwelling 

units, 2.9 acres of parks and open space and 1.6 acres of vacant parcels. The Redevelopment 

Plan provides for an additional 3,676,000 square feet of industrial space, 1,289,000 square feet 

of commercial space, and 37 dwelling units, which upon full development of the Plan would 

result in a total of 11,480,000 square feet of industrial space, 2,286,000 square feet of 

commercial space, and 548 dwelling units. 

The Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the City of Glendale General Plan and relies 

on development standards within a series of zoning districts established by the Zoning 

Ordinances. Objectives of the Redevelopment Plan are as follows: 44 

1. The elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration and the 

conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment of the Redevelopment Area in 

accordance with the General Plan, Specific Plans, the Redevelopment Plan, and 

local codes and ordinances. 


44 Ibid. pages 1-6 and 1-7. 



Page 52 


June 1996


2. The promotion of private sector investment within the Redevelopment Area to 

prevent the loss of, and to facilitate, conunercial sales activity. An important 

objective will be the retention of existing and attraction of new industrial 


3. The achievement of an environment reflecting a high level of concern for 

architectural, landscape, urban design, and land use principles appropriate for 

attainment of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. 

4. The retention and expansion of as many existing businesses as possible by means 

ofredevelopment and rehabilitation activities and by encouraging and assisting 

the cooperation and participation of owners, businesses, and public agencies in 

the revitalization of the Redevelopment Area. 

5. The provision for increased revenues to the City of Glendale. 

6. The creation and. development of local job opportUnities and the preservation of 

the area's existing employment base. 

7. The replanning, redesign, and development of areas which are stagnant or 

improperly utilized. 

8. The expansion of the community's supply of housing (inside or outside the 

Redevelopment Area), including opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderateincome 

households. 

9. Improve and enhance the local and regional transportation system. 

The Redevelopment Plan is expected to lead to more efficient use of available land for 

more intensive development, and the elimination of unattractive, poorly maintained structures 

and land uses. Reconsolidation and reassemblage of some existing parcels is also anticipated, 

thus making the parcels more accessible and developable. Although the Redevelopment Plan 

is consistent with adopted local and regional plans and policies, its implementation would alter 

the existing character of the area by developing currently vacant or underutilized land and 

increasing the intensity of development. Such development could result in localized land use 

conflicts, including noise (especially during construction phases), traffic. and the size and 



Page 53 


June 1996

45 


configuration of new buildings. 45 However, mitigation measures should be available at the 

project level that would substantially reduce site specific noise, traffic and aesthetic impacts. 

Mitigation measures identified in the Land Use section and in other impact sections of the 

Program EIR, including Noise, Transportation/Circulation, and Recreation, would reduce the 

Redevelopment Plan's land use iinpacts to acceptable, non-significant levels. 


Land Use Consistency. The project site is located within an industrial/manufacturing 

area, most of which, including the site itself, is designated by the Redevelopment Plan for 

Restricted Industrial Zone uses and accordingly is zoned M-l. The Golden State (1-5) Freeway 

is also to the west and the Los Angeles River, City of Los Angeles Griffith Park soccer fields, 

and Ventura (SR-134) Freeway are to the south. The project site has been used for many years 

by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power for offices, storage, and 

groundwater pumping, and as an active heliport by the Glendale Police Department and Los 

Angeles Police Department. 'This property is not extensively improved, and has only a few 

structures and facilities, as indicated in the Aerial Photograph presented on Figure 3 on page 6. 

The proposed use of the site, an animation studio and related facilities, is entirely 

consistent with the Redevelopment Plan and General Plan, and directly implements all or most 

of each of the aforementioned Redevelopment Plan objectives as they apply to Restricted 

Industrial development on specific properties. The applicant would be required to execute an 

Participation Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency, as described in the Redevelopment 

Plan, in which the applicant agrees to develop the property in conformance with the Plan.46 

The unimproved Victory Truck Boulevard is proposed for inclusion as part of the project site 

adjacent to the Los Angeles River. As indicated in the Plan, "existing streets and alley may 

be abandoned, closed or modified as necessary for proper use and/or development. "47 

Setback requirements in the M-1 zone are limited to a provision that structures shall be 

no closer than five feet and an average of ten feet from any street. The project would meet this 

minimum requirement. Proposed development is approximately 35 feet from the northwestern 

border, adjacent to Restricted Industrial use, and approximately 85 feet from the southern 

Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.6-8. 

46 Redevelopment Plan for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. page 6. 

47 Ibid. page 16. 



Page 54 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn ElK 

June 1996


border. adjacent to the Los Angeles River. There are no floor area ratio restrictions in the t\f-l 

zone. 

The height limitation in the M-l zone is 35 feet. In order to maximize usable open 

space adjacent to and among the individual structures and for either aesthetic purposes, elements 

of the project would be taller than this limit. Each of the primary structures would consist of 

rather complex building forms with multiple roofs at varying levels. These structures would 

vary from 30 to 65 feet in height. Several architectural towers, or campaniles, would be 

approximately 65 feet in height, while one such tower may be as high as 115 feet. A height 

variance is proposed which would allow each on-site structure to exceed 35 feet and the 

campaniles to be 65 feet and, in the one instance, up to 115 feet high. 

In instances when rigorous application of the development standards in a given zoning 

district would serve to frustrate rather than implement the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan 

and/or General Plan, and where no unacceptable adverse consequences are anticipated, variances 

are the mechanism by which appropriate adjustments are made. Supported by appropriate 

findings, variances when approved are not inconsistent with General Plan policy or zoning intent 

in an area. 

Aesthetics. The project site is visible from the adjacent properties to the east and west, 

from Flower Street, and from the levee and proposed bike path along the south side of the Los 

Angeles River chaIlllel. The site can also be seen from traffic on the westbound Ventura (SR 

134) and northbound Golden State (1-5) Freeways. 

The proposed project would improve the appearance of the project site and provide a 

beneficial effect in the Redevelopment Area. The project consists of an integral complex of 

multiple structures articulated with variable heights and roof lines. It has been designed in a 

Mediterranean style clustered around a "piazza II and interconnected with arcades, verandas, and 

bridges. Figures 6, 7 and 8 on pages 56, 57 and 58 depict the project upon completion of the 

structures except those intended at the east and west ends of the site. The proposed buildings 

would be two to four stories high, ranging from 30,000 to 85,000 square feet of floor area 

each. Included among the buildings would be courtyards, terraces, patios, and several 

architectural towers. A parking structure with five levels above ground is also proposed. A 

helipad would be located on top of the parking structure. Landscaping features may include an 

ornamental garden/water feature and a grove of trees adjacent to the Los Angeles River, which 

would act as a visual and acoustic buffer from the freeways to the south and west. The grove 

of trees along the Los Angeles River and other usable landscaped open space areas are estimated 

to occupy approximately 2.5 acres, or twenty percent of the site. Project development would 

Planning ConsulLanlS Resl:arch 

Glendale Redevelopment Agenq' 

Page 55 


June 1996

Planning 

Consultants 

Research SOUF1CE: A. V MedIa. los Angeles. Jan·1996 

Figure 8 

View of the Propose.d Development 

from the South


therefore enhance and improve the existing character of the area in a positive way, due to the 

architectural design and the use of landscaping. 

The proposed project achieves all applicable objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and 

is consistent with the General Plan. It would house an approved land use in the Restricted 

Industrial District (M-I Zone) and would substantially exceed the minimum setback criteria 

established in that zone. To do so and to achieve the Plan objective to reflect II ••• a high level 

of architectural, landscape, urban design and land use principals..., II the project has applied for 

a height variance under the established procedures of the Zoning Ordinance. No resulting 

conflicts with adjacent land uses are anticipated. The project would therefore not have any 

significant land use impacts. 


The following mitigation measure, as identified in the Program EIR, may apply to the 


1. Development will be required to meet all City development standards to ensure 

compatibility with adjacent land uses, adequate infrastructure and parking. 

48 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. pages 3.6-8 and 3.6-9. 

Planning Consuhams ReSQrth 


Page 59 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeDdum Em 

June 1996



4.7. RISK OF UPSET 

The Program EIR defines significance thresholds for the risk of upset as the 

following: 49 

"Impacts are considered significant if the project will result in 1) an unusual or unique 

risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances in the event of accident or upset 

conditions; 2) possible interference with an emergency response or emergency evacuation 

plan; 3) creation of potential health hazards to people or animal or plant populations in 

the area affected; 4) locating potentially hazardous facilities in proximity to sensitive 

receptors such as schools, day care facilities, hospitals, and convalescent homes." 

Potential ris.k of upset issues identified in the Redevelopment Area include underground 

storage tanks (UST), hazardous material transport, and urban fires. There are 13 USTs within 

the Redevelopment Area, of which seven were contaminated and were being cleaned up at the 

time that the Program EIR was completed. The sites were contaminated either due to leakage 

or spills. Although the entire Redevelopment Area lies within a "vulnerability zone," defined 

by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency as an area where people may be exposed to 

health hazards in the event of accidental releases of hazardous materials from activities within 

or adjacent to that area, this is considered a normal condition for industrial districts. Any 

Redevelopment Plan sites which have been occupied by uses which pose potential risks of 

contamination will ·be examined and appropriate remediation will be identified and implemented 

prior to new development. The Redevelopment Plan itself does not represent an unusual or 

unique risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances.50 Section 4.3, Water 

(Hydrology), includes an analysis of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Superfund project to remediate groundwater contamination in the Redevelopment Area. 

The potential for transportation accidents involving the transport of hazardous material 

also presents a risk to the Redevelopment Area. Some designated uses within the 

Redevelopment Area include the use and transport of hazardous materials. State and Federal 


50 Ibid, page 3.7-7. 



Page 60 

DreamWorks Animation CamPIIS Addendum EIR 

June 1996


Although there are facilities that use potentially hazardous materials or that have 

experienced leaking USTs in the vicinity of the project site, the likelihood of any of these 

facilities having an impact on the project site is low, due to either the extent of the problem. 

location, distance, or the direction of groundwater flow, as indicated in an assessment prepared 

for the project site. 54 Section 4.3., Water (Hydrology), includes a description of the EPA 

Superfund project as it relates to the project site. 

The risk of upset level of the proposed project would be comparable to that of any other 

Restricted Industrial development in the Redevelopment Area that either would not use or would 

use limited amounts of hazardous materials. Fire prevention standards and procedures for the 

hydrology, storage and disposal of hazardous material for the proposed project would follow 

those prescribed in the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable regulations. Therefore, 

similar to the Redevelopment Plan, the project does not represent an unusual or unique risk of 

explosion or release of hazardous substances, and does not change the conclusions of the 

Program EIR. The project would have a less than significant impact with the implementation 

of the mitigation measures listed below. 


Although the hazardous material assessment found no significant level of contamination 

on-site, to address the possibility that some undetected localized areas of contamination could 

still exist, the following mitigation measures are recommended: 55 

1. If suspect soils (discolored, odorous, or stained) are encountered during 

excavation, sampling and testing of the excavation face or a stockpile for 

profiling and from the base of the excavation area, should beperfonned. 

2. If impacted soils are encountered and conI1.I1l1.ed by testing, special handling and 

disposal to a sanitary dump site or hazardous materials dump site will be 

required. 

54 Dames & Moore. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard. 

November 22. 1995, page 20. 

55 Dames & Moore. Phase II Site Characterization. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard. January 25. 

I996. page 20. 



Page 62 


June 1996


3. Contingency plans for worker's protection should be developed, including 

monitoring and response if odors or elevated levels of volatile organic vapors or 

soil contamination are encountered during excavation. These plans should 

include a provision for handling excess amounts of potentially contaminated 

groundwater. 

4. To minimize the possibility of migration of volatile organic vapors from the 

groundwater table up into excavation areas under the proposed structures, slabson-grade 

shall include a visqueen layer, for the purposes of creating a moisture 

seal and vapor barrier. 

Planning Consultams Research 


Page 63 


June 1996

56 



4.8. POPULATION/HOUSING 

The Program EIR defines impacts on population and housing as the following: 

"Impacts on population are significant if population growth exceeds projections 

for the area and results in a demand for housing and private and public services 

which exceed supply in the short- or long-tenn. Housing impacts are considered 

significant if the proposed project would result in the loss of substantial housing 

or if the proposed project would generate an additional demand for housing 

which exceeds regional growth projections. ,,56 

The Redevelopment Area had approximately 511 residential units and 1,323 pennanent 

residents in 1990. At buildout of the Redevelopment Plan, the area's population could increase 

by 96 people, residing in 548 dwelling units. This new population results in an increased 

demand for 37 housing units, based on a household size of 2.59 persons per household, which 

would be accommodated with implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. 57 

Although a very limited amount of housing development is planned within the 

Redevelopment Area, substantial nonresidential development is anticipated. In 1990, the 

Redevelopment Area contained approximately 8.97 million square feet of nomesidential 

development, providing an estimated 16,412 jobs based on a floor area to employee ratio of 2.8 

per 1,000 square feet. The Program EIR states that according to the City's General Plan, the 

Redevelopment Area could include an estimated additional 4.97 million square feet of 

nonresidential development and an additional 12,576 jobs, resulting in a total of 13.94 million 

squire feet and 28,988 jobs at buildout. 58 Of these total employees, 10 percent or 2,899 

employees are expected to reside in the City, requiring 2,376 housing units. The 

Redevelopment Plan activities will therefore result in an increase of 1,258 new residents to the 

Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-2. 

57 Ibid. page 3.6-7. 

58 Ibid. page 3.8-3. 



Page 64 


June 1996

60 Ibid. page 3.8-6. 

61 Ibid. Table 9 page 3.8-4. 


City, demanding a total of 1,031 housing units, which can be accommodated by the total 

housing growth anticipated by the City's General Plan.59 

Because growth projections are consistent with local plans and because the 

Redevelopment Plan results in an overall increase in housing units for the City and is therefore 

consistent with regional plans, it was concluded in the Program EIR that popUlation and housing 

impacts from redevelopment activities would be considered less than significant.60 


The DreamWorks Animation Campus consists of 495,000 square feet of development, 

on land zoned for Restricted Industrial uses. The project is expected to employ 1,400 

employees at build-out, corresponding to the employee generation rate of 2.8 employees per 

1,000 square feet established in the Program EIR for Research and Development Restricted 

Industrial uses (which represents 55 percent of the Restricted Industrial uses proposed in the 

Redevelopment Plan).61 Approximately 140 of these new employees are expected to reside 

in Glendale, according to City trends discussed in the Program EIR. 62 Using the regional 

housing ratio of 1.22 jobs per housing unit in the year 2010 stated in the Program EIR. these 

employees would create a demand for 115 housing units in the City.63 The proposed project 

does not include development of any residential components; therefore. no housing demand will 

be accommodated on-site. Because the projected population growth is consistent with the City's 

General Plan, and the additional housing units demanded from employees of the project can be 

accommodated with the General Plan's housing projections, the proposed project is considered 

consistent with local plans. Furthermore, because the proposed project adds additional 

employment to a "housing rich" area, and does not result in demolition of any housing units, 

the proposed project is also consistent with regional plans. Therefore, the proposed project 

would result in a less than significant impact overall. 

In order to provide a comparison with the Redevelopment Plan, this evaluation ofproject 

population and housing impacts fIrst estimates the population and housing units that would be 

generated on the project site using the Program EIR's average intensity assumptions (FAR) for 

59 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, Table 1, page 1-9. 

62 Ibid. page 3.8-3, slares that 10% ofnew employees in Glendale are expected to also reside in Ihe Cil)'. 

63 Ibid. 



Page 65 

Dn:amWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK 

June 1996


moderate income housing units. 64 However, because the proposed project will not involve 

the demolition of housing units, these measures do not apply. Furthermore. because no 

significant impacts on housing or population are projected with implementation of the proposed 

project, no further mitigation measures are proposed. 

64 Program E1R. Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-8. 

PlaMing Consuhllms Research 


Page 67 

DrumWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR 

. June 1996

4. San Fernando Road & Sonora Avenue 

5. San Fernando Road & Grandview Avenue 

6. San Fernando Road & Highland Avenue 

7. San Fernando Road & Fairmont Avenue 

8. San Fernando Road & Doran Street 

9. San Fernando Road & California Avenue 

10. San Fernando Road & Broadway 

11 . Flower Street & Grandview Avenue 

4. 9. Transponalion/Circularian 

The fIrst ten of these intersections were analyzed in the San Fernando Road Corridor 

Redevelopment Plan FErR. The latter intersection has been included given its proximity to the 

project site and the proposed location of a project egress driveway onto Flower Street opposite 

Grandview Avenue. 

Environmental Setting 

The assessment of existing conditions relevant to this study includes streets and 

highways, traffic volumes, and operating conditions on the street system. 

Street and Highway System 

Regional access to the study area is provided by the Golden State Freeway (Interstate 

5) and the Venmra Freeway (State Route 134). Key freeway interchanges serving the study 

area include the Western Avenue interchange with 1-5 and the Victory Boulevard/Riverside 

Drive and San Fernando Road interchanges with SR 134. Brief descriptions of the major streets 

serving the study area are as follows: 

• Flower Street - Flower Street is a northwest-southeast minor arterial providing 

direct access to the proposed project site. South of the project site, it bends ninety 

degrees and becomes a northeast-southwest street terminating at Air Way. It 

provides four travel lanes and on-street parking. 

• San Fernando Road - San Fernando Road is a four-lane northwest-southeast major 

arterial running through the western part of the City of Glendale. It provides access 

to SR 134 and connects the City of Glendale to City of Burbank to the north and to 

City of Los Angeles to the south. Parking is generally allowed on both sides of San 

Fernando Road north of Fairmont Avenue. South of Fairmont Avenue, parking is 

only allowed on the east side of San Fernando Road, with railroad tracks paralleling 

the west side. 

PlaMing Consullllnts Research 

Glendale Redeyelopment Agency 

Page 70 


June 1996


• Lake Street - Lake Street is a two-lane local street running parallel to 1-5. It 

continues in the City of Burbank: and tenninates at Magnolia Boulevard. 

• Western Avenue - Western Avenue is a four lane major arterial within the study 

area. Western Avenue has a full cloverleaf interchange with 1-5 and serves as an 

important northeast-southwest corridor. 

• Sonora Avenue - Sonora Avenue is classified as a major arterial serving the study 

area. It provides four lanes and is a major connection between the study area and 

SR 134 via Victory Boulevard/Riverside Drive. 

• Grandview Avenue - Grandview Avenue is a minor arterial between Flower Street 

and Glenoaks Boulevard. It provides four travel lanes and on-street parking. 

Existing Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 

Existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic counts, conducted in 1992, were obtained from 

the San Fernando Corridor Redevelopment Plan FEIR for the ten study intersections analyzed 

in the FEIR. New counts were conducted at the Flower Street/Grandview Avenue intersection 

in January of 1996 as part of this study. The existing intersection peak hour traffic volumes 

are included in Appendix C. 

Intersection Level of Service Methodology 

Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic 

flow, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. Level 

of service definitions are included in Tables 9 and 10 on page 72. The City of Glendale 

considers LOS D to be the minimum acceptable level of service. 

In accordance with City of Glendale procedures, the "Intersection Capacity Utilization II 

(lCU) method of intersection capacity analysis was used to determine the intersection volume 

to capacity (VIC) ratio and corresponding LOS for the turning movements and intersection 

characteristics at the study intersections controlled by traffic signals. A capacity value of 1,600 

vehicles per hour per lane was used, with a clearance interval of 0.1. 

" 

The intersection of Flower Street/Grandview Avenue is controlled by stop signs on all 

approaches. The "All-Way Stop Control" method (Transportation Research Board, 1994) was 

employed to detennine the average vehicular delay and corresponding level of service for this 

location. 

Planning Consultants Re5earch 

Glendale Redevelopment Agen9' 

Page 71 

DreamWork5 Animation Campus Addendum ElR 

June 1996

Existing Intersection Levels of Service 


Table 11 on page 74, summarizes the existing weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour VIC 

ratio or average delay and corresponding level of service at each of the eleven analyzed 

intersections. Under existing conditions, each of the eleven intersections operate at acceptable 

levels of service (i.e., LOS D or better) during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. 

Redevelopment Plan hnpacts at Year 2027 

Table 12 on page 75 summarizes Year 2027 levels of service as projected in the 

Redevelopment Plan FEIR for the ten intersections common to the two studies, both with and 

without implementation of the traffic mitigation program proposed in the Redevelopment Plan 

FEIR. Intersection configurations with the long-term mitigation measures proposed in the 

Redevelopment Plan FEIR are illustrated in Appendix C. With implementation of the 

Redevelopment Plan mitigation program, six of the ten intersections are projected to operate at 

acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) at Year 2027. No mitigation measures were 

identified in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR for the Flower Street/Western Avenue and Flower 

Street/Sonora Avenue intersections. 

Redevelopment Plan Impacts at Year 2010 

Year 2010 Cumulative Base Traffic Forecasts 

The Redevelopment Plan FEIR forecast traffic growth to the Year 2027, including an 

ambient background growth rate of 1% per year (from 1992 to 2027), related projects, and 

development of all uses anticipated in the San Fernando Corridor Redevelopment Plan. Year 

2010 cumulative base (Le., without project) volumes for this addendum were projected by: (1) 

interpolating the traffic growth projected in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR on a straight-line 

basis to the Year 2010 (including the background growth rate, traffic generated by related 

projects, and traffic generated by the Redevelopment Plan uses); and (2) subtracting traffic 

which would be generated by Restricted Industrial development identified in the Redevelopment 

Plan FEIR for the project site. The second step was performed to provide a Year 2010 base 

for analysis assuming no development on the project site. 



Page 73 


June 1996

Table 12 


YEAR 2027 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE FROM REDEVELOPJ.\,1ENT PLAN FEIR 


Year 2027 With 


Mitigation Program 

Intersection 

1. Lake St & Sonora Ave 

Hour 

A.M. Peak 

VIC 

0.61 

LOS 

B 

VIC 

a 

LOS 

P.M. Peak 0.79 C 

a 

2. Flower St & Western Ave A.M. Peak 1.55 F 

P.M. Peak 2.22 F 

3. Flower St & Sonora Ave A.M. Peak 0.86 D 

P.M. Peak 1.00 E 

4. San Fernando Rd & Sonora Ave A.M. Peak 0.92 E 0.68 B 

P.M. Peak 1.03 F 0.83 D 

5. San Fernando Rd & Grandview Ave A.M. Peak 1.08 F 0.85 D 

P.M. Peak 1.51 F 0.83 D 

6. San Fernando Rd & Highland Ave A.M. Peak 1.13 F 0.81 D 

P.M. Peak 1.12 F 0.80 C 

7. San Fernando Rd & Fairmon! Ave A.M. Peak 1.14 F 0.96 E 

P.M. Peak 1.18 F 0.90 D 

8. San Fernando Rd & Doran St A.M. Peak 1.04 F 0.80 C 

P.M. Peak 1.67 F 1.02 F 

9. San Fernando Rd & California Ave A.M. Peak 0.74 C 0.56 A 

P.M. Peak 0.94 E 0.72 C 

10. San Fernando Rd & Broadway A.M. Peak 0.82 D 0.66 B 

a Intersection is not impacted. therefore, no mitigation is required. 

P.M. Peak 1.13 F 0.85 D 

b Unavoidable significant impact: no mitigation recommended in the Redevelopment Plan Program EIR. 

Source: Colton/Beland/Associates. Inc., wFinal Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan for the 

San Fernando Road Corridor, W November 1992. 



Page 75 

DreamWorks AJWnation CampllS Addendum EIR 

June 1996 

b 

b 

b 

b


The traffic study conducted as part of the Redevelopment Plan FEIR assumes that the 

project site develops as Restricted Industrial use to an FAR of 0.75. Given the site area of 

12.21 acres per County Assessor records (not including the proposed quitclaim of the Victory 

Truck Boulevard easement), it is estimated that the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study 

includes development of about 398,900 square feet of Restricted Industrial uses on the project 

site. 

Using the trip generation rates published in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR, Table 13 on 

page 77, indicates that this level of development would generate approximately 365 trips during 

the A.M. peak hour and 390 trips during the P.M. peak hour. These trips were distributed 

across the street system using distribution patterns from the Redevelopment Plan FEIR, and 

were subtracted from the Year 2010 base traffic forecasts to represent Year 2010 volumes 

without any development on the project site. 

The projected Year 2010 cumulative base traffic volumes at the eleven study 

intersections are included in Appendix C. These forecasts represent projected conditions at 

Year 2010 with development under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan throughout the 

Redevelopment Plan area,· but without any development on the project site. 

Levels of Service and Mitigation Measures 

The Year 2010 cumulative base traffic forecasts were analyzed to detennined the 

projected future peak hour levels of service at the eleven study intersections, without any 

development on the project site and without consideration of the mitigation measures proposed 

in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR. Table 14 on page 78, summarizes the results of this analysis. 

As can be seen in Table 14, four of the intersections (Flower Street/Western Avenue, 

San Fernando Road/Sonora Avenue, San Fernando Road/Grandview Avenue, and San Fernando 

Road/Doran Street) are projected to operate at poor levels of service of E or F during one or 

both of the A.M. and P.M. peak hours under Year 2010 conditions with development throughout 

the Redevelopment Plan area but with no development on the project site. 

The Redevelopment Plan FEIR proposed mitigation measures at three of these locations 

to mitigate Year 2027 conditions. An analysis was conducted to detennine what components 

of the Redevelopment Plan FEIR mitigation program would need to be implemented to mitigate 

the Redevelopment Plan traffic impacts at 2010 with no development on the project site. The 



Page 76 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addeadum EJR 

June 1996

Table 13 


ESTIl\lATED PROJECT SITE TRIP GENERATION UNDER REDEVELOPI\1ENT PLAN 

Land Use 

Restricted Industrial 


Acre Sg.Ft. 

12.2 398,901 Rate 

Trips 

following summarizes those elements considered necessary by the Year 2010 (resultant 

intersection configurations are illustrated in Appendix C): 

In 

0.76 

303 

Out 

0.16 

64 

Total 

0.92 

367 

In 

0.12 

48 

Out 

0.86 

343 

Total 

4. San Fernando Road & Sonora Avenue - Widen the westbound Sonora Avenue 

approach to provide one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through! 

right-turn lane. 

5. San Fernando Road & Grandview Avenue - Widen the northbound San Fernando 

Road approach to provide one left-tum lane, two through lanes, and one shared 

through/right-tum lane. Stripe the westbound Grandview Avenue approach to 

provide one left-turn lane, one shared left-turn/through lane and one shared 

througbJright-turn lane. 

8. San Fernando Road & Doran Street - Widen the southbound San Fernando Road 

approach to provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared 

through/right-tum lane. Widen the eastbound Doran Street approach to provide 

one shared left-turn/through lane and one shared through/right-tum lane. 

Table 14 on page 78, also indicates the projected operating conditions with 

implementation of these mitigation measures. As shown in Table 14, each of tpe intersections, 

except one, is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) under Year 

2010 cumulative base conditions with growth. throughout the Redevelopment Plan area but 

without development of the project site. 

The exception is the intersection of Flower Street/Western Avenue, for which no 

mitigation measures were determined to be feasible in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR. The 

Redevelopment Plan FEIR concluded that Redevelopment Plan impacts at this location would 

constitute a significant unavoidable impact, and adopted a statement of overriding considerations 

regarding the same. 

Planning ConsullalU$ Research 

Glendale Redevelopment Agenc)" 

Page 77 

0.98 

391 


June 1996

Table 14 


YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN GROWTH 

(Without Development on the Project Site) 

Year 2010 

Year 2010 Cumulative Base 

Cumulative Base with Redevelopment 

Existing (Unmitigated) Mitigations 


I. Lake Street & A.M. Peak 0.35 A 0.47 A 

Sonora Avenue P.M. Peak 0.39 A 0.59 A 

2. Flower Street & A.M. Peak 0.59 A 1.01 F 

Western Avenue 

P.M. Peak 0.84 D 1.49 F 

3. Flower Street & A.M. Peak 0.46 A 0.62 B 

Sonora Avenue 

P.M. Peak 0.53 A 0.73 C 

4. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.76 C 0.96 E 0.75 C 

Sonora Avenue P.M. Peak 0.73 C 0.88 0 0.88 0 

5. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.63 B 0.85 D 0.78 B 

Grandview Avenue 

P.M. Peak 0.86 D 1.08 F 0.82 D 

6. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.66 B 0.83 0 

a 

Highland Avenue P.M. Peak 0.68 B 0.86 D 

a 

7. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.61 B 0.74 C 

a 

Fairmont Avenue P.M. Peak 0.67 B 0.78 C 

a 

8. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.70 B 0.83 D 0.79 C 

Doran Street 

P.M. Peak 0.79 C 1.11 F 0.84 D 


a 

California Avenue P.M. 'Peak 0.61 B 0:77 C 

a 


a 

Broadway 

P.M. Peak 0.71 C 0.84 D 

a 

II. Flower Street & A.M. Peak 2.0 A 2.8 A 

a 

Grandview Avenue C 

P.M. Peak 2.2 A 5.3 B 

a 

a Intersection is not impacted, therefore. no mitigation is required. 

b Intersection is impacted, however, no mitigation is recommended in the Redevelopment Plan Program EIR. 

e Intersection controlled by stop signs On all approaches. Indicates average delay (in seconds) and LOS for the 

intersection. 



Page 78 


. June 1996 

a 

a 

b 

b 

a 

a

Land Use acre S9.Ft. 

Animalion Studio 13.4 495,000 Rate a. b 

a Rates are per 1.000 sq.jt. 

Table 15 

ESTIMATED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 

4. 9. TransponalionJCirculalion 


Trips 

In 

1.07 

530 

b Trip generation rates for the proposed project were developed using DreamWorks Playa Vista rates. assuming 

40% office and 60% production/stage suppon. 

Impact Criteria 

In accordance with the evaluation conducted in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR and in 

recognition of City of Glendale level of service standards, a project traffic impact would be 

considered significant if one of the following conditions are met: 

Out 

0.13 

64 

Total 

1.20 

594 

In 

0.19 

94 

Out 

0.90 

446 

Total 

• the addition of project traffic to an intersection operating at LOS A, B, C, or D 

causes the intersection operation to decline to LOS E or F; or 

• the addition of project traffic to an intersection operating at LOS E causes an 

increase in the intersection VIC ratio of 0.02 or more; or 

• the addition of project traffic to an intersection operating at LOS F causes an 

increase in the intersection VIC ratio of 0.01 or more. 

Project Impact Analysis 

The Year 2010 traffic forecasts with development of the proposed project were analyzed 

to determine the projected future peak hour levels of service at the eleven study intersections, 

assuming implementation ofthose elements ofthe Redevelopment Plan FEIR mitigation program 

identified previously as necessary by the Year 2010. Table 16 on page 82 summarizes the 

results of this analysis. As indicated on Table 16, the project is projected to have an impact 

on Year 2010 conditions with the Redevelopment Plan mitigation at one of the eleven analyzed 

intersections: Flower Street/Western Avenue. 

Planning Consultants Rcsearch 

Glendalc RflicYclopmcnt Agcncy 

Page 81 

1.09 

540 

DrcamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR 

June 1996

Table 16 


YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Year 2010 

Cumulative 

Base 

(with Project Additional 

Redevelopment Year 2010 Increase Project 

Peak Mitigated) with Project in VIC Impact 


1. Lake Street & A.M. 0.47 A 0.53 A 0.06 NO 

Sonora Avenue P.M. 0.59 A 0.60 A 0.01 NO 

2. Flower Street & A.M. 1.01 F 1.08 F 0.07 YES 

Western Avenue P.M. 1.49 F 1.54 F 0.05 YES 

3. Flower Street & A.M. 0.62 B 0.74 C 0.12 NO 

Sonora Avenue P.M. 0.73 C 0.89 D 0.13 NO 


Sonora Avenue P.M. 0.88 D 0.89 D 0.01 NO 

5. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.78 C 0.83 D 0.05 NO 

Grandview Avenue P.M. 0.82 D 0.84 D 0.02 NO 

6. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.83 D 0.88 D 0.05 NO 

Highland Avenue P.M. 0.86 D 0.87 D 0.01 NO 


Fairmont Avenue P.M. 0.78 C 0.82 D 0.04 NO 


Doran Street P.M. 0.84 0 0.86 0 0.02 NO 


California Avenue P.M. 0.77 C 0.77 C 0.00 NO 


Broadway P.M. 0.84 D 0.84 D 0.00 NO 

11. Flower Street & A.M. 2.8 A 26.90 D 24.10 NO 

Grandview Avenue a 

P.M. 5.3 B 25.20 D 19.90 NO 

a Intersection controlled by stop signs on all approaches. IndicaJes average delay (in seconds) and LOS for the 

most constrained movements. 



Page 82 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Adclemiwn EIR 

June 1996

Project Impacts at Year 2027 


It is estimated that the project site (not including the proposed quitclaim of the Victory 

Truck Boulevard easement) represents approximately 9% of the total area designated for 

Restricted Industrial uses in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study. It also represents 

about 9% of the trips estimated in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for Restricted 

Industrial uses at buildout of the Redevelopment Plan in the Year 2027. 

The higher density of the proposed project (approximately 0.85 FAR as opposed to the 

0.75 FAR assumed in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for Restricted Industrial uses 

in traffic analysis zone [TAZ] 2) would represent about 11 % of the overall Restricted Industrial 

floor area projected in the Redevelopment Plan. The projected higher levels of tripmaking 

associated with the project would represent the equivalent of about 14% of the floor area and 

trips projected in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for Restricted Industrial uses 

throughout the Redevelopment Plan area. 

However, as discussed in Section 2.0, Project Overview, the 0.75 FAR assumed in the 

Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for TAZ 2 represents an average for all Restricted 

Industrial parcels throughout the zone, and it is considered very unlikely that all such parcels 

would fully develop to a uniform level. Since the project site is one of the larger contiguous 

parcels in the area, it provides greater development flexibility and is less constrained by setback 

requirements. As such, the project site is considered to be more apt to develop at a greater 

density than smaller parcels in the area, and it is believed that the higher density and tripmaking 

of the proposed project are already encompassed in the long-term Year 2027 traffic projections 

contained in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study. Therefore, the proposed project is not 

expected to create any additional long-term traffic impacts beyond those previously identified 

in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR. 

Site Access Impacts 

The proposed project site plan includes access to the site from Flower Street at a nwnber 

of locations. The Main Gate would be located on Flower Street approximately 200 feet south 

of Grandview Avenue and would be available for both employee and visitor ingress to and 

egress from the site. Access to a perimeter service road and a secondary egress from the 

proposed parking structure would be provided on Flower Street opposite Grandview Avenue. 

Separate truck access to the project loading dock is proposed to be located further south along 

Flower Street. 



Page 83 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addeadum EIR 

. June 1996


The following summarizes potential impacts associated with the proposed site access 

plan, based on review and evaluation of the potential operation of each access location (as 

discussed in the following section, each of these impacts can be mitigated): 

• Main Gate - It is anticipated that security arrangements for the -project would 

require visitors to check-in with a guard and employees to enter and leave the site 

via card-key operated gates. Given this, adequate storage area should be provided 

on-site to accommodate entering vehicles queuing prior to the guard/gate locations. 

• Secondary Access Opposite Grandview Avenue - Given the potential number of 

project employees (estimated to be approximately 1.400 at full occupancy). the size 

of the proposed projectparking structure (approximately 1.000 spaces). and the 

projected peak hour project trip generation, this second project parking egress is 

considered necessary during periods of peak: exiting traffic. The perimeter service 

road is proposed to be gated for security purposes. and its use is expected to be 

infrequent. The recommended configuration for the project driveway at the Flower 

Street/Grandview Avenue intersection is discussed in the Mitigation Measures Section 

below. 

• Loading Dock Access':' The project site plan as initially proposed does not provide 

adequate space on-site for truck maneuvering and would require trucks to back into 

the loading dock from Flower Street. Trucks backing into the site from Flower 

Street would create conflicts with traffic flows on Flower Street. particularly as 

traffic increases in the future commensurate with redevelopment of the area. 

It is anticipated that, with implementation of the mitigation measures discussed below. 

the project would not create any new unavoidable significant impacts beyond those already 

identified in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR. 



Page 84 

DreamWork$ Animation Campus Addendmn EtR 

June 1996

Table I7 


YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS WITH PROJECT MITIGATION 

Year 2010 

Cumulative Year 2010 

Base With Project 

Peak 

Intersection Hour VIC LOS VIC LOS 

2. Flower Street & A.M. 1.01 F 1.08 F 

Western Avenue P.M. 1.49 F 1.54 F 

Source: Kaku Associates. Inc. 

Year 2010 

With Residual 

Project Mitigation Impact 

Increase Project 

in VIC Impact VIC LOS 

0.07 YES 0.98 E NO 

0.05 YES 1.38 F NO 

inside travel lane to turn left into the project site. (A schematic drawing of the 

proposed Flower Street/Main Gate intersection is included in Appendix C.) 

• Secondary Access Opposite Grandview Avenue - The Flower Street/Grandview 

Avenue intersection should continue to be controlled by stop signs on all approaches, 

with the project's driveway and the existing ingress-only driveway serving the 

adjacent parcel (owned by Prudential) forming the southwest leg of the intersection. 

One inbound lane is proposed to be provided on the project driveway to provide 

access to the perimeter service road. Two stop-controlled exit lanes should be 

provided on the driveway (one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane). 

Since the rightmost exit lane serving project traffic bOWld for Grandview Avenue 

would be offset from the Grandview Avenue eastbound departure by approximately 

eight feet, pavement markings should be used to guide these vehicles both through 

the intersection and past vehicles parked in the curb lane on Grandview Avenue east 

of Flower Street. This may require removal of one on-street parking space on 

Grandview Avenue. (A schematic drawing ofthe proposed Flower Street/Grandview 

Avenue intersection is included in Appendix C.) As indicated in Table 16 on page 

82, it is projected that the Flower Street/Grandview Avenue intersection would 

operate at acceptable levels of service with the project. 

• Loading Dock Access - The project site plan should be designed to permit trucks to 

enter the site in a forward manner, with sufficient area provided on-site for trucks to 

maneuver and back into the loading dock. 

Planning Consultants RCKarch 


Page 86 


June 1996

4. 10. 1. Police 

mitigation measures, the Program EIR concluded that the Redevelopment Plan will result in a 

less than significant impact. 67 No analysis of nonresidential population impacts on police 

services was provided. 


As discussed in Section 4.8 of this Addendum, Population/Housing, the DreamWorks 

Animation Campus is expected to employ 1,400 new employees at project build-out. Based on 

a worst-case analysis, this results in 140 new residents in the City of Glendale. This total 

increased population would result in a need for an additional .14 police officer.68 Because 

the proposed project results in the need for additional officers, which would reduce the officer 

to resident ratio to a slight degree, the proposed project would result in an adverse impact to 

police protection. However, as with the Redevelopment Plan, with implementation of the 

mitigation measures proposed below, the project impact will be considered less than significant. 

Although the demand for additional police protection is included in the Redevelopment 

Area projections of 2.0 officers, a worst case analysis is provided as follows to evaluate the 

projects's increase in police service needs as if it were an increase above and beyond the total 

Redevelopment Plan needs identified in the Program EIR. Under this analysis, Restricted 

Industrial development assumptions for the original 12.21 acre site (per Assessor's parcel data) 

were interpolated from the Redevelopment Plan. Using the Program EIR's average intensity 

assumptions (FAR) for Restricted Industrial uses on a 12.21 acre site (excluding the Victory 

Truck Boulevard right-of-way), would support 1,070 employees and result in 112 new residents 

to the City. This total increased population would result in a need for an additional 0.11 police 

officers. 

Based on the evaluation, the proposed project allows for an increase from the averaged 

growth projection for residential population of 28 (from 112 to 140), as compared to the 

averaged density assumptions. This increase represents a statistically insignificant 1.3 percent 

of the total residential population anticipated with the Redevelopment Plan, which also is well 

within the expected range of outcomes for a buildout redevelopment program over 35-years. 

This difference would indicate a need for an additional 0.04 police officers. This is a small 

demand on its own, as well as a small percentage of the 2.0 additional officers required with 

the entire Redevelopment Plan. 

67 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.10-3. The two (2) officers were based on a total new residential 

population of2. 040. 

68 Based on the Program EIR's two (2) officers per 2,040 residential population. 

Planning Consulranrs Research 


Page 88 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddendlDD ElK 

June 1996

4. 10. I. Police 

Therefore, because the proposed project will not create a substantial additional impact 

on police protection not already addressed in the Program EIR, the proposed project would 

result in an adverse, but less than significant impact on police services. 


The proposed project may be responsible for complying with the applicable mitigation 

measures which were proposed in the Program EIR, including the following: 69 

1. Lighting, landscaping, parking, and building plans for development within the 

Project Area shall be reviewed by the Police Department and/or other appropriate 

City divisions prior to fmal approval and shall be in conformance with all 

applicable City codes, ordinances, and regulations. 

2. The Agency/City shall consider requiring developers to provide private on-site 

security personnel on a project-by-project basis. 


PlaMing ConsullanlS Research 


Page 89 

DreamWorks Animation Campm Addend.... EIR 

June 1996

REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Il\1PACTS 



4.10.2. FIRE 

In the absence of City established standards, the Program EIR defmed impacts on flIe 

protection as the following: 

"...impacts on frre protection are considered significant if the proposed project 

will substantially exceed the current level of protection which results in a total 

response time of three minutes and an ISO ranking of Class 3 for the City of 

Glendale and current Class 1 for the Glendale Fire Division. ,,70 

Level of service is ranked by a scale of five classifications (Classes 1 through 5) by the 

Insurance Service Organization (ISO) with Class 1 being the highest and best level of service. 

The ISO has ranked the entire- City at "Class 3" and the Glendale Fire Division at "Class 1." 

Service in the area is currently considered adequate in tenns of staffmg, response time, and the 

availability of water flow for [lIe protection purposes. For the majority of the Redevelopment 

Area, fire protection is provided by the City of Glendale Fire Division. The remainder of the 

area, the far west end, is served by the Burbank Fire Depamnent under a joint agreement with 

the City. The Glendale Division is supported by a fire-fighting force consisting of 50 personnel 

on duty at all times, and total response time to the Redevelopment Area is identified by the Fire 

Chief as three minutes. Also, there are no known deficiencies in the availability of water flow 

for fire fighting purposes. 

Evaluated against the significance threshold, implementation of the Redevelopment Plan 

could adversely impact fire protection due to increased development overall in the City. 

Compensating at least in part for adverse impacts is the beneficial impact of replacing blighted, 

potentially unsafe buildings with newer structures which must be constructed under current, 

safer fire codes. These mitigating features, along with public improvements associated with the 

Redevelopment Plan, and the mitigation measures specified in the Program EIR will reduce 

program impacts to less than significant levels. 71 


71 Ibid, page 3.10-5. 



Page 90 


. June 1996

4. 10. 2. Fire 

2 1 /2 inches. Fire hydrants shall be capable of providing a required fire flow of 

60,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a 

five-hour duration. The distance between hydrants shall not exceed 250 feet, and 

the maximum travel distance along a roadway frontage shall not exceed 150 feet. 

Hydrants shall be placed in the parking area under the same regulations. 

3. All structures in the Project Area shall be protected by separate combined 

standpipe systems, including automatic fire sprinkler systems, designed to the 

standards established by the Glendale Fire Division. Adequate on-site water 

supply shall be capable of supplying fire protection systems for a period of 30 

minutes and shall be used for fire protection purposes only. Fire protection 

systems shall be zoned to provide proper pressures for operations at any level of 


4. Each fire control room shaH be accessible directly from the outside and readily 

accessible for emergency responders. The room shall not be used for other 

purposes and shall be sized in accordance with Fire Division requirements. 

5. Smoke control and removal shall be accomplished through mechanical means 

designed in accordance with methods approved by the Glendale Fire Division. 

6. The fire alarm system must utilize a graphic-type annunciator to provide rapid 

response by emergency equipment and personnel who may be unfamiliar with the 

structure. 

7. Emergency electrical power shall be provided to power all emergency equipment 

including, but not limited to, fire alarms, fire pumps, emergency lighting, 

elevators, and smoke control fans. Emergency power shall be capable of 

providing power to all emergency equipment for a period of eight hours of 

continuous use. 

8. The project's parking facilities shall be approved by the Glendale Fire Division 

for parking adjacent to all structures to determine proper access to all parts of 


9. All structures may be required to have Fire Division access on a minimum of 

two sides. Fire Division connections serving the combined standpipe system 

shall be provided and accessible along each access roadway. Additionally, each 

floor shall have breakable windows with the appropriate indicating signs affixed. 

All breakable windows shall be constructed of tempered glass. 



Page 92 

DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ErR 

June 1996




4.10.3. SCHOOLS 

The Program EIR defmes impacts on schools as the following: 

"Impacts _on school districts are considered significant if the project will result 

in generation of students and demands for school services which exceed the short 

or long-term capacity of district facilities, and normal district fInancing sources 

will not offset project-related costs of providing additional facilities and 

services. ,,73 

The Glendale Unified School District (District) provides public education for children 

residing in the Redevelopment Area. According to the District, all but three (Keppel 

Elementary, Mountain Avenue Elementary and Crescenta Valley High School) of the District's 

26 elementary, junior high, and high schools are currently overcrowded, and all schools within 

the District fall below the "Enrollment Site Standards" set by the Urban Planning and Design 

Criteria. In order to expand District facilities, the District levies developer fees of $1.72 per 

square foot of residential, and $0.28 per square foot of non-residential development.74 In 

addition, school construction costs are estimated to be $10,000 per student. 75 

Student generation occurs both directly from new residential development and indirectly 

from non-residential development. The units proposed in the Redevelopment Plan will generate 

468 new students in the District over the 20-year horizon of the plan, based on the District's 

student generation factor of 0.4 students per residential unit. 76 This will result in a total 

student population in the Redevelopment Area at buildout of 1,169. Due to the current 

overcrowded conditions at District schools, along with the existing extensive use of portable 


74 Ibid, page 3.10-7. 

75 The District in its comments on the Draft EIR indicated that school construction costs $125.00persquarefoot 

and an average of80 squarefeet per student. Therefore on average. school cons/ruction costs $10. ()()(). 00per 

student. 

76 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.J()"J2. 

Planning Consultan!$ Research 


Page 93 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AcIdenclum EIR 

June 1996

4. 10. 3. Schools 

classrooms at District schools, it was concluded that potentially significant impacts would occur 

at all grade levels as a result of redevelopment activities. Because of the gradual rate of 

increase in enrollment of 24 students per year, implementation of the Redevelopment Plan 

should not result in any unique or unusual demands on the District. In addition, nonresidential 

and residential development would result in the District receiving approximately $3,099,000 in 

developer fees from Redevelopment Plan activities. 77 The 468 new students generated by the 

Redevelopment Plan would, at $10,000 per student, require $4,680,000 in construction costs 

over the lifetime of the plan. While the developer fees would not be sufficient to cover all 

construction costs related to the new students, and the District would require additional State 

funds, the fees would substantially mitigate the effect of the additional students. Therefore, the 

Program Em concluded that the Redevelopment Plan would have an adverse, but less than 

significant, impact on schools. 


The Campus is expected to generate 1,400 new employees, and approximately 140 new 

residents, in the City of Glendale at project buildout, as discussed in Section 4.8, Population! 

Housing, of this Addendum. Using the regional housing ratio of 1.22 jobs per housing unit in 

the year 2010, these employees would create a demand for 115 housing units in the City. This 

total housing demand is a worst-case scenario based on average City trends. 78 The Animation 

Campus is being proposed at this location in part because of the existing employee pool of 

animators, managers, and other staff living within the City and in the surrounding communities. 

It is likely that many of the future employees will be drawn from this existing work force 

already living within a close conunuting distance to the project site and that these employees 

would find it uIlllecessary to relocate to the City of Glendale. The actual increase in City 

housing units would likely be less than the 115 projected.. 

In the worse-case scenario, utilizing the student generation rate established by the 

District of 0.4 students per unit, the 115 total housing units resulting from the proposed project 

would increase the student population Districtwide by 46. To accommodate 46 new students, 

construction of new facilities may be necessary, resulting in an average total construction cost 

of $460,000. The proposed project would be responsible for development fees on the 495.000 

77 The total is based on the District's developer fees of$1.65per squarefeet ofresidential, and $0. 27persquare 

foot ofnon-residential development as indicated in the Program EIR. An average 1,000 square feet per unit 

is assumed for residential development. 

78 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-3. states that 10percent ofnew employees in Glendale are expected 

to reside in the City. 



Page 94 


June 1996

4. 10. 3. Schools 

square feet of nonresidential development proposed ($0.27 per square feet) 79, resulting in a 

(Otal fee of $133,650. As with the Redevelopment Plan as a whole, developer fees would not 

cover all construction costs related to the additional 46 students, but would substantially mitigate 

the impact to below a significant level. Remaining construction costs would require additional 

State funds. 

In order to identify how the project impacts relate to the Redevelopment Plan, this 

evaluation estimates the impact generated from development on the project site using the 

Program EIR's average intensity assumptions (FAR) for Restricted Industrial uses on an 12.2 

acre site (per Assessor's parcel data). Based upon these averaged asswnptions, the proposed 

project's site would contain a total of 398,900 square feet of development, 1,116 employees. 

and 112 new residents. These residents would require 88 new housing units based on the 

regional average of 1.22 jobs per housing unit. Utilizing the District's 0.4 students per unit 

generation rate, these units would increase the student population in the District by 35, or 11 

fewer students than the DreamWorks Animation Campus project. 

This difference of 11 new students represents 2.3 percent of the total students generated 

with buildout of the Redevelopment Plan. Similarly. the proposed project would result in 

increased school costs over those required using the Program EIR's average intensity 

assumptions. An additional $110,000 in construction costs would be required; and an additional 

$30,446 in developer fees would in part pay for these added construction costs. As with student 

generation, these figures represented 2.4 percent of the totals for the Redevelopment Plan as 

a whole. These are paid in part by developer fees. Although the student generation and school 

developer fees estimated with implementation of the proposed project would be slightly greater 

than that assumed with the averaging of the Redevelopment Area, it represents a small and 

statistically insignificant proportion of the total growth. 

Although less than significant, this difference in the actual student and school cost 

generation and the averaged student and school cost generation is consistent with the Plan 

because the Redevelopment Plan anticipates variation in development densities on different sites 

and therefore variation in student generation from these sites. Because of the existing 

overcrowding in District schools, and developer fees not fully covering school construction 

costs, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact. The developer fees 

79 

The non-residential development fee is currently $0.28per square fOOl and will go up 10 $0.30persquarefoot 

on June 1, 1996. However, for comparison purposes, the rate of $0.27 per square fOOl, as found in the 

Program EIR, is utilized here. 

Planning ConsulQnlS Rcsealdl 


Page 95 

DreamWorks ADimation Campus Addendlllll EIR 

. June 1996

4. 10. 3. Schools 

would, however, substantially mitigate the effect of the additional students, and therefore an 

adverse, but less than significant, impact is expected. 


The proposed project may be subject to the following mitigation measure as found in the 

Program EIR 80 : 

1. Glendale Unified School District should continue to make regular and timely 

application to the State of California for funding to construct new classrooms and 

other facilities in response to enrollment growth. 

In addition, an agreement between the Glendale Redevelopment Agency and the Glendale 

Unified School District was executed on March 16, 1996, in which the Agency agreed to share 

the increment ofproperty taxes generated by redevelopment activity in the Redevelopment Area 

over the base year equalized assessment role with the District. As a result, the District will 

benefit directly from the increased property value due to development of the DreamWorlcs 

Animation Campus. 




Page 96 

DrumWorks Animation Campus Addeadum EIR 

June 1996




4.10.4. LmRARY 

The Program EIR defmes impacts on libraries as the following: 

"Impacts to library facilities are considered significant if projected resource 

demand is estimated to substantially exceed the supply of library resources at 

buildout, or if resource demands cause the ratio of books per capita to fall below 

the existing 3.48... 81 

Six library facilities are currently available in the City of Glendale, including the Central 

and Grandview libraries, which are located closest to the Redevelopment Area. These facilities 

average 106,826 volumes, providing 3.48 books per capita and circulating 7.51 books per capita 

annually. The library system has an on-going need for staff and materials. 

Additional development resulting from Redevelopment Plan activities has the potential 

to increase the amount of library resources demanded of the Glendale library system, and 

increased funding would be required to afford adequate service. 82 However, the amount of 

the increased demand can not be adequately quantified, and due to budget constraints additional 

needs of the library system will not be available in the near future. The Program EIR 

concluded that the impacts on the library system would be adverse but less than significant with 

implementation of a program by which the business community can donate computers, software 

and other materials for public use to the Central Library.83 


While the city does not have established standards for impacts to libraries in general, 

increases in population result in an increasing demand for library services and facilities. 


82 Ibid, page 3.10-14. 

83 Ibid, page 3.10.14. 



Page 97 

DreamWork'S Animation Campus AddendlllD EIR 

June 1996

4. 10. 4. Library 

Although the DreamWorks Animation Campus project does not include residential development, 

some of the 1,400 anticipated employees may reside locally and utilize the Glendale library 

system. Approximately 140 of these new employees would be expected to reside in Glendale, 

according to City trends discussed in the Program EIR, which yields a conservative, worst-case 

impact assessment for the project. 84 The addition of any new households in the City would 

result in an adverse impact on library services, because this increase would result in a reduction 

of the total volumes per capita without the addition of new volumes. However, the proposed 

mitigation measure below would result in the donation of additional library materials from the 

proposed project,. which would result in a less than significant impact after implementation. 

In order to identify how the DreamWorks project impacts relate to the Redevelopment 

Plan, the plan's employee population should be evaluated against that derived for the site, 

assuming development under the Program EIR's average intensity assumptions (FAR) for 

Restricted Industrial uses and an 12.21 acre site (per Assessor's parcel data). Based upon these 

averaged assumptions, the proposed project's site would contain a total of 398,900 square feet 

of development, 1,116 employees (based on the Program EIR's generation rate of 2.8 

employees per 1,000 square feet), and 112 new residents. 

Thus, the proposed DreamWorks project represents an increase from the averaged 

projection for employment of 284 employees (from 1,116 to 1,400). This increase represents 

a statistically insignificant 0.95 percent of the total employment anticipated with the 

Redevelopment Plan activities which is well within an expected range of outcomes for a large 

Redevelopment program over a 35-year period. In addition, 28 more new residents (from 112 

to 140) would result with implementation of the proposed project, as compared to the averaged 

density assumptions. This increase represents 1.1 percent of the total residential population 

anticipated with the Redevelopment Plan, which also is well within the expected range of 

outcomes for such a redevelopment program. 

Given current City library needs and budget constraints, any additional demand on 

library facilities will result in an adverse impact. However, implementation of the proposed 

mitigation measure would result in the proposed project having an adverse, but less than 

significant impact on library services by assisting the library system with new materials and 

equipment. 

84 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-3, Slales lhallOpercent o/new employees in Glendale are expecled 

10 also reside in lhe City. 

PIaMing ConsullanlS Research 


Page 98 

DreamWorks Animalion Campus Addendwn EIR 

June 1996


4. 10. 4. Library 

Implementation of the Program EIR mitigation measure below 85 may be required to 

reduce proposed project impacts to a level below significance. 

1. A program shall be operated through the business community where businesses 

can donate microcomputers, computer programs, management training videos, 

and other materials for public use to the Central Library business and 

management services collection. 


PJaMing COnsullllnlS Research 


Page 99 

DreamWorks ADimation Campus Addeadum ElK 

June 19%


4.11. ENERGY 

Energy consumption is addressed in Section 4.12.3, Electricity, and in Section 4.12.4, 

Natural Gas. Please refer to those Sections. 



Page 100 


June 1996




4.12.1. WATER 

The Program EIR states the following threshold of significance with regard to water 

supply: 86 

"Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that significant impacts on water 

supply can be expected if implementation ofthe proposed project will involve the 

potential to create demands for water in excess of the City's supply." 

The City of Glendale Department of Public Service provides water for the City of 

Glendale. Ninety percent of this. water is imported from the Metropolitan Water District or 

from City-owned wells. Ten percent is provided by Grandview Wells in the San Fernando 

groundwater basin and Glorietta Wells in Verdugo Canyon Basin, both in the City of Glendale. 

The project area is served by the Western and Diedrich Reservoirs. The City's water system 

consistently meets or exceeds water quality standards set by the State and County Deparnnents 

of Health. To supplement City water supplies, a reclaimed water delivery system is being 

installed in the City of Glendale and may be accessible to the project site. Presently, water 

pressure within the Redevelopment Area is low and limits fire fighting efforts. Water main 

replacements have been made at locations within the Redevelopment Area, and more extensive 

upgrading of the system is needed. New development encouraged by the Redevelopment Plan 

will be reviewed by the Glendale Fire Department and must comply with all water supply and 

pressure requirements to assure adequate fire flows. 

Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan would result in a demand for potable water 

due to occupancy of the various land uses. In areas where development levels increase. system 

upgrades may be necessary. Build-out of the Redevelopment Plan would result in the 

consumption of approximately 3A43,5oo gallons per day (gpd) ofwater. including existing land 

uses. This is a 51 percent increase as compared to the existing 2.281.200 gpd that are currently 

being consumed in the Redevelopment Area. The City of Glendale has adequate water capacity 

to satisfy the needs of the built-out Redevelopment Area. Therefore, impacts on the water 


Planning Consuhanrs Re:scan:h 

Glendale: Redevelopment Agency 

Page 101 

DromWorks Animation Campwi Addendum EIR 

. June 1996

4. 12. 1. Water 

system due to completion of the Redevelopment Plan would be adverse, but less than significant 

with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR. 


The proposed DreamWorks Animation Campus site is currently served by an 8 inch 

water line along Flower Street. A reclaimed water delivery system should be completed before 

project completion and may be accessible to the project site. Due to the currently low water 

pressure within the Redevelopment area, project needs for water pressure for fire flow will need 

to be satisfied. Glendale Fire Department review and Project compliance with fire flow 

requirements will be required. Based upon the Restricted Industrial rates contained in the 

Program EIR, the proposed project would consume 123,750 gpd of water, resulting in less than 

significant impacts with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures and the 

reclaimed water delivery system being built by the City of Glendale. 

Although water consumption for the project is included in the Redevelopment Area 

generation projections, a worst case analysis is provided herein to determine the project's impact 

in relation to the Redevelopment Area as a whole and to account for the project's increase in 

water consumption above and beyond the Program EIR's assumptions for the Redevelopment 

Area. An average sized Restricted Industrial use, based on the original 12.21 acre site (per 

County Assessor's records), is taken from the estimated average Restricted Industrial use floor 

area ratio, as discussed in Section 2, Project Overview, of this document. A comparison 

indicates that the proposed project would consume 123,750 gpd of water, while the average 

restricted industrial use on the proposed site would consume 99,640 gpd. This 24,110 gpd 

increase in water consumed by the project represents approximately 0.7 percent of the total 

built-out Redevelopment Plan daily water demand of 3,443.5mgd, including existing uses. As 

a percentage increase in overall demand, the project demand would be less than significant 

representing an anticipated variation in density which is normal and expected within the 

Redevelopment Plan parameters and underlying Program EIR assumptions. Project water 

consumption is almost entirely within the overall Redevelopment Plan projections for water 

consumption, is well within the expected range of results for a program of this magnitude, and 

does not approach the significance thresholds identified in the Program EIR. 


Glendale Redevelopment Agt'ncy 

Page 102 


June 1996


4. 12. I. Water 

Implementation of mitigation measures 1 through 7, as identified in the Program EIR 

and set forth below, may be required for the proposed project.87 

1. Developers shall work with the City during the design phase to ensure adequate 

water supply and service to the proposed project. 

2. Individual development plans shall be submitted to the Glendale Fire Department 

for review to ensure that adequate fire flows are provided to the project site prior 

to final project approval. 

3. Developers shall be responsible for funding the construction of all off-site storage 

. tanks and pump stations as required to adequately serve the subject property. 

4. Building construction shall include water conservation devices such as low flow 

toilets, low volume shower heads, tum off adapters and faucet flow control. 

5. Development projects shall have a minimum of landscaping requiring heavy 

irrigation and shall include drought resistant planting. 

6. Development plans shall be reviewed by the City to ensure that adequate flows 

can be provided prior to project approval. 

7. Sections of Title 20 and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations regarding 

water consumption and conservation will be enforced. 




Page 103 


June 1996




4.12.2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL 

The Program EIR defInes the threshold of signifIcance regarding impact on sewage 

disposal as follows: 

"Impact on the sewer system is considered signifIcant if sewage generated by 

development will exceed the existing or planned capacity of the sewer collection 

or treatment system, or extend a sewer nunk line with capacity to serve new 

development...88 

Wastewater generated in the City of Glendale is treated at the Glendale/Los Angeles 

Reclamation Plant and at the Hyperion Treatment Plant (collectively hereafter, HTP) in Los 

Angeles. The HTP has the capacity to provide treatment to approximately 420 million gallons 

per day (mgd) of wastewater, including a 10 mgd capacity for sewage delivery from the City 

of Glendale. To date, the City of Glendale has not exceeded this amount. Currently the HTP 

is treating an average daily flow of 380 mgd. Approximately 7.0 mgd of the sewage generated 

by the City of Glendale are being sent to the HTP, leaving a large unutilized allotment of three 

mgd. 

The City of Glendale's sewer system that lies north of the Ventura Freeway and within 

the Redevelopment Area is considered inadequate, due to undersized sewer lines. However, 

as part of the public improvements included within the Redevelopment Plan, the sewer system 

shall be improved and expanded. A reclaimed water delivery system is being installed in the 

City of Glendale and will be accessible to the project site by July of this year. 89 Reclaimed 

water can be used for irrigation, toilets, and air conditioning systems. 

As indicated in the Program EIR, the Redevelopment Plan would result in the generation 

of approximately 3,344,690 additional gallons per day (gpd) of sewage by the year 2027. In 

areas where development levels increase, system upgrades may be necessary. Adverse effects 


89 Mr. Don Lee, City ofGlendale Departmenl ofPublic Services. Personal communication. March I I, 1996. 



Page 104 

DreamWOl"ks Animation Campus Addendum EIR 

June 1996


on the sewer system due to implementation of the Redevelopment Plan would be mitigated to 

less than significant levels with public improvements and implementation of the mitigation 

measures found in the Program EIR, resulting in sewage impacts that would be adverse, but less 

than significant. 


The DreamWorks Animation Campus site is currently served by an active 12-inch sewer 

line along Flower Street and an 18-inch sewer line (status unknown as of 3/11/96) that runs 

through the southern portion of the property. Based upon the Restricted Industrial rates 

contained in the Program EIR, the proposed project would generate approximately 121,280 gpd 

of sewage. This amount would not present a significant impact on the City's sewer system. 

As with the Redevelopment Plan, implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the 

Program EIR are considered sufficient to reduce proposed project impacts on the sewer system 

to below a level of significance. 

Although project sewage generation is included in the Redevelopment Area generation 

projections, a worst case analysis is provided herein to detennine the project's impact in relation 

to the Redevelopment Area as a whole and to account for the project's increase in sewage 

generation as if it were above and beyond the Program EIR's assumptions for the 

Redevelopment Area. In order to estimate maximum potential sewage generation under a worst 

case scenario, the projected volume of project sewage to be generated on a daily basis was 

compared to the volume that would be generated by an average sized restricted industrial usage 

on the 12.21 acre site (excluding the Victory Truck Boulevard right-of-way) (per the County 

Assessor's records), as discussed in Section 2., Project Overview, of this document. The size 

of this theoretical development was based on the estimated average Restricted Industrial use 

floor area ratio, as identified in the Land Use section of the Program BIR. Utilizing sewage 

generation factors for Restricted Industrial uses cited in the Program EIR,90 the proposed 

project would generate 121,280 gpd, as compared to the 97,647 gpd that would be generated 

by an average Restricted Industrial use on the proposed site. This 23,633 gpd increment 

represents 0.7 percent of the 3,344,600 gpd sewage generation attributable to the 

Redevelopment Plan, a level which is well within an expected range of results for a large 

redevelopment program. over a 35-year period, and is within the parameters of the 

Redevelopment Plan and underlying Program EIR assumptions. 

90 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12·7. 



Page 105 


June 1996



The following mitigation measures were listed regarding this issue in the Program EIR, 

and may be applicable to this project. 91 

1. The projects shall submit plans to the City of Glendale for review pnor to 

recordation of [mal map, if any. 

2. Hook-up fees and system expansion costs, if required, shall be borne by the 

developer. 


Planning COll$Ullllnls Research 


Page 106 


June 1996



4.12. mll..rrIES 

4.12.3. ELECTRICITY 

The Program EIR states that project impacts on electrical services would be considered 

significant under the following circumstances: 92 

"Impacts on electrical utilities are considered significant if the proposed project 

would require significant expansion to existing energy systems, such as a new 

generation plant, or the development of new sources of power. " 

Electrical service is provided by the City of Glendale Department of Public Service. It 

is anticipated that the City can service all the electricity that will be required through the end 

of the century, at which point· other sources of power will need to be obtained. 

Completion ofthe Redevelopment Plan would result in the consumption ofapproximately 

1,499 megawatt hours (mWh) of electricity per day. Such an increase would require 12 

kilovolts of capacity to be added to the project area. 


Based upon the consumption rates for Restricted Industrial uses contained in the Program 

EIR, electricaf consumption for the DrearnWorks project will be 61.03 mWh per day. No 

element of on-site electrical usage would be excessive or wasteful. Therefore, given the current 

and future availability of electricity as stated in the Program EIR, the project would not have 

a significant impact on the City'S supply of electricity with implementation of the mitigation 

measures identified in the Program EIR. 

Although electrical consumption for the project is for the· most part included in the 

Redevelopment Plan generation projections, the increment of electrical consumption attributable 

to the difference between the project, as proposed. and an average Restricted Industrial density 




Page 107 

DreamWorks Animation CamplQ Addendum EIR 

June 1996

4. 12. 4. Natural Gas 

Industrial density assumption in the Program ErR is also identified. The natural gas consumed 

by the average Restricted Industrial use (see Section 2, Project Overview, of this document) on 

the original 12.21 acre (per County Assessor's records) site was determined to be 43,837 cubic 

feet per day, or 10,163 cubic feet per day less than the theoretical project. This small 

increment represents an insignificant 0.06 percent increase in the total 1.61 million cubic feet 

that would be consumed by the entire Redevelopment Area, including existing development. 


. The following mitigation measure from the Program EIR may be applicable to the 


1. Specific measures recommended to reduce natural gas consumption include: 

• Use of an automatic flue gas damper when using a gas heating system; 

• Use of electrically-lighted pilot lights for all gas systems; 

• Insulation of all gas-heated hot water tanks; and 

• Installation or retrofitting with solar water heaters. 




Page 110 


June 1996




4.12.5. SOLID WASTE 

The Program EIR defmes the threshold of significance for solid waste generation as 

, follows: 96 

"Impacts on solid waste/hazardous waste may be considered significant if the proposed 

project will 1) increase solid waste by a substantial amount; 2) result in the substantial 

modification, relocation or closure of an active solid waste facility or hazardous waste 

facility." 

The Integrated Waste Management Section of the City of Glendale Public Wodes 

Division provides refuse, collection service for the City of Glendale, including the 

Redevelopment Area. Collected solid waste is deposited at the Scholl Canyon landfill, the 

capacity of which is estimated to last for another 17 years. 97 As noted in the Program EIR, 

successful implementation of the California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 

(AB) 939) at the local level should result in a 50 percent reduction or diversion of solid waste 

by the year 2000. 

Although additional solid waste generated by the built-out Redevelopment Plan would 

represent a small percentage of the total solid waste generated in the county as a whole, 

cumulative growth would reduce the overall capacity of the, Scholl Canyon landfIll. Thus the 

Redevelopment Plan would have an incrementally adverse impact on solid waste disposal 

facilities. However, successful implementation of AB 939 will result in a 50 percent reduction 

or diversion of solid waste by the year 2000, and would substantially lessen the Redevelopment 

Plan impacts. 


97 Based on the Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-14, published in November of1992, which eSlimated 

a 20 year capaciry. 



Page III 

DreamWorks AnimatioD Campus Addeodum EIR 

June 1996


4. 12. 5. Solid Waste 

Upon completion, the DreamWorks Animation Campus would include approximately 

1,400 employees. Using employee based solid waste generation rates found in the Program 

EIR, the proposed project would generate approximately 42,700 pounds of solid waste per day. 

As with the Redevelopment Plan, the project's potentially adverse effects, when considered 

alone, would be below the significance threshold with the implementation of AB 939 and with 

the utilization of the mitigation measures described in the Program EIR. 

Although solid waste generation for the project is for the most part included in the 

Redevelopment Area generation projections, the increment of solid waste generation attributable 

to the difference between the project, as proposed, and average Restricted Industrial density 

assumptions in the Program EIR is also identified for comparison with the Redevelopment Plan 

as a whole. Solid waste generation of a theoretical project on the original 12.21 acre (per 

County Assessor's records) site using the average Restricted Industrial use floor area ratio, as 

identified in Section 2, Project Overview, of this document would be approximately 34,029 

pounds per day, or 8,671 pounds per day less than the proposed project. Compared with the 

1,094,000 pounds per day of solid waste projected for existing and proposed Redevelopment 

Plan development, the project increment represents an insignificant 0.08 percent increase in 

overall solid waste generation. 


The following mitigation measures were identified for this issue in the Program EIR, and 

may be applicable to this project to meet the goals of AB 939. 98 

1. The Developer/Participant will incorporate applicable measures of the City's 

Source-Reduction and Recycling Element in project approvals including: 

• The project shall submit a Recycling Plan. The Plan shall include the following 

elements: A site plan of the proposed area shall identify location(s) of the 

recycling enclosure(s) relative to the facility or complex. 

• Identify all materials to be collected and recycled. 

98 Program EIR, Final E1R Volume, pages 3.12-16 and 3.12-17. 

Planning ConsulcanlS Research 


Page 112 

DreamWorks Animation Campm Addendmn EIR 

June 1996

• 

• 



4. 12. 5. Solid Wasle 

The developer shall notify in writing the Integrated Waste Management Section 

of the Public Works Division of the recycling enclosure location, and if 

necessary, provide a gate opener or key to gain access to the recycled materials 

storage area. 

The developer shall provide a plan describing what measures will be taken to 

educate and promote the City's recycling programs to the new owner(s), 

manager, and tenants of the building. Recycling rules and regulations shall be 

included as part of all rental, lease, or purchase agreements. This plan shall be 

submitted to Integrated Waste Management Section prior to issuance of 

Certificate of Occupancy. 

Page 113 

DrearnWorks Animation Campus Addendum EJR 

June 1996

4. 13. Human Health 

to expose people to less health hazards than those already extant, and would result in less than 

significant human health impacts. 


Development of the proposed project would not pose any unusual 9r unique human 

health concerns. The project will move existing groundwater monitoring wells from existing 

to new locations along the eastern property line where they will continue to provide the same 

role as at present. There are no habitats on site that would be suitable for any sort of vector 

which would survive the construction process, during which the entire site will be converted 

to buildings, hardscape and landscaped open space. Although it is possible that the soil at the 

project site could contain the fungus responsible for the disease known as Valley Fever, the 

fungus is not unique to the site or to the Redevelopment Area and is endemic to the 

southwestern United States. The likelihood of Valley Fever occurring would be reduced with 

the appropriate mitigation measures identified below. Therefore, proposed project impacts on 

human health, when considered by themselves or as part of the Redevelopment Plan, would be 

less than significant. 


Measures which reduce the formation of fugitive dust from soil which might contain the 

fungus responsible for the disease known as Valley Fever will mitigate potential associated 

human health impacts. The following mitigation measure, from Section 4.2, Air Quality, of 

this Addendum may therefore be applicable. With respect to other potential human health issues 

analyzed above, no additional mitigation measures would be required. 


erosion and release of dust and particulates. 'This may be accomplished through 






may also be used as directed by the Developer/Panicipants. Truck loads of soil 




Page 115 

Dre.amWorks Animation Campus Addendum E1R 

June 1996



4.14. RECREATION 

The Program EIR defines impacts on park and recreation facilities as the following: 

"Impacts on recreation facilities are considered significant if the project creates 

a demand for recreation services which substantially exceeds the existing ratio 

of 1.22 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 permanent residents. Recreation 

impacts are also significant ifa project forecloses important opportunities to meet 

recreation needs or substantially interferes with attainment of recreation 

goals... 101 

The Glendale Parks and Recreation Division operates thirty-three (33) developed park 

and recreation sites in the City. While the City goal is to provide two acres of developed park 

space per 1,000 permanent residents, the current ratio is 1.22. To remedy this deficiency, the 

1990 Recreation Plan identifies the need to develop 11 new parks, two of which are planned 

in the Redevelopment Area. 

The Redevelopment Plan activities will increase the demand for park and recreation 

facilities by increasing the permanent population from both employee generated households and 

new dwelling units. 102 While this demand is considered an adverse impact, based on City 

standards, it is reduced to below a significant level by additional park acreage to be provided 

with implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. 


As stated in Section 4.8, Population/Housing, the DreamWorks Animation Campus is 

conservatively expected to result in 140 new permanent residents in the City of Glendale due 

entirely to employment growth. The pennanent population growth will result in an increased 


102 Ibid. 



Page 116 


June 1996

4. 14. Recreation 

demand for park facilities of 0.28 acres, based on a City standard of 2.0 acres per thousand 

population, or 0.17 acres based on the existing ratio of 1.22 per thousand population. 

To provide a comparison with the Redevelopment Plan, an evaluation can be perfonned 

using interpolated average intensity assumptions for Restricted Industrial uses on the original 

12.21 acre site (excluding the Victory Truck Boulevard right-of-way) (per County assessor 

records), based on an average floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75. On this basis, the project site 

would result in 116 new residents to the City, or 22 fewer new residents than the proposed 

Animation Campus, resulting in a need for an additional 0.22 acres of recreation facilities based 

on the 2.0 acre standard, or 0.14 based on the existing 1.22 acre ratio. 

Using either the 2.0 acre or 1.22 acre ratio, the DrearnWorks Animation Campus' 

incremental increase in residents' park needs represent a 0.08 acre and a 0.03 acre increase, 

respectively, above the theoretical project resident's demand for park space. As a percentage 

of the 6.0 new acres required to serve the entire Redevelopment Plan, 0.08 acre represents a 

maximum 1.3 percent increase. When considered an addition to the total Redevelopment Plan 

demand, this increase would be considered at most marginally adverse were it not mitigable. 

However, the DreamWorks Animation Campus includes some 2.5 acres of usable passive and 

some active on-site open space for the exclusive use of its employees which should more than 

mitigate this very small incremental effect. Consequently, the proposed project should have no 

more recreation impact than was contemplated in the Redevelopment Plan Program EIR, and 

due to on-site passive and active recreation features, likely less. 


The following Program EIR mitigation measure applies to the entire Redevelopment 

Plan, and thus collectively to all projects through tax increment fInancing: 103 

1. The Redevelopment Agency/City shall implement all feasible measures of the 

program outlined in the 1990 Recreation Plan as build-out occurs within the 

Project Area. 

103 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume. page 3.14-4. See also Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. Table 2. Public 

Improvements List. pages I-II through 1-22. 

Planning Consull3Jlts Research 


Page 117 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeDduIn Em 

June 1996



4.15. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Program EIR defined the following significance threshold for cultural resources: 

"Cultural resources are considered significant if the project disrupts or adversely 

effects a prehistoric or historic archaeological site, a property of historic or 

cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group, or a 

paleontological site except as a part of a scientific study. n 

Two of the City's historically significant structures are located in the Redevelopment 

Area: the old Southern Pacific Railroad Station (built in 1923) and the Grand Central Air 

Tenninal (now part of the Grand Central Industrial Centre, built in 1928). Although no known 

historic structures .are located on or near the project site, a comprehensive survey and 

documentation of the pre-1942 buildings is recommended in the Program EIR.I04 

The Redevelopment Area has a low potential for containing undisturbed significant 

prehistoric archaeological resources. Therefore, impacts on archaeological resources are 

considered only potentially adverse, but with implementation of the mitigation measures less 

than significant. Finally, no paleontological resources are known within the Redevelopment 

Area; therefore, impacts on these resources are considered less than significant. 

PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS 

None of the known historically significant structures found in the Redevelopment Area 

are located within the proposed project's boundaries, or would be otherwise affected by the 

project. Further, the existing structures on the project site are recent, post 1942 temporary 

structures which are not considered historically significant. 

As the site lies on the flood plain of the pre-channelized Los Angeles River and is 

covered with fill material varying in depth from five to 20 feet, the potential for undisturbed 


PlaMing Consultants Resean:h 


Page 118 


June ]996

4. 15. Cultural Resources 

on-site arshaeological resources is extremely low. Finally, as with the Redevelopment Area, 

no paleontological resources are believed to exist on the proposed project site. Therefore 

project impacts on cultural resources are considered less than significant. 


Impacts to historical structures are considered less than significant with implementation 

of the proposed project, and no known archaeological or paleontological resources are known 

to exist on the site.. Nonetheless, the following Program EIR-required mitigation measure is 

required of all projects to ensure that no significant impact would result and may apply to the 

proposed project, should archaeological resources be discovered during project 

construction: 105 

1. The Developer or Participant should seek to avoid damaging effects on 

archaeological resources. Should such resources be discovered and avoidance 

prove not feasible, the importance of the site shall be evaluated by a qualified 

archaeologist. Mitigation measures included in Appendix K of the CEQA 

Guidelines shall be incorporated into the project. In general, these guidelines 

require the following: 

• Preservation of sites in-place as the preferred manner of avoiding damage to 

historic and prehistoric archaeological resources; 

• Development and implementation of an excavation plan for sites that cannot 

be preserved; and 

• Stopping of excavation in the event of discovery of human remains until the 

. coroner has detennined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; 

or, if descendants have made a recommendation of the property owner 

regarding proper disposal of the remains, or until descendants have failed to 

make a recommendation within 24 hours of notification. If no 

recommendation is received, remains shall be interred with appropriate 

dignity on the property in a location not subject to future development. 




Page 119 

DreamWorks Animation Campus AddendUIII EIR 

June 1996



AS ESTABLISHED' IN THE INITIAL STUDY 

This Addendum follows the outline for the Program EIR, evaluating and reporting the 

DrearnWorks Animation Campus project's impacts in the order in which they appear in that 

document. Three additional issues were evaluated in the Initial Study prepared by the Glendale 

Redevelopment Agency for the Redevelopment Plan 106 and were determined not to be 

potentially significant: Plant and Animal Life, Natural Resources, and Aesthetics. The 

following discussion summarizes why each of these issues was considered not to be potentially 

significant in evaluation of the Redevelopment Plan and how these issues have been addressed 

in this Addendum. 

Plant and Animal Life. The Initial Study states that the Redevelopment Area is 

presently urbanized, little or no natural vegetation exists, and no unique or rare species of plant 

,or animals occur in the area. 107 Riparian vegetation is identified in the Verdugo Wash, an 

area not to be affected by the Redevelopment Plan. Further, removal of indigenous plants is 

regulated by the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. 

The DrearnWorks project site has been graded, developed and utilized for many years 

by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. As such, it supports only sparse 

vegetation. This fragment of the property has been previously disturbed and is now fenced off 

from the remainder of the site. Volunteer vegetation has resulted from disuse but includes no 

resources with particular biotic value. No wetlands exist on site, since vegetation on-site 

consists primarily ofupland species, including mustard, red brome grass, sunflower, castor bean 

and eucalyptus and there is no indication of hydrophytic vegetation, wetlands hydrology, or 

hydric soils, or a high water mark indicative of other waters on-site. 108 

106 Program EIR, FifUll EIR Volume. Appendix A. 

107 

Ibid, page 19. 

108 Letters from Woodward-Clyde Consul/ants. April 3, 1996 and February 7, 1996, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, February 26, 1996, and the California Depanmenr ofFish and Game, April 5, 1996, attached 

hereto as Appendix D. 



Page 120 


June 1996

4. 16. Issues Not Included in the Focus of the Program EIR as Established in the Initial Study 

Natural Resources. Development of individual redevelopment projects during the buildout 

period will utilize traditional building materials and consume natural resources during 

construction. The Initial Study concluded that this use was not significant. 

Similarly, the construction of the 13.4-acre DreamWorks Animation Campus project (as 

proposed to include the Victory Truck Boulevard easement) represents a very small portion of 

the natural resources which may be consumed with implementation of the Redevelopment Plan, 

and a statistically insignificant increment of all development and associated natural resource 

consumption which may occur in the region by 2027 when the Redevelopment Plan is expected 

to complete its implementation. 

Aesthetics. The objectives of the Redevelopment Plan include improving the aesthetics 

of the area. Because of this, the Initial Study concluded that aesthetically offensive development 

is not anticipated, 109 and no further discussion of this issue was required of the 

Redevelopment Plan. An evaluation of as yet unknown individual project designs would not 

have been possible; though all future projects would be required to comply with the 

Redevelopment Plan objectives. 

To demonstrate that the DreamWorks Animation Campus complies with Redevelopment 

Plan objectives, a discussion of aesthetic issues regarding the project is addressed in this 

Addendum in Section 4.6, Land Use. 

109 Program EIR. FilUll EIR Volume. Appendix A, page 22. 



Page 121 


June 1996

ApPENDIX 0 

BIOTA LETTERS 

peR 


D. BIOTA LETTERS 

This Appendix contains four letters, the first two being analyses from Woodward-Clyde 

of the plant and animal life on the project site. The third and fourth letters, from the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game respectively, consist 

of their determinations regarding the biota at the project site.


Engineering & sciences applied 10 Ihe earth & its environment 

April 3, 1996 

Project No. 9553164U 

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS 


530 East Montecito Street, Room 104 

Santa Barbara, CA 93103 

805-568-1227 

Attention: Ken Wilson 

REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF 

DETERMINATION OF NON-JURISDICTION 

Dear Mr. Wilson: 

This letter is to request that the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) review 

the following information and advise us whether you concur with our determination that the 

CDFG does not have jurisdiction over the following proposed project. 

The subject property is the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ("DWP") Crystal 

Springs Maintenance Yard, located at 1000 Flower Street, Glendale, California (the 

"Property"). (Enclosed as Figure 1 is a site map.) Currently, the Property is being 

considered for development of a low rise office complex. If developed, it is anticipated 

that the Property will have to be regraded because of the bearing capacity of the soils. 

There is a topographical condition on the Property that will be impacted by regrading. 

The topographical condition is a low area running east-west in the southern portion of the 

Property. This low area ranges in size from approximately 20 to 60 feet in width and 2 to 

10 feet in depth, and extends from the eastern boundary of the Property to the boundary of 

the channelized Los Angeles River, which is adjacent to the Property. Portions of the low 

area are lined with concrete. It is our understanding that, when the Property is regraded, 

this low area will be regraded. 

On December 1, 1995, Woodward-Clyde evaluated the topographical condition and 

performed a jurisdictional delineation of waters of the United States and CDFG jurisdiction 

at the Property to determine if wetlands or other waters of the United States were present 

based on methodology described in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) 1987 

manual and CDFG guidelines. For the following reasons, Woodward-Clyde determined 

Woodward.C1rde Consultants. A subsidiary of Woodward·Clyde Group, Inc. 

Sunroad Plaza 3, Suite 1000.1615 Murray Canyon Road· San Diego, California 92108 

619-294-9400· Fax 619-293-7920


April 3, 1996 

Page 2 


that the CDFG does not have jurisdiction on site pursuant to Section 1600 of the Fish and 

Game Code. 

Based on a review of historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, it appears that 

the low area is a result of landform modification. The photographs and maps indicate that 

substantial landform modification occurred on the Property when the Los Angeles River 

was channelized. It also appears that additional fIII material was added to portions of the 

Property, further raising the .elevation of other portions of the Property. (Enclosed are 

copies of the historical aerial photographs and topographic maps.) 

At the time of the survey, the low area consisted of dry ground, with portions completely 

devoid of vegetation. Vegetation observed in other portions of this low area consisted 

primarily of upland species, including mustard (Brassica nigra), red brorne grass (Bromus 

madritensis ssp. rubens), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), castor bean (Ricinis communis) 

and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus ssp.). No indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, wetlands 

hydrology, or hydric soils were observed and no ordinary high water mark indicative of 

other waters was observed. Therefore, pursuant to the 1987 manual, no jurisdictional 

wetlands or other waters of the United States were determined to be present. (Enclosed as 

Figures 2 and 3 are photographs of the Property and the low area taken during the survey.) 

Based on our observations of the Property and the review of historical aerial photographs 

and topographic maps, we believe that this low area is not a jurisdictional wetland or water 

of the United States as defmed by the Corps, nor does it contain jurisdictional areas 

regulated by the CDFG. The Corps has agreed with us and sent us a letter of confirmation 

(Attachment A). If the CDFG does not concur with our detennination, please advise us as 

soon as possible. If we do not receive a response to this request within thirty days, we will 

assume that the CDFG concurs with our determination as stated herein. 

Very truly yours. 

WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 

Bill Magdych, Ph. 

Senior Project Scientist 

Professional Wetland Scientist No. 195 

WPM:hal 

Enclosures 

W\9'i:i3164U\SKG·D·L DOC


April 3, 1996 

Page 3 

bee: Ms. Maria Pilar Hoye, Esq. 

W:\9553164U\SKG·D-L.DOC 

-. Woodward-Clyde

112 

SCALE 1: 24000 

o 

tHISTORIC USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP-1928 

1 

REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map, 

"Glendale. California" Quadrangle, 1928 Reprinted 1948. 

I. 

I" 

,r·.

LOOKING ACROSS THE LOW AREA TO THE EAST 


FIGURE 2 


LOOKING ACROSS THE LOW AREA TO THE NORTHWEST 


LOOKING ACROSS THE LOW AREA TO THE NORTH 


FIGURE 3 


1928 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH

W:\9553IMU\SKG·D-L.DOC 

ATTACHMENT A 

.-. 

LETTER FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

CONFIRMING LACK OF JURISDICTION FOR 

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 

Woodward-Clyde

A-I. REGIONAL BURDEN ANALYSIS 

The following data includes a summary of the amount of vehicle trips and vehicle miles 

that would be generated by the proposed project on a daily basis. Also included area the daily 

project generated mobile source emissions. This summary has been incorporated into Section 

4.2, Air of the Addendum to the EIR.

A-2. CALINE ANALYSIS DATA 

The following data consists of the CALINE dispersion model data for estimating carbon 

monoxide concentrations in the project vicinity. These results include Existing and Year 2010 

concentrations, with and without the proposed project. These results have been summarized in 

Section 4.2, Air of the Addendum to the EIR.

A-3. EMFAC7 DATA 

The results of the EMFAC7 emission factor model that was run to estimate potential 

project generated pollutants are included herein. This data has been summarized in Section 4.2, 

Air of the Addendum to the BIR.

lENV028Fl.l 


YEAR, 2010 DEWPOINT: 10 

INSPECTION" MAINTENANCE, YES 

SEASON, SUMMER 

LIGIlT DUTY AUTOS 


CALTRANS DIVISION OF 

NEW TECHNOLOGY, MATERIALS AND RES£l\ROl 

EMFAC7Fl.l Rl\TES AS OF 1/25/94 

OREAMWORKS 2010 SUMMER 

COLD STARTS 

HOT STAATS 

HOT STAB 

20.0 

80.0 

0.0 

LOA 69.0 

llBO o. a 

TABLE 1, ESTIMATED TRAVEL FRACTIONS 

LIGIlT DtrTY TRUCKS MEl) DUTY TRUCKS URBAN BUS 

NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL 

LDT 19.4 

HlX) 1- 2 

MCY 0.5 

RUN DAnS, ENV028Fl.l 

EMFAC7Fl.l 

MOT 

lIDO 

HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS 


VMT 0.02 99.94 0.04 0.00 99.97 0.03 0.00 100.00 100.00 11. 54 88.46 100.00 

TRIP 0.02 ".'4 0.04 0.00 ".97 0.03 0.00 100.00 100.00 11.54 88.46 100.00 

\ VEH 0.05 99.85 0.10 0.00 ".'4 0.06 0.00 100.00 100.00 12.53 87.47 100.00 

lENV028F1.1 CALTRANS DIVISIOl'< OF RUN PATES, ENV028Fl.1 

NEW TECHNOLOGY. MATERIALS AND RESEARCH EMFAC7Fl.l 


EHFAC7F1.1 RATES AS OF 1/25/H 

ORE.lI./1WORKS 2010 SUMMER 

YEAR, 2010 DEWPOINT: 10 \ COLD S.TAATS 20.0 \ LOA 69.0 1 LOT 19.4 1 MDT 6.4 

INSPECTIOl'< " MAINTENANCE: YES 1 HOT STAATS 80.0 1 UBD 0.0 1 IlPG 1-2 1 HOD 3.6 

SEASON, SUMMER , HOT STAB 0.0 \ MCY 0.5 

POLLtrrANT NAME, CARBON MONOXIDE IN GRAMS PER MILE 

TABLE 2, COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS 

SPEED TEMPERA1VRE IN DEGREES FAHRENHEIT 

MPH 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 

IDLE- 2.34 2.24 2.11 1.97 1. 82 1.67 1.53 1.40 1.29 1.21 1.17 1.17 

3 46.82 H.71 42.1$ 39.36 36.39 33.41 30.56 27." 25.84 24.22 23.41 23.4S 

5 30.17 28.87 27.31 25.58 23. 78 21.97 20.25 18.70 17.41 16.45 16.01 16.08 

10 16.04 15.37 14 .58 13.70 12.78 11.87 11.01 10.23 '.58 9.11 8.90 8.97 

15 10.84 10.40 9.87 9.28 8.61 8.06 7.48 6.9. 6.53 6.21 6.08 6.13 

20 8.19 '7 •.85 7.45 7.01 6.55 6.09 5.66 5.27 4.94 4.71 4.61 4.64 

25 6 .•0 6.32 6.00 5.65 5.28 4.91 4.57 4.2. 4.00 3.81 3. 73 3.16 

30 5.55 5.32 S.OS 4.76 4.45 4.14 3.85 3.59 3.38 3.22 3.16 3.18 

35 4.81 4.62 4.39 4.13 3.87 3.60 3.36 3.13 2.95 2.81 2.76 2.78 

40 4.30 4.12 3.92 3.70 3.46 3.23 3.01 2.82 2 .•6 2.54 2.50 2.52 

45 3.96 3. 80 3.62 3.41 3.21 3.00 2.80 2.63 2.49 2.38 2.35 :2. ]7 

50 3.80 3.65 3. 48 3.30 3.10 2.92 2.74 2.58 2.45 2.3. 2.31 2.36 

55 3.88 3.74 3.58 3.40 3.22 3.05 2.88 2.74 2 .•2 2.54 2.53 2.56 

60 4.45 4.30 4.13 3.95 3.77 3.60 3.H 3.31 3.21 ) .14 3.14 3.20 

65 6.37 6.17 5.9. 5.74 5.54 5.35 5.19 5. OS 4.96 •• 92 4.96 5.07 

6.4 

3.6 

1/29/9. 

1/29/9. 

MCY 

ALL 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

1/2'/96 

1/29/96 

"IDLE EMISSIONS IN GRAMS/MIN, DERIVED FROM 3 MPH RATES 

lENV028Fl.l CALTRANS DIVISIOl'< OF RUN DATES, ENV028Fl.1 1/29/96 

NEW TECHNOLOGY. MATERIALS AND RESEARCH EI1FAC7F1-1 1/29/96 

EMFAC7Fl.1 RATES AS OF 1/25/94 

TIME RATE ADJUSTMENT BAGS 1 • DREAMWORKS 2010 SlIMMER 

YEAR, 2010 DEWPOINT, 10 COLD STARTS 20.0 LOA 69.0 LVT 19.4 MDT 6 .• 

INSPECTION" MAINTENANCE, YES HOT STARTS 80.0 llBD 0.0 IlPG 1.2 IiDD 3.6 

SEASOl'

ApPENDIX B 

NOISE ANALYSIS 

peR 













Consultants in Acoustics • Noise • Vibration 

May 15, 1996 

Ms. Ricarda Bennen 

Heliport Consultants 

148 Gazania Court 

Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 

DreamWorks SKG Animation Campus Glendale 

Heliport Noise Assessments 

Dear Ms. Bennett: 

2440 South Sepulveda BoulEMlfd 

Suite 180 

los Angeles 

California 90064 

(310) 312·5040 

Facsimile (310) 312-5788 

This report presents the results of our noise study of the proposed DreamWorks Heliport, which is 

to be located on the Department of Water and Power site (Crystal Springs Site) at the intersection 

of Ventura and Golden State Freeways, within the city of Glendale. The purpose of this stUdy was 

to evaluate: 

a. Potential noise impacts of the DreamWorks proposed heliport operation on the surrounding 

neighborhood communities, and 

b. The historical flight noise levels associated with the previous use of the heliport. 

ON SITE NOISE MEASUREMENTS 

Background noise measurements were conducted at the Crystal Springs Site (on site) and four 

surrounding neighborhood locations as shown in Figure 1. The neighborhood sites are found to 

the North, East and West of the Crystal Springs Site and were selected to represent the 

residential properties near the heliport. At these locations, exterior sound readings were 

undertaken for periods of 10 minutes during the early afternoon of Thursday and Friday, February 

29 and March 1, 1996. The on site measurements were conducted continuously for a 24-hour 

period, starting at 3:00 p.m. Thursday, February 29 through March 1,1996. 

DATA ACQUISITiON SYSTEM 

The ambient noise survey was carried out using a Larson-Davis model 870 portable noise monitor 

and associated microphone. The data acquisition system used to measure the background noise 

levels meet and exceed the requirements for the Type I standard instruments as defined in the 

American National Standard Institute (ANSI) specifications S14, IEC651, and IEC804. The 

microphone was calibrated prior to and after completion of the survey to ensure the accuracy of 

measurements. 

NOISE DESCRIPTORS 

In evaluating and describing ambient noise, se.veral metrics are used to describe the noise 

measurements. In this report the results of measurements and calculations are presented in terms 

0... "'",p & ".""... e-no. lid. 

90' t.4...... 51_ '260. Son F.- CA 94103 

Pnono (4IS) 951-11445. F_(4IS) 951·909Il



May 15, 1996 

Page 2 

of two widely used metrics, Equivalent continuous sound level and Community Noise Equivalent 

Level as follows: 

Equivalent Sound Level- Symbolized by Leq, this measure represents the level of a continuous 

steady sound which over a specified time period contains the same total sound energy as the 

actual time varying sound of interest, 

Community Noise Equivalent Level- Symbolized by CNEL, this rating represents an energy 

averaged noise level over a 24-hour period. Noise levels measured during evening hours of 7:00 

p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and night time hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. are adjusted (increased) by 5dB 

and 10dB, respectively. These time of day adjustments are included to account for the apparent 

increased sensitivity to and annoyance at noise during the evening and night time hours. 

EXISTING AMBIENT SOUND ENVIRONMENT 

The existing noise levels at the Crystal Springs Site and neighboring residential areas are 

influenced primarily by the Ventura and Golden States Freeways, street and railroad traffic. In 

particular, the sound environment at the neighboring homes (North and East of the Crystal Spring 

Site) is dominated by vehicular traffic noise from San Fernando Way and frequent train operations 

along San Fernando Way. 

Overall, on an hourly Leq basis the current sound environment ranges between 54 dBA 

(recorded at 1:00 a.m.) and 64 dBA (recorded at 6:00 a.m.). On a 24-hour CNEL basis, the current 

sound environment was calculated at 67 dBA. The results of the field noise measurements are 

shown in Table 1. 

Table 1 - Ambient Noise Measurements, Leq (1 hour) 

Location Starting Time Leq (dBA) Starting Time Leq (dBA) Starting Leq (dBA) 

(Hrs) (Hrs) Time 

(Hrs) 

On site 1500 62.7 1600 62.9 1700 61.7 

1800 62.7 1900 62.3 2000 62.6 

2100 62.0 2200 59.5 2300 59.7 

2400 56.7 0100 54.3 200 55.0 

0300 56.8 0400 60.4 0500 62.2 

0600 64.0 0700 63.6 0800 63.6 

0900 61.2 1000 61.1 1100 60.1 

1200 61.6 1300 61.1 1400 60.3 

Neighborhood Duration Leq (dBA) 

1 1520-1530 64.0 

2 1410-1420 61.0 

3 1545-1555 66.0 

4 1600-1610 68.0 

"



May 15, 1996 

Page 3 

PAST HELIPORT OPERATIONS 

OPERATION INFORMATION 

Historical flight operation information from Heliport Consultants shows that the Heliport at Crystal 

Springs Site has been active since 1958 facilitating flight activities by Heliport Inc. and various 

police departments. The actual flight information, however, is available only for the time period of 

1974 through 1992. During this period the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the 

combined Glendale/ Burbank Air Support Units used the heliport facility, for various helicopter 

operations such as patrol, sUNeiliance and training. Table-2 presents the historical flight 

operations classified into three time categories of daytime. evening time and night time to 

correspond to the time categories associated with calculation of the CNEL noise metric. 

These ,time classifications illustrate the number of takeoff and landings (noise events) associated 

with the weekday use of the heliport during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m.- 7:00 p.m., 7:00 p.m. 

10:00 p.m., and 10:00 p.m.- 7:00 a.m. In general, the heliport site was used more frequently 

during weekdays than weekends. Thus, in order to represent the worst noise scenario, the 

weekday operation volumes were used to calculate the previoUS CNEL values. 

Table 2 - Historical Operation Flight-Events at Glendale Crystal Springs DWP Site 

Operation Number of Events Per Day 

Period (Year) Police Department (Per Time Category) Total 

0700-1900 1900-2200 2200-0700 (Per Week Day) 

1974-1977 LAPD 65 13 16 94 

1978-1983 LAPD/Glendale/Burbank 105 28 26 159 

1984-1988 Glendale/Burbank 40 15 10 65 

1989-1992 Glendale 35 '10 4 49 

TYPES OF HELICOPTERS 

Different types of helicopters utilized the heliport site in connection with previous flight operations 

by LAPD and Glendale/Burbank police departments. Information from Heliport Consultants 

indicates that, during the "peak" years of operation (i. e. the highest number of helicopters per 

year), LAPD employed a fleet of helicopters that included primarily the Bell 47 and Bell 206. The 

Glendale/ Burbank air support fleet included mainly Hughes 300 helicopters. 

Table 3 represents the fleet mixture for "peak" years and for both LAPD and Glendale/Burbank Air 

Support units. A statistical analysis of the helicopter fleet mixture was carried out in order to 

calculate the probability of a specific type of helicopter being used in a typical weekday flight 

operation. Table 3 illustrates the estimated probability of occurrence of various helicopter types in 

a typical operation. As can be seen, the results of the statistical analysis indicate that LAPD's fleet 

operation used Bell 206 and Bell 47 helicopters more frequently than Bel! 204 and Hughes 500 

helicopters. 

"



May 15, 1996 

Page 5 

employed by DreamWorks operation has not been determined, thus the noise calculation of 

future heliport operations is based on the Sikorsky S76 helicopter. A common helicopter for 

passenger transportation, a Sikorsky S76, is used for calculation purposes. According to FAA 

tests (ibid.), in general the twin turbine S76 generates about 3 dBA (SEL) 2 higher noise level 

than the single turbine Bell 206L helicopter. The CNEL results for a possible day of helicopter 

flights is illustrated in Table 5 where there are 4 daytime trips and 1 evening trip for a total of 10 

landings and takeoffs. 

Table 5 - Future Flight Operation and Estimated CNEL Values (possible operation scenario) 

Based on Sikorsky S76 Helicopter 

Number of Flight-Events per Day Estimated CNEL at 

(oer Time Cateaories Neic hborhood Locations 

0700-1900 I 1900-2200 I 2200-0700 Total Per Day 1 2 I 3 I 4 

8 I 2 I 0 10 33 29 I 35 I 24 

CONCLUSIONS 

A comparison of the estimated CNEL values of the previous and proposed flight operations is 

presented in Table 6 for neighborhood locations 1, 2, 3 and 4. As can be seen, the flight 

operations proposed by DreamWorKs produces, on average, noise levels 23dB-28dB lower than 

previous use of the heliport, as shown by the values given in the last row of Table 6. 

Table 6 - Difference in CNEL Values Between Historical and 

Proposed DreamWorks Flight Operations 

Neighborhood Difference in CNEL 

Locations (Previous Operations - Proposed Operations) 

1974-1977 1978-1983 1978-1988 1989-1992 

1 21 24 26 24 

2 22 24 28 26 

3 24 27 24 22 

4 25 28 31 29 

Averaae 23 25 28 25 

The noise impact from the historical and proposed helicopter flight operations on the existing 

sound environment is shown in Table 7. As illustrated by CNEL values in Table 7, the proposed 

DreamWorKs helicopter flight operations would not increase the current overall sound 

environment (CNEL (24-hrs)) of the neighborhood residential communities. The results of noise 

calculations further indicate that the previous use of heliport could have increased the current 

CNEL level by less than 1 dB. In contrast, the DreamWorks projected helicopter operation will 

have no measurable impact on the current CNEL sound environment. 

2 SEL = Sound Exposure Level 

"

site. 

B-3. HELICOPTER OPERATIONS LETTER 

This letter describes the history of helicopter operations that have occurred at the project 

"



The plans for the Dream Works Campus calls for the ground 

level landing site to be replaced by the rooftop helipad on 

the top floor of the parking structure in the northern 

quadrant of the lot. The advantages to an elevated rooftop 

helipad is that it will be more secure from people wandering 

onto the landing site and the flight paths will be protected 

from any future building on the campus in the vicinity of the 

helipad. 

COMPARISON OF FLIGHT ACTIVITY: 

The Glendale Heliport has been available for helicopter 

flight activities at this site for over 38 years. The 

conditional use for the heliport was originally obtained by 

Heliport, Inc. who utilized the heliport site for about six 

years beginning in 1958. The property was then leased by DWP 

to the respective air support units of Los Angeles, Burbank 

and Glendale police departments from approximately 1964 to 

1992. The LAPD airborne unit were the major users and sole 

occupants of the site from 1964 to 1972 when the Glendale 

Police air support moved their unit to the Glendale Heliport. 

The Burbank Police 'air support unit came to the site in 1972 

and shared equipment and flights schedules with Glendale. 

The LAPD left Glendale in 1983 for Hooper Heliport in 

downtown Los Angeles. Five years later, in 1988, the Burbank 

airborne law enforcement unit moved to Burbank Airport. They 

were followed four years later by the Glendale Police 

Department air support. 

There was a period of time from 1978 (after Burbank came to 

the site) until 1983 (before LAPD moved to Hooper Heliport) 

that all three police agencies conducted operations from the 

heliport. The heliport site then reverted to the property 

owner, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP), 

which maintained the helistop to this date. 

since the operation of helicopters from this site covers an 

expanse in time of approximately 38 years, it is 

understandable that some of the operational records have been 

archived, lost or just never existed. Information on 

helicopter operations by the airborne law enforcement units 

2 

"



for the years 1974 through 1992 was the data that was most 

readily available either through documentation or through 

interviews with personnel who were familiar with the flight 

operations. 1 

Flight data for the past 18 years (1974-1992) was gathered 

through extensive interviews with representative of the 

airborne police departments who were knowledgeable about the 

daily operations schedule. Information was obtained on the 

number of aircraft in use, the hours of operations and the 

number of operations and scheduled shifts. The original 

number of flight operations combined both a takeoff and 

landing event into one operation. For this report, the 

number of operations was doubled (or, multiplied by "2") in 

order to determine the number of flight events (see Tables 1, 

2 and 3). 

The type of aircraft ranged from single engine, piston driven 

rotorcraft such as a Bell 47 to twin engine, twin rotor 

military model aircratt such as a CH46. During the peak 

years of operation (1974 to 1983), the LAPD used seven (7) 

Bell 47G5 piston helicoptersi one Bell 47G5Ai one Bell 

47G3Bli 16 Bell 206B single engine turbine models; one (1) 

UH1B (Bell 204); and on an infrequent basis, a CH46. At the 

site, Glendale and Burbank shared three (3) Hughes 300 piston 

model aircraft from 1972 to 1992. 

Tables 1,2, and 3 provides a summary of the number of 

aircraft by shift segregated by weekend and weekday. As can 

he seen in the three tables, the flights for the LAPD 

occurred 24 hours a day over 7 days a week, except for 

weekends. In addition to the three regularly scheduled 

patrols (Patrol Day, PM and AM) with varied shifts, there 

were surveillance flights along with maintenance and training 

flights. As might be expected, there were less flights on 

the weekend than during the week. 

A more detailed review of the Tables reveals there were 

approximately 94 flight events (a landing or a takeoff) per 

24 hour period during the week. The number of flights 

decreased on a weekend day to 58 takeoffs or landings. A 

total of 586 flights occurred per week just from the LAPD 

1 

Interviews with Officer/Pilot Charles perriquey and 

Sergeant/Pilot Dick Eyster, LAPDi captain Ron Allison, 

and Senior pilot John Parmann, Glendale Police Dept. 

3



aircraft alone. This combined with the 300 weekly flights 

from the Glendale/Burbank airborne law enforcement 

helicopters brought the total to 886 flights per week during 

those years of dual occupancy at the Glendale Heliport site. 

These numbers translate into 2519 flights per month for the 

LAPD operations and, for the Glendale/Burbank units, 1290 

(for the years 1978 to 1988) and 860 (for the years 1988 to 

1992). It should be noted that during the span of 1978 to 

1983 the operations of LAPD and Glendale/Burbank can be 

combined for a total of 3809 takeoffs or landings per month. 

since the studio has not begun operations, it is difficult to 

state with certainty how many flights will occur per day. 

However, even if Dream Works SKG flew every day in an average 

month (i.e. 30 days), the resulting 120 to 240 flight events 

(or, 4 to 8 flight events per day) would be considerably 

below the previous flights which ranged from 860 to 3809 

flights for a given month. Further, the flights related to 

Dream Works are not apticipated to occur in the early morning 

hours after 12 AM. 

While no helicopter has been selected at this time, the 

typical charter aircraft will be a single or a twin turbine 

engine aircraft in the weight category of 5,000 to 12,000 

pounds. 

If I can be of any further assistance, or should you have any 

questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Best regards, 

Ricarda L. Bennett, Esq. 

RLB: 

4 

"

TABLE 1 


Los Angeles Police Dept Air Support 

at 

Glendale Helistop, Crystal Springs DWP Site 

Period: 1974 -1983 

Operating Classir. Time Period (A) (B) (e) (D) 

by Shift EventsIWeek EventslWk Events/7 Events! 

Day End Day Day Week Month 

C=5(Al+2CBI D=4.3ICI I 

Patrol Day 9AM-5PM 24 16 152 654 

Patrol PM 5PM-1 AM 24 24 168 7Z1. 

Patrol AM 1 AM-4AM -4 2 24 103 

OnCaU 4AM-9AM Varied 

SurveUlance Oaf 9AM-5PM 18 12 114 490 

Surveillance PM! 5PM-1 AM 8 4 48 206 

Training Oay/90% 12 0 60 258 

NighV10% 

Maintenance Oay18AM-5 4 0 20 86 

PM 

TOTAL EVENTS 94 68 686 2619 

1. Avg. number of weeks In a month equals 4.3 

2. Operations varied 

Harch 21, 1996 

C:\UORK\HElCON\063GRA\HIST\OPSHrST.Tal 

"

TABLE 2 " 


Glendale and Burbank Police Air Support 

at 


Period: 1978 -1988 

Operating (A) (8) (C) (D) (E) 

Classif. Avg. Tot. Evts Tot.Evts. Eventsl7 Eventsl 

by Shift EventslWeek for fi Day Week forWk Day Week Month 

by Time Day End D=B+C E=-C.3(D)' 

Period A=Bl5 Sun Evts=O 

7AM.4PM 2S 100 0 100 .4JO 

3 PM·11 PM 20 96 ',- 100 430 

4 

5PM·1 AM 20 96 4 100 430 

Total Events N.A. 292 8 300 1290 

1. Avg. number or weeks per month equals 4.3 

TABLE 3 


Glendale Police Air Support 

at 


Period: Mid-19BB - 1992 

Operating (A) (8) eC) (0) (E) 

Classlf. Avg. EventslWeek Day Tot. Evts for Tot. Evts Eventsl7 Eventsl 

byShift A-Bl-4 fi oayWeek forWkEnd Day Week Month 

Mon.CO Evts SunEvtscO D=B+C E.....3(o)· 

7AM·4PM 2S 100 0 100 430 

4PM-11 PM 24 96 4 100 430 

Total Events N.A. 196

ApPENDIX C 

TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND 

LANE CONFIGURATIONS 

peR 

PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH 

'.

C-l. PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES 

The following data includes AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the traffic srudy 

intersections, broken down into left tum, right tum, and through bound traffic, including 

Existing and Year 2010 traffic. The Year 2010 traffic volumes consist of traffic volumes with 

and without project generated traffic. This data is summarized and incorporated into Section 

4.9, Transportation/Circulation of the Addendum to the EIR. 

"

C-2. LANE CONFIGURATIONS 

The following figures depicts the existing and post-mitigation traffic study intersections. 

This infonnation is summarized and incorporated into Section 4.9, Transportation/Circulation 

of the Addendum to the EIR.

Exhibit F 

CITY OF GLENDALE CALIFORNIA 

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION 

To: Allen Castillo, Project Manager, Development Services 

Vilia Zemaitaitis, Senior Planner, Planning Department 

From: Alan Loomis, Principal Urban Designer, Planning Department 

Date: 7 Apnl 2008 

Re: Stage I & II Agency Design Review for DreamWorks Expansion 

The following comments are an evaluation of the above project based on drawings prepared by Gensler 

Architects and dated March 2008. Summary comments are provided on the final page of this memo. 

Context 

The project is located on the 13.3 acre DreamWork.s Animation campus in the GC3 (Grand Gentral 

Creative Campus) district. The DreamWorks campus is already developed with a variety of buildings, 

clustered around common courtyards and gardens. The architectural and landscape design of the campus 

is suggestive of an Italian Tuscan or Venetian village, an effect that is amplified by the rich red, orange and 

terra cotta colors of the buildings. 

The proposed building will be located on the outside edge of the campus, facing Flower Street along with a 

new secondary entrance to the campus. As a consequence, the building will have a limited visibility from 

within the campus, but instead will have a prominent presence towards the Flower Street. The building will 

therefore be a significant "gateway" structure to the GC3 district, especially when the Flower I Fairmount 

Street improvements are completed. 

Project Description 

The project is a new five-story office building (with full basement). Although taller and larger than existing 

structures on the campus, the new building's materials, details and colors will match the existing campus. 

The project also includes an addition to the existing parking structure - however, because this addition 

merely extends further into the existing campus, the following discussion does not address the parking 

structure. 

Project Design 

Existing Buildings, Adaptive Reuse, and/or Historic Preservation 

• Exisling Buildings- Although the new offICe building is sited such that it will appear to be a new freestanding 

structure, it is in fact an extension of the eXisting "lakeside- building. As noted above, the new 

building will also match the finishes, materials, and details of existing buildings on the campus.

Overall Site Plan, Height, Mass, and Landmark Features 

• Site Plan - The new building is essentially "L" shaped and located to occupy a vacant comer of the 

OreamWorks campus. 

• Height and Massing - The building is five-stories with a full basement (and consequently considered a 

six-story structure by code). A fourth floor roof terrace at the northwest elevation partially erodes the 

overall building bulk and mass. Otherwise, variation in building height and mass is limited to the roof line 

- a slightly taller roof form creates a centralized mass on the southeast far;ade. However, there is 

otherwise no manipulation of the building mass on this far;ade, with the exception of a relatively small 

projecting "Juliet" balcony. Increasing the size of this balcony from one story to two (by extending the 

third floor) would increase the variation to this fa9GIde. Alternatively, a more creative response to the 

"gateway" condition of the site, as described below, offers other options to reduce the apparent bulk of 

the building. 

• Landmark Architectural Features - This corner of the OreamWorks campus will be prominent "gateway" 

to the GC3 district as people enter via Flower Street (especially after the new freeway access is 

completed). The most imposing feature of the proposed design is the southeast far;ade facing this 

entrance. This falfade is essentially symmetrical, with only some minor balconies to relieve a five-andhalf 

story tall vertical walt. The focal point of this walt is a billboard-sized "OreamWorks" logo. Although 

this large walt and sign will provide a "gateway" icon to the GC3 district, it does so largely because of 

size. not because of any deliberate design. A far more adventurous and exciting design might propose a 

campanile tower (similar to that found in the center of the campus) at this comer of the building. Not 

only would such a tower create a literal landmark feature, but it also could be used to reduce the 

apparent scale and mass of the new building (especially if the tower is also painted a different color). 

Street Frontage and Fafade Design 

• Setbacks- The new building is located parallel to Flower Street, with a landscaped setback that varies 

from 4 to 10 feel. This setback condition is generally the same as the existing building on Flower Street, 

however, because the new building is approXimately twice as high as the existing structure, this setback 

may feel less generous. 

• Frontage and Facade Design- The OreamWorks campus is afenced enclave, with controlled and gated 

access points. Ailihe existing buildings on the campus therefore face the main campus quad, not 

streets or sidewalks as they would in an urban setting. The new building will be no different, although it 

does actually front Flower Street. No aspect of the Flower Street elevation acknowledges the pUblic 

sidewalk or even the new secondary entrance in fronl of the building itself. Although security concerns 

may preclude an actual entrance, a ground level arcade or other similar design feature may have offered 

a more ·public" appearance to the structure. Instead, the design employs recessed balconies at floors 

four and five to provide shadow relief on the Flower Street far;ade. These balconies do not extend 

across the entire elevation, although if they did so, they might define the far;ade as a three story building 

with a two-story ·crown". This might help reduce the visual appearance of the bUilding's height. 

Page2of3

Materials, Colors, Lighting, and Signs 

• Materials and Colors - The materials and colors of the project (plaster finish with decorative reveals, 

metal windows with stone sills, and clay tile rooQ match the existing campus architecture. 

• Lighting- The proposal does not indicate specific light locations or fixtures. However, the proposal 

indicates the intent to match light fixtures found on the existing campus. 

• Signs- The proposal does not indicate specific locations for minor directional signs. As with the lighting, 

the submission indicates an intent to match the existing campus sign program. 

The exception is the large "DreamWorks" logo sign on the southeast elevation, facing the proposed 

Flower I Fairmount realignment. This will be one of the primary entrances to the GC3 district and is an 

appropriate location for signature signs. The proposed "DreamWorks" sign will be a simple and elegant 

cut-metal sign mounted six inches from the facade similar to other identity signs on the campus. The 

drawings do not indicate any lighting for this sign, although back lighting or some external spot fixtures 

would be acceptable. 

Open Space, Landscape and Public An 

• Open Space - The new building has no dedicated open space other than the street side setbacks, 

however, the DreamWor1c;s campus has agenerous central quad and courtyard. 

• Landscape - As with the lighting and signs, the proposal indicates an intent to match existing landscape, 

but does not provide a detailed landscape plan. 

• Public Art - Only projects within the Downtown Specific Plan are required to include public art. The 

proposal does not include a public art component. 

Summary Comments and Recommendations 

The proposal is consistent with the limited design standards established by both the San Fernando Road 

Corridor Redevelopment Plan and the existing development agreement between the City and 

OreamWorks. The proposal additionally utilizes the same materials, colors, and details as the existing 

architecture on the DreamWorks Animation campus. It is an architecturally conservative extension of the 

OreamWorks campus, and except for the fact that the proposal will be the tallest building on the campus, 

there is no reason to otherwise think it will be appear incompatible with existing structures. As such, the 

project is consistent with adopted design policies and standards, and could be approved as presented. 

However, the building will have a prominent presence on Flower Street and consequently serve as the 

"gateway" structure to the GC3 district Although the proposal clearty announces the studio's identity to 

Flower Street with a billboard-sized "DreamWorks' sign, the design has nonetheless missed a significant 

opportunity to create a memorable architectural icon. This iconography could be established with a more 

dramatic and civic oriented architecture, perhaps incorporating a campanile-type tOVoJer (similar to the tower 

inside the campus). Therefore it is recommended the design be modified to addresses these issues and 

the public "gateway" status of the bUilding's location. 

Page 3013

Redevelopment Project Area consistent with the existing lND zoning and with the 

goals of the redevelopment area. (Land Use Element Goal, page 7) 

h. Provide opportunities for coordinated as well as designed expansion of desirable 

commercial and industrial uses adjacent to areas where such expansion is in 

conformance with the goals of this plan. This project meets this goal because it 

provides for expansion ofcommercial activities in confonnance with the existing 

lND land use designation and IND zoning which allows for development of 

mixed-use/large scale projects. (Land Use Element Goal, page 8) 

c. Encourage more intensified development of industrial areas (Land Use Element 

Goal, page 8). The project meets this goal because it allows for build-out of this 

mixed-use/large scale project consistent with the IND zoning designation and 

with minor modifications to the existing development agreement parameters. 

d. Encourage high rise office use within or adjacent to regional commercial centers. 

(Land Use Element Goal, page 8) This project is consistent with thjs goal 

because it allows for office development along the San Fernando corridor in a 

desib'llated redevelopment area. The IND zone allows for Industrial Mixed 

Use/Large Scale projects which permit development to a maximum height of 175 

feet above average grade or 10 stories, whichever is less. 

e. Provide opportunities for the expansion of revenue producing industrial and 

commercial establishments within the parameters ofother community goals (Land 

Use Element Goal, page 8). This project is consistent with this land use goal 

because it provides for an expansion ofrevenue producing commercial 

establishments in compliance with currcnt lND land use and zoning designations. 

Furthermore, the location of this project in a redevelopment project area promotes 

community goals for economic expansion and provides for future job 

oPP0l1unities. 

The proposed project complies with the following IND development standards (GMC 

Section 30.13.030): 

Lot Area 

IND Zone Project 

10,000sq.ft. minimum 

(.23 acre) 

13.3 acres 

Existing: 331,784 54.ft. 

Building Area N/A Proposed: 128,718 S4.fl. 

Total: 460,502 S4.ft. 

Street Front Setback on. 

Interior Setbacks o fl. 

Height Limit 

9' proposed for Lakeside 

Annex from Flower S1. 

32' proposed for parking 

structure extension 

50 fl. Approx. 93 ft. for Lakeside 

(up to 175 ft or 10 stories**) Annex-Addition 

2.0 spacesl1,OOO S4.n. 

Parking (based on approved ORA 

Parking Exception 5-30-96) 

Parking Struchlre: 872 

Surface Parking: 319 

Total: 1,191 spaces 

(921 required)

presented anticipated impacts on shade/shadow, aesthetics and traffic/circulation. Even 

with the increase in pennitted height, the shade and shadow impacts ofthe designation of 

the DrcamWorks campus as an "Industrial Mixed Use/Large Scale Project" in the fND 

zoning district were detennined to be less than significant, as analyzed in 4.6 Land Use 

(Views) and 4.16 Shade and Shadow. Furthennore, the traffic impacts resulting from the 

placement of the emergency access and service gate on Flower Street are to be reduced to 

less than significant upon the application of the following two mitigation measures: 

MM 4.9·) The secondary access gate shall have limited access, as follows: 

• Entry from northbound Flower Street shall be prohibited 

• Exit to northbound Flower Street shall be prohibited 

MM 4.9·2 The project applicant shall be responsible for payment of fees to the City 

required to post appropriate signs as well as physical barriers to enforce 

these turning movements. 

All future development would be required to incorporate applicable mitigation measures 

from the Program EIR, and comply with Agency and City land use and architectural 

guidelines. 

NEXT STEPS 

The Planning Commission's comments and motion will be presented to the 

Council/Agency, along with the project's Stage I & II Final Design submittal, Second 

Addendum to the Final Program EIR, and the proposed First Amendment to the 

Development Agreement. The Council/Agency hearing has been scheduled for April 8, 

2008, and will be duly publicly noticed. 

EXlJIBITS 

1. Dran of First Amendment to the Development Agreement lor "DreamWorks 

Animation LLC" 

2. Design Review Plans, submitted by Gensler, March 2008 

3. Draft Memo for Stage I & [J Final Design Review 

4. Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR

MOTION 

MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GERO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KANE 

THAT THE PLANNrNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE 

RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TJ IE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE STATUTORY 

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR DREAMWORKS ANIMATION, LLC, AND 

THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 

SECTION 1. Based on the staff report, draft first amendment to the statutory 

development agreement, secoll,d addendum to the program environmental impact report 

t

k. The Statutory Development Agreement includes conditions for development of 

the site, outlines agency and city approvals, and provides for the compliance with 

applicable mitigation measures. 

SECTION 2. Based upon the facts, testimony and other evidence received, and 

upon studies and investigation made by the PlalUling Commission and on its behalf, the 

Planning Commission finds that First Amendment to the Statutory Development 

Agreement for DreamWorks Animation LLC is conslstent wIth the following statements, 

goals and policies of the Glendale General Plan: 

a. Reinforce Glendale's image and community identity within the greater Los 

Angeles area metropolitan complex. This project meets this goa] of the Land Usc 

Element because the modification ofthis development agreement allO\vs for an 

expansion oflarge scale economic opportunities III the San Felllando Corridor 

Redevelopment Project Area consistent with the existing IND zoning and with the 

goals orthe redevelopment area. (Land Use Elemcnl Goal, page 7) 

b. Provide opportunities for coordinated as well as designed expansion ofdesirable 

commercial and industrial uses adjacent to areas where such expansion is in 

eonfonnance wlth the goals of this plan. This project meets this goal because it 

provides for expansion of commercial activities in confOlU1ance with the existing 

IND land use desibrnation and lND zoning which allows for development of 

mixed-use/large scale projects. (Land Use Element Goal, page 8) 

c. Encourage more intensified development of industrial areas (Land Use Element 

Goal, p

a. The Final Program ElR for the San Fernando Road Conidor Redevelopment 

Project Plan ("Enal Program ElR"), as certified by the Agency on November 17, 

1992. 

b. The Program ElR for the project area, which assumed the build-out of the 

DreamWorks project area, cited significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality 

and traffic resulting [rom the implementation orthe San Fernando Road 

Redevelopment Plan. 

c. In addition to certifying the Program EIR, a statement of overriding 

considerations was adopted on November 17, 1992. 

d. In June 1996, a First Addendum to the Final Program EIR was tired off the Final 

Program EIR to analyze the build-out ofthc oliginal DreamWorks Animation 

campus project and Development Agreemcnt, including 495,000 square feel o[ 

building area, a parking structure and associated facilities. At full build-OUl, the 

project would include seven buildings, with accent towers up to 115 feet and a 

1.000 car parking structure. 

e. 111 September 2004, the project site was re-zoned from MI (Restricted Industrial) 

to IND (Industrial) as pal1 ofthe San Fernando Corridor Re-zoning study and 

reviewed under the negative declaration prepared by RBF Consulting and 

approved by the City Council on August 10,2004. 

f. The Second Addendum to the Final Program Effi., prepared by PBS& J in March 

2008, addresses the designation o[the DreamWorks campus as an Industrial 

Mixed Use/Large Scale Project in the IND zoning district and the modification of 

the height limit, parking garage extension, surface parking extension and 

secondary employee and emergency access road. 

g. The Second Addendum specifically discusses the potential environmental effects 

ofthe following: 

• Installation ofa new secondary employee and emergency access road from 

Flower Street, and associated surface parking and landscaping along the 

roadway; and Construction and operation of the new Lakeside AIU1ex 

building, cxpansion o[ the existing parking structure, provision ofa 

secondary employee-only and fire access gate from Flower Street, 

associated surface paving ofthe new roadway to connect the existing fire 

access road, striping of parking spaces and landscape activities along the 

secondary roadway; and 

• Amendment ofthe Development Agreement. 

h. The Second Addendum concludes that the above items do not rcpresent a 

substantial change to the San Fernando Road Redevelopment Plan, nor do they 

present any new information or substantial impact not previously analyzed or 

disclosed in the Program EIR and the First Addendum, which would warrant 

preparation of the subsequent or supplemental EIR. 

I. The traffic impacts resulting from the placement o[ the emergency access and 

service gate on Flower Street are to be reduced to less than significant upon the 

application of the following two mitigation mcasures: 

J. Even with the increase in permitt.ed height, thc shade and shadow impacts ofthe 

designation of the DrcamWorks campus as an "Industrial Mixed Use/Large Scale 

Project" in the IND zoning district were detennined to be less than significant, as 

analyLed in 4.6 Land Use (Views) and 4.16 Shade and Shadow.

k. The Phase 11 project would not increase the development's contribution to air 

quality or traffic impacts previously identified in thc Program EIR. 

SECTION 4. The Planning Commission has considered the Second Addendum 

to the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan for the San 

Fernando RO

ATTEST: 

I, Hassan Haghani, Commission Secretary, certify thai the foregoing resolution 

was adopted by the Planning Commission oflhe City of Glendale, by a majority orlhe 

members thereof at a meeting held on the 2 1ld dCly of April, 2008, and that the same was 

adopted by the following vote: 

Ayes: 

Noes: 

Absent 

Abstain: 

Gero, Kane 

Ramirez 

Manoukian, Torgerson 

ommission Secretary

UBLIC HEARING: Director of Development ... - City of Glendale

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?