UBLIC HEARING: Director of Development ... - City of Glendale
UBLIC HEARING: Director of Development ... - City of Glendale
UBLIC HEARING: Director of Development ... - City of Glendale
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
DreamWorks Animation Campus<br />
Stage t & II Design, First Amendment to DA, second Addendum to EIR<br />
April 22, 2006<br />
Page 3 <strong>of</strong>7<br />
The proposed expansion <strong>of</strong> the Lakeside Building will have a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 93 feet and will be 6 stones.<br />
A recommendation from the Planning Commission to <strong>City</strong> Council to approve the First Amendment to Statutory DA<br />
and Second Addendum to fhe Final Program EIR was approved on a 2-1 vote; Commissioner Ramirez voted<br />
against the approval <strong>of</strong> the two documents because he felt more study <strong>of</strong> soils and liquefacUon should be<br />
conducted.<br />
DESIGN REVIEW<br />
The Project has been reviewed by the <strong>City</strong>'s Principal Urban Designer. He has determined the Project is consistent<br />
with the design standards established by both the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan and the<br />
<strong>Development</strong> Agreement between the <strong>City</strong>, the Agency, and the Developer. The Project additionally utilizes the<br />
same materials, colors, and details as the existing architecture on the Campus. It is an architecturally conservative<br />
extension <strong>of</strong> the Campus. As such, the Project is consistent with adopted design policies and standards, and could<br />
be approved as presented.<br />
The building will have a prominent presence on Flower Street and consequently will serve as the 'gateway'<br />
structure to the Grand Central District. The initial proposal clearty announced the studio's idenUty to Flower Street<br />
with a "DreamWorks' wall sign on the eastern fa
BACKGROUND<br />
DreamWor1
DreamWor!l;s Animation Campus<br />
Stage I & II Design, First Amendment to DA, Second Addendum to EJR<br />
April 22, 2008<br />
Page 5<strong>of</strong>7<br />
• Located within a redevelopment area;<br />
• Controlled by a single land owner; and<br />
• Developed as a unified project under a disposition and development agreement (GMC 30.70.020.A).<br />
The Campus qualifies as an "Industrial Mixed Usellarge Scale Project".<br />
The 128,718 square feet "Lakeside Annex" has an overall height <strong>of</strong> approXimately 93 feet and is six (6) slories.<br />
This exceeds the maximum allowed by the existing <strong>Development</strong> Agreement. Based on the proposed First<br />
Amendment to Statutory DA, the "Industrial Mixed Usellarge Scale Project" height standard for such projects wouid<br />
apply, thereby permitting an increase up to 10 stories or 175 feet above existing grade <strong>of</strong> the site, whichever is less.<br />
As proposed, the Project would comply with the IND Zone height standards for Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale<br />
Projects.<br />
All other terms <strong>of</strong> the Developmenl Agreement would remain in effect.<br />
SECOND ADOENDUM TO THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR<br />
The applicant has completed a Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR for this Project.<br />
This Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR addresses the designation <strong>of</strong> the Campus as an Industrial Mixed<br />
Usellarge Scale Project in the IND zoning district and the modification <strong>of</strong> the height limit. The Second Addendum<br />
to the Final Program EIR specifically discusses the potential environmental effects <strong>of</strong> the following:<br />
• Application <strong>of</strong> the "Industrial Mixed Usellarge Scale Project" designation;<br />
• Proposed change in the height limit on the Campus from 65 feet to 175 feel, in accordance with the<br />
"Industrial Mixed Use/Large Scale Project" standards;<br />
• Installation <strong>of</strong> a new secondary employee and emergency access road from Flower Street, and associated<br />
surface parking and landscaping along the roadway; and<br />
• Amendment <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Development</strong> Agreement.<br />
The Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR concludes Ihat the above items do not represent a substantial<br />
change to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan"), nor do they present any<br />
new information not previously analyzed or disclosed in the Final Program EIR and the First Addendum to the Final<br />
Program EIR. The Final Program EIR cited significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and traffic resulting<br />
from the implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan. The proposed Projecf would not increase the development's<br />
contribution to air quality or traffic impacts as identified in the Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR.<br />
Furthermore, the Project does not alter the total amount <strong>of</strong> development permitted on the site, nor do the resulting<br />
conditions or circumstances warrant the preparation <strong>of</strong> a subsequent or supplemental EIR.<br />
The proposed Project anticipated impacts on shade/shadow, aesthetics and traffiC/circulation. Even with the<br />
increase in permitted height, the shade and shadow impacts <strong>of</strong> the Project were determined to be less than<br />
significant. Furthermore, the Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR determined that the traffic/circulation<br />
impacts can be reduced to less than significant upon the application <strong>of</strong> the following two mitigation measures:<br />
MM 4.9-1 The secondary access gate shall have limited access, as follows:<br />
• Entry from northbound Flower Street shall be prohibited
RESOLUTION NO. _<br />
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE<br />
CERTIFYING AND ADOPTING A SECOND ADDENDUM TO<br />
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE<br />
SAN FERNANDO ROAD CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT<br />
PROJECT AREA PLAN (DREAMWORKS ANIMATION<br />
CAMPUS EXPANSION PROJECT) AND MAKING FINDINGS<br />
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH<br />
WHEREAS, on November 17. 1992, the Agencycertified and adopted a Final Program Environmental<br />
Impact Report rProgram FEIR- or MFEIR"}for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area<br />
Plan, which FEIR analyzed the series <strong>of</strong> actions contemplated under the Redevelopment Plan, including<br />
proposed land uses, infrastructure policies, and regulations and examined the proposals for upgrading<br />
commercial, industrial and public properties within the Plan area including the existing and future development<br />
<strong>of</strong> an estimated 2.3 million square feet <strong>of</strong> commercial and related space, 1.48 million square feet <strong>of</strong> industrial<br />
space and 548 residential units; and<br />
WHEREAS, the FEIRfor the Redevelopment Plan included the allowable land uses and development<br />
standards for the Redevelopment Plan area in general and the OreamWorks Campus in particular; and<br />
WHEREAS, on June 4, 1996, the Agency certified a First Addendum to the FEIR which Addendum<br />
analyzed the OreamWorks Campus proposal within the context <strong>of</strong> the certified program FEIR and determined<br />
that the proposal did not require any important revision to the FEIR, did not constitute a substantial change<br />
in circumstances, and did not create any new significant effects not examined in the Program FEIR; and<br />
WHEREAS, a Second Addendum to the Program FEIR has been prepared to address the potential<br />
environmental effects <strong>of</strong> building out the OreamWorks campus under the Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale<br />
Project designation in the INO zoning district <strong>of</strong> the San Fernando Road Corridor Project Area; <strong>of</strong> revising the<br />
building height limit <strong>of</strong> 65 feet to a height <strong>of</strong> 175 feet or 10 stories permitted under the new Industrial Mixed-<br />
Use/Large Scale Project zoning designation; <strong>of</strong> installing a new employee and fire gale access on Flower<br />
Street and associated surface paving and landscaping activities; and<br />
WHEREAS, Agency and <strong>City</strong> staff have evaluated the proposed Project changes pursuant 10<br />
California Environmental Quality Act rCEQA") and relevant code requirements and have determined that the<br />
1<br />
1 A
Project changes do not create any new environmental impacts, do not substantially increase the severity <strong>of</strong><br />
any previously identified significant effects, do not constitute a substantial change to the Redevelopment Plan<br />
described in the Program FEIR that would require major revisions to the Program FEIR; and<br />
WHEREAS, the proposed designation <strong>of</strong>the OreamWorks Campus as an Industrial Mixed-Use/Large<br />
Scale Project in the INO zoning district, the revision <strong>of</strong> the height limit, and construction <strong>of</strong>a secondary access<br />
gate and associated landscape improvements would not alter the total amount <strong>of</strong> development permitted on<br />
the site and none <strong>of</strong> the conditions or circumstances that would require the preparation <strong>of</strong> a subsequent or<br />
supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 exists in connection with the changes<br />
to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan as proposed by the project under consideration in<br />
the Second Addendum; and<br />
WHEREAS, the Agency, exercising its independent judgment has determined that the Project<br />
changes described herein above do not trigger any conditions requiring either a supplemental EIR,<br />
subsequent EIR or negative declaration; and that an addendum to the FEIR is necessary and appropriate.<br />
CALIFORNIA:<br />
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,<br />
SECTION 1. The <strong>City</strong> Council finds and determines that alt <strong>of</strong> the recitals set forth herein above are<br />
true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.<br />
SECTION 2. The Second Addendum was prepared pursuant to the CEQA and State and local<br />
Guidelines, and is herebyapproved, certified, adopted and incorporated into the FEIRas follows: the proposed<br />
designation <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks Campus as an Industrial Mixed-Use Large/Scale Project in the INO zoning<br />
district, the revision <strong>of</strong> the heightlimil, and construction <strong>of</strong> a secondary access gate do not alter the total<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> development permitted on the site and none <strong>of</strong> the conditions or circumstances that would require<br />
the preparation <strong>of</strong> a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166<br />
exists in connection with the changes to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan as proposed<br />
by the project under consideration in the Second Addendum. Accordingly, an Addendum is appropriate<br />
pursuant to Title 14 CCR Div. 6. Chap. 3, § 15164.<br />
SECTION 3. The mitigation measures identified and set forth in section 4.9<br />
2<br />
J:\PILES\DOCI'"ILE:S\R.ESO\DrearnWorks 2nd Addendum <strong>City</strong> Reso '008.wpd
Transportation/Circulation, specifically MM 4.9.1 to allow only right turns into and out <strong>of</strong> the secondary access<br />
driveway, and MM 4.9.2 requiring the applicant to pay fees required to post signs and barriers to enforce these<br />
turning movements, shall be are incorporated into the project analyzed in the Second Addendum. All prior<br />
FEIR and First Addendum mitigation measures applicable to the DreamWorks Campus project shall also be<br />
implemented.<br />
SECTION 4. The <strong>City</strong> Council hereby confirms in all respects the certification <strong>of</strong> the Program FEIR<br />
and the First Addendum except as modified by the Second Addendum.<br />
ATIEST:<br />
<strong>City</strong> Clerk<br />
Adopted this day <strong>of</strong> , 2008.<br />
3<br />
Mayor<br />
J:\FlLE$\OOCrtLES\RE50\Dreamworks 2nd Addendum <strong>City</strong> Reso 2008 wpd
RESOLUTION NO. _<br />
RESOLUTION OF THE GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY<br />
CERTIFYING AND ADOPTING A SECOND ADDENDUM TO<br />
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE<br />
SAN FERNANDO ROAD CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT<br />
PROJECT AREA PLAN (DREAMWORKS ANIMATION<br />
CAMPUS EXPANSION PROJECT) AND MAKING FINDINGS<br />
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH<br />
WHEREAS, on November 17, 1992. the Agency certified and adopted a Final Program Environmental<br />
Impact Report ("Program FEIR" or"FEIR") for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area<br />
Plan, which FEIR analyzed the series <strong>of</strong> actions contemplated under the Redevelopment Plan, including<br />
proposed land uses, infrastructure policies, and regulations and examined the proposals for upgrading<br />
commercial, industrial and public properties within the Plan area including the existing and future development<br />
<strong>of</strong> an estimated 2.3 million square feet <strong>of</strong> commercial and related space, 1.48 million square feet <strong>of</strong> industrial<br />
space and 548 residential units; and<br />
WHEREAS, the FEIR for the Redevelopment Plan included the allowable land uses and development<br />
standards for the Redevelopment ptan area in general and the OreamWorks Campus in particular; and<br />
WHEREAS, on June 4,1996, the Agency certified a First Addendum to the FEIR which Addendum<br />
analyzed the OreamWorks Campus proposal within the context <strong>of</strong>the certified program FEIR and determined<br />
that the proposal did not require any important revision to the FEIR, did not constitute a substantial change<br />
in circumstances, and did not create any new significant effects not examined in the Program FEtR; and<br />
WHEREAS, a Second Addendum to the Program FEIR has been prepared to address the potential<br />
environmental effects <strong>of</strong> building out the OreamWorks campus under the Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale<br />
Project designation in the INO zoning district <strong>of</strong> the San Fernando Road Corridor Project Area; <strong>of</strong> revising the<br />
building heighllimit <strong>of</strong> 65 feet to a height <strong>of</strong> 175 feet or 10 stories permitted under the new Industrial Mixed-<br />
Use/Large Scale Project zoning designation; <strong>of</strong> installing a new employee and fire gate access on Flower<br />
Street and associated surface paving and landscaping activities; and<br />
WHEREAS, Agency and <strong>City</strong> staff have evaluated the proposed Project changes pursuant to<br />
California Environmental Quality Act rCEQA-) and relevant code requirements and have determined that the<br />
1<br />
1 B
Project changes do not create any new environmental impacts, do not substantially increase the severity <strong>of</strong><br />
any previously identified significant effects, do not constitute a substantial change to the Redevelopment Plan<br />
described in the Program FEtR that would require major revisions to the Program FEIR; and<br />
WHEREAS, the proposed designation <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks Campus as an Industrial Mixed-Use/Large<br />
Scale Project in the IND zoning district, the revision <strong>of</strong> the height limit, and construction <strong>of</strong>a secondary access<br />
gate and associated landscape improvements would not alter the total amount <strong>of</strong> development permitted on<br />
the site and none <strong>of</strong> the conditions or circumstances that would require the preparation <strong>of</strong> a subsequent or<br />
supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 exists in connection with the changes<br />
to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan as proposed by the project under consideration in<br />
the Second Addendum; and<br />
WHEREAS, the Agency, exercising its independent judgment has determined that the Project<br />
changes described herein above do not trigger any conditions requiring either a supplemental EIR,<br />
subsequent EIR or negative declaration; and that an addendum to the FEIR is necessary and appropriate.<br />
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF<br />
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA:<br />
SECTION 1. The Agency finds and determines that all <strong>of</strong> the recitals set forth herein above are true<br />
and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.<br />
SECTION 2. The Second Addendum was prepared pursuant to the CEQA and State and local<br />
Guidelines, and is hereby approved, certified. adopted and incorporated into the FEIR as follows: the proposed<br />
designation <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks Campus as an Industrial Mixed-Use Large/Scale Project in the IND zoning<br />
district, the revision <strong>of</strong> the height limit, and construction <strong>of</strong> a secondary access gate do not alter the total<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> development permitted on the site and none <strong>of</strong> the conditions or circumstances that would require<br />
the preparation <strong>of</strong> a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166<br />
exists in connection with the changes to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan as proposed<br />
by the project under consideration in the Second Addendum. Accordingly, an Addendum is appropriate<br />
pursuant to Title 14 CCR Div. 6. Chap. 3, § 15164.<br />
SECTION 3. The mitigation measures identified and set forth in section 4.9<br />
2<br />
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 <strong>of</strong> the secondary access<br />
driveway, and MM 4.9.2 requiring the applicant to pay fees required to post signs and barriers to enforce these<br />
turning movements, shall be are incorporated into the project analyzed in the Second Addendum. All prior<br />
FEIR and First Addendum mitigation measures applicable to the DreamWorks Campus project shall also be<br />
implemented.<br />
SECTION 4. The Agency hereby confirms in all respects the certification <strong>of</strong> the Program FEIR and<br />
the First Addendum except as modified by the Second Addendum.<br />
ATTEST:<br />
Adopted this day <strong>of</strong> " 2008.<br />
Agency Secretary<br />
3<br />
Chairman<br />
J,\f.LES\DOCfILES\RESO\DrearnWorks 'nd Addendum Reso 200S.wpd
ADDENDUM TO THE PROGRAM EIR I<br />
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE<br />
SAN FERNANDO ROAD CORRIDOR<br />
ADDENDUM REGARDING THE<br />
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION CAMPUS<br />
June 1996<br />
State Clearinghouse # 92041055<br />
Prepared for:<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
633 East Broadway, Room 201<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong>, California 91205<br />
Prepared by:<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 130<br />
Santa Monica. California 90401<br />
peR<br />
PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
1. INTRODUCTION 1<br />
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3<br />
3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ' 22<br />
4.1. EARTH 22<br />
4.2. AIR 26<br />
4.3. WATER (HYDROLOGY) " 36<br />
4.4. NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41<br />
4.5. LIGHT AND GLARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48<br />
4.6. LAND USE 52<br />
4.7. RISK OF UPSET 60<br />
4.8. POPULATION/HOUSING 64<br />
4.9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION " 68<br />
4.10. P<strong>UBLIC</strong> SERVICES 87<br />
4.10.1. POLICE 87<br />
4.10.2. FIRE , 90<br />
4.10.3. SCHOOLS , 93<br />
4.10.4. LIBRARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97<br />
4.11. ENERGY " 100<br />
4.12. UTILITIES....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
4.12.1. WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101<br />
4.12.2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104<br />
4.12.3. ELECTRICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 107<br />
4.12.4. NATURAL GAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109<br />
4.12.5. SOLID WASTE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 111<br />
Page i<br />
Page<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)<br />
4.13. HUMAN HEALTH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114<br />
4.14. RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 116<br />
4.15. CULTURAL RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118<br />
4.16. ISSUES NOT INCLUDED IN THE FOCUS OF THE PROGRAM EIR<br />
AS ESTABLISHED IN THE INITIAL STUDY 120<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page ii<br />
Page<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Figure<br />
LIST OF FIGURES<br />
1 Redevelopment Plan Area . . . . . . . . . . . .<br />
2 Project Location Within Redevelopment Area<br />
3 Aerial Photograph <strong>of</strong> Project Site and Vicinity<br />
4 Project Site Plan . . . . . . .<br />
5 Noise Monitoring Locations<br />
6 View <strong>of</strong> the Proposed <strong>Development</strong> from the West<br />
7 View <strong>of</strong> the Proposed <strong>Development</strong> from the Northeast<br />
8 View <strong>of</strong> the Proposed <strong>Development</strong> from the South<br />
9 Study Area and Location <strong>of</strong> Analyzed Intersections .<br />
10 Project Trip Distribution Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . .<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agen(;y<br />
Page iii<br />
Page<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
9<br />
44<br />
56<br />
57<br />
58<br />
69<br />
80<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Table<br />
LIST OF TABLES<br />
1 Summary <strong>of</strong> San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan Impacts and<br />
Dreamworks Animation Campus Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14<br />
. 2 Pollutant Standards and East San Fernando Valley Ambient Air Quality Data 27<br />
3 SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds<br />
4 Redevelopment Plan Post-Construction Occupancy Emissions<br />
5 Project Emissions<br />
6 Local Carbon Monoxide Concentration Summary 33<br />
7 Previous and Future Helicopter Noise Levels .. 46<br />
8 Combined Helicopter and Existing Ambient Noise Levels -- Helicopter<br />
Operations Plus Current Ambient Noise Levels . . 46<br />
9 Level <strong>of</strong> Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections 72<br />
10 Level <strong>of</strong> Service Definitions for All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections 72<br />
11 Existing Intersection Levels <strong>of</strong> Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74<br />
12 Year 2027 Intersection Levels <strong>of</strong> Service from Redevelopment Plan FEIR 75<br />
13 Estimated Project Site Trip Generation Under Redevelopment Plan .... 77<br />
14 Year 2010 Intersection Levels <strong>of</strong> Service with Redevelopment Plan Growth --<br />
Without <strong>Development</strong> on the Project Site 78<br />
15 Estimated Project Trip Generation. . . . . . . . 81<br />
16 Year 2010 Intersection Levels <strong>of</strong> Service - Project Impact Analysis 82<br />
17 Year 2010 Intersection Level <strong>of</strong> Service Analysis with Project Mitigation 86<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page iv<br />
Page<br />
28<br />
28<br />
30<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addeodwn EIR<br />
June 1996
1. INTRODUCTION<br />
This document is an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the San<br />
Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan (hereafter, Redevelopment Plan) which was<br />
certified on November 17, 1992 (Resolution No. 480) by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency.<br />
The Final Environmental Impact Report (hereafter, Program EIR) is comprised <strong>of</strong> an Initial<br />
Study, which is appended to the Draft EIR; the Draft EIR with technical appendices dated July<br />
13, 1992; and the Final EIR volwne dated November 12, 1992. A program EIR is defmed in<br />
Section 15168(a) <strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines as an EIR which may be prepared on a series <strong>of</strong><br />
actions which are related to one another and can be characterized as one large project. Under<br />
Section 15180(b) <strong>of</strong> the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, "An EIR on<br />
a redevelopment plan is to be treated as a program EIR. .. ".<br />
The subject <strong>of</strong> this Addendum is a site specific project, the DreamWorks Animation<br />
Campus, proposed by DreamWorks SKG on a site located within the San Fernando Road<br />
Corridor Redevelopment Area. This document is an Addendum to the Program EIR, responsive<br />
to Section 15168(c) <strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines addressing program EIRs, which states,<br />
"...Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light <strong>of</strong> the program EIR to<br />
determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared." Section 15168(c)4<br />
<strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines states further that, "Where subsequent activities involve site specific<br />
operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the<br />
evaluation <strong>of</strong> the site and the activity to detennine whether the environmental effects <strong>of</strong> the<br />
operations were covered in the program EIR. "<br />
The DreamWorks Animation Campus project consists <strong>of</strong> a site specific project located<br />
within the Redevelopment Area. As such, it is a subsequent activity to the Redevelopment<br />
program. An addendum is a more comprehensive form <strong>of</strong> documentation than a written<br />
checklist, and has been selected to address the potential environmental consequences <strong>of</strong> the<br />
project in the context <strong>of</strong> those attributable to the Redevelopment Plan, as documented in the<br />
EIR. Pursuant to Sections 15162(a) and 15164(e) <strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines, preparation <strong>of</strong> a<br />
subsequent EIR was determined not to be appropriate. As evidenced by the analyses and<br />
conclusions presented in this Addendum, the proposed site specific project does not represent<br />
substantial change in the underlying Redevelopment Plan assumptions regarding the project site<br />
made in the EIR, and neither such differences between the project and the Redevelopment Plan<br />
as will exist, nor new information not available at the time the EIR was prepared, will involve<br />
Planning ConsultantS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 1<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn EIR<br />
June 1996
'.<br />
1. Introduction<br />
new environmental effects not previously considered or cause a substantial increase in the<br />
severity <strong>of</strong> significant effects identified in the EIR.<br />
The environmental analyses in this Addendum review each <strong>of</strong> the environmental subjects<br />
evaluated in the EIR, first summarizing the fmdings <strong>of</strong> the EIR, then analyzing specific impacts<br />
<strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks Animation Campus. In all cases, the purpose <strong>of</strong> the Addendum is to<br />
determine whether the project's impacts had been sufficiently contemplated in the EIR regarding<br />
the larger Redevelopment Plan and whether those impacts would or would not be significant<br />
environmental impacts, in their own right. Mitigation measures are identified as and if<br />
applicable. Where significant adverse impacts are identified, a determination is made as to<br />
whether implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures will reduce impacts to acceptable nonsignificant<br />
levels.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 2<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn EIR<br />
June 1996
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW<br />
peR<br />
P LAN N I N G CON S U L TAN T S RES E·A R C H
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN<br />
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW<br />
The Redevelopment Plan which is analyzed in the Program EIR contains land use and<br />
infrastructure policies and regulations intended to eliminate conditions <strong>of</strong> blight in the area and<br />
revitalize and upgrade the commercial, industrial, and public properties within the project area.<br />
As identified in Figure 1 on page 4, the 727-acre Redevelopment Plan Area (hereafter,<br />
Redevelopment Area) extends along the entire length <strong>of</strong> the San Fernando Road corridor within<br />
the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, and also includes areas west to the Golden State Freeway in the northern<br />
half and to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-<strong>of</strong>-way in the southern half, and up to one-half<br />
east <strong>of</strong> the corridor along major streets, including Broadway Boulevard and Colorado<br />
Boulevard. The Redevelopment Plan provides for existing and future development <strong>of</strong> an<br />
estimated 2.3 million square feet <strong>of</strong> commercial and related space, 11.48 million square feet <strong>of</strong><br />
industrial space and 548 residential units. 1<br />
THE PROJECT SITE<br />
As shown on Figures 2 and 3 on pages 5 and 6, respectively, the DreamWorks<br />
Animation Campus site is located northeast <strong>of</strong> the Golden State (1-5) and Ventura (SR-134)<br />
Freeway Interchange in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, approximately 500 feet north <strong>of</strong> Griffith Park<br />
within the northerly third <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Area. The triangularly shaped property is<br />
proposed to include the unimproved right-<strong>of</strong>-way for Victory Truck Boulevard and encompasses<br />
approximately 13.4 acres at 1000 Flower Street, <strong>of</strong> which an engineering survey established that<br />
11.06 acres are in the primary parcel and 2.34 acres are in the Victory Truck Boulevard right<strong>of</strong>-way.<br />
The site adjoins the Los Angeles River on the south, Flower Street on the northeast,<br />
and private industrial property to the northwest. Surrounding land uses include an array <strong>of</strong> light<br />
industrial activities to the east, north and northwest, all in the Redevelopment Area, and, across<br />
the Los Angeles River, Griffith Park to the southwest in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles.<br />
Fonnerly owned by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles Department <strong>of</strong> Water and Power, the<br />
project site served as a field headquarters for the operation <strong>of</strong> reservoirs, pumping stations,<br />
tanks and wells, and as a storage yard for related equipment and materials. Since 1958, the site<br />
I<br />
Program EIR, Final EIR Volume. page 1-9.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 3<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddendlBJl EIR<br />
June 1996
Planning<br />
Consultants<br />
Research<br />
N<br />
A a 10CXl<br />
Redevelopment<br />
Project •<br />
Boundary<br />
SOURCE: Katz Hollis<br />
Page 5<br />
2000<br />
o<br />
a:<br />
<<br />
> W..J<br />
::><br />
o CD<br />
o z<br />
< cr<br />
a::I<br />
Figure 2<br />
Project Location within<br />
Redeveloplllent Area
2. Project Overview<br />
has been heavily utilized for helicopter operations and maintenance. The Los Angeles Police<br />
Department, <strong>Glendale</strong> Police Department, Burbank Police Department, and a commercial<br />
helicopter service have utilized the site as a heliport under Conditional Use Pennirs (CUPs)<br />
from the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> and appropriate pennits from the Federal Aviation Administration<br />
and the California Department <strong>of</strong> Transponation. Originally, the site was used by Heliport,<br />
Inc., which utilized the site for helicopter landings and take<strong>of</strong>fs from 1958 to 1968. The<br />
original conditional use application shows that the site had four departure sites and one landing<br />
site at this time. The Los Angeles Police (LAPD) airborne unit was the major user <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
from 1964 until 1972 when the <strong>Glendale</strong> Police and Burbank Police air support units moved<br />
their operations to the site. LAPD helicopter operations were moved to a downtown location<br />
in 1983. In 1988 the Burbank airborne law enforcement unit moved to Burbank Airport,<br />
followed in 1992 by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Police air support unit.<br />
During the peak years <strong>of</strong> operation (1972 to 1983) when all three police departments<br />
were operating out <strong>of</strong> the project site, the LAPD used seven Bell 47G5 piston helicopters, one<br />
Bell 47G5A, one Bell 47G3B1, 16 Bell 206B single engine turbine models, one UHIB (Bell<br />
204), and a CH46. From 1972 to 1992, three Hughes 300 piston model aircraft were used by<br />
the <strong>Glendale</strong> Police. The Burbank Police shared the use <strong>of</strong> these three Hughes aircraft with the<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Police from 1972 to 1988. 2<br />
Records <strong>of</strong> police flight operations for the years 1974-1992 were readily available. The<br />
following flight statistics are based on that infonnation. From 1974 to 1978, there were<br />
approximately 586 flight events (landings or take<strong>of</strong>fs) per week. The LAPD was operating 24<br />
hours a day and on weekdays during this time. From 1978 to 1983, after which time the LAPD<br />
moved downtown, the average number <strong>of</strong> flight events per week was 886. From 1983 to 1988,<br />
when the <strong>Glendale</strong> and Burbank Police Departments were operating together, weekly flights<br />
totalled 300. From 1988 to 1992, when the <strong>Glendale</strong> Police air support unit was operating<br />
alone, approximately 200 flight events per week occurred. 3 Existing facilities on the site<br />
include a helicopter hangar, two temporary <strong>of</strong>fice buildings (trailers on concrete foundations),<br />
a storage shed, and a helipad.<br />
2<br />
3<br />
Helipon Consultams, letter to <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency dated March 7, 1996 (see Appendix B-2).<br />
Ibid.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 7<br />
DreamWorks Animation CanJpus AddeodlDD EIR<br />
June 1996
THE PROPOSED PROJECT<br />
2. Project Overview<br />
The DreamWorles Animation Campus is proposed in order to create new entertainment<br />
industry facilities, including animation facilities and <strong>of</strong>fice use. The objectives <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
project are as follows:<br />
• To create and maintain a media and entertainment production complex to meet the<br />
expanding needs <strong>of</strong> the entertainment industry in Southern California in a location<br />
that is conveniently located for a large part <strong>of</strong> the creative and technical talent that<br />
forms the industry;<br />
• To redevelop and enhance the project site within the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> and the<br />
Southern California region as a premier entertainment industry center;<br />
• To strengthen and maintain the economic vitality <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, Los<br />
Angeles County and adjacent areas by providing business and job opportunities<br />
associated with the development and operation <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks Animation<br />
Campus;<br />
• To rehabilitate the physical appearance <strong>of</strong> the property in order to create an aesthetic<br />
and functional asset in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>;<br />
• To create an integrated production facility and associated uses that respects<br />
neighboring land uses and natural resources as well as nearby residential and<br />
business communities.<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks Animation Campus calls for the removal <strong>of</strong> all<br />
existing on-site structures and equipment, to be followed with development <strong>of</strong> up to 495,000<br />
square feet <strong>of</strong> building area in two or more phases to be used for the creation and production<br />
<strong>of</strong> animated films anq other media. An estimated 1,400 employees are expected to work on the<br />
campus upon completion <strong>of</strong> full build-out. Approximately seven buildings and a parking<br />
structure are proposed with vehicular access via a main entrance and two secondary access<br />
points, provided on Flower Street. A site plan for the project is presented as Figure 4 on<br />
page 9.<br />
The design for the DreamWorks Animation Campus is modelled upon a campus plan<br />
designed around a series <strong>of</strong> courtyards that respond to Southern California's Mediterranean<br />
climate. At full buildout there will be approximately seven buildings and a parking structure,<br />
interconnected through arcades, verandas, and bridges. Buildings will be two to four stories<br />
in height with pitched tile ro<strong>of</strong>s, covered terraces and porches. Consistent with the<br />
Mediterranean theme, several towers or campaniles (the tallest measuring up to 115 feet) may<br />
be incorporated into the building design as architectural accents. The main buildings, ranging<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 8<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn ErR<br />
Iune 1996
2. Project Overview<br />
from 30,000 to 85,000 square feet each, will be clustered around a central piazza. Courtyards<br />
and landscaping are an integral part <strong>of</strong> the site layout. An ornamental garden/water feature may<br />
be incorporated into the design <strong>of</strong> the project. A decorative grove <strong>of</strong> trees will provide<br />
landscaped orientation to the adjacent Los Angeles River along the southern boundary <strong>of</strong> the<br />
property.<br />
A parking structure serving the facilities will be situated on the northwestern comer <strong>of</strong><br />
the property and may include five levels above ground, with a helipad to be located just above<br />
the top level. Helicopter operations, which are currently pennitted for the site, will continue.<br />
It is proposed that the current unimproved right-<strong>of</strong>-way easement for Victory Truck Boulevard<br />
<strong>of</strong> approximately· 2.34 acres, which extends over the Southern portion <strong>of</strong>the site, be quitclaimed<br />
prior to project development.<br />
RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROJECT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN<br />
The Redevelopment Plan defines allowable land uses and development standards for the<br />
Redevelopment Area in general; and the DreamWorks site in particular. The Redevelopment<br />
Plan incorporates the development standards (building height, setback criteria, etc.) already set<br />
forth in the <strong>City</strong> Zoning Ordinances for each <strong>of</strong> the zoning districts adopted in the<br />
Redevelopment Plan. These documents establish a Restricted Industrial land use classification<br />
(Ml Zone) for the DreamWorks site. Neither the Redevelopment Plan nor the Zoning<br />
Ordinances establishes a maximum density or intensity <strong>of</strong> Restricted Industrial usage on any<br />
individual property. The <strong>City</strong>, by design, has only established regulations restricting front yard<br />
setback distances and building heights as applied to individual properties. The Ml zone allows<br />
heights up to 35 feet and requires ten foot setbacks adjacent to streets. Thus, within these<br />
parameters and dependent upon the configuration and constraints <strong>of</strong> any particular site, a range<br />
<strong>of</strong> intensities or floor area ratios, which is the ratio <strong>of</strong>existing or expected building area divided<br />
by associated land area (hereafter, FAR), from as low as 0.3 FAR to as high as 1.5 FAR would<br />
be expected by the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
In order to estimate the total amount <strong>of</strong> development that should reasonably be expected<br />
in the Redevelopment Area, and to evaluate the environmental impacts <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment<br />
Plan, the Program EIR made documented assumptions regarding land use intensities for each<br />
cited land use aggregated across all properties within particular zoning districts. These<br />
assumptions took the fonn <strong>of</strong> average densities, expressed in the case <strong>of</strong> Restricted Industrial<br />
uses as FAR.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 10<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
2. Project Overview<br />
within the DreamWorks Animation Campus were included in the average Restricted Industrial<br />
development assumptions made as part <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan and evaluated in the Program<br />
EIR.<br />
The incremental Animation Campus floor area in eXKSS <strong>of</strong> the average FAR assumption<br />
for Restricted Industrial uses in TAZ 2 represents only 2.4% <strong>of</strong> total Restricted Industrial uses<br />
forecast in the TAZ, only 0.9% <strong>of</strong> all industrial uses in the Redevelopment Area, and only<br />
0.7% <strong>of</strong> all non-residential uses in the Redevelopment Area. By any <strong>of</strong> these measures, the<br />
proposed project's density represents an insignificant deviation from the expectations expressed<br />
in the Redevelopment Plan, one that is well within the range <strong>of</strong> normal variation to be expected<br />
in a large area over a 35-year implementation period.<br />
INTENDED USES OF THIS DOCUMENT<br />
The proposed project site is consistent with the current Restricted Industrial land use<br />
designation for the site by the <strong>Glendale</strong> General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This<br />
environmental document may be used for all purposes cited in the Program EIR in addition to<br />
all discretionary approvals and actions which may be required for this project, including but not<br />
limited to:<br />
• Statutory <strong>Development</strong> Agreement.<br />
• Participation Agreement.<br />
• Height Variance.<br />
• Parking Exception.<br />
• Conditional Use Permit (for the installation and llse <strong>of</strong> satellite dishes).<br />
• Design Review Process.<br />
• Such other discretionary actions as may be required, but cannot be identified at this<br />
time.<br />
Planning Consullams Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 12<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> this DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum to the Program EIR<br />
as it pertains to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan is to compare project<br />
impacts to the impacts identified in the Program EIR for the Redevelopment Plan and to<br />
determine: (1) whether the Animation Campus project's impacts were adequately addressed in<br />
the Program EIR and (2) whether this Addendum represents new information, or a change in<br />
any <strong>of</strong> the significance conclusions.<br />
The evaluation in this Addendum has determined that the DreamWorks Animation<br />
Campus project's impacts are within the parameters <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan impacts<br />
identified in the Program EIR and that there is no new information which would change the·<br />
conclusions <strong>of</strong> the Program EIR. The Summary Table on the following pages compares the<br />
respective impacts, issue by issue, <strong>of</strong> the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan and<br />
the DreamWorks Animation Campus project.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 13<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 1. Earth<br />
fault, located near the base <strong>of</strong> the San Gabriel Mountains in the northern part <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. Due<br />
to the approximately six mile distance <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Area from this fault, potential<br />
hazards due to fault rupture are not present in the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment<br />
Area is not in a potential liquefaction area nor are there static fresh water bodies proximate to<br />
the area in which seiches could occur. Although new development would expose people and<br />
structures to groundshaking in the event <strong>of</strong> an earthquake, no unusual or unique risk due to<br />
groundshaking would be posed by the Redevelopment Plan.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
Grading. Elevations on the site range from approximately 450 feet to 463 feet above<br />
sea level. The major soil association extant on the site is Tujunga-Soboba. A geotechnical<br />
evaluation <strong>of</strong> the property has determined that the site is generally blanketed by about five to<br />
20 feet <strong>of</strong> variable fill consisting predominantly <strong>of</strong> silty, fme to medium sand with occasional<br />
gravel and debris. 8 Underlying the fill soils are native deposits consisting <strong>of</strong> fine to coarse<br />
silty sand and clean sand. The site is traversed by a 10 to 80 foot wide and 1,100 foot long<br />
drainage ditch running across the site from west to east, which empties into the Los Angeles<br />
River, adjacent to the southern border <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
The impact <strong>of</strong> any inherent soil limitations that may exist on the proposed project site<br />
would be lessened through standard engineering techniques utilized during site preparation. Due<br />
to the relatively variable topography <strong>of</strong> the site, grading work will be required to bring the site<br />
grade to the desired elevation for construction purposes. In addition, replacement <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong><br />
the existing fill soils may be required. The acceptability <strong>of</strong> existing fills would have to be<br />
determined at the time <strong>of</strong> construction. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 cubic yards<br />
<strong>of</strong> the dirt on site would need to be redistributed in order to bring the site to a level pad and<br />
that approximately 10,000 cubic yards would need to be imported. 9 The size and scope <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed grading operation would not be considered significant with implementation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
mitigation measures identified in the Earth section <strong>of</strong> the Program EIR.<br />
Seismicity. Although additional investigation may need to be performed to obtain more<br />
precise information on liquefaction potential once specific building layouts have been<br />
8<br />
9<br />
Dames & Moore. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard.<br />
November 1995. page 5.<br />
Ibid. page 8.<br />
Planning ConsullllnlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 23<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
. June 1996
4. 1. Earth<br />
detennined, preliminary indications are that the potential for liquefaction on the site is low. 10<br />
Therefore, seismic related settlements are expected to be minimal and structures on site should<br />
perfonn adequately during potential seismic events. Although development <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
project would expose people and strUctures to groundshaking in the event <strong>of</strong> an earthquake, no<br />
unusual or unique risk due to groundshaking would result from development <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
project. With implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures cited in the Program EIR, the seismic<br />
risk to which the proposed project would be exposed would be consistent with any restricted<br />
industrial development in the Redevelopment Area, resulting in less than significant impacts.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
The following grading and seismic mitigation measures were listed in the Program EIR<br />
and may apply to the proposed project: 11<br />
1. Proposed developments will be required to comply with all applicable State and<br />
local building codes relating to seismic design including the seismic design<br />
criteria contained in the Uniform Building Code.<br />
2. Complete soils and geotechnical reports shall be conducted by qualified<br />
engineering soil scientists/geologists prior to project approval for all nonresidential<br />
projects and residential projects as required by the <strong>City</strong> Engineer.<br />
This investigation shall involve surface, subsurface, and laboratory analysis to<br />
identify any potential hazards. This analysis shall also include, but Dot be<br />
limited to, investigation <strong>of</strong> soils and groundwater characteristics necessary to<br />
detennine hazard potential and identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce<br />
other seismic hazards to less than significant levels. Any recommendations<br />
stemming from these investigations shall be considered as conditions <strong>of</strong> approval.<br />
3. <strong>Development</strong> shall be subject to grading permits reviewed and approved by the<br />
<strong>City</strong> Engineer or their designers. Prior to issuance <strong>of</strong> grading permits, a soils<br />
engineering report conforming to <strong>City</strong> requirements shall be submitted and<br />
approved by the <strong>City</strong> Engineer.<br />
10 Dames & Moore, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, LADWP Crystal Springs Mainterumce Yard,<br />
November 1995, page 7.<br />
11<br />
Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.1-7 and 3.1-8.<br />
PlaMing Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 24<br />
DreamWorks ADimation Campus AddcPdWl EIR<br />
June: 1996
12<br />
4. 1. Earth<br />
4. An erosion control plan shall be required and subject to review and approval by<br />
the <strong>City</strong> Engineer. This plan shall contain detailed, verifiable procedures and<br />
methods for implementing this plan. Components <strong>of</strong> an erosion control plan may<br />
include, but not be limited to, the following:<br />
Temporary culverts, ditches, dams, settling ponds, sandbagging, or<br />
similar measures to be installed where needed during construction<br />
activities to collect excess water and sediments flowing out <strong>of</strong><br />
construction sites and to reduce erosion;<br />
Straw, hydroseeding, mulching, soil binders, or other suitably acceptable<br />
materials or techniques to be instituted for uncovered soils, as needed,<br />
during construction activities for the duration <strong>of</strong> these activities; and<br />
Postponing grading activities during periods when wind gusts exceed 25<br />
mph and during the rainy season. 12 The rainy season is generally<br />
considered to run from November 15 through April 15.<br />
It is understood that this provision is intended to mean that grading activities could be suspended during a rain<br />
storm, but not throughout the rainy season.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 25<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum Em<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOP:MENT PLAN Il\1PACTS<br />
4. ENVffiONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.2. AIR<br />
The Redevelopment Area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) which<br />
covers a 6,600 square-mile area including all <strong>of</strong> Orange County, and the non-desert portions<br />
<strong>of</strong> Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Maintenance and improvement <strong>of</strong><br />
ambient air quality in the SoCAB is the responsibility <strong>of</strong> the South Coast Air Quality<br />
Management District (SCAQMD).<br />
Two types <strong>of</strong> thresholds are used to measure the Redevelopment Area's impact on the<br />
ambient air quality conditions <strong>of</strong> both the local area and on the SoeAB as a whole. The fIrst<br />
set <strong>of</strong> thresholds is that <strong>of</strong> the ambient air quality standards (AAQS) promulgated by the<br />
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency<br />
(USEPA). Both the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the state ambient air<br />
quality standards (SAAQS) are presented in Table 2 on page 27. Table 2 also compares AAQSs<br />
to the ambient air quality data as measured for the East San Fernando Valley Source Receptor<br />
Area.<br />
The second set <strong>of</strong> thresholds applies to the Redevelopment Area's total regional<br />
emissions <strong>of</strong> criteria pollutants for both construction and post-construction occupancy. These<br />
thresholds were promulgated by the SCAQMD in their April, 1993 CEQA Air Quality<br />
Handbook and are presented in Table 3 on page 28. Both the AAQSs and the emission<br />
thresholds used in the Program EIR are consistent with the. current thresholds.<br />
Table 4 on page 28 presents the post-eonstruction occupancy emissions for the<br />
Redevelopment Area as estimated in the Program EIR and compares these emissions to the<br />
SCAQMD emission thresholds. The Program EIR (page 3.2-10) states that short-term<br />
(construction) emissions associated with the development plan while significant, can be mitigated<br />
below the level <strong>of</strong> significance. However, the long-term impacts (post-construction occupancy,<br />
page 3.2-11) are significant and adverse, and camlOt be mitigated below the level <strong>of</strong><br />
significance.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 26<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK<br />
June 1996
Carbon Monoxide<br />
Nitrogen Oxides<br />
Reactive Organic Compounds<br />
Particulate Matter<br />
Sulfur Oxides<br />
Table 3<br />
SCAQMD EMISSIONS TImESHOLDS<br />
Construction<br />
(Pounds per Day)<br />
550<br />
100<br />
75<br />
150<br />
150<br />
Table 4<br />
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN<br />
POST-CONSTRUCTION OCCUPANCY EMISSIONS<br />
(Pounds per Day)<br />
4. 2. Air<br />
Post-Construction Occupancy<br />
(Pounds per Dav)<br />
550<br />
55<br />
55<br />
150<br />
150<br />
Reactive Carbon Nitrogen Particulate<br />
Organic Gases Monoxide Oxides Matter<br />
4. 2. Air<br />
and coating, and vehicular emissions from on-site construction equipment and <strong>of</strong>f-site<br />
construction worker vehicle trips. The SCAQMD Handbook provides screening tables to<br />
determine potential air quality impacts from construction. The SCAQMD minimum threshold<br />
for potential significant adverse construction air quality impacts is 559,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> gross<br />
floor area. The project has a gross floor area <strong>of</strong> 495,000 square feet and therefore is below the<br />
SCAQMD screening level for construction impacts. This is not inconsistent with the Program<br />
EIR, which states a significant but mitigable impact due to construction <strong>of</strong> all anticipated<br />
development within the Redevelopment Area.<br />
Regional Operational Impacts<br />
The proposed project is located within the Redevelopment Area, based upon the variable<br />
distribution <strong>of</strong> development discussed in Section 2, Project Overview. Therefore, its emissions<br />
from post-construction occupancy <strong>of</strong> the project facility are contained in the emission estimates<br />
generated for the Redevelopment Area as presented in Table 4 on page 28. The emissions<br />
presented in Table 4 are based on CARB Urban Emission (URBEMIS3) model nms. The<br />
URBEMIS model calculated emissions based on gross floor area. The project site floor area<br />
represents approximately 3.33-percent <strong>of</strong> the area allocated in the Redevelopment Plan for<br />
Industrial use. Emissions for the Restricted Industrial use were obtained from the URBEMIS3<br />
printouts from the Program EIR1 3 , and the project related emissions were determined based<br />
on the assumption that 3.33-percent <strong>of</strong> the emissions assigned to the Restricted Industrial land<br />
use were allocated to this proposed project. These project-related emissions are presented in<br />
Table 5 on page 30.<br />
The Traffic/Circulation section <strong>of</strong> this document discusses the fact that the project will<br />
generate higher levels <strong>of</strong> tripmaking than those associated with the Program EIR's analysis for<br />
Restricted Industrial land use. Therefore, the project's emissions were recalculated using the<br />
methodologies presented in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, trip data from the<br />
project specific traffic analysis, trip lengths from the Program EIR, and emission factors from<br />
the CARB emission factor model EMFAC7-F. These emissions are presented in Table 5. The<br />
calculations used in determining these emissions are included in Appendix A. The recalculated<br />
emissions as presented, are approximately equal to or less than those originally calculated in the<br />
Program EIR, even though the project is forecast to increase the number <strong>of</strong> trips over what was<br />
originally allocated to the project. This defacto emission reduction is primarily attributable to<br />
the workings <strong>of</strong> the URBEMIS3 model used to generate the emissions presented in the Program<br />
EIR.<br />
1.3 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. Appendix G. Air Quality Worksheers.<br />
Planning ConsulranlS Resean:h<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 29<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK<br />
June 1996
Table 6<br />
LOCAL CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION SUMMARY<br />
I-hr Concentration - 2010 8-hr Concentration - 2010<br />
4. 2. Air<br />
Intersection Receptor No-Prolect With Project Change Background Total Future Change Backeround Total Future<br />
Flower/Western<br />
3.5 3.5 0.0 8.2 8.2 0.0 7.1 7.1<br />
2 4.4 4.5 0.1 8.2 8.3 0.1 7.1 7.2<br />
3 4.6 4.7 0.1 8.2 8.3 0.1 7.1 7.2<br />
4 2.7 2.8 0.1 8.2 8.3 0.1 7.1 7.2<br />
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<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 33<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum Ern<br />
June 1996
Construction<br />
4. 2. Air<br />
unloading. These measures will be implemented by the developer with<br />
design review by the <strong>City</strong>;<br />
• Transit use incentives by employers to encourage public transit use by<br />
employees;<br />
• Encouragement <strong>of</strong> carpooling and vanpooling.<br />
• Alteration <strong>of</strong> normal daily truck delivery routes to avoid congestion at peak<br />
hours;<br />
• Consideration <strong>of</strong> developing staggered work hours; and<br />
• Consideration for providing convenient bus shelters and bus turnouts along<br />
the major arterials to encourage ridership and improve traffic flow.<br />
3. Low-pressure sodium lighting using full cut-<strong>of</strong>f luminaries shall be used<br />
whenever suitable for outdoor security and general illumination lighting when<br />
such lighting is replaced or newly installed in projects under the Agency's<br />
jurisdiction. High-pressure sodium lighting, mercury vapor or tungsten<br />
incandescent lighting shall not be permitted without specific overriding<br />
justification. This requirement shall apply principally to architectural, space, and<br />
security lighting, and shall not apply to animation industry or process specific<br />
activities.<br />
4. The Developer/Participant shall monitor the SCAQMD's rule making procedure<br />
to ensure that adequate standards are established for toxic emissions, and that<br />
abatement <strong>of</strong> toxic emissions within the project area proceeds in accordance with<br />
these standards.<br />
1. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize<br />
exhaust' emissions and conform to state and federal regulations for emissions<br />
control.<br />
2. Grading activities shall be restricted to prevent wind entrailUllent <strong>of</strong> fugitive dust,<br />
when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.<br />
3. The SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be complied with to reduce fugitive dust impacts.<br />
4. Construction activities shall be halted during Stage Two smog alerts and in the<br />
event <strong>of</strong> local Stage Two smog forecasts.<br />
5. During grading activities, topsoil mounds shall be stabilized to prevent wind<br />
erosion and release <strong>of</strong> dust and particulates. This may be accomplished through<br />
regular watering, hydroseeding, netting, chemical applications, or other<br />
PlalUling Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 34<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendmn EIR<br />
June 1996
PlaMing Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
4. 2. Air<br />
acceptable methods. During grading and construction, water trucks or sprinklers<br />
shall be used to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust<br />
residue from leaving the site(s). Watering shall include regular morning and<br />
afternoon applications after work is completed for the day. Chemical palliatives<br />
may also be used as directed by the Developer/Participant. Truck loads <strong>of</strong> soil<br />
or debris shall be covered or wetted.<br />
Page 35<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPl\1ENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IM:PACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.3. WATER (HYDROLOGY)<br />
Drainage. The Program EIR defmes a significant drainage impact as follows: 15<br />
"Drainage impacts are considered significant if run<strong>of</strong>f exceeds the design capacity<br />
<strong>of</strong> the drainage works and flows cannot be accommodated by planned drainage<br />
facilities. "<br />
The Redevelopment Plan Area lies within the drainage basin for the Los Angeles River.<br />
Redevelopment Plan drainage impacts, due to increased run<strong>of</strong>f and/or sediment load during<br />
grading and construction activities, are considered adverse but less than significant, and can be<br />
substantially lessened with the implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures identified in the<br />
Program EIR.<br />
To mitigate existing drainage deficiencies throughout the entire Redevelopment Area,<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan includes extensive improvements to the storm drain<br />
system. Because the area is already nearly completely developed, development in the area is<br />
not expected to significantly change run<strong>of</strong>f volumes. With implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation<br />
measures, the short-term adverse drainage impacts that would occur during development <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Redevelopment Area can be substantially reduced. Long term flooding impacts would be<br />
considered less than significant.<br />
Flood Control. The Program ErR defmes the threshold <strong>of</strong> significance relative to<br />
flooding as follows: 16<br />
"Flooding impacts are considered significant ifdevelopment within the designated<br />
lOO-year flood zone is subject to future flooding."<br />
The Los Angeles County DepaI1ment <strong>of</strong> Public Works and the U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong><br />
Engineers are responsible for regional flood control within the County. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
15 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.3-2.<br />
16 Ibid.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 36<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddCDClum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 3. Water (Hydrology)<br />
partIcIpates in the National Flood Insurance Administration program through the Federal<br />
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA has identified and mapped areas which are<br />
at risk due to periodic flooding. Areas within the Redevelopment Area identified as being<br />
within the designated lOO-year flood zone are the Los Angeles Flood Control Channel and the<br />
Verdugo Wash. The Redevelopment Plan includes construction <strong>of</strong> capital improvements which<br />
are expected to reduce flooding.<br />
Build-out <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan would result in less than significant flooding<br />
impacts. The only areas within the Redevelopment Area that are within the lOO-year flood zone<br />
are the Los Angeles River and the Verdugo Wash channels.<br />
Surface/Groundwater Resources. The Program EIR defines significant surface/<br />
groundwater resources impacts as follows: 17<br />
"Impacts to surface/groundwater resources are significant if the project will<br />
substantially degrade water quality to levels below levels acceptable to the<br />
Regional Water Quality Control Board."<br />
There are no dependable surface water sources in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> and the<br />
Redevelopment Area has limited groundwater resources. However, the <strong>City</strong> does use<br />
groundwater supplied from wells within the Redevelopment Area for domestic purposes. A<br />
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) remedial investigation <strong>of</strong>the San Fernando Basin,<br />
an aquifer which underlies the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, was completed for the purpose <strong>of</strong> identifying<br />
groundwater contamination. 18 Through the use <strong>of</strong> groundwater monitoring wells it was<br />
determined that contamination in the groundwater could cause a significant risk to human health<br />
if the water was consumed without treatment. The largest quantities <strong>of</strong> these contaminants were<br />
found in current or previous industrial areas and has reduced the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>'s ability to<br />
produce water from one <strong>of</strong> the two wells that the <strong>City</strong> utilizes for drinking water purposes,<br />
although only ten percent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>'s potable water supply comes from the ground. The other<br />
well that the <strong>City</strong> utilizes is not within the contamination area. The EPA is in the process <strong>of</strong><br />
implementing a Superfund treatment program <strong>of</strong> the groundwater in the San Fernando Basin so<br />
that it can again be used for consumption. 19 As part <strong>of</strong> this remediation program, the EPA<br />
has proposed use <strong>of</strong> three wells on the project site for extraction purposes. With<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures found in the Program EIR, the Redevelopment Plan<br />
17 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.3-2.<br />
18 Ibid.<br />
19 <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Depanmenr <strong>of</strong> Public Services, Will Wilson, telephone conversation, February 11, 1996.<br />
Planning Consullants Resean:h<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 37<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn ErR<br />
June 1996
4. 3. Water (Hydrology)<br />
will not significantly decrease water quality below existing levels because in general new<br />
development will replace old development, thus not substantially changing the quantity <strong>of</strong> land<br />
covered by impervious surfaces, and because <strong>of</strong> <strong>City</strong> enforcement <strong>of</strong> National Pollutant<br />
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
Drainage. The DreamWorles Animation Campus site contains a drainage ditch, running<br />
from west to east across the southern portion <strong>of</strong>the property, which drains the site during heavy<br />
rains. 20 This swale drains through the southeast comer <strong>of</strong> the property and enters directly<br />
into the Los Angeles River. A drainage study will 1?e required to determine what sort <strong>of</strong><br />
replacement drainage structures will be needed to accommodate the run<strong>of</strong>f associated with the<br />
project site.<br />
A new 60-inch storm drain borders the northeast side <strong>of</strong> the site along Flower Street and<br />
the 96-inch Paula Avenue storm drain runs under the current easement for Victory Truck<br />
Boulevard. Both <strong>of</strong> these drains outfall directly into the Los Angeles River, to the southeast<br />
and south <strong>of</strong> the project site, respectively. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District has<br />
indicated that the Paula Avenue stonn drain has been designed to receive run<strong>of</strong>f from only the<br />
western third <strong>of</strong> the project site. 21 Therefore, a storm drain shall be installed on-site that<br />
would direct drainage from the eastern two thirds <strong>of</strong> the property into the adjacent Los Angeles<br />
River via the existing spillway. The proposed storm drain would also accommodate some storm<br />
water run<strong>of</strong>f from the southern end <strong>of</strong> Flower Street, adjacent to the property. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Public Services, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and<br />
the U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers shall review project stonn drain plans to ensure that the<br />
plans meet <strong>City</strong>, County, and U:S. Army Corps standards and that the Los Angeles River has<br />
adequate capacity to accommodate project generated run<strong>of</strong>f. On-site drainage would be<br />
adequately managed with the construction <strong>of</strong> the proposed stonn drain and the implementation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the other mitigation measures identified at the end <strong>of</strong> this section.<br />
Flood Control. The proposed project is not within a lOO-year flood zone and is<br />
designated within FEMA Flood Zone D. Within Flood Zone n, flood hazards are<br />
undetermined but flooding is possible. No mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements<br />
20 Dames & Moore. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard,<br />
November 3, 1995, page 4.<br />
21<br />
B & E Engineers, Paul Mangaudis. telephone conversation, April 3, 1996.<br />
Planning ConsullllnlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> RedeveloJHDent Agency<br />
Page 38<br />
DreamWorks ADimatiou Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 3. Water (Hydrology)<br />
apply in Flood Zone D. The Los Angeles River, which serves as a flood control channel and<br />
is adjacent to the project site, will accommodate and contain stormwater associated with a 100year<br />
frequency storm event, according to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps.22 Since the<br />
proposed project is not in a IOO-year flood zone and the Redevelopment Plan includes capital<br />
improvements which are expected to adequately reduce flooding potential in the Redevelopment<br />
Area, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant impact due to potential<br />
flooding.<br />
Surface/Groundwater Resources. The project site contains a drainage ditch which<br />
facilitates drainage <strong>of</strong> the site during periods <strong>of</strong> heavy rain.23 Recent borings <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
conducted for a Geotechnical Report indicate that groundwater was encountered at a depth <strong>of</strong><br />
28 feet. 24 Although at one time there were four groundwater wells operating on-site, three <strong>of</strong><br />
the wells have been plugged and are considered abandoned dry holes and one has been<br />
completely removed. Based on the site assessment that was prepared for the project site, there<br />
is no information to suggest that either historical or current activities have contributed to<br />
groundwater contamination beneath the site. 25 Maps from the EPA groundwater investigation<br />
reveal that the project site is in an area <strong>of</strong> "least (lowest) groundwater contamination...26 The<br />
three on-site wells that EPA proposed as part <strong>of</strong> its groundwater remediation program extraction<br />
system will be relocated to positions along the site's northern boundary where their functions<br />
will be maintained without interference with proposed structures and activities. Neither the<br />
existing or proposed uses would present any substantial risk <strong>of</strong> contamination to surface or<br />
groundwater on the site. Proposed project impacts on groundwater would, with the mitigation<br />
measures included in the Program EIR, be less than significant.<br />
MITIGATION l\1EASURES<br />
In addition, the following mitigation measures from the Program EIR may be applicable<br />
to this project.27<br />
22 A IOO-year storm event is defined as a storm with a one in one-hundred chance <strong>of</strong>occurring within a given<br />
year.<br />
23 Dames &: Moore. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard.<br />
November 3. 1995. page 4.<br />
24 Ibid, page 5.<br />
25 Dames & Moore. Phase 11 Site Characterization. January 25. 1996. page 5.<br />
26 Program EIR Final EIR Volume. Appendices. Section F. Attachment C.<br />
27 Ibid. pages 3.3-4 and 3.3-5.<br />
Planning Consull3nts Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 39<br />
DrcamWork$ Animation CamPII!i Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Drainage.<br />
4. 3. Water (Hydrology)<br />
1. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Public Services, Los Angeles County Flood<br />
Control District, and, U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers shaH review and approve<br />
project storm drain plans prior to project construction.<br />
2. At the project level, developers shall comply with NPDES pennit requirements<br />
within the construction area, to maintain the existing drainage flow and to collect<br />
excess water and sediments flowing from construction sites. (Existing<br />
requirement enforced through standard <strong>City</strong> procedures).<br />
3. At the project level, developers shall be required to submit erosion control plans<br />
if required by the <strong>City</strong> Engineer for approval prior to the release <strong>of</strong> a grading<br />
permit during the rainy season <strong>of</strong> November 15 - April 15.<br />
4. Necessary storm drain improvements shall be constructed on site or within the<br />
adjacent public right <strong>of</strong> way as practicable as part <strong>of</strong> the proposed project.<br />
5. Necessary storm drain improvements shall be constructed as part <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
project.<br />
Flooding. No applicable mitigation measures are contained in the Program EIR.<br />
. Surface/Groundwater Resources. The only appropriate groundwater mitigation<br />
measure would be review by a hydrological engineer, as indicated below: 28<br />
6. Specific· projects proposed within the Project Area shall be reviewed for their<br />
effect on groundwater quality by a hydrology engineer. Mitigation required as<br />
the result <strong>of</strong> review shall be implemented by the Developer/Participant.<br />
28 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, pages 3.3-4 and 3.3-5.<br />
Planning ConsulranlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 40<br />
DreamWorks Animation Cam.- Addendum ElK<br />
JUI1C 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.4. NOISE<br />
The Program EIR defmes the threshold <strong>of</strong> significance for noise as follows: 29<br />
"Noise impacts are considered to be significant if the project will increase noise or<br />
vibration levels to a level considered "nonnally unacceptable" for a given land use as<br />
established by the General Plan for that use. The noise impact is also significant if<br />
noise levels on the property exceed acceptable levels for the proposed use. "<br />
Different land uses have different thresholds for noise level acceptability, as suggested<br />
in the threshold. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> General Plan defmes the "nonnally acceptable"<br />
threshold for various land uses in tenns <strong>of</strong> Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) with<br />
a maximum <strong>of</strong> 75 .decibels (dB) for industrial uses, 70 dB for commercial uses, and 60 dB for<br />
single family residential uses. 30<br />
Existing noise sources in the Redevelopment Area include construction activities, rail,<br />
aircraft, motor vehicle, and stationary sources. Almost all <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Area currently<br />
experiences CNEL <strong>of</strong> 60 dB or greater. Parcels along San Fernando Road, near the freeways,<br />
and the railway regularly experience a noise level <strong>of</strong> 70 dB CNEL. This range <strong>of</strong> noise is<br />
normally acceptable or conditionally acceptable for <strong>of</strong>fice or industrial uses, which comprise the<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> land uses in the area, although there are some non-conforming residential uses in<br />
the Redevelopment Area that are exposed to 70 dB CNEL noise levels.<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan will result in increased noise levels during<br />
the construction <strong>of</strong> individual projects. Redevelopment Plan construction noise impacts are<br />
29 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.4-6.<br />
30 The decibel (dB) is the accepted standard unit for measuring the amplitude <strong>of</strong>sound because it accounts for<br />
the largest variations in sound levels andreflects the way people perceive changes in sound levels. A-weighted<br />
(dB(A)) sound levels are typically used to account for the response <strong>of</strong>the human ear and are adjusted to human<br />
hearing characteristics. In California, to evaluate the community noise environment on a daily basis. the<br />
community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is used as a noise descriptor. The CNEL is the time average <strong>of</strong>all<br />
A-weighted levels for a 24-hourperiod with a 10 dB upward adjustment added to those noise levels occurring<br />
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.<br />
and 10:00 P.M. to account for the general increased sensitivity <strong>of</strong>people to evening and nighttime noise.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 41<br />
DrcamWorks Aaimation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 4. Noise<br />
therefore considered to have a short-tenn significant impact when III close proximity to<br />
residential uses.<br />
Although the Redevelopment Plan will cause traffic volumes to increase along San<br />
Fernando Road, the Golden State (1-5) Freeway, and the Ventura (SR-134) Freeway, resulting<br />
in increased noise levels in the areas adjacent to those roadways, these impacts would be<br />
considered less than significant since the existing and future land uses (commercial, <strong>of</strong>fice,<br />
industrial) in those areas are not considered noise sensitive and anticipated noise levels are<br />
under the CNEL <strong>of</strong> 75 dB "nonnally unacceptable" threshold for those types <strong>of</strong> uses.<br />
Redevelopment Plan generated traffic is anticipated to incrementally increase ambient noise<br />
levels on arterial streets. Sensitive land uses in the Redevelopment Area may be significantly<br />
affected by traffic generated noise.<br />
PROJECT Il\1PACTS<br />
The DreamWorks Animation Campus site is bordered by Ml Zone (Restricted Industrial)<br />
land uses to the north, east, and west. The Golden State (1-5) Freeway lies further to the west.<br />
The Los Angeles River borders the site to the south. with <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles Griffith Park<br />
soccer fields and the Ventura (SR-134) Freeway further south.<br />
A noise study perfonned on the project site included in Appendix B to this document,<br />
indicates that the existing noise environment on-site is dominated by freeway noise. 31 Other<br />
noise sources include train noise from the railroad tracks, located approximately 1,300 feet<br />
away from the project site. although train noise is not easily detected due to distance and the<br />
predominance <strong>of</strong> freeway noise. The other contributor to the noise environment on-site is the<br />
sporadic sound <strong>of</strong> small propeller aircraft and helicopters. Freeway noise levels currently reach<br />
a high <strong>of</strong> 62 dBA Leq32 on the site, sporadic aircraft noise reaches a level <strong>of</strong> 70 dBA. and<br />
train noise reaches a high <strong>of</strong> 70 dBA. 33 Overall, the existing hourly Leq on-site ranges from<br />
54 to 64 dB with an existing CNEL <strong>of</strong> 67 dB. 34 Although these noise levels could cause<br />
constraints for some outdoor activities, they are not so high that indoor activities could not be<br />
31 Crystal Springs Noise and Vibration Assessment Repon. Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates. October /3. /995.<br />
32 Leq stands for equivalent sound level. Leq is an equivalent steady-state A-weighted sound level averaged over<br />
a specified period <strong>of</strong>time.<br />
33 Crystal Springs Noise and Vibration Assessment Repon. Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates. October 13. 1995<br />
(see Appendix C).<br />
34 Ibid.<br />
Planning Consu)umts Re5Carch<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 42<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum DR<br />
June 1996
35<br />
4. 4. Noise<br />
made acceptable for sound critical uses with proper design. The "normally unacceptable"<br />
threshold at an industrial site as established by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, is specified as a CNEL <strong>of</strong><br />
75 dB. 35<br />
Construction noise on the project site could range anywhere from 70 to 105 dBA at a<br />
distance <strong>of</strong> 50 feet from the source, depending on the type <strong>of</strong> equipment used. Construction<br />
noise impacts on the project site are anticipated to be less than significant, due to the lack <strong>of</strong><br />
sensitive land uses in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the site. The nearest sensitive land use is a residential<br />
neighborhood, located approximately 1,200 feet away, which due to distance and a dense array<br />
<strong>of</strong> intervening industrial buildings acting as sound barriers would not experience any significant<br />
noise impact due to construction actiVities.<br />
As indicated in Section 2. <strong>of</strong> this document, Project Overview, the project site has been<br />
active since 1958 in the operation <strong>of</strong> helicopters. The site was used by Helicopters, Inc. from<br />
1958 to 1964, by the Los Angeles Police Department from 1964 to 1983, by the <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Police Department from 1972 to 1992, and by the Burbank Police Department from 1978 to<br />
1988. 36<br />
A noise study analyzing historical and future helicopter noise levels associated with the<br />
proposed project was performed by Arup Acoustics and is attached as Appendix B to this<br />
document. A letter describing the history <strong>of</strong> helicopter operations at the project site was<br />
prepared by Heliport Consultants and is included as Appendix B to this document. Helicopter<br />
flight information for the years 1974 through 1992 was made available by the Los Angeles,<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong>, and Burbank police air support units. Based on this information, past and future<br />
noise levels generated by helicopter operations were estimated for the project site and four <strong>of</strong>fsite<br />
receptor locations. These receptor locations, depicted in Figure 5 on page 44, Noise<br />
Monitoring· Locations" consist <strong>of</strong> single- and multi-family residential areas and represent the<br />
noise sensitive land uses that are closest to the project site. As indicated on Figure 5, these<br />
locations, numbered one through four, are approximately 1,200, 1,900, 1,600, and 1,900 feet<br />
away, from the project site, respectively.<br />
Table 7 on page 46 shows that the CNEL generated by helicopter operations at the four<br />
receptor locations ranged from as low as 49 dB in the years 1974 through 1977 to as high as<br />
62 dB in the years 1978 through 1983. During the entire 18 year period identified on Table<br />
7, an average <strong>of</strong> 67 percent <strong>of</strong> these flight events (landing or take <strong>of</strong>f) occurred between the<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. General Plan. Noise Element. Figure 5. page 36.<br />
36 Letter from Helipon Consultants. March 7. 1996. page 2.<br />
PlaMing Consullants Research<br />
Glrndalr Rfdevelopment Agency<br />
Page 43<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeoolllJJ EIR<br />
June 1996
Planning<br />
Consultants<br />
Research<br />
N<br />
A<br />
Page 44<br />
Figure 5<br />
Noise Monitoring Locations
39<br />
4. 4. Noise<br />
hours <strong>of</strong> 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., 18 percent occurred between 7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M., and<br />
15 percent occurred between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. The average number <strong>of</strong> flight events<br />
per weekday that occurred over the entire 18 year period ranged from a low <strong>of</strong> 49 in the years<br />
1989 through 1992 to a high <strong>of</strong> 159 in the years 1978 through 1983. 37 Although some flight<br />
events occurred on weekends, the majority <strong>of</strong> events occurred on weekdays. The helicopter<br />
noise study prepared for this document was based on weekday trips. Table 7 indicates that<br />
these flight'events only increased the ambient noise levels at the receptor locations by a<br />
maximum CNEL <strong>of</strong> 0.47 dB.<br />
The existing ambient noise level at all four receptor locations is a CNEL <strong>of</strong> 66.96. This<br />
exceeds the significance threshold for a CNEL <strong>of</strong> 60 dB for residential areas, as established by<br />
the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. 38 It is estimated that the proposed project will generate approximately<br />
ten flight events per day.39 Almost all <strong>of</strong> these flight events will occur between the hours<br />
<strong>of</strong> 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. Approximately one to two flights per month will occur between<br />
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<br />
estimated CNEL that would be generated by each <strong>of</strong> these flight events at the four receptors<br />
would range from 24 to 35 dB, as indicated on Table 8. However, the existing background<br />
. noise, in combination with the sound generated by these individual flight events, would not<br />
increase the ambient noise levels at the four receptor locations, as indicated in Table 8 on page<br />
46, due to the predominance <strong>of</strong> freeway and railroad noise. Since the ambient noise levels at<br />
the receptor locations would not be increased by project helicopter flights, and since the most<br />
<strong>of</strong> these flights would occur between the hours <strong>of</strong> 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., with none occurring<br />
between 10 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., project generated helicopter operations would have a less than<br />
significant impact on noise sensitive land uses in the project vicinity.<br />
As there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the proposed project, project<br />
generated traffic wop.ld not have a significant impact on ambient noise levels, unlike the<br />
Redevelopment Plan as a whole which would result in mobile noise impacts in the industrial<br />
areas adjacent to certain residential areas. Similar to the Redevelopment Plan, stationary noise<br />
sources on-site are anticipated to have less than significant impacts.<br />
37 ArupAcoustics, DreamWorks SKGAnimation Campus <strong>Glendale</strong> Helipon Noise Assessments, May 15,1996,<br />
page 5, Table 2.<br />
38 <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, General Plan, Noise Elemenr, Figure 5, page 36.<br />
[bid, page 5, Table 5.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 45<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Receptor<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
a Measured in CNEL.<br />
Table 7<br />
PREVIOUS AND FUI1JRE HELICOPTER NOISE LEVELS a<br />
1974-1977<br />
54<br />
51<br />
59<br />
49<br />
Source: Arup Acoustics, May 1996.<br />
1978-1983<br />
57<br />
53<br />
62<br />
52<br />
Table 8<br />
1978-1988<br />
59<br />
57<br />
59<br />
55<br />
1989-1992<br />
COMBINED HELICOPTER AND EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS a<br />
(Helicopter Operations Plus Current Ambient Noise Levels)<br />
57<br />
55<br />
57<br />
53<br />
4. 4. Noise<br />
Future<br />
Receptor<br />
Existing<br />
CNEL<br />
CNEL With Previous Helicopter Operations<br />
1974-1977 1978-1983 1978-1988 1989-1992<br />
CNEL<br />
Future<br />
with Project<br />
1 66.96 67.03 67.11 67.21 67.13 66.96<br />
2 66.96 66.96 67.03 67.15 67.07 66.96<br />
3 66.96 67.11 67.43 67.29 67.13 66.96<br />
4 66.96 67.03 66.99 67.06 67.03 66.96<br />
a Measured in CNEL<br />
Source: Arup Acoustics, May 1996.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
The following noise mitigation measure may be applicable to the proposed project, as<br />
follows: 40<br />
40 Telephone conversation with Lonnie Brown, <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Neighborhood Services, April 2, 1996.<br />
Planning ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 46<br />
33<br />
29<br />
35<br />
24<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addend\llll ErR<br />
June 1996
4. 4. Noise<br />
1. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Public Works Division shall be notified prior to<br />
construction activities that would occur between the hours <strong>of</strong> 7:00 P.M. and 7:00<br />
A.M. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a legal<br />
holiday.<br />
Planning Consultants Rl:5Cart:h<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 47<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeDdum ErR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVmONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.5. LIGHT AND GLARE<br />
The Program EIR states the following significance tlrreshold for light and glare:<br />
"A project will generally result in significant light and glare impacts if the<br />
project includes lighting features that will shine onto adjacent properties, interrupt<br />
operations <strong>of</strong> a light sensitive use (such as an obs.ervatory), or produce intrusive<br />
glare effects. "<br />
The Redevelopment Area currently consists <strong>of</strong> residential, commercial and industrial<br />
development <strong>of</strong> varying intensities; each <strong>of</strong> which utilize relatively high levels <strong>of</strong> lighting for<br />
interiors and exteriors, security, parking, signage, and landscaping. 41 Traffic in the area may<br />
produce light and glare effects from headlights and from reflections <strong>of</strong>f vehicle windows and<br />
chrome. Roadways, sidewalks, and building materials, including windows can also reflect<br />
sunlight, thereby producing glare. New construction within the Redevelopment Area has the<br />
potential to increase light and glare from the same type <strong>of</strong> sources.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
The proposed project consists <strong>of</strong> approximately seven (7), two to four story buildings,<br />
each interconnected with arcades, verandas, and bridges and each having courtyards, terraces<br />
and patios. These buildings will cluster around a piazza in a Mediterranean style and include<br />
several architectural towers, one <strong>of</strong> which could be as much as 115 feet in height and located<br />
in the center <strong>of</strong> the site. Acting as a visual buffer from the freeways to the south and west, a<br />
grove <strong>of</strong> trees will be planted along the southern property boundary, adjacent to the Los<br />
Angeles River. In addition, there will be a parking structure which will be five levels above<br />
ground, with a helipad above the top level.<br />
Each <strong>of</strong> these elements would require interior and exterior lighting for security, parking,<br />
walkways, signage, landscaping, etc. Lighting on the DreamWorks Animation Campus will<br />
41 Program E/R. Final EIR Volume. page 3.5-1.<br />
Planning Consullllnts Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 48<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK<br />
June 1996<br />
, .
4. 5. Light and Glare<br />
likely be visible from surrounding properties and may spillover marginally onto adjoining<br />
properties. However, because the project site is located within an M1 Zone (Restricted<br />
Industrial) area and is surrounded by uses pennitted in that zone to the west, north and east,<br />
and by the Los Angeles River, soccer fields beyond the Los Angeles River, and a freeway to<br />
the south. lighting spillover from the site will not have a significant effect on any uses<br />
considered sensitive to night lighting. Reflected glare from building materials is not expected<br />
to produce adverse effects on-site, on neighboring properties, or in the vicinity, due to the site's<br />
relative isolation and the varied architectural fonns indicated in the preliminary project design<br />
(see Figure 6 on page 56 in Section 4.6, Land Use.)<br />
The proposed project's buildings, parking structure, and the towers were also evaluated<br />
for potential shading impacts to adjacent land uses. .Shading is a common and expected<br />
occurrence in urbanized areas, including the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Area.<br />
All buildings, trees, landfonns and other features rise appreciably above grade cast shadows.<br />
Shading is positive when it provides cooling effects during warm seasons and the <strong>Glendale</strong> area<br />
can be quite warm during the summer months. It can also be negative, if shading <strong>of</strong> sensitive<br />
uses occurs for extensive periods, particularly in the cooler parts <strong>of</strong> the year. Redevelopment<br />
Plan shading impacts were not analyzed in the Program EIR, since shading is directly related<br />
to building size and location and evaluation on a program level when building masses are<br />
unknown is not productive. Analyses <strong>of</strong>shading impacts are appropriate for individual projects,<br />
where sensitive uses might be affected.<br />
To detennine the extent <strong>of</strong> shadow cast by the project, this analysis examines the project<br />
elements which are the tallest and closest to the site boundary. Anticipated maximum shadow<br />
lengths for representative building heights on the DreamWodes Animation Campus are identified<br />
in the text table below. As shown, on the winter solstice, the highest proposed project<br />
structure, the 115 foot high central campanile, would project its longest shadow <strong>of</strong> 348 feet in<br />
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<br />
A.M., the shadow would. not extend beyond the northwesterly project property boundary. At<br />
3:00 P.M., the shadow would extend into the adjacent industrial property across Flower Street<br />
by approximately 55 feet. This distance exceeds the minimum required street setback line for<br />
M1 Zone properties by 45 feet.<br />
Because <strong>of</strong> their proximity to the property lines, other lower pr<strong>of</strong>ile project structures<br />
would also cast shadows onto adjacent properties. For example, assuming a 40-foot height for<br />
the parking structure, 121 foot shadows would be cast some 91 feet into the adjacent property<br />
to the northwest and 38 feet into the adjacent property across Flower Street. Project buildings<br />
along the Flower Street frontage would briefly shade the frontage across Flower Street.<br />
Planning COlWllrants Rcsurch<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 49<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
MAXIMUM SHADOW LENGTHS AND BEARINGS<br />
DURING THE SUMMER AND WINTER SOLSTICES<br />
4. 5. Light and Glare<br />
Summer Solstice Winter Solstice<br />
9:00 A.M. I 85° W a 9:00 A.M. I 45° W<br />
Height <strong>of</strong> Structure 5:00 P.M. 185° E 3:00 P.M. I 45° E<br />
35 47 106<br />
40 53 121<br />
60 80 182<br />
115 153 348<br />
a Bearing is identified in degrees from north (e.g.• 85° W means 85 degrees west <strong>of</strong>nonh).<br />
Surrounding land uses are limited to those pennitted in the Restricted Industrial zone and<br />
are not considered shadow-sensitive, as evidenced by their design and the nature <strong>of</strong> their<br />
occupancy. This is also evidenced by the development standards <strong>of</strong>the M-I zone which provide<br />
no setback criteria from property lines other than along street frontages, and then only ten (10.0)<br />
feet, which would allow more <strong>of</strong>f-site shading from compliant structures than would occur from<br />
the proposed project. Accordingly, no significant project shading or other light and glare<br />
impacts not previously anticipated in the Program ErR are expected.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
The following light and glare mitigation measures, as identified in the Program ErR, may<br />
apply to the proposed project: 42<br />
42<br />
1. The Agency and the <strong>City</strong> design review <strong>of</strong> all projects shall include review <strong>of</strong><br />
lighting plans and illuminated signage to ensure minimal spillover and glare.<br />
(Existing review requirement).<br />
2. Buildings shall not use reflective glass that will cause excessive glare to motorists<br />
or residents.<br />
Program EIR. FinaL EIR Volume. page 3.5-2.<br />
Planning ConsullaniS Resean:h<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 50<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendaan EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 5. Light and Glare<br />
3. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed so that all direct illumination is<br />
confined to the site and adjacent properties are protected from spillover<br />
illumination. The level <strong>of</strong> lighting in parking lots and along walkways shall<br />
comply with <strong>City</strong> code requirements.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 51<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addemlwn EIR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVffiONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.6. LAND USE<br />
The Program EIR defmes the following significance thresholds for land use: 43<br />
"Land use impacts are considered significant if the project will result in 1) development<br />
inconsistent with the General Plan land use policy or zoning for a given area; 2)<br />
conflicts with regional land use plans or policies; 3) substantial land use conflicts, or 4)<br />
loss <strong>of</strong> significant open space resources."<br />
The Redevelopment Area encompasses relatively level terrain and is highly urbanized.<br />
The area is dominated by industrial, manufacturing, and commercial uses with pockets <strong>of</strong><br />
residential development. The industrial, manufacturing, and commercial uses are a mix <strong>of</strong>older<br />
and more recent,one- and two-story facilities, <strong>of</strong>ten characterized by an architectural simplicity<br />
and functionality. The residential areas consist <strong>of</strong> single- and multi-family neighborhoods.<br />
Existing development in the Redevelopment Area includes 7,804,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> industrial<br />
space including the DreamWorks site, 997,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> commercial space, 511 dwelling<br />
units, 2.9 acres <strong>of</strong> parks and open space and 1.6 acres <strong>of</strong> vacant parcels. The Redevelopment<br />
Plan provides for an additional 3,676,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> industrial space, 1,289,000 square feet<br />
<strong>of</strong> commercial space, and 37 dwelling units, which upon full development <strong>of</strong> the Plan would<br />
result in a total <strong>of</strong> 11,480,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> industrial space, 2,286,000 square feet <strong>of</strong><br />
commercial space, and 548 dwelling units.<br />
The Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> General Plan and relies<br />
on development standards within a series <strong>of</strong> zoning districts established by the Zoning<br />
Ordinances. Objectives <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan are as follows: 44<br />
1. The elimination and prevention <strong>of</strong> the spread <strong>of</strong> blight and deterioration and the<br />
conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Area in<br />
accordance with the General Plan, Specific Plans, the Redevelopment Plan, and<br />
local codes and ordinances.<br />
43 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.6-1.<br />
44 Ibid. pages 1-6 and 1-7.<br />
PlaMing ConsulranlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 52<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 6. Land Use<br />
2. The promotion <strong>of</strong> private sector investment within the Redevelopment Area to<br />
prevent the loss <strong>of</strong>, and to facilitate, conunercial sales activity. An important<br />
objective will be the retention <strong>of</strong> existing and attraction <strong>of</strong> new industrial<br />
development within the Redevelopment Area.<br />
3. The achievement <strong>of</strong> an environment reflecting a high level <strong>of</strong> concern for<br />
architectural, landscape, urban design, and land use principles appropriate for<br />
attainment <strong>of</strong> the objectives <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan.<br />
4. The retention and expansion <strong>of</strong> as many existing businesses as possible by means<br />
<strong>of</strong>redevelopment and rehabilitation activities and by encouraging and assisting<br />
the cooperation and participation <strong>of</strong> owners, businesses, and public agencies in<br />
the revitalization <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Area.<br />
5. The provision for increased revenues to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>.<br />
6. The creation and. development <strong>of</strong> local job opportUnities and the preservation <strong>of</strong><br />
the area's existing employment base.<br />
7. The replanning, redesign, and development <strong>of</strong> areas which are stagnant or<br />
improperly utilized.<br />
8. The expansion <strong>of</strong> the community's supply <strong>of</strong> housing (inside or outside the<br />
Redevelopment Area), including opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderateincome<br />
households.<br />
9. Improve and enhance the local and regional transportation system.<br />
The Redevelopment Plan is expected to lead to more efficient use <strong>of</strong> available land for<br />
more intensive development, and the elimination <strong>of</strong> unattractive, poorly maintained structures<br />
and land uses. Reconsolidation and reassemblage <strong>of</strong> some existing parcels is also anticipated,<br />
thus making the parcels more accessible and developable. Although the Redevelopment Plan<br />
is consistent with adopted local and regional plans and policies, its implementation would alter<br />
the existing character <strong>of</strong> the area by developing currently vacant or underutilized land and<br />
increasing the intensity <strong>of</strong> development. Such development could result in localized land use<br />
conflicts, including noise (especially during construction phases), traffic. and the size and<br />
PlaMing Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 53<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
45<br />
4. 6. Land Use<br />
configuration <strong>of</strong> new buildings. 45 However, mitigation measures should be available at the<br />
project level that would substantially reduce site specific noise, traffic and aesthetic impacts.<br />
Mitigation measures identified in the Land Use section and in other impact sections <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Program EIR, including Noise, Transportation/Circulation, and Recreation, would reduce the<br />
Redevelopment Plan's land use iinpacts to acceptable, non-significant levels.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
Land Use Consistency. The project site is located within an industrial/manufacturing<br />
area, most <strong>of</strong> which, including the site itself, is designated by the Redevelopment Plan for<br />
Restricted Industrial Zone uses and accordingly is zoned M-l. The Golden State (1-5) Freeway<br />
is also to the west and the Los Angeles River, <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles Griffith Park soccer fields,<br />
and Ventura (SR-134) Freeway are to the south. The project site has been used for many years<br />
by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles Department <strong>of</strong> Water and Power for <strong>of</strong>fices, storage, and<br />
groundwater pumping, and as an active heliport by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Police Department and Los<br />
Angeles Police Department. 'This property is not extensively improved, and has only a few<br />
structures and facilities, as indicated in the Aerial Photograph presented on Figure 3 on page 6.<br />
The proposed use <strong>of</strong> the site, an animation studio and related facilities, is entirely<br />
consistent with the Redevelopment Plan and General Plan, and directly implements all or most<br />
<strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> the aforementioned Redevelopment Plan objectives as they apply to Restricted<br />
Industrial development on specific properties. The applicant would be required to execute an<br />
Participation Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency, as described in the Redevelopment<br />
Plan, in which the applicant agrees to develop the property in conformance with the Plan.46<br />
The unimproved Victory Truck Boulevard is proposed for inclusion as part <strong>of</strong> the project site<br />
adjacent to the Los Angeles River. As indicated in the Plan, "existing streets and alley may<br />
be abandoned, closed or modified as necessary for proper use and/or development. "47<br />
Setback requirements in the M-1 zone are limited to a provision that structures shall be<br />
no closer than five feet and an average <strong>of</strong> ten feet from any street. The project would meet this<br />
minimum requirement. Proposed development is approximately 35 feet from the northwestern<br />
border, adjacent to Restricted Industrial use, and approximately 85 feet from the southern<br />
Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.6-8.<br />
46 Redevelopment Plan for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. page 6.<br />
47 Ibid. page 16.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 54<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn ElK<br />
June 1996
4. 6. Land Use<br />
border. adjacent to the Los Angeles River. There are no floor area ratio restrictions in the t\f-l<br />
zone.<br />
The height limitation in the M-l zone is 35 feet. In order to maximize usable open<br />
space adjacent to and among the individual structures and for either aesthetic purposes, elements<br />
<strong>of</strong> the project would be taller than this limit. Each <strong>of</strong> the primary structures would consist <strong>of</strong><br />
rather complex building forms with multiple ro<strong>of</strong>s at varying levels. These structures would<br />
vary from 30 to 65 feet in height. Several architectural towers, or campaniles, would be<br />
approximately 65 feet in height, while one such tower may be as high as 115 feet. A height<br />
variance is proposed which would allow each on-site structure to exceed 35 feet and the<br />
campaniles to be 65 feet and, in the one instance, up to 115 feet high.<br />
In instances when rigorous application <strong>of</strong> the development standards in a given zoning<br />
district would serve to frustrate rather than implement the objectives <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan<br />
and/or General Plan, and where no unacceptable adverse consequences are anticipated, variances<br />
are the mechanism by which appropriate adjustments are made. Supported by appropriate<br />
findings, variances when approved are not inconsistent with General Plan policy or zoning intent<br />
in an area.<br />
Aesthetics. The project site is visible from the adjacent properties to the east and west,<br />
from Flower Street, and from the levee and proposed bike path along the south side <strong>of</strong> the Los<br />
Angeles River chaIlllel. The site can also be seen from traffic on the westbound Ventura (SR<br />
134) and northbound Golden State (1-5) Freeways.<br />
The proposed project would improve the appearance <strong>of</strong> the project site and provide a<br />
beneficial effect in the Redevelopment Area. The project consists <strong>of</strong> an integral complex <strong>of</strong><br />
multiple structures articulated with variable heights and ro<strong>of</strong> lines. It has been designed in a<br />
Mediterranean style clustered around a "piazza II and interconnected with arcades, verandas, and<br />
bridges. Figures 6, 7 and 8 on pages 56, 57 and 58 depict the project upon completion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
structures except those intended at the east and west ends <strong>of</strong> the site. The proposed buildings<br />
would be two to four stories high, ranging from 30,000 to 85,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> floor area<br />
each. Included among the buildings would be courtyards, terraces, patios, and several<br />
architectural towers. A parking structure with five levels above ground is also proposed. A<br />
helipad would be located on top <strong>of</strong> the parking structure. Landscaping features may include an<br />
ornamental garden/water feature and a grove <strong>of</strong> trees adjacent to the Los Angeles River, which<br />
would act as a visual and acoustic buffer from the freeways to the south and west. The grove<br />
<strong>of</strong> trees along the Los Angeles River and other usable landscaped open space areas are estimated<br />
to occupy approximately 2.5 acres, or twenty percent <strong>of</strong> the site. Project development would<br />
Planning ConsulLanlS Resl:arch<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agenq'<br />
Page 55<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn EIR<br />
June 1996
Planning<br />
Consultants<br />
Research SOUF1CE: A. V MedIa. los Angeles. Jan·1996<br />
Figure 8<br />
View <strong>of</strong> the Propose.d <strong>Development</strong><br />
from the South
4. 6. Land Use<br />
therefore enhance and improve the existing character <strong>of</strong> the area in a positive way, due to the<br />
architectural design and the use <strong>of</strong> landscaping.<br />
The proposed project achieves all applicable objectives <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan and<br />
is consistent with the General Plan. It would house an approved land use in the Restricted<br />
Industrial District (M-I Zone) and would substantially exceed the minimum setback criteria<br />
established in that zone. To do so and to achieve the Plan objective to reflect II ••• a high level<br />
<strong>of</strong> architectural, landscape, urban design and land use principals..., II the project has applied for<br />
a height variance under the established procedures <strong>of</strong> the Zoning Ordinance. No resulting<br />
conflicts with adjacent land uses are anticipated. The project would therefore not have any<br />
significant land use impacts.<br />
MITIGATION l\1EASURES<br />
The following mitigation measure, as identified in the Program EIR, may apply to the<br />
proposed project: 48<br />
1. <strong>Development</strong> will be required to meet all <strong>City</strong> development standards to ensure<br />
compatibility with adjacent land uses, adequate infrastructure and parking.<br />
48 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. pages 3.6-8 and 3.6-9.<br />
Planning Consuhams ReSQrth<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 59<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeDdum Em<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.7. RISK OF UPSET<br />
The Program EIR defines significance thresholds for the risk <strong>of</strong> upset as the<br />
following: 49<br />
"Impacts are considered significant if the project will result in 1) an unusual or unique<br />
risk <strong>of</strong> explosion or the release <strong>of</strong> hazardous substances in the event <strong>of</strong> accident or upset<br />
conditions; 2) possible interference with an emergency response or emergency evacuation<br />
plan; 3) creation <strong>of</strong> potential health hazards to people or animal or plant populations in<br />
the area affected; 4) locating potentially hazardous facilities in proximity to sensitive<br />
receptors such as schools, day care facilities, hospitals, and convalescent homes."<br />
Potential ris.k <strong>of</strong> upset issues identified in the Redevelopment Area include underground<br />
storage tanks (UST), hazardous material transport, and urban fires. There are 13 USTs within<br />
the Redevelopment Area, <strong>of</strong> which seven were contaminated and were being cleaned up at the<br />
time that the Program EIR was completed. The sites were contaminated either due to leakage<br />
or spills. Although the entire Redevelopment Area lies within a "vulnerability zone," defined<br />
by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency as an area where people may be exposed to<br />
health hazards in the event <strong>of</strong> accidental releases <strong>of</strong> hazardous materials from activities within<br />
or adjacent to that area, this is considered a normal condition for industrial districts. Any<br />
Redevelopment Plan sites which have been occupied by uses which pose potential risks <strong>of</strong><br />
contamination will ·be examined and appropriate remediation will be identified and implemented<br />
prior to new development. The Redevelopment Plan itself does not represent an unusual or<br />
unique risk <strong>of</strong> explosion or release <strong>of</strong> hazardous substances.50 Section 4.3, Water<br />
(Hydrology), includes an analysis <strong>of</strong> the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)<br />
Superfund project to remediate groundwater contamination in the Redevelopment Area.<br />
The potential for transportation accidents involving the transport <strong>of</strong> hazardous material<br />
also presents a risk to the Redevelopment Area. Some designated uses within the<br />
Redevelopment Area include the use and transport <strong>of</strong> hazardous materials. State and Federal<br />
49 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.7-6.<br />
50 Ibid, page 3.7-7.<br />
Planning Consulranu Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 60<br />
DreamWorks Animation CamPIIS Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 7. Risk <strong>of</strong> Upset<br />
Although there are facilities that use potentially hazardous materials or that have<br />
experienced leaking USTs in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the project site, the likelihood <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> these<br />
facilities having an impact on the project site is low, due to either the extent <strong>of</strong> the problem.<br />
location, distance, or the direction <strong>of</strong> groundwater flow, as indicated in an assessment prepared<br />
for the project site. 54 Section 4.3., Water (Hydrology), includes a description <strong>of</strong> the EPA<br />
Superfund project as it relates to the project site.<br />
The risk <strong>of</strong> upset level <strong>of</strong> the proposed project would be comparable to that <strong>of</strong> any other<br />
Restricted Industrial development in the Redevelopment Area that either would not use or would<br />
use limited amounts <strong>of</strong> hazardous materials. Fire prevention standards and procedures for the<br />
hydrology, storage and disposal <strong>of</strong> hazardous material for the proposed project would follow<br />
those prescribed in the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable regulations. Therefore,<br />
similar to the Redevelopment Plan, the project does not represent an unusual or unique risk <strong>of</strong><br />
explosion or release <strong>of</strong> hazardous substances, and does not change the conclusions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Program EIR. The project would have a less than significant impact with the implementation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures listed below.<br />
MITIGATION l\1EASURES<br />
Although the hazardous material assessment found no significant level <strong>of</strong> contamination<br />
on-site, to address the possibility that some undetected localized areas <strong>of</strong> contamination could<br />
still exist, the following mitigation measures are recommended: 55<br />
1. If suspect soils (discolored, odorous, or stained) are encountered during<br />
excavation, sampling and testing <strong>of</strong> the excavation face or a stockpile for<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>iling and from the base <strong>of</strong> the excavation area, should beperfonned.<br />
2. If impacted soils are encountered and conI1.I1l1.ed by testing, special handling and<br />
disposal to a sanitary dump site or hazardous materials dump site will be<br />
required.<br />
54 Dames & Moore. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard.<br />
November 22. 1995, page 20.<br />
55 Dames & Moore. Phase II Site Characterization. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard. January 25.<br />
I996. page 20.<br />
Planning ConsultanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redenlopment Agency<br />
Page 62<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 7. Risk <strong>of</strong> Upset<br />
3. Contingency plans for worker's protection should be developed, including<br />
monitoring and response if odors or elevated levels <strong>of</strong> volatile organic vapors or<br />
soil contamination are encountered during excavation. These plans should<br />
include a provision for handling excess amounts <strong>of</strong> potentially contaminated<br />
groundwater.<br />
4. To minimize the possibility <strong>of</strong> migration <strong>of</strong> volatile organic vapors from the<br />
groundwater table up into excavation areas under the proposed structures, slabson-grade<br />
shall include a visqueen layer, for the purposes <strong>of</strong> creating a moisture<br />
seal and vapor barrier.<br />
Planning Consultams Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 63<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
56<br />
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.8. POPULATION/HOUSING<br />
The Program EIR defines impacts on population and housing as the following:<br />
"Impacts on population are significant if population growth exceeds projections<br />
for the area and results in a demand for housing and private and public services<br />
which exceed supply in the short- or long-tenn. Housing impacts are considered<br />
significant if the proposed project would result in the loss <strong>of</strong> substantial housing<br />
or if the proposed project would generate an additional demand for housing<br />
which exceeds regional growth projections. ,,56<br />
The Redevelopment Area had approximately 511 residential units and 1,323 pennanent<br />
residents in 1990. At buildout <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan, the area's population could increase<br />
by 96 people, residing in 548 dwelling units. This new population results in an increased<br />
demand for 37 housing units, based on a household size <strong>of</strong> 2.59 persons per household, which<br />
would be accommodated with implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan. 57<br />
Although a very limited amount <strong>of</strong> housing development is planned within the<br />
Redevelopment Area, substantial nonresidential development is anticipated. In 1990, the<br />
Redevelopment Area contained approximately 8.97 million square feet <strong>of</strong> nomesidential<br />
development, providing an estimated 16,412 jobs based on a floor area to employee ratio <strong>of</strong> 2.8<br />
per 1,000 square feet. The Program EIR states that according to the <strong>City</strong>'s General Plan, the<br />
Redevelopment Area could include an estimated additional 4.97 million square feet <strong>of</strong><br />
nonresidential development and an additional 12,576 jobs, resulting in a total <strong>of</strong> 13.94 million<br />
squire feet and 28,988 jobs at buildout. 58 Of these total employees, 10 percent or 2,899<br />
employees are expected to reside in the <strong>City</strong>, requiring 2,376 housing units. The<br />
Redevelopment Plan activities will therefore result in an increase <strong>of</strong> 1,258 new residents to the<br />
Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-2.<br />
57 Ibid. page 3.6-7.<br />
58 Ibid. page 3.8-3.<br />
Planning ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 64<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
60 Ibid. page 3.8-6.<br />
61 Ibid. Table 9 page 3.8-4.<br />
4. 8. Population/Housing<br />
<strong>City</strong>, demanding a total <strong>of</strong> 1,031 housing units, which can be accommodated by the total<br />
housing growth anticipated by the <strong>City</strong>'s General Plan.59<br />
Because growth projections are consistent with local plans and because the<br />
Redevelopment Plan results in an overall increase in housing units for the <strong>City</strong> and is therefore<br />
consistent with regional plans, it was concluded in the Program EIR that popUlation and housing<br />
impacts from redevelopment activities would be considered less than significant.60<br />
PROJECT IM:PACTS<br />
The DreamWorks Animation Campus consists <strong>of</strong> 495,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> development,<br />
on land zoned for Restricted Industrial uses. The project is expected to employ 1,400<br />
employees at build-out, corresponding to the employee generation rate <strong>of</strong> 2.8 employees per<br />
1,000 square feet established in the Program EIR for Research and <strong>Development</strong> Restricted<br />
Industrial uses (which represents 55 percent <strong>of</strong> the Restricted Industrial uses proposed in the<br />
Redevelopment Plan).61 Approximately 140 <strong>of</strong> these new employees are expected to reside<br />
in <strong>Glendale</strong>, according to <strong>City</strong> trends discussed in the Program EIR. 62 Using the regional<br />
housing ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.22 jobs per housing unit in the year 2010 stated in the Program EIR. these<br />
employees would create a demand for 115 housing units in the <strong>City</strong>.63 The proposed project<br />
does not include development <strong>of</strong> any residential components; therefore. no housing demand will<br />
be accommodated on-site. Because the projected population growth is consistent with the <strong>City</strong>'s<br />
General Plan, and the additional housing units demanded from employees <strong>of</strong> the project can be<br />
accommodated with the General Plan's housing projections, the proposed project is considered<br />
consistent with local plans. Furthermore, because the proposed project adds additional<br />
employment to a "housing rich" area, and does not result in demolition <strong>of</strong> any housing units,<br />
the proposed project is also consistent with regional plans. Therefore, the proposed project<br />
would result in a less than significant impact overall.<br />
In order to provide a comparison with the Redevelopment Plan, this evaluation <strong>of</strong>project<br />
population and housing impacts fIrst estimates the population and housing units that would be<br />
generated on the project site using the Program EIR's average intensity assumptions (FAR) for<br />
59 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, Table 1, page 1-9.<br />
62 Ibid. page 3.8-3, slares that 10% <strong>of</strong>new employees in <strong>Glendale</strong> are expected to also reside in Ihe Cil)'.<br />
63 Ibid.<br />
Planning Consulrants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 65<br />
Dn:amWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK<br />
June 1996
4. 8. Population/Housing<br />
moderate income housing units. 64 However, because the proposed project will not involve<br />
the demolition <strong>of</strong> housing units, these measures do not apply. Furthermore. because no<br />
significant impacts on housing or population are projected with implementation <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
project, no further mitigation measures are proposed.<br />
64 Program E1R. Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-8.<br />
PlaMing Consuhllms Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 67<br />
DrumWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
. June 1996
4. San Fernando Road & Sonora Avenue<br />
5. San Fernando Road & Grandview Avenue<br />
6. San Fernando Road & Highland Avenue<br />
7. San Fernando Road & Fairmont Avenue<br />
8. San Fernando Road & Doran Street<br />
9. San Fernando Road & California Avenue<br />
10. San Fernando Road & Broadway<br />
11 . Flower Street & Grandview Avenue<br />
4. 9. Transponalion/Circularian<br />
The fIrst ten <strong>of</strong> these intersections were analyzed in the San Fernando Road Corridor<br />
Redevelopment Plan FErR. The latter intersection has been included given its proximity to the<br />
project site and the proposed location <strong>of</strong> a project egress driveway onto Flower Street opposite<br />
Grandview Avenue.<br />
Environmental Setting<br />
The assessment <strong>of</strong> existing conditions relevant to this study includes streets and<br />
highways, traffic volumes, and operating conditions on the street system.<br />
Street and Highway System<br />
Regional access to the study area is provided by the Golden State Freeway (Interstate<br />
5) and the Venmra Freeway (State Route 134). Key freeway interchanges serving the study<br />
area include the Western Avenue interchange with 1-5 and the Victory Boulevard/Riverside<br />
Drive and San Fernando Road interchanges with SR 134. Brief descriptions <strong>of</strong> the major streets<br />
serving the study area are as follows:<br />
• Flower Street - Flower Street is a northwest-southeast minor arterial providing<br />
direct access to the proposed project site. South <strong>of</strong> the project site, it bends ninety<br />
degrees and becomes a northeast-southwest street terminating at Air Way. It<br />
provides four travel lanes and on-street parking.<br />
• San Fernando Road - San Fernando Road is a four-lane northwest-southeast major<br />
arterial running through the western part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. It provides access<br />
to SR 134 and connects the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> to <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Burbank to the north and to<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles to the south. Parking is generally allowed on both sides <strong>of</strong> San<br />
Fernando Road north <strong>of</strong> Fairmont Avenue. South <strong>of</strong> Fairmont Avenue, parking is<br />
only allowed on the east side <strong>of</strong> San Fernando Road, with railroad tracks paralleling<br />
the west side.<br />
PlaMing Consullllnts Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redeyelopment Agency<br />
Page 70<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
• Lake Street - Lake Street is a two-lane local street running parallel to 1-5. It<br />
continues in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Burbank: and tenninates at Magnolia Boulevard.<br />
• Western Avenue - Western Avenue is a four lane major arterial within the study<br />
area. Western Avenue has a full cloverleaf interchange with 1-5 and serves as an<br />
important northeast-southwest corridor.<br />
• Sonora Avenue - Sonora Avenue is classified as a major arterial serving the study<br />
area. It provides four lanes and is a major connection between the study area and<br />
SR 134 via Victory Boulevard/Riverside Drive.<br />
• Grandview Avenue - Grandview Avenue is a minor arterial between Flower Street<br />
and Glenoaks Boulevard. It provides four travel lanes and on-street parking.<br />
Existing Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes<br />
Existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic counts, conducted in 1992, were obtained from<br />
the San Fernando Corridor Redevelopment Plan FEIR for the ten study intersections analyzed<br />
in the FEIR. New counts were conducted at the Flower Street/Grandview Avenue intersection<br />
in January <strong>of</strong> 1996 as part <strong>of</strong> this study. The existing intersection peak hour traffic volumes<br />
are included in Appendix C.<br />
Intersection Level <strong>of</strong> Service Methodology<br />
Level <strong>of</strong> service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition <strong>of</strong> traffic<br />
flow, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. Level<br />
<strong>of</strong> service definitions are included in Tables 9 and 10 on page 72. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
considers LOS D to be the minimum acceptable level <strong>of</strong> service.<br />
In accordance with <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> procedures, the "Intersection Capacity Utilization II<br />
(lCU) method <strong>of</strong> intersection capacity analysis was used to determine the intersection volume<br />
to capacity (VIC) ratio and corresponding LOS for the turning movements and intersection<br />
characteristics at the study intersections controlled by traffic signals. A capacity value <strong>of</strong> 1,600<br />
vehicles per hour per lane was used, with a clearance interval <strong>of</strong> 0.1.<br />
"<br />
The intersection <strong>of</strong> Flower Street/Grandview Avenue is controlled by stop signs on all<br />
approaches. The "All-Way Stop Control" method (Transportation Research Board, 1994) was<br />
employed to detennine the average vehicular delay and corresponding level <strong>of</strong> service for this<br />
location.<br />
Planning Consultants Re5earch<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agen9'<br />
Page 71<br />
DreamWork5 Animation Campus Addendum ElR<br />
June 1996
Existing Intersection Levels <strong>of</strong> Service<br />
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
Table 11 on page 74, summarizes the existing weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour VIC<br />
ratio or average delay and corresponding level <strong>of</strong> service at each <strong>of</strong> the eleven analyzed<br />
intersections. Under existing conditions, each <strong>of</strong> the eleven intersections operate at acceptable<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> service (i.e., LOS D or better) during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours.<br />
Redevelopment Plan hnpacts at Year 2027<br />
Table 12 on page 75 summarizes Year 2027 levels <strong>of</strong> service as projected in the<br />
Redevelopment Plan FEIR for the ten intersections common to the two studies, both with and<br />
without implementation <strong>of</strong> the traffic mitigation program proposed in the Redevelopment Plan<br />
FEIR. Intersection configurations with the long-term mitigation measures proposed in the<br />
Redevelopment Plan FEIR are illustrated in Appendix C. With implementation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Redevelopment Plan mitigation program, six <strong>of</strong> the ten intersections are projected to operate at<br />
acceptable levels <strong>of</strong> service (LOS D or better) at Year 2027. No mitigation measures were<br />
identified in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR for the Flower Street/Western Avenue and Flower<br />
Street/Sonora Avenue intersections.<br />
Redevelopment Plan Impacts at Year 2010<br />
Year 2010 Cumulative Base Traffic Forecasts<br />
The Redevelopment Plan FEIR forecast traffic growth to the Year 2027, including an<br />
ambient background growth rate <strong>of</strong> 1% per year (from 1992 to 2027), related projects, and<br />
development <strong>of</strong> all uses anticipated in the San Fernando Corridor Redevelopment Plan. Year<br />
2010 cumulative base (Le., without project) volumes for this addendum were projected by: (1)<br />
interpolating the traffic growth projected in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR on a straight-line<br />
basis to the Year 2010 (including the background growth rate, traffic generated by related<br />
projects, and traffic generated by the Redevelopment Plan uses); and (2) subtracting traffic<br />
which would be generated by Restricted Industrial development identified in the Redevelopment<br />
Plan FEIR for the project site. The second step was performed to provide a Year 2010 base<br />
for analysis assuming no development on the project site.<br />
Planning ConsulranlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 73<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Table 12<br />
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
YEAR 2027 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE FROM REDEVELOPJ.\,1ENT PLAN FEIR<br />
Redevelopment Plan<br />
Year 2027 With<br />
Redevelopment Plan<br />
Mitigation Program<br />
Intersection<br />
1. Lake St & Sonora Ave<br />
Hour<br />
A.M. Peak<br />
VIC<br />
0.61<br />
LOS<br />
B<br />
VIC<br />
a<br />
LOS<br />
P.M. Peak 0.79 C<br />
a<br />
2. Flower St & Western Ave A.M. Peak 1.55 F<br />
P.M. Peak 2.22 F<br />
3. Flower St & Sonora Ave A.M. Peak 0.86 D<br />
P.M. Peak 1.00 E<br />
4. San Fernando Rd & Sonora Ave A.M. Peak 0.92 E 0.68 B<br />
P.M. Peak 1.03 F 0.83 D<br />
5. San Fernando Rd & Grandview Ave A.M. Peak 1.08 F 0.85 D<br />
P.M. Peak 1.51 F 0.83 D<br />
6. San Fernando Rd & Highland Ave A.M. Peak 1.13 F 0.81 D<br />
P.M. Peak 1.12 F 0.80 C<br />
7. San Fernando Rd & Fairmon! Ave A.M. Peak 1.14 F 0.96 E<br />
P.M. Peak 1.18 F 0.90 D<br />
8. San Fernando Rd & Doran St A.M. Peak 1.04 F 0.80 C<br />
P.M. Peak 1.67 F 1.02 F<br />
9. San Fernando Rd & California Ave A.M. Peak 0.74 C 0.56 A<br />
P.M. Peak 0.94 E 0.72 C<br />
10. San Fernando Rd & Broadway A.M. Peak 0.82 D 0.66 B<br />
a Intersection is not impacted. therefore, no mitigation is required.<br />
P.M. Peak 1.13 F 0.85 D<br />
b Unavoidable significant impact: no mitigation recommended in the Redevelopment Plan Program EIR.<br />
Source: Colton/Beland/Associates. Inc., wFinal Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan for the<br />
San Fernando Road Corridor, W November 1992.<br />
Planning Consullants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 75<br />
DreamWorks AJWnation CampllS Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996<br />
b<br />
b<br />
b<br />
b
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
The traffic study conducted as part <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan FEIR assumes that the<br />
project site develops as Restricted Industrial use to an FAR <strong>of</strong> 0.75. Given the site area <strong>of</strong><br />
12.21 acres per County Assessor records (not including the proposed quitclaim <strong>of</strong> the Victory<br />
Truck Boulevard easement), it is estimated that the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study<br />
includes development <strong>of</strong> about 398,900 square feet <strong>of</strong> Restricted Industrial uses on the project<br />
site.<br />
Using the trip generation rates published in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR, Table 13 on<br />
page 77, indicates that this level <strong>of</strong> development would generate approximately 365 trips during<br />
the A.M. peak hour and 390 trips during the P.M. peak hour. These trips were distributed<br />
across the street system using distribution patterns from the Redevelopment Plan FEIR, and<br />
were subtracted from the Year 2010 base traffic forecasts to represent Year 2010 volumes<br />
without any development on the project site.<br />
The projected Year 2010 cumulative base traffic volumes at the eleven study<br />
intersections are included in Appendix C. These forecasts represent projected conditions at<br />
Year 2010 with development under the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan throughout the<br />
Redevelopment Plan area,· but without any development on the project site.<br />
Levels <strong>of</strong> Service and Mitigation Measures<br />
The Year 2010 cumulative base traffic forecasts were analyzed to detennined the<br />
projected future peak hour levels <strong>of</strong> service at the eleven study intersections, without any<br />
development on the project site and without consideration <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures proposed<br />
in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR. Table 14 on page 78, summarizes the results <strong>of</strong> this analysis.<br />
As can be seen in Table 14, four <strong>of</strong> the intersections (Flower Street/Western Avenue,<br />
San Fernando Road/Sonora Avenue, San Fernando Road/Grandview Avenue, and San Fernando<br />
Road/Doran Street) are projected to operate at poor levels <strong>of</strong> service <strong>of</strong> E or F during one or<br />
both <strong>of</strong> the A.M. and P.M. peak hours under Year 2010 conditions with development throughout<br />
the Redevelopment Plan area but with no development on the project site.<br />
The Redevelopment Plan FEIR proposed mitigation measures at three <strong>of</strong> these locations<br />
to mitigate Year 2027 conditions. An analysis was conducted to detennine what components<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan FEIR mitigation program would need to be implemented to mitigate<br />
the Redevelopment Plan traffic impacts at 2010 with no development on the project site. The<br />
Planning ConsulranlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redenlopment Agency<br />
Page 76<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addeadum EJR<br />
June 1996
Table 13<br />
4. 9. Transponation/Circulalion<br />
ESTIl\lATED PROJECT SITE TRIP GENERATION UNDER REDEVELOPI\1ENT PLAN<br />
Land Use<br />
Restricted Industrial<br />
Size A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour<br />
Acre Sg.Ft.<br />
12.2 398,901 Rate<br />
Trips<br />
following summarizes those elements considered necessary by the Year 2010 (resultant<br />
intersection configurations are illustrated in Appendix C):<br />
In<br />
0.76<br />
303<br />
Out<br />
0.16<br />
64<br />
Total<br />
0.92<br />
367<br />
In<br />
0.12<br />
48<br />
Out<br />
0.86<br />
343<br />
Total<br />
4. San Fernando Road & Sonora Avenue - Widen the westbound Sonora Avenue<br />
approach to provide one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through!<br />
right-turn lane.<br />
5. San Fernando Road & Grandview Avenue - Widen the northbound San Fernando<br />
Road approach to provide one left-tum lane, two through lanes, and one shared<br />
through/right-tum lane. Stripe the westbound Grandview Avenue approach to<br />
provide one left-turn lane, one shared left-turn/through lane and one shared<br />
througbJright-turn lane.<br />
8. San Fernando Road & Doran Street - Widen the southbound San Fernando Road<br />
approach to provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared<br />
through/right-tum lane. Widen the eastbound Doran Street approach to provide<br />
one shared left-turn/through lane and one shared through/right-tum lane.<br />
Table 14 on page 78, also indicates the projected operating conditions with<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> these mitigation measures. As shown in Table 14, each <strong>of</strong> tpe intersections,<br />
except one, is projected to operate at acceptable levels <strong>of</strong> service (LOS D or better) under Year<br />
2010 cumulative base conditions with growth. throughout the Redevelopment Plan area but<br />
without development <strong>of</strong> the project site.<br />
The exception is the intersection <strong>of</strong> Flower Street/Western Avenue, for which no<br />
mitigation measures were determined to be feasible in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR. The<br />
Redevelopment Plan FEIR concluded that Redevelopment Plan impacts at this location would<br />
constitute a significant unavoidable impact, and adopted a statement <strong>of</strong> overriding considerations<br />
regarding the same.<br />
Planning ConsullalU$ Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agenc)"<br />
Page 77<br />
0.98<br />
391<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Table 14<br />
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN GROWTH<br />
(Without <strong>Development</strong> on the Project Site)<br />
Year 2010<br />
Year 2010 Cumulative Base<br />
Cumulative Base with Redevelopment<br />
Existing (Unmitigated) Mitigations<br />
Intersection Hour VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS<br />
I. Lake Street & A.M. Peak 0.35 A 0.47 A<br />
Sonora Avenue P.M. Peak 0.39 A 0.59 A<br />
2. Flower Street & A.M. Peak 0.59 A 1.01 F<br />
Western Avenue<br />
P.M. Peak 0.84 D 1.49 F<br />
3. Flower Street & A.M. Peak 0.46 A 0.62 B<br />
Sonora Avenue<br />
P.M. Peak 0.53 A 0.73 C<br />
4. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.76 C 0.96 E 0.75 C<br />
Sonora Avenue P.M. Peak 0.73 C 0.88 0 0.88 0<br />
5. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.63 B 0.85 D 0.78 B<br />
Grandview Avenue<br />
P.M. Peak 0.86 D 1.08 F 0.82 D<br />
6. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.66 B 0.83 0<br />
a<br />
Highland Avenue P.M. Peak 0.68 B 0.86 D<br />
a<br />
7. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.61 B 0.74 C<br />
a<br />
Fairmont Avenue P.M. Peak 0.67 B 0.78 C<br />
a<br />
8. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.70 B 0.83 D 0.79 C<br />
Doran Street<br />
P.M. Peak 0.79 C 1.11 F 0.84 D<br />
9. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.52 A 0.63 B<br />
a<br />
California Avenue P.M. 'Peak 0.61 B 0:77 C<br />
a<br />
10. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.51 A 0.62 B<br />
a<br />
Broadway<br />
P.M. Peak 0.71 C 0.84 D<br />
a<br />
II. Flower Street & A.M. Peak 2.0 A 2.8 A<br />
a<br />
Grandview Avenue C<br />
P.M. Peak 2.2 A 5.3 B<br />
a<br />
a Intersection is not impacted, therefore. no mitigation is required.<br />
b Intersection is impacted, however, no mitigation is recommended in the Redevelopment Plan Program EIR.<br />
e Intersection controlled by stop signs On all approaches. Indicates average delay (in seconds) and LOS for the<br />
intersection.<br />
Planning ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 78<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
. June 1996<br />
a<br />
a<br />
b<br />
b<br />
a<br />
a
Land Use acre S9.Ft.<br />
Animalion Studio 13.4 495,000 Rate a. b<br />
a Rates are per 1.000 sq.jt.<br />
Table 15<br />
ESTIMATED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION<br />
4. 9. TransponalionJCirculalion<br />
Size A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour<br />
Trips<br />
In<br />
1.07<br />
530<br />
b Trip generation rates for the proposed project were developed using DreamWorks Playa Vista rates. assuming<br />
40% <strong>of</strong>fice and 60% production/stage suppon.<br />
Impact Criteria<br />
In accordance with the evaluation conducted in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR and in<br />
recognition <strong>of</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> level <strong>of</strong> service standards, a project traffic impact would be<br />
considered significant if one <strong>of</strong> the following conditions are met:<br />
Out<br />
0.13<br />
64<br />
Total<br />
1.20<br />
594<br />
In<br />
0.19<br />
94<br />
Out<br />
0.90<br />
446<br />
Total<br />
• the addition <strong>of</strong> project traffic to an intersection operating at LOS A, B, C, or D<br />
causes the intersection operation to decline to LOS E or F; or<br />
• the addition <strong>of</strong> project traffic to an intersection operating at LOS E causes an<br />
increase in the intersection VIC ratio <strong>of</strong> 0.02 or more; or<br />
• the addition <strong>of</strong> project traffic to an intersection operating at LOS F causes an<br />
increase in the intersection VIC ratio <strong>of</strong> 0.01 or more.<br />
Project Impact Analysis<br />
The Year 2010 traffic forecasts with development <strong>of</strong> the proposed project were analyzed<br />
to determine the projected future peak hour levels <strong>of</strong> service at the eleven study intersections,<br />
assuming implementation <strong>of</strong>those elements <strong>of</strong>the Redevelopment Plan FEIR mitigation program<br />
identified previously as necessary by the Year 2010. Table 16 on page 82 summarizes the<br />
results <strong>of</strong> this analysis. As indicated on Table 16, the project is projected to have an impact<br />
on Year 2010 conditions with the Redevelopment Plan mitigation at one <strong>of</strong> the eleven analyzed<br />
intersections: Flower Street/Western Avenue.<br />
Planning Consultants Rcsearch<br />
Glendalc RflicYclopmcnt Agcncy<br />
Page 81<br />
1.09<br />
540<br />
DrcamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Table 16<br />
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
Year 2010<br />
Cumulative<br />
Base<br />
(with Project Additional<br />
Redevelopment Year 2010 Increase Project<br />
Peak Mitigated) with Project in VIC Impact<br />
Intersection Hour VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS<br />
1. Lake Street & A.M. 0.47 A 0.53 A 0.06 NO<br />
Sonora Avenue P.M. 0.59 A 0.60 A 0.01 NO<br />
2. Flower Street & A.M. 1.01 F 1.08 F 0.07 YES<br />
Western Avenue P.M. 1.49 F 1.54 F 0.05 YES<br />
3. Flower Street & A.M. 0.62 B 0.74 C 0.12 NO<br />
Sonora Avenue P.M. 0.73 C 0.89 D 0.13 NO<br />
4. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.75 C 0.76 C 0.01 NO<br />
Sonora Avenue P.M. 0.88 D 0.89 D 0.01 NO<br />
5. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.78 C 0.83 D 0.05 NO<br />
Grandview Avenue P.M. 0.82 D 0.84 D 0.02 NO<br />
6. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.83 D 0.88 D 0.05 NO<br />
Highland Avenue P.M. 0.86 D 0.87 D 0.01 NO<br />
7. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.74 C 0.78 C 0.04 NO<br />
Fairmont Avenue P.M. 0.78 C 0.82 D 0.04 NO<br />
8. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.79 C 0.80 C 0.01 NO<br />
Doran Street P.M. 0.84 0 0.86 0 0.02 NO<br />
9. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.63 B 0.63 B 0.00 NO<br />
California Avenue P.M. 0.77 C 0.77 C 0.00 NO<br />
10. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.62 B 0.62 B 0.00 NO<br />
Broadway P.M. 0.84 D 0.84 D 0.00 NO<br />
11. Flower Street & A.M. 2.8 A 26.90 D 24.10 NO<br />
Grandview Avenue a<br />
P.M. 5.3 B 25.20 D 19.90 NO<br />
a Intersection controlled by stop signs on all approaches. IndicaJes average delay (in seconds) and LOS for the<br />
most constrained movements.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 82<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Adclemiwn EIR<br />
June 1996
Project Impacts at Year 2027<br />
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
It is estimated that the project site (not including the proposed quitclaim <strong>of</strong> the Victory<br />
Truck Boulevard easement) represents approximately 9% <strong>of</strong> the total area designated for<br />
Restricted Industrial uses in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study. It also represents<br />
about 9% <strong>of</strong> the trips estimated in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for Restricted<br />
Industrial uses at buildout <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan in the Year 2027.<br />
The higher density <strong>of</strong> the proposed project (approximately 0.85 FAR as opposed to the<br />
0.75 FAR assumed in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for Restricted Industrial uses<br />
in traffic analysis zone [TAZ] 2) would represent about 11 % <strong>of</strong> the overall Restricted Industrial<br />
floor area projected in the Redevelopment Plan. The projected higher levels <strong>of</strong> tripmaking<br />
associated with the project would represent the equivalent <strong>of</strong> about 14% <strong>of</strong> the floor area and<br />
trips projected in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for Restricted Industrial uses<br />
throughout the Redevelopment Plan area.<br />
However, as discussed in Section 2.0, Project Overview, the 0.75 FAR assumed in the<br />
Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for TAZ 2 represents an average for all Restricted<br />
Industrial parcels throughout the zone, and it is considered very unlikely that all such parcels<br />
would fully develop to a uniform level. Since the project site is one <strong>of</strong> the larger contiguous<br />
parcels in the area, it provides greater development flexibility and is less constrained by setback<br />
requirements. As such, the project site is considered to be more apt to develop at a greater<br />
density than smaller parcels in the area, and it is believed that the higher density and tripmaking<br />
<strong>of</strong> the proposed project are already encompassed in the long-term Year 2027 traffic projections<br />
contained in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study. Therefore, the proposed project is not<br />
expected to create any additional long-term traffic impacts beyond those previously identified<br />
in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR.<br />
Site Access Impacts<br />
The proposed project site plan includes access to the site from Flower Street at a nwnber<br />
<strong>of</strong> locations. The Main Gate would be located on Flower Street approximately 200 feet south<br />
<strong>of</strong> Grandview Avenue and would be available for both employee and visitor ingress to and<br />
egress from the site. Access to a perimeter service road and a secondary egress from the<br />
proposed parking structure would be provided on Flower Street opposite Grandview Avenue.<br />
Separate truck access to the project loading dock is proposed to be located further south along<br />
Flower Street.<br />
Planning ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 83<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addeadum EIR<br />
. June 1996
4. 9. Transponation/Circulalion<br />
The following summarizes potential impacts associated with the proposed site access<br />
plan, based on review and evaluation <strong>of</strong> the potential operation <strong>of</strong> each access location (as<br />
discussed in the following section, each <strong>of</strong> these impacts can be mitigated):<br />
• Main Gate - It is anticipated that security arrangements for the -project would<br />
require visitors to check-in with a guard and employees to enter and leave the site<br />
via card-key operated gates. Given this, adequate storage area should be provided<br />
on-site to accommodate entering vehicles queuing prior to the guard/gate locations.<br />
• Secondary Access Opposite Grandview Avenue - Given the potential number <strong>of</strong><br />
project employees (estimated to be approximately 1.400 at full occupancy). the size<br />
<strong>of</strong> the proposed projectparking structure (approximately 1.000 spaces). and the<br />
projected peak hour project trip generation, this second project parking egress is<br />
considered necessary during periods <strong>of</strong> peak: exiting traffic. The perimeter service<br />
road is proposed to be gated for security purposes. and its use is expected to be<br />
infrequent. The recommended configuration for the project driveway at the Flower<br />
Street/Grandview Avenue intersection is discussed in the Mitigation Measures Section<br />
below.<br />
• Loading Dock Access':' The project site plan as initially proposed does not provide<br />
adequate space on-site for truck maneuvering and would require trucks to back into<br />
the loading dock from Flower Street. Trucks backing into the site from Flower<br />
Street would create conflicts with traffic flows on Flower Street. particularly as<br />
traffic increases in the future commensurate with redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the area.<br />
It is anticipated that, with implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures discussed below.<br />
the project would not create any new unavoidable significant impacts beyond those already<br />
identified in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR.<br />
Planning ConsulranlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 84<br />
DreamWork$ Animation Campus Addendmn EtR<br />
June 1996
Table I7<br />
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS WITH PROJECT MITIGATION<br />
Year 2010<br />
Cumulative Year 2010<br />
Base With Project<br />
Peak<br />
Intersection Hour VIC LOS VIC LOS<br />
2. Flower Street & A.M. 1.01 F 1.08 F<br />
Western Avenue P.M. 1.49 F 1.54 F<br />
Source: Kaku Associates. Inc.<br />
Year 2010<br />
With Residual<br />
Project Mitigation Impact<br />
Increase Project<br />
in VIC Impact VIC LOS<br />
0.07 YES 0.98 E NO<br />
0.05 YES 1.38 F NO<br />
inside travel lane to turn left into the project site. (A schematic drawing <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed Flower Street/Main Gate intersection is included in Appendix C.)<br />
• Secondary Access Opposite Grandview Avenue - The Flower Street/Grandview<br />
Avenue intersection should continue to be controlled by stop signs on all approaches,<br />
with the project's driveway and the existing ingress-only driveway serving the<br />
adjacent parcel (owned by Prudential) forming the southwest leg <strong>of</strong> the intersection.<br />
One inbound lane is proposed to be provided on the project driveway to provide<br />
access to the perimeter service road. Two stop-controlled exit lanes should be<br />
provided on the driveway (one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane).<br />
Since the rightmost exit lane serving project traffic bOWld for Grandview Avenue<br />
would be <strong>of</strong>fset from the Grandview Avenue eastbound departure by approximately<br />
eight feet, pavement markings should be used to guide these vehicles both through<br />
the intersection and past vehicles parked in the curb lane on Grandview Avenue east<br />
<strong>of</strong> Flower Street. This may require removal <strong>of</strong> one on-street parking space on<br />
Grandview Avenue. (A schematic drawing <strong>of</strong>the proposed Flower Street/Grandview<br />
Avenue intersection is included in Appendix C.) As indicated in Table 16 on page<br />
82, it is projected that the Flower Street/Grandview Avenue intersection would<br />
operate at acceptable levels <strong>of</strong> service with the project.<br />
• Loading Dock Access - The project site plan should be designed to permit trucks to<br />
enter the site in a forward manner, with sufficient area provided on-site for trucks to<br />
maneuver and back into the loading dock.<br />
Planning Consultants RCKarch<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 86<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 10. 1. Police<br />
mitigation measures, the Program EIR concluded that the Redevelopment Plan will result in a<br />
less than significant impact. 67 No analysis <strong>of</strong> nonresidential population impacts on police<br />
services was provided.<br />
PROJECT IM:PACTS<br />
As discussed in Section 4.8 <strong>of</strong> this Addendum, Population/Housing, the DreamWorks<br />
Animation Campus is expected to employ 1,400 new employees at project build-out. Based on<br />
a worst-case analysis, this results in 140 new residents in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. This total<br />
increased population would result in a need for an additional .14 police <strong>of</strong>ficer.68 Because<br />
the proposed project results in the need for additional <strong>of</strong>ficers, which would reduce the <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
to resident ratio to a slight degree, the proposed project would result in an adverse impact to<br />
police protection. However, as with the Redevelopment Plan, with implementation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
mitigation measures proposed below, the project impact will be considered less than significant.<br />
Although the demand for additional police protection is included in the Redevelopment<br />
Area projections <strong>of</strong> 2.0 <strong>of</strong>ficers, a worst case analysis is provided as follows to evaluate the<br />
projects's increase in police service needs as if it were an increase above and beyond the total<br />
Redevelopment Plan needs identified in the Program EIR. Under this analysis, Restricted<br />
Industrial development assumptions for the original 12.21 acre site (per Assessor's parcel data)<br />
were interpolated from the Redevelopment Plan. Using the Program EIR's average intensity<br />
assumptions (FAR) for Restricted Industrial uses on a 12.21 acre site (excluding the Victory<br />
Truck Boulevard right-<strong>of</strong>-way), would support 1,070 employees and result in 112 new residents<br />
to the <strong>City</strong>. This total increased population would result in a need for an additional 0.11 police<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers.<br />
Based on the evaluation, the proposed project allows for an increase from the averaged<br />
growth projection for residential population <strong>of</strong> 28 (from 112 to 140), as compared to the<br />
averaged density assumptions. This increase represents a statistically insignificant 1.3 percent<br />
<strong>of</strong> the total residential population anticipated with the Redevelopment Plan, which also is well<br />
within the expected range <strong>of</strong> outcomes for a buildout redevelopment program over 35-years.<br />
This difference would indicate a need for an additional 0.04 police <strong>of</strong>ficers. This is a small<br />
demand on its own, as well as a small percentage <strong>of</strong> the 2.0 additional <strong>of</strong>ficers required with<br />
the entire Redevelopment Plan.<br />
67 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.10-3. The two (2) <strong>of</strong>ficers were based on a total new residential<br />
population <strong>of</strong>2. 040.<br />
68 Based on the Program EIR's two (2) <strong>of</strong>ficers per 2,040 residential population.<br />
Planning Consulranrs Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 88<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddendlDD ElK<br />
June 1996
4. 10. I. Police<br />
Therefore, because the proposed project will not create a substantial additional impact<br />
on police protection not already addressed in the Program EIR, the proposed project would<br />
result in an adverse, but less than significant impact on police services.<br />
MITIGATION l\1EASURES<br />
The proposed project may be responsible for complying with the applicable mitigation<br />
measures which were proposed in the Program EIR, including the following: 69<br />
1. Lighting, landscaping, parking, and building plans for development within the<br />
Project Area shall be reviewed by the Police Department and/or other appropriate<br />
<strong>City</strong> divisions prior to fmal approval and shall be in conformance with all<br />
applicable <strong>City</strong> codes, ordinances, and regulations.<br />
2. The Agency/<strong>City</strong> shall consider requiring developers to provide private on-site<br />
security personnel on a project-by-project basis.<br />
69 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.10-2.<br />
PlaMing ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 89<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campm Addend.... EIR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Il\1PACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.10. P<strong>UBLIC</strong> SERVICES<br />
4.10.2. FIRE<br />
In the absence <strong>of</strong> <strong>City</strong> established standards, the Program EIR defmed impacts on flIe<br />
protection as the following:<br />
"...impacts on frre protection are considered significant if the proposed project<br />
will substantially exceed the current level <strong>of</strong> protection which results in a total<br />
response time <strong>of</strong> three minutes and an ISO ranking <strong>of</strong> Class 3 for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> and current Class 1 for the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Division. ,,70<br />
Level <strong>of</strong> service is ranked by a scale <strong>of</strong> five classifications (Classes 1 through 5) by the<br />
Insurance Service Organization (ISO) with Class 1 being the highest and best level <strong>of</strong> service.<br />
The ISO has ranked the entire- <strong>City</strong> at "Class 3" and the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Division at "Class 1."<br />
Service in the area is currently considered adequate in tenns <strong>of</strong> staffmg, response time, and the<br />
availability <strong>of</strong> water flow for [lIe protection purposes. For the majority <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment<br />
Area, fire protection is provided by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Division. The remainder <strong>of</strong> the<br />
area, the far west end, is served by the Burbank Fire Depamnent under a joint agreement with<br />
the <strong>City</strong>. The <strong>Glendale</strong> Division is supported by a fire-fighting force consisting <strong>of</strong> 50 personnel<br />
on duty at all times, and total response time to the Redevelopment Area is identified by the Fire<br />
Chief as three minutes. Also, there are no known deficiencies in the availability <strong>of</strong> water flow<br />
for fire fighting purposes.<br />
Evaluated against the significance threshold, implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan<br />
could adversely impact fire protection due to increased development overall in the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
Compensating at least in part for adverse impacts is the beneficial impact <strong>of</strong> replacing blighted,<br />
potentially unsafe buildings with newer structures which must be constructed under current,<br />
safer fire codes. These mitigating features, along with public improvements associated with the<br />
Redevelopment Plan, and the mitigation measures specified in the Program EIR will reduce<br />
program impacts to less than significant levels. 71<br />
70 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.10-4.<br />
71 Ibid, page 3.10-5.<br />
Planning ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 90<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendmn EIR<br />
. June 1996
4. 10. 2. Fire<br />
2 1 /2 inches. Fire hydrants shall be capable <strong>of</strong> providing a required fire flow <strong>of</strong><br />
60,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a<br />
five-hour duration. The distance between hydrants shall not exceed 250 feet, and<br />
the maximum travel distance along a roadway frontage shall not exceed 150 feet.<br />
Hydrants shall be placed in the parking area under the same regulations.<br />
3. All structures in the Project Area shall be protected by separate combined<br />
standpipe systems, including automatic fire sprinkler systems, designed to the<br />
standards established by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Division. Adequate on-site water<br />
supply shall be capable <strong>of</strong> supplying fire protection systems for a period <strong>of</strong> 30<br />
minutes and shall be used for fire protection purposes only. Fire protection<br />
systems shall be zoned to provide proper pressures for operations at any level <strong>of</strong><br />
the structure.<br />
4. Each fire control room shaH be accessible directly from the outside and readily<br />
accessible for emergency responders. The room shall not be used for other<br />
purposes and shall be sized in accordance with Fire Division requirements.<br />
5. Smoke control and removal shall be accomplished through mechanical means<br />
designed in accordance with methods approved by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Division.<br />
6. The fire alarm system must utilize a graphic-type annunciator to provide rapid<br />
response by emergency equipment and personnel who may be unfamiliar with the<br />
structure.<br />
7. Emergency electrical power shall be provided to power all emergency equipment<br />
including, but not limited to, fire alarms, fire pumps, emergency lighting,<br />
elevators, and smoke control fans. Emergency power shall be capable <strong>of</strong><br />
providing power to all emergency equipment for a period <strong>of</strong> eight hours <strong>of</strong><br />
continuous use.<br />
8. The project's parking facilities shall be approved by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Division<br />
for parking adjacent to all structures to determine proper access to all parts <strong>of</strong><br />
the structure.<br />
9. All structures may be required to have Fire Division access on a minimum <strong>of</strong><br />
two sides. Fire Division connections serving the combined standpipe system<br />
shall be provided and accessible along each access roadway. Additionally, each<br />
floor shall have breakable windows with the appropriate indicating signs affixed.<br />
All breakable windows shall be constructed <strong>of</strong> tempered glass.<br />
PlaMing Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 92<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ErR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL Il\1PACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.10. P<strong>UBLIC</strong> SERVICES<br />
4.10.3. SCHOOLS<br />
The Program EIR defmes impacts on schools as the following:<br />
"Impacts _on school districts are considered significant if the project will result<br />
in generation <strong>of</strong> students and demands for school services which exceed the short<br />
or long-term capacity <strong>of</strong> district facilities, and normal district fInancing sources<br />
will not <strong>of</strong>fset project-related costs <strong>of</strong> providing additional facilities and<br />
services. ,,73<br />
The <strong>Glendale</strong> Unified School District (District) provides public education for children<br />
residing in the Redevelopment Area. According to the District, all but three (Keppel<br />
Elementary, Mountain Avenue Elementary and Crescenta Valley High School) <strong>of</strong> the District's<br />
26 elementary, junior high, and high schools are currently overcrowded, and all schools within<br />
the District fall below the "Enrollment Site Standards" set by the Urban Planning and Design<br />
Criteria. In order to expand District facilities, the District levies developer fees <strong>of</strong> $1.72 per<br />
square foot <strong>of</strong> residential, and $0.28 per square foot <strong>of</strong> non-residential development.74 In<br />
addition, school construction costs are estimated to be $10,000 per student. 75<br />
Student generation occurs both directly from new residential development and indirectly<br />
from non-residential development. The units proposed in the Redevelopment Plan will generate<br />
468 new students in the District over the 20-year horizon <strong>of</strong> the plan, based on the District's<br />
student generation factor <strong>of</strong> 0.4 students per residential unit. 76 This will result in a total<br />
student population in the Redevelopment Area at buildout <strong>of</strong> 1,169. Due to the current<br />
overcrowded conditions at District schools, along with the existing extensive use <strong>of</strong> portable<br />
73 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.10-9.<br />
74 Ibid, page 3.10-7.<br />
75 The District in its comments on the Draft EIR indicated that school construction costs $125.00persquarefoot<br />
and an average <strong>of</strong>80 squarefeet per student. Therefore on average. school cons/ruction costs $10. ()()(). 00per<br />
student.<br />
76 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.J()"J2.<br />
Planning Consultan!$ Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 93<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AcIdenclum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 10. 3. Schools<br />
classrooms at District schools, it was concluded that potentially significant impacts would occur<br />
at all grade levels as a result <strong>of</strong> redevelopment activities. Because <strong>of</strong> the gradual rate <strong>of</strong><br />
increase in enrollment <strong>of</strong> 24 students per year, implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan<br />
should not result in any unique or unusual demands on the District. In addition, nonresidential<br />
and residential development would result in the District receiving approximately $3,099,000 in<br />
developer fees from Redevelopment Plan activities. 77 The 468 new students generated by the<br />
Redevelopment Plan would, at $10,000 per student, require $4,680,000 in construction costs<br />
over the lifetime <strong>of</strong> the plan. While the developer fees would not be sufficient to cover all<br />
construction costs related to the new students, and the District would require additional State<br />
funds, the fees would substantially mitigate the effect <strong>of</strong> the additional students. Therefore, the<br />
Program Em concluded that the Redevelopment Plan would have an adverse, but less than<br />
significant, impact on schools.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
The Campus is expected to generate 1,400 new employees, and approximately 140 new<br />
residents, in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> at project buildout, as discussed in Section 4.8, Population!<br />
Housing, <strong>of</strong> this Addendum. Using the regional housing ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.22 jobs per housing unit in<br />
the year 2010, these employees would create a demand for 115 housing units in the <strong>City</strong>. This<br />
total housing demand is a worst-case scenario based on average <strong>City</strong> trends. 78 The Animation<br />
Campus is being proposed at this location in part because <strong>of</strong> the existing employee pool <strong>of</strong><br />
animators, managers, and other staff living within the <strong>City</strong> and in the surrounding communities.<br />
It is likely that many <strong>of</strong> the future employees will be drawn from this existing work force<br />
already living within a close conunuting distance to the project site and that these employees<br />
would find it uIlllecessary to relocate to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. The actual increase in <strong>City</strong><br />
housing units would likely be less than the 115 projected..<br />
In the worse-case scenario, utilizing the student generation rate established by the<br />
District <strong>of</strong> 0.4 students per unit, the 115 total housing units resulting from the proposed project<br />
would increase the student population Districtwide by 46. To accommodate 46 new students,<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> new facilities may be necessary, resulting in an average total construction cost<br />
<strong>of</strong> $460,000. The proposed project would be responsible for development fees on the 495.000<br />
77 The total is based on the District's developer fees <strong>of</strong>$1.65per squarefeet <strong>of</strong>residential, and $0. 27persquare<br />
foot <strong>of</strong>non-residential development as indicated in the Program EIR. An average 1,000 square feet per unit<br />
is assumed for residential development.<br />
78 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-3. states that 10percent <strong>of</strong>new employees in <strong>Glendale</strong> are expected<br />
to reside in the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 94<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendmn EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 10. 3. Schools<br />
square feet <strong>of</strong> nonresidential development proposed ($0.27 per square feet) 79, resulting in a<br />
(Otal fee <strong>of</strong> $133,650. As with the Redevelopment Plan as a whole, developer fees would not<br />
cover all construction costs related to the additional 46 students, but would substantially mitigate<br />
the impact to below a significant level. Remaining construction costs would require additional<br />
State funds.<br />
In order to identify how the project impacts relate to the Redevelopment Plan, this<br />
evaluation estimates the impact generated from development on the project site using the<br />
Program EIR's average intensity assumptions (FAR) for Restricted Industrial uses on an 12.2<br />
acre site (per Assessor's parcel data). Based upon these averaged asswnptions, the proposed<br />
project's site would contain a total <strong>of</strong> 398,900 square feet <strong>of</strong> development, 1,116 employees.<br />
and 112 new residents. These residents would require 88 new housing units based on the<br />
regional average <strong>of</strong> 1.22 jobs per housing unit. Utilizing the District's 0.4 students per unit<br />
generation rate, these units would increase the student population in the District by 35, or 11<br />
fewer students than the DreamWorks Animation Campus project.<br />
This difference <strong>of</strong> 11 new students represents 2.3 percent <strong>of</strong> the total students generated<br />
with buildout <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan. Similarly. the proposed project would result in<br />
increased school costs over those required using the Program EIR's average intensity<br />
assumptions. An additional $110,000 in construction costs would be required; and an additional<br />
$30,446 in developer fees would in part pay for these added construction costs. As with student<br />
generation, these figures represented 2.4 percent <strong>of</strong> the totals for the Redevelopment Plan as<br />
a whole. These are paid in part by developer fees. Although the student generation and school<br />
developer fees estimated with implementation <strong>of</strong> the proposed project would be slightly greater<br />
than that assumed with the averaging <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Area, it represents a small and<br />
statistically insignificant proportion <strong>of</strong> the total growth.<br />
Although less than significant, this difference in the actual student and school cost<br />
generation and the averaged student and school cost generation is consistent with the Plan<br />
because the Redevelopment Plan anticipates variation in development densities on different sites<br />
and therefore variation in student generation from these sites. Because <strong>of</strong> the existing<br />
overcrowding in District schools, and developer fees not fully covering school construction<br />
costs, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact. The developer fees<br />
79<br />
The non-residential development fee is currently $0.28per square fOOl and will go up 10 $0.30persquarefoot<br />
on June 1, 1996. However, for comparison purposes, the rate <strong>of</strong> $0.27 per square fOOl, as found in the<br />
Program EIR, is utilized here.<br />
Planning ConsulQnlS Rcsealdl<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 95<br />
DreamWorks ADimation Campus Addendlllll EIR<br />
. June 1996
4. 10. 3. Schools<br />
would, however, substantially mitigate the effect <strong>of</strong> the additional students, and therefore an<br />
adverse, but less than significant, impact is expected.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
The proposed project may be subject to the following mitigation measure as found in the<br />
Program EIR 80 :<br />
1. <strong>Glendale</strong> Unified School District should continue to make regular and timely<br />
application to the State <strong>of</strong> California for funding to construct new classrooms and<br />
other facilities in response to enrollment growth.<br />
In addition, an agreement between the <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency and the <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Unified School District was executed on March 16, 1996, in which the Agency agreed to share<br />
the increment <strong>of</strong>property taxes generated by redevelopment activity in the Redevelopment Area<br />
over the base year equalized assessment role with the District. As a result, the District will<br />
benefit directly from the increased property value due to development <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorlcs<br />
Animation Campus.<br />
80 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume. page 3.10-13.<br />
Planning ConsultanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 96<br />
DrumWorks Animation Campus Addeadum EIR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL Il\1PACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.10. P<strong>UBLIC</strong> SERVICES<br />
4.10.4. LmRARY<br />
The Program EIR defmes impacts on libraries as the following:<br />
"Impacts to library facilities are considered significant if projected resource<br />
demand is estimated to substantially exceed the supply <strong>of</strong> library resources at<br />
buildout, or if resource demands cause the ratio <strong>of</strong> books per capita to fall below<br />
the existing 3.48... 81<br />
Six library facilities are currently available in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, including the Central<br />
and Grandview libraries, which are located closest to the Redevelopment Area. These facilities<br />
average 106,826 volumes, providing 3.48 books per capita and circulating 7.51 books per capita<br />
annually. The library system has an on-going need for staff and materials.<br />
Additional development resulting from Redevelopment Plan activities has the potential<br />
to increase the amount <strong>of</strong> library resources demanded <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Glendale</strong> library system, and<br />
increased funding would be required to afford adequate service. 82 However, the amount <strong>of</strong><br />
the increased demand can not be adequately quantified, and due to budget constraints additional<br />
needs <strong>of</strong> the library system will not be available in the near future. The Program EIR<br />
concluded that the impacts on the library system would be adverse but less than significant with<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> a program by which the business community can donate computers, s<strong>of</strong>tware<br />
and other materials for public use to the Central Library.83<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
While the city does not have established standards for impacts to libraries in general,<br />
increases in population result in an increasing demand for library services and facilities.<br />
81 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.10-14.<br />
82 Ibid, page 3.10-14.<br />
83 Ibid, page 3.10.14.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 97<br />
DreamWork'S Animation Campus AddendlllD EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 10. 4. Library<br />
Although the DreamWorks Animation Campus project does not include residential development,<br />
some <strong>of</strong> the 1,400 anticipated employees may reside locally and utilize the <strong>Glendale</strong> library<br />
system. Approximately 140 <strong>of</strong> these new employees would be expected to reside in <strong>Glendale</strong>,<br />
according to <strong>City</strong> trends discussed in the Program EIR, which yields a conservative, worst-case<br />
impact assessment for the project. 84 The addition <strong>of</strong> any new households in the <strong>City</strong> would<br />
result in an adverse impact on library services, because this increase would result in a reduction<br />
<strong>of</strong> the total volumes per capita without the addition <strong>of</strong> new volumes. However, the proposed<br />
mitigation measure below would result in the donation <strong>of</strong> additional library materials from the<br />
proposed project,. which would result in a less than significant impact after implementation.<br />
In order to identify how the DreamWorks project impacts relate to the Redevelopment<br />
Plan, the plan's employee population should be evaluated against that derived for the site,<br />
assuming development under the Program EIR's average intensity assumptions (FAR) for<br />
Restricted Industrial uses and an 12.21 acre site (per Assessor's parcel data). Based upon these<br />
averaged assumptions, the proposed project's site would contain a total <strong>of</strong> 398,900 square feet<br />
<strong>of</strong> development, 1,116 employees (based on the Program EIR's generation rate <strong>of</strong> 2.8<br />
employees per 1,000 square feet), and 112 new residents.<br />
Thus, the proposed DreamWorks project represents an increase from the averaged<br />
projection for employment <strong>of</strong> 284 employees (from 1,116 to 1,400). This increase represents<br />
a statistically insignificant 0.95 percent <strong>of</strong> the total employment anticipated with the<br />
Redevelopment Plan activities which is well within an expected range <strong>of</strong> outcomes for a large<br />
Redevelopment program over a 35-year period. In addition, 28 more new residents (from 112<br />
to 140) would result with implementation <strong>of</strong> the proposed project, as compared to the averaged<br />
density assumptions. This increase represents 1.1 percent <strong>of</strong> the total residential population<br />
anticipated with the Redevelopment Plan, which also is well within the expected range <strong>of</strong><br />
outcomes for such a redevelopment program.<br />
Given current <strong>City</strong> library needs and budget constraints, any additional demand on<br />
library facilities will result in an adverse impact. However, implementation <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
mitigation measure would result in the proposed project having an adverse, but less than<br />
significant impact on library services by assisting the library system with new materials and<br />
equipment.<br />
84 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-3, Slales lhallOpercent o/new employees in <strong>Glendale</strong> are expecled<br />
10 also reside in lhe <strong>City</strong>.<br />
PIaMing ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 98<br />
DreamWorks Animalion Campus Addendwn EIR<br />
June 1996
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
4. 10. 4. Library<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> the Program EIR mitigation measure below 85 may be required to<br />
reduce proposed project impacts to a level below significance.<br />
1. A program shall be operated through the business community where businesses<br />
can donate microcomputers, computer programs, management training videos,<br />
and other materials for public use to the Central Library business and<br />
management services collection.<br />
85 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.10-14.<br />
PJaMing COnsullllnlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 99<br />
DreamWorks ADimation Campus Addeadum ElK<br />
June 19%
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.11. ENERGY<br />
Energy consumption is addressed in Section 4.12.3, Electricity, and in Section 4.12.4,<br />
Natural Gas. Please refer to those Sections.<br />
Planning ConsultanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 100<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.12. UTILITIES<br />
4.12.1. WATER<br />
The Program EIR states the following threshold <strong>of</strong> significance with regard to water<br />
supply: 86<br />
"Appendix G <strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines indicates that significant impacts on water<br />
supply can be expected if implementation <strong>of</strong>the proposed project will involve the<br />
potential to create demands for water in excess <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>'s supply."<br />
The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Public Service provides water for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Glendale</strong>. Ninety percent <strong>of</strong> this. water is imported from the Metropolitan Water District or<br />
from <strong>City</strong>-owned wells. Ten percent is provided by Grandview Wells in the San Fernando<br />
groundwater basin and Glorietta Wells in Verdugo Canyon Basin, both in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>.<br />
The project area is served by the Western and Diedrich Reservoirs. The <strong>City</strong>'s water system<br />
consistently meets or exceeds water quality standards set by the State and County Deparnnents<br />
<strong>of</strong> Health. To supplement <strong>City</strong> water supplies, a reclaimed water delivery system is being<br />
installed in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> and may be accessible to the project site. Presently, water<br />
pressure within the Redevelopment Area is low and limits fire fighting efforts. Water main<br />
replacements have been made at locations within the Redevelopment Area, and more extensive<br />
upgrading <strong>of</strong> the system is needed. New development encouraged by the Redevelopment Plan<br />
will be reviewed by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Department and must comply with all water supply and<br />
pressure requirements to assure adequate fire flows.<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan would result in a demand for potable water<br />
due to occupancy <strong>of</strong> the various land uses. In areas where development levels increase. system<br />
upgrades may be necessary. Build-out <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan would result in the<br />
consumption <strong>of</strong> approximately 3A43,5oo gallons per day (gpd) <strong>of</strong>water. including existing land<br />
uses. This is a 51 percent increase as compared to the existing 2.281.200 gpd that are currently<br />
being consumed in the Redevelopment Area. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> has adequate water capacity<br />
to satisfy the needs <strong>of</strong> the built-out Redevelopment Area. Therefore, impacts on the water<br />
86 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.12-2.<br />
Planning Consuhanrs Re:scan:h<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong>: Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 101<br />
DromWorks Animation Campwi Addendum EIR<br />
. June 1996
4. 12. 1. Water<br />
system due to completion <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan would be adverse, but less than significant<br />
with implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
The proposed DreamWorks Animation Campus site is currently served by an 8 inch<br />
water line along Flower Street. A reclaimed water delivery system should be completed before<br />
project completion and may be accessible to the project site. Due to the currently low water<br />
pressure within the Redevelopment area, project needs for water pressure for fire flow will need<br />
to be satisfied. <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Department review and Project compliance with fire flow<br />
requirements will be required. Based upon the Restricted Industrial rates contained in the<br />
Program EIR, the proposed project would consume 123,750 gpd <strong>of</strong> water, resulting in less than<br />
significant impacts with the implementation <strong>of</strong> the recommended mitigation measures and the<br />
reclaimed water delivery system being built by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>.<br />
Although water consumption for the project is included in the Redevelopment Area<br />
generation projections, a worst case analysis is provided herein to determine the project's impact<br />
in relation to the Redevelopment Area as a whole and to account for the project's increase in<br />
water consumption above and beyond the Program EIR's assumptions for the Redevelopment<br />
Area. An average sized Restricted Industrial use, based on the original 12.21 acre site (per<br />
County Assessor's records), is taken from the estimated average Restricted Industrial use floor<br />
area ratio, as discussed in Section 2, Project Overview, <strong>of</strong> this document. A comparison<br />
indicates that the proposed project would consume 123,750 gpd <strong>of</strong> water, while the average<br />
restricted industrial use on the proposed site would consume 99,640 gpd. This 24,110 gpd<br />
increase in water consumed by the project represents approximately 0.7 percent <strong>of</strong> the total<br />
built-out Redevelopment Plan daily water demand <strong>of</strong> 3,443.5mgd, including existing uses. As<br />
a percentage increase in overall demand, the project demand would be less than significant<br />
representing an anticipated variation in density which is normal and expected within the<br />
Redevelopment Plan parameters and underlying Program EIR assumptions. Project water<br />
consumption is almost entirely within the overall Redevelopment Plan projections for water<br />
consumption, is well within the expected range <strong>of</strong> results for a program <strong>of</strong> this magnitude, and<br />
does not approach the significance thresholds identified in the Program EIR.<br />
PlaMing Consullants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agt'ncy<br />
Page 102<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
4. 12. I. Water<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation measures 1 through 7, as identified in the Program EIR<br />
and set forth below, may be required for the proposed project.87<br />
1. Developers shall work with the <strong>City</strong> during the design phase to ensure adequate<br />
water supply and service to the proposed project.<br />
2. Individual development plans shall be submitted to the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Department<br />
for review to ensure that adequate fire flows are provided to the project site prior<br />
to final project approval.<br />
3. Developers shall be responsible for funding the construction <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong>f-site storage<br />
. tanks and pump stations as required to adequately serve the subject property.<br />
4. Building construction shall include water conservation devices such as low flow<br />
toilets, low volume shower heads, tum <strong>of</strong>f adapters and faucet flow control.<br />
5. <strong>Development</strong> projects shall have a minimum <strong>of</strong> landscaping requiring heavy<br />
irrigation and shall include drought resistant planting.<br />
6. <strong>Development</strong> plans shall be reviewed by the <strong>City</strong> to ensure that adequate flows<br />
can be provided prior to project approval.<br />
7. Sections <strong>of</strong> Title 20 and Title 24 <strong>of</strong> the California Code <strong>of</strong> Regulations regarding<br />
water consumption and conservation will be enforced.<br />
87 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-4.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 103<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.12. UTILITIES<br />
4.12.2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL<br />
The Program EIR defInes the threshold <strong>of</strong> signifIcance regarding impact on sewage<br />
disposal as follows:<br />
"Impact on the sewer system is considered signifIcant if sewage generated by<br />
development will exceed the existing or planned capacity <strong>of</strong> the sewer collection<br />
or treatment system, or extend a sewer nunk line with capacity to serve new<br />
development...88<br />
Wastewater generated in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> is treated at the <strong>Glendale</strong>/Los Angeles<br />
Reclamation Plant and at the Hyperion Treatment Plant (collectively hereafter, HTP) in Los<br />
Angeles. The HTP has the capacity to provide treatment to approximately 420 million gallons<br />
per day (mgd) <strong>of</strong> wastewater, including a 10 mgd capacity for sewage delivery from the <strong>City</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. To date, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> has not exceeded this amount. Currently the HTP<br />
is treating an average daily flow <strong>of</strong> 380 mgd. Approximately 7.0 mgd <strong>of</strong> the sewage generated<br />
by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> are being sent to the HTP, leaving a large unutilized allotment <strong>of</strong> three<br />
mgd.<br />
The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>'s sewer system that lies north <strong>of</strong> the Ventura Freeway and within<br />
the Redevelopment Area is considered inadequate, due to undersized sewer lines. However,<br />
as part <strong>of</strong> the public improvements included within the Redevelopment Plan, the sewer system<br />
shall be improved and expanded. A reclaimed water delivery system is being installed in the<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> and will be accessible to the project site by July <strong>of</strong> this year. 89 Reclaimed<br />
water can be used for irrigation, toilets, and air conditioning systems.<br />
As indicated in the Program EIR, the Redevelopment Plan would result in the generation<br />
<strong>of</strong> approximately 3,344,690 additional gallons per day (gpd) <strong>of</strong> sewage by the year 2027. In<br />
areas where development levels increase, system upgrades may be necessary. Adverse effects<br />
88 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-6.<br />
89 Mr. Don Lee, <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Glendale</strong> Departmenl <strong>of</strong>Public Services. Personal communication. March I I, 1996.<br />
Planning ConsultanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 104<br />
DreamWOl"ks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 12. 2. Sewage Disposal<br />
on the sewer system due to implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan would be mitigated to<br />
less than significant levels with public improvements and implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation<br />
measures found in the Program EIR, resulting in sewage impacts that would be adverse, but less<br />
than significant.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
The DreamWorks Animation Campus site is currently served by an active 12-inch sewer<br />
line along Flower Street and an 18-inch sewer line (status unknown as <strong>of</strong> 3/11/96) that runs<br />
through the southern portion <strong>of</strong> the property. Based upon the Restricted Industrial rates<br />
contained in the Program EIR, the proposed project would generate approximately 121,280 gpd<br />
<strong>of</strong> sewage. This amount would not present a significant impact on the <strong>City</strong>'s sewer system.<br />
As with the Redevelopment Plan, implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures identified in the<br />
Program EIR are considered sufficient to reduce proposed project impacts on the sewer system<br />
to below a level <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
Although project sewage generation is included in the Redevelopment Area generation<br />
projections, a worst case analysis is provided herein to detennine the project's impact in relation<br />
to the Redevelopment Area as a whole and to account for the project's increase in sewage<br />
generation as if it were above and beyond the Program EIR's assumptions for the<br />
Redevelopment Area. In order to estimate maximum potential sewage generation under a worst<br />
case scenario, the projected volume <strong>of</strong> project sewage to be generated on a daily basis was<br />
compared to the volume that would be generated by an average sized restricted industrial usage<br />
on the 12.21 acre site (excluding the Victory Truck Boulevard right-<strong>of</strong>-way) (per the County<br />
Assessor's records), as discussed in Section 2., Project Overview, <strong>of</strong> this document. The size<br />
<strong>of</strong> this theoretical development was based on the estimated average Restricted Industrial use<br />
floor area ratio, as identified in the Land Use section <strong>of</strong> the Program BIR. Utilizing sewage<br />
generation factors for Restricted Industrial uses cited in the Program EIR,90 the proposed<br />
project would generate 121,280 gpd, as compared to the 97,647 gpd that would be generated<br />
by an average Restricted Industrial use on the proposed site. This 23,633 gpd increment<br />
represents 0.7 percent <strong>of</strong> the 3,344,600 gpd sewage generation attributable to the<br />
Redevelopment Plan, a level which is well within an expected range <strong>of</strong> results for a large<br />
redevelopment program. over a 35-year period, and is within the parameters <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Redevelopment Plan and underlying Program EIR assumptions.<br />
90 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12·7.<br />
Planning Consullants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 105<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK<br />
June 1996
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
4. 12. 2. Sewage Disposal<br />
The following mitigation measures were listed regarding this issue in the Program EIR,<br />
and may be applicable to this project. 91<br />
1. The projects shall submit plans to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> for review pnor to<br />
recordation <strong>of</strong> [mal map, if any.<br />
2. Hook-up fees and system expansion costs, if required, shall be borne by the<br />
developer.<br />
91 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume. page 3.12-8.<br />
Planning COll$Ullllnls Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 106<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn EIR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IM:PACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.12. mll..rrIES<br />
4.12.3. ELECTRICITY<br />
The Program EIR states that project impacts on electrical services would be considered<br />
significant under the following circumstances: 92<br />
"Impacts on electrical utilities are considered significant if the proposed project<br />
would require significant expansion to existing energy systems, such as a new<br />
generation plant, or the development <strong>of</strong> new sources <strong>of</strong> power. "<br />
Electrical service is provided by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Public Service. It<br />
is anticipated that the <strong>City</strong> can service all the electricity that will be required through the end<br />
<strong>of</strong> the century, at which point· other sources <strong>of</strong> power will need to be obtained.<br />
Completion <strong>of</strong>the Redevelopment Plan would result in the consumption <strong>of</strong>approximately<br />
1,499 megawatt hours (mWh) <strong>of</strong> electricity per day. Such an increase would require 12<br />
kilovolts <strong>of</strong> capacity to be added to the project area.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
Based upon the consumption rates for Restricted Industrial uses contained in the Program<br />
EIR, electricaf consumption for the DrearnWorks project will be 61.03 mWh per day. No<br />
element <strong>of</strong> on-site electrical usage would be excessive or wasteful. Therefore, given the current<br />
and future availability <strong>of</strong> electricity as stated in the Program EIR, the project would not have<br />
a significant impact on the <strong>City</strong>'S supply <strong>of</strong> electricity with implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation<br />
measures identified in the Program EIR.<br />
Although electrical consumption for the project is for the· most part included in the<br />
Redevelopment Plan generation projections, the increment <strong>of</strong> electrical consumption attributable<br />
to the difference between the project, as proposed. and an average Restricted Industrial density<br />
92 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-9.<br />
Planning Consullants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 107<br />
DreamWorks Animation CamplQ Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 12. 4. Natural Gas<br />
Industrial density assumption in the Program ErR is also identified. The natural gas consumed<br />
by the average Restricted Industrial use (see Section 2, Project Overview, <strong>of</strong> this document) on<br />
the original 12.21 acre (per County Assessor's records) site was determined to be 43,837 cubic<br />
feet per day, or 10,163 cubic feet per day less than the theoretical project. This small<br />
increment represents an insignificant 0.06 percent increase in the total 1.61 million cubic feet<br />
that would be consumed by the entire Redevelopment Area, including existing development.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
. The following mitigation measure from the Program EIR may be applicable to the<br />
proposed project: 95<br />
1. Specific measures recommended to reduce natural gas consumption include:<br />
• Use <strong>of</strong> an automatic flue gas damper when using a gas heating system;<br />
• Use <strong>of</strong> electrically-lighted pilot lights for all gas systems;<br />
• Insulation <strong>of</strong> all gas-heated hot water tanks; and<br />
• Installation or retr<strong>of</strong>itting with solar water heaters.<br />
95 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-12.<br />
PlaMing Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 110<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.12. UTILITIES<br />
4.12.5. SOLID WASTE<br />
The Program EIR defmes the threshold <strong>of</strong> significance for solid waste generation as<br />
, follows: 96<br />
"Impacts on solid waste/hazardous waste may be considered significant if the proposed<br />
project will 1) increase solid waste by a substantial amount; 2) result in the substantial<br />
modification, relocation or closure <strong>of</strong> an active solid waste facility or hazardous waste<br />
facility."<br />
The Integrated Waste Management Section <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Public Wodes<br />
Division provides refuse, collection service for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, including the<br />
Redevelopment Area. Collected solid waste is deposited at the Scholl Canyon landfill, the<br />
capacity <strong>of</strong> which is estimated to last for another 17 years. 97 As noted in the Program EIR,<br />
successful implementation <strong>of</strong> the California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill<br />
(AB) 939) at the local level should result in a 50 percent reduction or diversion <strong>of</strong> solid waste<br />
by the year 2000.<br />
Although additional solid waste generated by the built-out Redevelopment Plan would<br />
represent a small percentage <strong>of</strong> the total solid waste generated in the county as a whole,<br />
cumulative growth would reduce the overall capacity <strong>of</strong> the, Scholl Canyon landfIll. Thus the<br />
Redevelopment Plan would have an incrementally adverse impact on solid waste disposal<br />
facilities. However, successful implementation <strong>of</strong> AB 939 will result in a 50 percent reduction<br />
or diversion <strong>of</strong> solid waste by the year 2000, and would substantially lessen the Redevelopment<br />
Plan impacts.<br />
96 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-14.<br />
97 Based on the Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-14, published in November <strong>of</strong>1992, which eSlimated<br />
a 20 year capaciry.<br />
Planning Consulranu Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page III<br />
DreamWorks AnimatioD Campus Addeodum EIR<br />
June 1996
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
4. 12. 5. Solid Waste<br />
Upon completion, the DreamWorks Animation Campus would include approximately<br />
1,400 employees. Using employee based solid waste generation rates found in the Program<br />
EIR, the proposed project would generate approximately 42,700 pounds <strong>of</strong> solid waste per day.<br />
As with the Redevelopment Plan, the project's potentially adverse effects, when considered<br />
alone, would be below the significance threshold with the implementation <strong>of</strong> AB 939 and with<br />
the utilization <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures described in the Program EIR.<br />
Although solid waste generation for the project is for the most part included in the<br />
Redevelopment Area generation projections, the increment <strong>of</strong> solid waste generation attributable<br />
to the difference between the project, as proposed, and average Restricted Industrial density<br />
assumptions in the Program EIR is also identified for comparison with the Redevelopment Plan<br />
as a whole. Solid waste generation <strong>of</strong> a theoretical project on the original 12.21 acre (per<br />
County Assessor's records) site using the average Restricted Industrial use floor area ratio, as<br />
identified in Section 2, Project Overview, <strong>of</strong> this document would be approximately 34,029<br />
pounds per day, or 8,671 pounds per day less than the proposed project. Compared with the<br />
1,094,000 pounds per day <strong>of</strong> solid waste projected for existing and proposed Redevelopment<br />
Plan development, the project increment represents an insignificant 0.08 percent increase in<br />
overall solid waste generation.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
The following mitigation measures were identified for this issue in the Program EIR, and<br />
may be applicable to this project to meet the goals <strong>of</strong> AB 939. 98<br />
1. The Developer/Participant will incorporate applicable measures <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>'s<br />
Source-Reduction and Recycling Element in project approvals including:<br />
• The project shall submit a Recycling Plan. The Plan shall include the following<br />
elements: A site plan <strong>of</strong> the proposed area shall identify location(s) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
recycling enclosure(s) relative to the facility or complex.<br />
• Identify all materials to be collected and recycled.<br />
98 Program EIR, Final E1R Volume, pages 3.12-16 and 3.12-17.<br />
Planning ConsulcanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 112<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campm Addendmn EIR<br />
June 1996
•<br />
•<br />
Planning ConsullllnlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
4. 12. 5. Solid Wasle<br />
The developer shall notify in writing the Integrated Waste Management Section<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Public Works Division <strong>of</strong> the recycling enclosure location, and if<br />
necessary, provide a gate opener or key to gain access to the recycled materials<br />
storage area.<br />
The developer shall provide a plan describing what measures will be taken to<br />
educate and promote the <strong>City</strong>'s recycling programs to the new owner(s),<br />
manager, and tenants <strong>of</strong> the building. Recycling rules and regulations shall be<br />
included as part <strong>of</strong> all rental, lease, or purchase agreements. This plan shall be<br />
submitted to Integrated Waste Management Section prior to issuance <strong>of</strong><br />
Certificate <strong>of</strong> Occupancy.<br />
Page 113<br />
DrearnWorks Animation Campus Addendum EJR<br />
June 1996
4. 13. Human Health<br />
to expose people to less health hazards than those already extant, and would result in less than<br />
significant human health impacts.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
<strong>Development</strong> <strong>of</strong> the proposed project would not pose any unusual 9r unique human<br />
health concerns. The project will move existing groundwater monitoring wells from existing<br />
to new locations along the eastern property line where they will continue to provide the same<br />
role as at present. There are no habitats on site that would be suitable for any sort <strong>of</strong> vector<br />
which would survive the construction process, during which the entire site will be converted<br />
to buildings, hardscape and landscaped open space. Although it is possible that the soil at the<br />
project site could contain the fungus responsible for the disease known as Valley Fever, the<br />
fungus is not unique to the site or to the Redevelopment Area and is endemic to the<br />
southwestern United States. The likelihood <strong>of</strong> Valley Fever occurring would be reduced with<br />
the appropriate mitigation measures identified below. Therefore, proposed project impacts on<br />
human health, when considered by themselves or as part <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan, would be<br />
less than significant.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
Measures which reduce the formation <strong>of</strong> fugitive dust from soil which might contain the<br />
fungus responsible for the disease known as Valley Fever will mitigate potential associated<br />
human health impacts. The following mitigation measure, from Section 4.2, Air Quality, <strong>of</strong><br />
this Addendum may therefore be applicable. With respect to other potential human health issues<br />
analyzed above, no additional mitigation measures would be required.<br />
1. During grading activities, topsoil mounds shall be stabilized to prevent wind<br />
erosion and release <strong>of</strong> dust and particulates. 'This may be accomplished through<br />
regular watering, hydroseeding, netting, chemical applications, or other<br />
acceptable methods. During grading and construction, water trucks or sprinklers<br />
shall be used to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust<br />
residue from leaving the site(s). Watering shall include regular morning and<br />
afternoon applications after work is completed for the day. Chemical palliatives<br />
may also be used as directed by the Developer/Panicipants. Truck loads <strong>of</strong> soil<br />
or debris shall be covered or wetted.<br />
PlaMing ConsulranlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 115<br />
Dre.amWorks Animation Campus Addendum E1R<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.14. RECREATION<br />
The Program EIR defines impacts on park and recreation facilities as the following:<br />
"Impacts on recreation facilities are considered significant if the project creates<br />
a demand for recreation services which substantially exceeds the existing ratio<br />
<strong>of</strong> 1.22 acres <strong>of</strong> developed parkland per 1,000 permanent residents. Recreation<br />
impacts are also significant ifa project forecloses important opportunities to meet<br />
recreation needs or substantially interferes with attainment <strong>of</strong> recreation<br />
goals... 101<br />
The <strong>Glendale</strong> Parks and Recreation Division operates thirty-three (33) developed park<br />
and recreation sites in the <strong>City</strong>. While the <strong>City</strong> goal is to provide two acres <strong>of</strong> developed park<br />
space per 1,000 permanent residents, the current ratio is 1.22. To remedy this deficiency, the<br />
1990 Recreation Plan identifies the need to develop 11 new parks, two <strong>of</strong> which are planned<br />
in the Redevelopment Area.<br />
The Redevelopment Plan activities will increase the demand for park and recreation<br />
facilities by increasing the permanent population from both employee generated households and<br />
new dwelling units. 102 While this demand is considered an adverse impact, based on <strong>City</strong><br />
standards, it is reduced to below a significant level by additional park acreage to be provided<br />
with implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
As stated in Section 4.8, Population/Housing, the DreamWorks Animation Campus is<br />
conservatively expected to result in 140 new permanent residents in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> due<br />
entirely to employment growth. The pennanent population growth will result in an increased<br />
101 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.14-3.<br />
102 Ibid.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 116<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 14. Recreation<br />
demand for park facilities <strong>of</strong> 0.28 acres, based on a <strong>City</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> 2.0 acres per thousand<br />
population, or 0.17 acres based on the existing ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.22 per thousand population.<br />
To provide a comparison with the Redevelopment Plan, an evaluation can be perfonned<br />
using interpolated average intensity assumptions for Restricted Industrial uses on the original<br />
12.21 acre site (excluding the Victory Truck Boulevard right-<strong>of</strong>-way) (per County assessor<br />
records), based on an average floor area ratio (FAR) <strong>of</strong> 0.75. On this basis, the project site<br />
would result in 116 new residents to the <strong>City</strong>, or 22 fewer new residents than the proposed<br />
Animation Campus, resulting in a need for an additional 0.22 acres <strong>of</strong> recreation facilities based<br />
on the 2.0 acre standard, or 0.14 based on the existing 1.22 acre ratio.<br />
Using either the 2.0 acre or 1.22 acre ratio, the DrearnWorks Animation Campus'<br />
incremental increase in residents' park needs represent a 0.08 acre and a 0.03 acre increase,<br />
respectively, above the theoretical project resident's demand for park space. As a percentage<br />
<strong>of</strong> the 6.0 new acres required to serve the entire Redevelopment Plan, 0.08 acre represents a<br />
maximum 1.3 percent increase. When considered an addition to the total Redevelopment Plan<br />
demand, this increase would be considered at most marginally adverse were it not mitigable.<br />
However, the DreamWorks Animation Campus includes some 2.5 acres <strong>of</strong> usable passive and<br />
some active on-site open space for the exclusive use <strong>of</strong> its employees which should more than<br />
mitigate this very small incremental effect. Consequently, the proposed project should have no<br />
more recreation impact than was contemplated in the Redevelopment Plan Program EIR, and<br />
due to on-site passive and active recreation features, likely less.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
The following Program EIR mitigation measure applies to the entire Redevelopment<br />
Plan, and thus collectively to all projects through tax increment fInancing: 103<br />
1. The Redevelopment Agency/<strong>City</strong> shall implement all feasible measures <strong>of</strong> the<br />
program outlined in the 1990 Recreation Plan as build-out occurs within the<br />
Project Area.<br />
103 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume. page 3.14-4. See also Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. Table 2. Public<br />
Improvements List. pages I-II through 1-22.<br />
Planning Consull3Jlts Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 117<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeDduIn Em<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVffiONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.15. CULTURAL RESOURCES<br />
The Program EIR defined the following significance threshold for cultural resources:<br />
"Cultural resources are considered significant if the project disrupts or adversely<br />
effects a prehistoric or historic archaeological site, a property <strong>of</strong> historic or<br />
cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group, or a<br />
paleontological site except as a part <strong>of</strong> a scientific study. n<br />
Two <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>'s historically significant structures are located in the Redevelopment<br />
Area: the old Southern Pacific Railroad Station (built in 1923) and the Grand Central Air<br />
Tenninal (now part <strong>of</strong> the Grand Central Industrial Centre, built in 1928). Although no known<br />
historic structures .are located on or near the project site, a comprehensive survey and<br />
documentation <strong>of</strong> the pre-1942 buildings is recommended in the Program EIR.I04<br />
The Redevelopment Area has a low potential for containing undisturbed significant<br />
prehistoric archaeological resources. Therefore, impacts on archaeological resources are<br />
considered only potentially adverse, but with implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures less<br />
than significant. Finally, no paleontological resources are known within the Redevelopment<br />
Area; therefore, impacts on these resources are considered less than significant.<br />
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
None <strong>of</strong> the known historically significant structures found in the Redevelopment Area<br />
are located within the proposed project's boundaries, or would be otherwise affected by the<br />
project. Further, the existing structures on the project site are recent, post 1942 temporary<br />
structures which are not considered historically significant.<br />
As the site lies on the flood plain <strong>of</strong> the pre-channelized Los Angeles River and is<br />
covered with fill material varying in depth from five to 20 feet, the potential for undisturbed<br />
104 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.15-3.<br />
PlaMing Consultants Resean:h<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 118<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum Em<br />
June ]996
4. 15. Cultural Resources<br />
on-site arshaeological resources is extremely low. Finally, as with the Redevelopment Area,<br />
no paleontological resources are believed to exist on the proposed project site. Therefore<br />
project impacts on cultural resources are considered less than significant.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
Impacts to historical structures are considered less than significant with implementation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the proposed project, and no known archaeological or paleontological resources are known<br />
to exist on the site.. Nonetheless, the following Program EIR-required mitigation measure is<br />
required <strong>of</strong> all projects to ensure that no significant impact would result and may apply to the<br />
proposed project, should archaeological resources be discovered during project<br />
construction: 105<br />
1. The Developer or Participant should seek to avoid damaging effects on<br />
archaeological resources. Should such resources be discovered and avoidance<br />
prove not feasible, the importance <strong>of</strong> the site shall be evaluated by a qualified<br />
archaeologist. Mitigation measures included in Appendix K <strong>of</strong> the CEQA<br />
Guidelines shall be incorporated into the project. In general, these guidelines<br />
require the following:<br />
• Preservation <strong>of</strong> sites in-place as the preferred manner <strong>of</strong> avoiding damage to<br />
historic and prehistoric archaeological resources;<br />
• <strong>Development</strong> and implementation <strong>of</strong> an excavation plan for sites that cannot<br />
be preserved; and<br />
• Stopping <strong>of</strong> excavation in the event <strong>of</strong> discovery <strong>of</strong> human remains until the<br />
. coroner has detennined that no investigation <strong>of</strong> the cause <strong>of</strong> death is required;<br />
or, if descendants have made a recommendation <strong>of</strong> the property owner<br />
regarding proper disposal <strong>of</strong> the remains, or until descendants have failed to<br />
make a recommendation within 24 hours <strong>of</strong> notification. If no<br />
recommendation is received, remains shall be interred with appropriate<br />
dignity on the property in a location not subject to future development.<br />
105 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.15-4.<br />
Planning Consullants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 119<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddendUIII EIR<br />
June 1996
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.16. ISSUES NOT INCLUDED IN THE FOCUS OF THE PROGRAM EIR<br />
AS ESTABLISHED' IN THE INITIAL STUDY<br />
This Addendum follows the outline for the Program EIR, evaluating and reporting the<br />
DrearnWorks Animation Campus project's impacts in the order in which they appear in that<br />
document. Three additional issues were evaluated in the Initial Study prepared by the <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Redevelopment Agency for the Redevelopment Plan 106 and were determined not to be<br />
potentially significant: Plant and Animal Life, Natural Resources, and Aesthetics. The<br />
following discussion summarizes why each <strong>of</strong> these issues was considered not to be potentially<br />
significant in evaluation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan and how these issues have been addressed<br />
in this Addendum.<br />
Plant and Animal Life. The Initial Study states that the Redevelopment Area is<br />
presently urbanized, little or no natural vegetation exists, and no unique or rare species <strong>of</strong> plant<br />
,or animals occur in the area. 107 Riparian vegetation is identified in the Verdugo Wash, an<br />
area not to be affected by the Redevelopment Plan. Further, removal <strong>of</strong> indigenous plants is<br />
regulated by the <strong>City</strong>'s Tree Preservation Ordinance.<br />
The DrearnWorks project site has been graded, developed and utilized for many years<br />
by the Los Angeles Department <strong>of</strong> Water and Power. As such, it supports only sparse<br />
vegetation. This fragment <strong>of</strong> the property has been previously disturbed and is now fenced <strong>of</strong>f<br />
from the remainder <strong>of</strong> the site. Volunteer vegetation has resulted from disuse but includes no<br />
resources with particular biotic value. No wetlands exist on site, since vegetation on-site<br />
consists primarily <strong>of</strong>upland species, including mustard, red brome grass, sunflower, castor bean<br />
and eucalyptus and there is no indication <strong>of</strong> hydrophytic vegetation, wetlands hydrology, or<br />
hydric soils, or a high water mark indicative <strong>of</strong> other waters on-site. 108<br />
106 Program EIR, FifUll EIR Volume. Appendix A.<br />
107<br />
Ibid, page 19.<br />
108 Letters from Woodward-Clyde Consul/ants. April 3, 1996 and February 7, 1996, U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong><br />
Engineers, February 26, 1996, and the California Depanmenr <strong>of</strong>Fish and Game, April 5, 1996, attached<br />
hereto as Appendix D.<br />
Planning Consulrants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 120<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 16. Issues Not Included in the Focus <strong>of</strong> the Program EIR as Established in the Initial Study<br />
Natural Resources. <strong>Development</strong> <strong>of</strong> individual redevelopment projects during the buildout<br />
period will utilize traditional building materials and consume natural resources during<br />
construction. The Initial Study concluded that this use was not significant.<br />
Similarly, the construction <strong>of</strong> the 13.4-acre DreamWorks Animation Campus project (as<br />
proposed to include the Victory Truck Boulevard easement) represents a very small portion <strong>of</strong><br />
the natural resources which may be consumed with implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan,<br />
and a statistically insignificant increment <strong>of</strong> all development and associated natural resource<br />
consumption which may occur in the region by 2027 when the Redevelopment Plan is expected<br />
to complete its implementation.<br />
Aesthetics. The objectives <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan include improving the aesthetics<br />
<strong>of</strong> the area. Because <strong>of</strong> this, the Initial Study concluded that aesthetically <strong>of</strong>fensive development<br />
is not anticipated, 109 and no further discussion <strong>of</strong> this issue was required <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Redevelopment Plan. An evaluation <strong>of</strong> as yet unknown individual project designs would not<br />
have been possible; though all future projects would be required to comply with the<br />
Redevelopment Plan objectives.<br />
To demonstrate that the DreamWorks Animation Campus complies with Redevelopment<br />
Plan objectives, a discussion <strong>of</strong> aesthetic issues regarding the project is addressed in this<br />
Addendum in Section 4.6, Land Use.<br />
109 Program EIR. FilUll EIR Volume. Appendix A, page 22.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 121<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn EIR<br />
June 1996
ApPENDIX 0<br />
BIOTA LETTERS<br />
peR<br />
PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH
D. BIOTA LETTERS<br />
This Appendix contains four letters, the first two being analyses from Woodward-Clyde<br />
<strong>of</strong> the plant and animal life on the project site. The third and fourth letters, from the U.S.<br />
Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers and California Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game respectively, consist<br />
<strong>of</strong> their determinations regarding the biota at the project site.
Woodward-Clyde<br />
Engineering & sciences applied 10 Ihe earth & its environment<br />
April 3, 1996<br />
Project No. 9553164U<br />
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS<br />
California Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game<br />
530 East Montecito Street, Room 104<br />
Santa Barbara, CA 93103<br />
805-568-1227<br />
Attention: Ken Wilson<br />
REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF<br />
DETERMINATION OF NON-JURISDICTION<br />
Dear Mr. Wilson:<br />
This letter is to request that the California Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game (CDFG) review<br />
the following information and advise us whether you concur with our determination that the<br />
CDFG does not have jurisdiction over the following proposed project.<br />
The subject property is the Los Angeles Department <strong>of</strong> Water and Power ("DWP") Crystal<br />
Springs Maintenance Yard, located at 1000 Flower Street, <strong>Glendale</strong>, California (the<br />
"Property"). (Enclosed as Figure 1 is a site map.) Currently, the Property is being<br />
considered for development <strong>of</strong> a low rise <strong>of</strong>fice complex. If developed, it is anticipated<br />
that the Property will have to be regraded because <strong>of</strong> the bearing capacity <strong>of</strong> the soils.<br />
There is a topographical condition on the Property that will be impacted by regrading.<br />
The topographical condition is a low area running east-west in the southern portion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Property. This low area ranges in size from approximately 20 to 60 feet in width and 2 to<br />
10 feet in depth, and extends from the eastern boundary <strong>of</strong> the Property to the boundary <strong>of</strong><br />
the channelized Los Angeles River, which is adjacent to the Property. Portions <strong>of</strong> the low<br />
area are lined with concrete. It is our understanding that, when the Property is regraded,<br />
this low area will be regraded.<br />
On December 1, 1995, Woodward-Clyde evaluated the topographical condition and<br />
performed a jurisdictional delineation <strong>of</strong> waters <strong>of</strong> the United States and CDFG jurisdiction<br />
at the Property to determine if wetlands or other waters <strong>of</strong> the United States were present<br />
based on methodology described in the U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers' (Corps) 1987<br />
manual and CDFG guidelines. For the following reasons, Woodward-Clyde determined<br />
Woodward.C1rde Consultants. A subsidiary <strong>of</strong> Woodward·Clyde Group, Inc.<br />
Sunroad Plaza 3, Suite 1000.1615 Murray Canyon Road· San Diego, California 92108<br />
619-294-9400· Fax 619-293-7920
California Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game<br />
April 3, 1996<br />
Page 2<br />
Woodward-Clyde<br />
that the CDFG does not have jurisdiction on site pursuant to Section 1600 <strong>of</strong> the Fish and<br />
Game Code.<br />
Based on a review <strong>of</strong> historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, it appears that<br />
the low area is a result <strong>of</strong> landform modification. The photographs and maps indicate that<br />
substantial landform modification occurred on the Property when the Los Angeles River<br />
was channelized. It also appears that additional fIII material was added to portions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Property, further raising the .elevation <strong>of</strong> other portions <strong>of</strong> the Property. (Enclosed are<br />
copies <strong>of</strong> the historical aerial photographs and topographic maps.)<br />
At the time <strong>of</strong> the survey, the low area consisted <strong>of</strong> dry ground, with portions completely<br />
devoid <strong>of</strong> vegetation. Vegetation observed in other portions <strong>of</strong> this low area consisted<br />
primarily <strong>of</strong> upland species, including mustard (Brassica nigra), red brorne grass (Bromus<br />
madritensis ssp. rubens), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), castor bean (Ricinis communis)<br />
and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus ssp.). No indicators <strong>of</strong> hydrophytic vegetation, wetlands<br />
hydrology, or hydric soils were observed and no ordinary high water mark indicative <strong>of</strong><br />
other waters was observed. Therefore, pursuant to the 1987 manual, no jurisdictional<br />
wetlands or other waters <strong>of</strong> the United States were determined to be present. (Enclosed as<br />
Figures 2 and 3 are photographs <strong>of</strong> the Property and the low area taken during the survey.)<br />
Based on our observations <strong>of</strong> the Property and the review <strong>of</strong> historical aerial photographs<br />
and topographic maps, we believe that this low area is not a jurisdictional wetland or water<br />
<strong>of</strong> the United States as defmed by the Corps, nor does it contain jurisdictional areas<br />
regulated by the CDFG. The Corps has agreed with us and sent us a letter <strong>of</strong> confirmation<br />
(Attachment A). If the CDFG does not concur with our detennination, please advise us as<br />
soon as possible. If we do not receive a response to this request within thirty days, we will<br />
assume that the CDFG concurs with our determination as stated herein.<br />
Very truly yours.<br />
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS<br />
Bill Magdych, Ph.<br />
Senior Project Scientist<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Wetland Scientist No. 195<br />
WPM:hal<br />
Enclosures<br />
W\9'i:i3164U\SKG·D·L DOC
California Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game<br />
April 3, 1996<br />
Page 3<br />
bee: Ms. Maria Pilar Hoye, Esq.<br />
W:\9553164U\SKG·D-L.DOC<br />
-. Woodward-Clyde
112<br />
SCALE 1: 24000<br />
o<br />
tHISTORIC USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP-1928<br />
1<br />
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map,<br />
"<strong>Glendale</strong>. California" Quadrangle, 1928 Reprinted 1948.<br />
I.<br />
I"<br />
,r·.
LOOKING ACROSS THE LOW AREA TO THE EAST<br />
IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROJECT AREA.<br />
FIGURE 2<br />
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE
LOOKING ACROSS THE LOW AREA TO THE NORTHWEST<br />
IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROJECT AREA.<br />
LOOKING ACROSS THE LOW AREA TO THE NORTH<br />
IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROJECT AREA.<br />
FIGURE 3<br />
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE
1928 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
W:\9553IMU\SKG·D-L.DOC<br />
ATTACHMENT A<br />
.-.<br />
LETTER FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS<br />
CONFIRMING LACK OF JURISDICTION FOR<br />
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY<br />
Woodward-Clyde
A-I. REGIONAL BURDEN ANALYSIS<br />
The following data includes a summary <strong>of</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> vehicle trips and vehicle miles<br />
that would be generated by the proposed project on a daily basis. Also included area the daily<br />
project generated mobile source emissions. This summary has been incorporated into Section<br />
4.2, Air <strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the EIR.
A-2. CALINE ANALYSIS DATA<br />
The following data consists <strong>of</strong> the CALINE dispersion model data for estimating carbon<br />
monoxide concentrations in the project vicinity. These results include Existing and Year 2010<br />
concentrations, with and without the proposed project. These results have been summarized in<br />
Section 4.2, Air <strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the EIR.
A-3. EMFAC7 DATA<br />
The results <strong>of</strong> the EMFAC7 emission factor model that was run to estimate potential<br />
project generated pollutants are included herein. This data has been summarized in Section 4.2,<br />
Air <strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the BIR.
lENV028Fl.l<br />
TIME RATE ADJUSTMENT BAGS 1 "<br />
YEAR, 2010 DEWPOINT: 10<br />
INSPECTION" MAINTENANCE, YES<br />
SEASON, SUMMER<br />
LIGIlT DUTY AUTOS<br />
NCAT CAT DIESEL<br />
CALTRANS DIVISION OF<br />
NEW TECHNOLOGY, MATERIALS AND RES£l\ROl<br />
EMFAC7Fl.l Rl\TES AS OF 1/25/94<br />
OREAMWORKS 2010 SUMMER<br />
COLD STARTS<br />
HOT STAATS<br />
HOT STAB<br />
20.0<br />
80.0<br />
0.0<br />
LOA 69.0<br />
llBO o. a<br />
TABLE 1, ESTIMATED TRAVEL FRACTIONS<br />
LIGIlT DtrTY TRUCKS MEl) DUTY TRUCKS URBAN BUS<br />
NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL<br />
LDT 19.4<br />
HlX) 1- 2<br />
MCY 0.5<br />
RUN DAnS, ENV028Fl.l<br />
EMFAC7Fl.l<br />
MOT<br />
lIDO<br />
HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS<br />
NCAT CAT DIESEL<br />
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<br />
TRIP 0.02 ".'4 0.04 0.00 ".97 0.03 0.00 100.00 100.00 11.54 88.46 100.00<br />
\ VEH 0.05 99.85 0.10 0.00 ".'4 0.06 0.00 100.00 100.00 12.53 87.47 100.00<br />
lENV028F1.1 CALTRANS DIVISIOl'< OF RUN PATES, ENV028Fl.1<br />
NEW TECHNOLOGY. MATERIALS AND RESEARCH EMFAC7Fl.l<br />
TIME RATE ADJUSTMENT BAGS 1 "<br />
EHFAC7F1.1 RATES AS OF 1/25/H<br />
ORE.lI./1WORKS 2010 SUMMER<br />
YEAR, 2010 DEWPOINT: 10 \ COLD S.TAATS 20.0 \ LOA 69.0 1 LOT 19.4 1 MDT 6.4<br />
INSPECTIOl'< " MAINTENANCE: YES 1 HOT STAATS 80.0 1 UBD 0.0 1 IlPG 1-2 1 HOD 3.6<br />
SEASON, SUMMER , HOT STAB 0.0 \ MCY 0.5<br />
POLLtrrANT NAME, CARBON MONOXIDE IN GRAMS PER MILE<br />
TABLE 2, COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS<br />
SPEED TEMPERA1VRE IN DEGREES FAHRENHEIT<br />
MPH 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85<br />
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<br />
3 46.82 H.71 42.1$ 39.36 36.39 33.41 30.56 27." 25.84 24.22 23.41 23.4S<br />
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<br />
10 16.04 15.37 14 .58 13.70 12.78 11.87 11.01 10.23 '.58 9.11 8.90 8.97<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
60 4.45 4.30 4.13 3.95 3.77 3.60 3.H 3.31 3.21 ) .14 3.14 3.20<br />
65 6.37 6.17 5.9. 5.74 5.54 5.35 5.19 5. OS 4.96 •• 92 4.96 5.07<br />
6.4<br />
3.6<br />
1/29/9.<br />
1/29/9.<br />
MCY<br />
ALL<br />
100.00<br />
100.00<br />
100.00<br />
1/2'/96<br />
1/29/96<br />
"IDLE EMISSIONS IN GRAMS/MIN, DERIVED FROM 3 MPH RATES<br />
lENV028Fl.l CALTRANS DIVISIOl'< OF RUN DATES, ENV028Fl.1 1/29/96<br />
NEW TECHNOLOGY. MATERIALS AND RESEARCH EI1FAC7F1-1 1/29/96<br />
EMFAC7Fl.1 RATES AS OF 1/25/94<br />
TIME RATE ADJUSTMENT BAGS 1 • DREAMWORKS 2010 SlIMMER<br />
YEAR, 2010 DEWPOINT, 10 COLD STARTS 20.0 LOA 69.0 LVT 19.4 MDT 6 .•<br />
INSPECTION" MAINTENANCE, YES HOT STARTS 80.0 llBD 0.0 IlPG 1.2 IiDD 3.6<br />
SEASOl'
ApPENDIX B<br />
NOISE ANALYSIS<br />
peR<br />
PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH
B-1. HELICOPTER NOISE ASSESSMENT<br />
This assessment includes measurements <strong>of</strong> on-site ambient noise levels, estimates <strong>of</strong><br />
helicopter noise levels in the past at the project site, and predictions <strong>of</strong> project generated<br />
helicopter noise levels. The results <strong>of</strong> this assessment have been incorporated into Section 4.4,<br />
Noise <strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the EIR.
B-2. HELICOPTER NOISE ASSESSMENT<br />
This assessment includes measurements <strong>of</strong> on-site ambient noise levels, estimates <strong>of</strong><br />
helicopter noise levels in the past at the project site, and predictions <strong>of</strong> project generated<br />
helicopter noise levels. The results <strong>of</strong> this assessment have been incorporated into Section 4.4,<br />
Noise <strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the EIR.
Arup Acoustics<br />
Consultants in Acoustics • Noise • Vibration<br />
May 15, 1996<br />
Ms. Ricarda Bennen<br />
Heliport Consultants<br />
148 Gazania Court<br />
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362<br />
DreamWorks SKG Animation Campus <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Heliport Noise Assessments<br />
Dear Ms. Bennett:<br />
2440 South Sepulveda BoulEMlfd<br />
Suite 180<br />
los Angeles<br />
California 90064<br />
(310) 312·5040<br />
Facsimile (310) 312-5788<br />
This report presents the results <strong>of</strong> our noise study <strong>of</strong> the proposed DreamWorks Heliport, which is<br />
to be located on the Department <strong>of</strong> Water and Power site (Crystal Springs Site) at the intersection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Ventura and Golden State Freeways, within the city <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. The purpose <strong>of</strong> this stUdy was<br />
to evaluate:<br />
a. Potential noise impacts <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks proposed heliport operation on the surrounding<br />
neighborhood communities, and<br />
b. The historical flight noise levels associated with the previous use <strong>of</strong> the heliport.<br />
ON SITE NOISE MEASUREMENTS<br />
Background noise measurements were conducted at the Crystal Springs Site (on site) and four<br />
surrounding neighborhood locations as shown in Figure 1. The neighborhood sites are found to<br />
the North, East and West <strong>of</strong> the Crystal Springs Site and were selected to represent the<br />
residential properties near the heliport. At these locations, exterior sound readings were<br />
undertaken for periods <strong>of</strong> 10 minutes during the early afternoon <strong>of</strong> Thursday and Friday, February<br />
29 and March 1, 1996. The on site measurements were conducted continuously for a 24-hour<br />
period, starting at 3:00 p.m. Thursday, February 29 through March 1,1996.<br />
DATA ACQUISITiON SYSTEM<br />
The ambient noise survey was carried out using a Larson-Davis model 870 portable noise monitor<br />
and associated microphone. The data acquisition system used to measure the background noise<br />
levels meet and exceed the requirements for the Type I standard instruments as defined in the<br />
American National Standard Institute (ANSI) specifications S14, IEC651, and IEC804. The<br />
microphone was calibrated prior to and after completion <strong>of</strong> the survey to ensure the accuracy <strong>of</strong><br />
measurements.<br />
NOISE DESCRIPTORS<br />
In evaluating and describing ambient noise, se.veral metrics are used to describe the noise<br />
measurements. In this report the results <strong>of</strong> measurements and calculations are presented in terms<br />
0... "'",p & ".""... e-no. lid.<br />
90' t.4...... 51_ '260. Son F.- CA 94103<br />
Pnono (4IS) 951-11445. F_(4IS) 951·909Il
Arup Acoustics<br />
Ms. Ricarda Bennett<br />
May 15, 1996<br />
Page 2<br />
<strong>of</strong> two widely used metrics, Equivalent continuous sound level and Community Noise Equivalent<br />
Level as follows:<br />
Equivalent Sound Level- Symbolized by Leq, this measure represents the level <strong>of</strong> a continuous<br />
steady sound which over a specified time period contains the same total sound energy as the<br />
actual time varying sound <strong>of</strong> interest,<br />
Community Noise Equivalent Level- Symbolized by CNEL, this rating represents an energy<br />
averaged noise level over a 24-hour period. Noise levels measured during evening hours <strong>of</strong> 7:00<br />
p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and night time hours <strong>of</strong> 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. are adjusted (increased) by 5dB<br />
and 10dB, respectively. These time <strong>of</strong> day adjustments are included to account for the apparent<br />
increased sensitivity to and annoyance at noise during the evening and night time hours.<br />
EXISTING AMBIENT SOUND ENVIRONMENT<br />
The existing noise levels at the Crystal Springs Site and neighboring residential areas are<br />
influenced primarily by the Ventura and Golden States Freeways, street and railroad traffic. In<br />
particular, the sound environment at the neighboring homes (North and East <strong>of</strong> the Crystal Spring<br />
Site) is dominated by vehicular traffic noise from San Fernando Way and frequent train operations<br />
along San Fernando Way.<br />
Overall, on an hourly Leq basis the current sound environment ranges between 54 dBA<br />
(recorded at 1:00 a.m.) and 64 dBA (recorded at 6:00 a.m.). On a 24-hour CNEL basis, the current<br />
sound environment was calculated at 67 dBA. The results <strong>of</strong> the field noise measurements are<br />
shown in Table 1.<br />
Table 1 - Ambient Noise Measurements, Leq (1 hour)<br />
Location Starting Time Leq (dBA) Starting Time Leq (dBA) Starting Leq (dBA)<br />
(Hrs) (Hrs) Time<br />
(Hrs)<br />
On site 1500 62.7 1600 62.9 1700 61.7<br />
1800 62.7 1900 62.3 2000 62.6<br />
2100 62.0 2200 59.5 2300 59.7<br />
2400 56.7 0100 54.3 200 55.0<br />
0300 56.8 0400 60.4 0500 62.2<br />
0600 64.0 0700 63.6 0800 63.6<br />
0900 61.2 1000 61.1 1100 60.1<br />
1200 61.6 1300 61.1 1400 60.3<br />
Neighborhood Duration Leq (dBA)<br />
1 1520-1530 64.0<br />
2 1410-1420 61.0<br />
3 1545-1555 66.0<br />
4 1600-1610 68.0<br />
"
Arup Acoustics<br />
Ms. Ricarda Bennett<br />
May 15, 1996<br />
Page 3<br />
PAST HELIPORT OPERATIONS<br />
OPERATION INFORMATION<br />
Historical flight operation information from Heliport Consultants shows that the Heliport at Crystal<br />
Springs Site has been active since 1958 facilitating flight activities by Heliport Inc. and various<br />
police departments. The actual flight information, however, is available only for the time period <strong>of</strong><br />
1974 through 1992. During this period the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the<br />
combined <strong>Glendale</strong>/ Burbank Air Support Units used the heliport facility, for various helicopter<br />
operations such as patrol, sUNeiliance and training. Table-2 presents the historical flight<br />
operations classified into three time categories <strong>of</strong> daytime. evening time and night time to<br />
correspond to the time categories associated with calculation <strong>of</strong> the CNEL noise metric.<br />
These ,time classifications illustrate the number <strong>of</strong> take<strong>of</strong>f and landings (noise events) associated<br />
with the weekday use <strong>of</strong> the heliport during the daytime hours <strong>of</strong> 7:00 a.m.- 7:00 p.m., 7:00 p.m.<br />
10:00 p.m., and 10:00 p.m.- 7:00 a.m. In general, the heliport site was used more frequently<br />
during weekdays than weekends. Thus, in order to represent the worst noise scenario, the<br />
weekday operation volumes were used to calculate the previoUS CNEL values.<br />
Table 2 - Historical Operation Flight-Events at <strong>Glendale</strong> Crystal Springs DWP Site<br />
Operation Number <strong>of</strong> Events Per Day<br />
Period (Year) Police Department (Per Time Category) Total<br />
0700-1900 1900-2200 2200-0700 (Per Week Day)<br />
1974-1977 LAPD 65 13 16 94<br />
1978-1983 LAPD/<strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank 105 28 26 159<br />
1984-1988 <strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank 40 15 10 65<br />
1989-1992 <strong>Glendale</strong> 35 '10 4 49<br />
TYPES OF HELICOPTERS<br />
Different types <strong>of</strong> helicopters utilized the heliport site in connection with previous flight operations<br />
by LAPD and <strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank police departments. Information from Heliport Consultants<br />
indicates that, during the "peak" years <strong>of</strong> operation (i. e. the highest number <strong>of</strong> helicopters per<br />
year), LAPD employed a fleet <strong>of</strong> helicopters that included primarily the Bell 47 and Bell 206. The<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong>/ Burbank air support fleet included mainly Hughes 300 helicopters.<br />
Table 3 represents the fleet mixture for "peak" years and for both LAPD and <strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank Air<br />
Support units. A statistical analysis <strong>of</strong> the helicopter fleet mixture was carried out in order to<br />
calculate the probability <strong>of</strong> a specific type <strong>of</strong> helicopter being used in a typical weekday flight<br />
operation. Table 3 illustrates the estimated probability <strong>of</strong> occurrence <strong>of</strong> various helicopter types in<br />
a typical operation. As can be seen, the results <strong>of</strong> the statistical analysis indicate that LAPD's fleet<br />
operation used Bell 206 and Bell 47 helicopters more frequently than Bel! 204 and Hughes 500<br />
helicopters.<br />
"
Arup Acoustics<br />
Ms. Ricarda Bennett<br />
May 15, 1996<br />
Page 5<br />
employed by DreamWorks operation has not been determined, thus the noise calculation <strong>of</strong><br />
future heliport operations is based on the Sikorsky S76 helicopter. A common helicopter for<br />
passenger transportation, a Sikorsky S76, is used for calculation purposes. According to FAA<br />
tests (ibid.), in general the twin turbine S76 generates about 3 dBA (SEL) 2 higher noise level<br />
than the single turbine Bell 206L helicopter. The CNEL results for a possible day <strong>of</strong> helicopter<br />
flights is illustrated in Table 5 where there are 4 daytime trips and 1 evening trip for a total <strong>of</strong> 10<br />
landings and take<strong>of</strong>fs.<br />
Table 5 - Future Flight Operation and Estimated CNEL Values (possible operation scenario)<br />
Based on Sikorsky S76 Helicopter<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Flight-Events per Day Estimated CNEL at<br />
(oer Time Cateaories Neic hborhood Locations<br />
0700-1900 I 1900-2200 I 2200-0700 Total Per Day 1 2 I 3 I 4<br />
8 I 2 I 0 10 33 29 I 35 I 24<br />
CONCLUSIONS<br />
A comparison <strong>of</strong> the estimated CNEL values <strong>of</strong> the previous and proposed flight operations is<br />
presented in Table 6 for neighborhood locations 1, 2, 3 and 4. As can be seen, the flight<br />
operations proposed by DreamWorKs produces, on average, noise levels 23dB-28dB lower than<br />
previous use <strong>of</strong> the heliport, as shown by the values given in the last row <strong>of</strong> Table 6.<br />
Table 6 - Difference in CNEL Values Between Historical and<br />
Proposed DreamWorks Flight Operations<br />
Neighborhood Difference in CNEL<br />
Locations (Previous Operations - Proposed Operations)<br />
1974-1977 1978-1983 1978-1988 1989-1992<br />
1 21 24 26 24<br />
2 22 24 28 26<br />
3 24 27 24 22<br />
4 25 28 31 29<br />
Averaae 23 25 28 25<br />
The noise impact from the historical and proposed helicopter flight operations on the existing<br />
sound environment is shown in Table 7. As illustrated by CNEL values in Table 7, the proposed<br />
DreamWorKs helicopter flight operations would not increase the current overall sound<br />
environment (CNEL (24-hrs)) <strong>of</strong> the neighborhood residential communities. The results <strong>of</strong> noise<br />
calculations further indicate that the previous use <strong>of</strong> heliport could have increased the current<br />
CNEL level by less than 1 dB. In contrast, the DreamWorks projected helicopter operation will<br />
have no measurable impact on the current CNEL sound environment.<br />
2 SEL = Sound Exposure Level<br />
"
site.<br />
B-3. HELICOPTER OPERATIONS LETTER<br />
This letter describes the history <strong>of</strong> helicopter operations that have occurred at the project<br />
"
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Glenndale Heliport<br />
The plans for the Dream Works Campus calls for the ground<br />
level landing site to be replaced by the ro<strong>of</strong>top helipad on<br />
the top floor <strong>of</strong> the parking structure in the northern<br />
quadrant <strong>of</strong> the lot. The advantages to an elevated ro<strong>of</strong>top<br />
helipad is that it will be more secure from people wandering<br />
onto the landing site and the flight paths will be protected<br />
from any future building on the campus in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
helipad.<br />
COMPARISON OF FLIGHT ACTIVITY:<br />
The <strong>Glendale</strong> Heliport has been available for helicopter<br />
flight activities at this site for over 38 years. The<br />
conditional use for the heliport was originally obtained by<br />
Heliport, Inc. who utilized the heliport site for about six<br />
years beginning in 1958. The property was then leased by DWP<br />
to the respective air support units <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles, Burbank<br />
and <strong>Glendale</strong> police departments from approximately 1964 to<br />
1992. The LAPD airborne unit were the major users and sole<br />
occupants <strong>of</strong> the site from 1964 to 1972 when the <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Police air support moved their unit to the <strong>Glendale</strong> Heliport.<br />
The Burbank Police 'air support unit came to the site in 1972<br />
and shared equipment and flights schedules with <strong>Glendale</strong>.<br />
The LAPD left <strong>Glendale</strong> in 1983 for Hooper Heliport in<br />
downtown Los Angeles. Five years later, in 1988, the Burbank<br />
airborne law enforcement unit moved to Burbank Airport. They<br />
were followed four years later by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Police<br />
Department air support.<br />
There was a period <strong>of</strong> time from 1978 (after Burbank came to<br />
the site) until 1983 (before LAPD moved to Hooper Heliport)<br />
that all three police agencies conducted operations from the<br />
heliport. The heliport site then reverted to the property<br />
owner, the Los Angeles Department <strong>of</strong> Water and Power (DWP),<br />
which maintained the helistop to this date.<br />
since the operation <strong>of</strong> helicopters from this site covers an<br />
expanse in time <strong>of</strong> approximately 38 years, it is<br />
understandable that some <strong>of</strong> the operational records have been<br />
archived, lost or just never existed. Information on<br />
helicopter operations by the airborne law enforcement units<br />
2<br />
"
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Glenndale Heliport<br />
for the years 1974 through 1992 was the data that was most<br />
readily available either through documentation or through<br />
interviews with personnel who were familiar with the flight<br />
operations. 1<br />
Flight data for the past 18 years (1974-1992) was gathered<br />
through extensive interviews with representative <strong>of</strong> the<br />
airborne police departments who were knowledgeable about the<br />
daily operations schedule. Information was obtained on the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> aircraft in use, the hours <strong>of</strong> operations and the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> operations and scheduled shifts. The original<br />
number <strong>of</strong> flight operations combined both a take<strong>of</strong>f and<br />
landing event into one operation. For this report, the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> operations was doubled (or, multiplied by "2") in<br />
order to determine the number <strong>of</strong> flight events (see Tables 1,<br />
2 and 3).<br />
The type <strong>of</strong> aircraft ranged from single engine, piston driven<br />
rotorcraft such as a Bell 47 to twin engine, twin rotor<br />
military model aircratt such as a CH46. During the peak<br />
years <strong>of</strong> operation (1974 to 1983), the LAPD used seven (7)<br />
Bell 47G5 piston helicoptersi one Bell 47G5Ai one Bell<br />
47G3Bli 16 Bell 206B single engine turbine models; one (1)<br />
UH1B (Bell 204); and on an infrequent basis, a CH46. At the<br />
site, <strong>Glendale</strong> and Burbank shared three (3) Hughes 300 piston<br />
model aircraft from 1972 to 1992.<br />
Tables 1,2, and 3 provides a summary <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft by shift segregated by weekend and weekday. As can<br />
he seen in the three tables, the flights for the LAPD<br />
occurred 24 hours a day over 7 days a week, except for<br />
weekends. In addition to the three regularly scheduled<br />
patrols (Patrol Day, PM and AM) with varied shifts, there<br />
were surveillance flights along with maintenance and training<br />
flights. As might be expected, there were less flights on<br />
the weekend than during the week.<br />
A more detailed review <strong>of</strong> the Tables reveals there were<br />
approximately 94 flight events (a landing or a take<strong>of</strong>f) per<br />
24 hour period during the week. The number <strong>of</strong> flights<br />
decreased on a weekend day to 58 take<strong>of</strong>fs or landings. A<br />
total <strong>of</strong> 586 flights occurred per week just from the LAPD<br />
1<br />
Interviews with Officer/Pilot Charles perriquey and<br />
Sergeant/Pilot Dick Eyster, LAPDi captain Ron Allison,<br />
and Senior pilot John Parmann, <strong>Glendale</strong> Police Dept.<br />
3
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Glenndale Heliport<br />
aircraft alone. This combined with the 300 weekly flights<br />
from the <strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank airborne law enforcement<br />
helicopters brought the total to 886 flights per week during<br />
those years <strong>of</strong> dual occupancy at the <strong>Glendale</strong> Heliport site.<br />
These numbers translate into 2519 flights per month for the<br />
LAPD operations and, for the <strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank units, 1290<br />
(for the years 1978 to 1988) and 860 (for the years 1988 to<br />
1992). It should be noted that during the span <strong>of</strong> 1978 to<br />
1983 the operations <strong>of</strong> LAPD and <strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank can be<br />
combined for a total <strong>of</strong> 3809 take<strong>of</strong>fs or landings per month.<br />
since the studio has not begun operations, it is difficult to<br />
state with certainty how many flights will occur per day.<br />
However, even if Dream Works SKG flew every day in an average<br />
month (i.e. 30 days), the resulting 120 to 240 flight events<br />
(or, 4 to 8 flight events per day) would be considerably<br />
below the previous flights which ranged from 860 to 3809<br />
flights for a given month. Further, the flights related to<br />
Dream Works are not apticipated to occur in the early morning<br />
hours after 12 AM.<br />
While no helicopter has been selected at this time, the<br />
typical charter aircraft will be a single or a twin turbine<br />
engine aircraft in the weight category <strong>of</strong> 5,000 to 12,000<br />
pounds.<br />
If I can be <strong>of</strong> any further assistance, or should you have any<br />
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.<br />
Best regards,<br />
Ricarda L. Bennett, Esq.<br />
RLB:<br />
4<br />
"
TABLE 1<br />
Total Number <strong>of</strong> Flight Events for<br />
Los Angeles Police Dept Air Support<br />
at<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Helistop, Crystal Springs DWP Site<br />
Period: 1974 -1983<br />
Operating Classir. Time Period (A) (B) (e) (D)<br />
by Shift EventsIWeek EventslWk Events/7 Events!<br />
Day End Day Day Week Month<br />
C=5(Al+2CBI D=4.3ICI I<br />
Patrol Day 9AM-5PM 24 16 152 654<br />
Patrol PM 5PM-1 AM 24 24 168 7Z1.<br />
Patrol AM 1 AM-4AM -4 2 24 103<br />
OnCaU 4AM-9AM Varied<br />
SurveUlance Oaf 9AM-5PM 18 12 114 490<br />
Surveillance PM! 5PM-1 AM 8 4 48 206<br />
Training Oay/90% 12 0 60 258<br />
NighV10%<br />
Maintenance Oay18AM-5 4 0 20 86<br />
PM<br />
TOTAL EVENTS 94 68 686 2619<br />
1. Avg. number <strong>of</strong> weeks In a month equals 4.3<br />
2. Operations varied<br />
Harch 21, 1996<br />
C:\UORK\HElCON\063GRA\HIST\OPSHrST.Tal<br />
"
TABLE 2 "<br />
Total Number <strong>of</strong> Flight Events for<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> and Burbank Police Air Support<br />
at<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Helistop, Crystal Springs OWP Site<br />
Period: 1978 -1988<br />
Operating (A) (8) (C) (D) (E)<br />
Classif. Avg. Tot. Evts Tot.Evts. Eventsl7 Eventsl<br />
by Shift EventslWeek for fi Day Week forWk Day Week Month<br />
by Time Day End D=B+C E=-C.3(D)'<br />
Period A=Bl5 Sun Evts=O<br />
7AM.4PM 2S 100 0 100 .4JO<br />
3 PM·11 PM 20 96 ',- 100 430<br />
4<br />
5PM·1 AM 20 96 4 100 430<br />
Total Events N.A. 292 8 300 1290<br />
1. Avg. number or weeks per month equals 4.3<br />
TABLE 3<br />
Total Number <strong>of</strong> Flight Events for<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Police Air Support<br />
at<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Helistop, Crystal Springs OWP Site<br />
Period: Mid-19BB - 1992<br />
Operating (A) (8) eC) (0) (E)<br />
Classlf. Avg. EventslWeek Day Tot. Evts for Tot. Evts Eventsl7 Eventsl<br />
byShift A-Bl-4 fi oayWeek forWkEnd Day Week Month<br />
Mon.CO Evts SunEvtscO D=B+C E.....3(o)·<br />
7AM·4PM 2S 100 0 100 430<br />
4PM-11 PM 24 96 4 100 430<br />
Total Events N.A. 196
ApPENDIX C<br />
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND<br />
LANE CONFIGURATIONS<br />
peR<br />
PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH<br />
'.
C-l. PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES<br />
The following data includes AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the traffic srudy<br />
intersections, broken down into left tum, right tum, and through bound traffic, including<br />
Existing and Year 2010 traffic. The Year 2010 traffic volumes consist <strong>of</strong> traffic volumes with<br />
and without project generated traffic. This data is summarized and incorporated into Section<br />
4.9, Transportation/Circulation <strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the EIR.<br />
"
C-2. LANE CONFIGURATIONS<br />
The following figures depicts the existing and post-mitigation traffic study intersections.<br />
This infonnation is summarized and incorporated into Section 4.9, Transportation/Circulation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the EIR.
MOnO!!.<br />
Moved by Agency Member , seconded by Agency Member<br />
____________, that the Stage I and II design proposal for a 128,716 square fool<br />
addition to the previously approved DreamWorks Campus Lakeside Building, expansion <strong>of</strong> the existing<br />
parking structure from 667 to 882 parking spaces and associated improvements including a secondary<br />
employee-only and fire access gale connected to Flower Street for the DreamWorks Campus and<br />
associated landscaping located al 1000 Flower Street, be and the same is hereby approved as outlined in<br />
the April 22, 2008 staff report from the <strong>Director</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Services subject to comments and<br />
recommendations from the <strong>City</strong>'s Principal Urban Designer as included in the slaff report, and subject 10<br />
any Agency comments and/or conditions.<br />
Vote as follows:<br />
Ayes:<br />
Noes:<br />
Absent:<br />
Abstain:<br />
J;\FILES\OOCF1LES\FACTFlND\DreamWorks Stages 1&11 Mm 2008.wpd<br />
1 C
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
11<br />
12<br />
13<br />
14<br />
15<br />
16<br />
17<br />
18<br />
19<br />
20<br />
21<br />
22<br />
23<br />
24<br />
25<br />
26<br />
27<br />
ORDINANCE NO. _<br />
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF<br />
GLENDALE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A FIRST<br />
AMENDMENT TO THE STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND<br />
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF<br />
GLENDALE TOGETHER WITH THE GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT<br />
AGENCY AND DREAMWORKS ANIMATION, LLC<br />
WHEREAS, on June 4, 1996, the <strong>City</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> adopted an ordinance approving<br />
execution <strong>of</strong> a Statutory <strong>Development</strong> Agreement and Participation Agreement by and between the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> together with the <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency and DreamWorks Animation, LLC (the<br />
"Developer") for development <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks Animation campus project (the "Project"); and<br />
WHEREAS, on June 4,1996, the Redevelopment Agency <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> adopted a resolution<br />
approving execution <strong>of</strong> a Statutory <strong>Development</strong> Agreement and Participation Agreement by and between the<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> together with the <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency and DreamWorks Animation, LLC (the<br />
"Developer") for development <strong>of</strong> the Project (the "<strong>Development</strong> Agreement"); and<br />
WHEREAS, in connection therewith, on June 6,1996 the <strong>City</strong>'s zoning administrator approved, with<br />
conditions, a standards and setback variance to allow construction within the Project <strong>of</strong> up to 495,000 square<br />
feet <strong>of</strong> building area (gross) within seven (7) buildings and a 1,000 space parking garage structure with a<br />
varying building height between 40 feet to a maximum <strong>of</strong> 65 feet with architectural features up to 115 feet high<br />
where a maximum <strong>of</strong> 35 feet is allowed; to allow up to 10 feet high fence/wall where not more than 18" in height<br />
above ground surface is allowed to be located along Flower Street at a zero setback where a minimum <strong>of</strong> 5<br />
feet and an average setback <strong>of</strong> 10 feet is required to any property line abutting a street in the M1 Restricted<br />
Industrial Zone; and<br />
WHEREAS, in connection therewith, on June 3,1996 the zoning administrator approved, with<br />
conditions, a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction within the Project <strong>of</strong> a privately operated<br />
transmission facility and to install up to five (5) satellite dishes each with a diameter <strong>of</strong> up to 18 feet in the M1<br />
Restricted Industrial Zone; and<br />
28 J:\FILESIDOCFlLES\ORD\Oreamworks DA First Amend Ord.\\-pd<br />
1<br />
1 D
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
11<br />
12<br />
13<br />
14<br />
15<br />
16<br />
17<br />
18<br />
19<br />
20<br />
21<br />
22<br />
23<br />
24<br />
25<br />
26<br />
27<br />
28<br />
WHEREAS, in connection therewith. on June 6,1996, the <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency approved<br />
findings for a parking exception to permit 1,000 parking spaces at a ratio <strong>of</strong> 2 spaces per 1.000 square feet <strong>of</strong><br />
floor area where the <strong>City</strong> code required 1,337 parking spaces for the Project; and<br />
WHEREAS, on June 6,1996, the <strong>City</strong> Council adopted a resolution releasing and quit claiming a<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> a right <strong>of</strong> way easement along a portion <strong>of</strong> Victory Truck Boulevard to Developer for incorporation<br />
into the Project; and<br />
WHEREAS, on June 6,1996, the Agency and the <strong>City</strong> certified a First Addendum to the Final Program<br />
Environmental Impact Report (-FEIR M<br />
) for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area Plan<br />
in connection with the development <strong>of</strong> the Project, and pursuant to the requirements <strong>of</strong> the California<br />
Environmental Quality Act rCEQA-); and<br />
WHEREAS, on April 22, 2008, the <strong>City</strong> and Agency certified the Second Addendum to the Final<br />
Program Environmental Impact Report (-FEIW) for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project<br />
Area Plan in connection with the on-going development <strong>of</strong> the Project under the Industrial Mixed-Use/Large<br />
Scale Project designation in the IND zoning district adopted in 2004 in the San Fernando Road Corridor<br />
Redevelopment Project Area, and which environmental analysis in the Second Addendum was completed and<br />
certified pursuant 10 the requirements <strong>of</strong> the California Environmental Quality Act ("CECA"); and<br />
WHEREAS, amendment to the <strong>Development</strong> Agreement is necessary to in order to apply the current<br />
INO zone standards for Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Projects to the continued development <strong>of</strong> the Project<br />
to replace the M1 Restricted Industrial standards that were applicable to the Project pursuant to the original<br />
<strong>Development</strong> Agreement; and<br />
WHEREAS, after due notice, on April 2, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on<br />
this mailer and pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et. seq., the Planning Commission has<br />
transmitted its findings and recommendations on the proposed First Amendment to the <strong>Development</strong><br />
Agreement to the <strong>City</strong> Council; and<br />
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Government Code, the <strong>City</strong> has duly noticed a public<br />
hearing on the proposed First Amendment to the <strong>Development</strong> Agreement: and<br />
J;\fIL.ES\[)()CFILES'()Rl)\J)reamworks DA First AlfICt1d Ood.wpd<br />
2
1 WHEREAS, the <strong>City</strong> Council has reviewed and considered the First Amendment to the <strong>Development</strong><br />
10<br />
11<br />
12<br />
13<br />
14<br />
15<br />
16<br />
17<br />
18<br />
19<br />
20<br />
21<br />
22<br />
23<br />
24<br />
25<br />
26<br />
27<br />
2 Agreement and the findings and recommendations <strong>of</strong> the Planning Commission; and<br />
3 WHEREAS, the <strong>City</strong> has duly considered all terms and conditions <strong>of</strong> the First Amendment 10 the<br />
4 <strong>Development</strong> Agreement and believes that implementation <strong>of</strong> the First Amendment <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Development</strong><br />
5 Agreement is consistent with the Cily's General Plan, as amended, and is in the besl interests <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> and<br />
6 the health, safety, and welfare <strong>of</strong> its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
7 applicable slale and local law.<br />
8 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT OROAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,<br />
9 CALIFORNIA;<br />
Act.<br />
1.<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(e)<br />
The <strong>City</strong> Council hereby finds and determines as follows:<br />
All the recitals herein above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.<br />
The <strong>City</strong> has complied with the applicable requirements <strong>of</strong> the California Environmental Quality<br />
The First Amendment to the <strong>Development</strong> Agreement is within the scope <strong>of</strong> the certified<br />
Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area<br />
Plan, and does not constitute any substantial change in the Project analyzed in the First Addendum to the<br />
FEIR, and does not result in any new significant environmental effects or in a substantial increase in the<br />
severity <strong>of</strong> previously identified significant effects identified in either the First Addendum to the FEIR or in the<br />
FEIR.<br />
Plan.<br />
(d) The First Amendment to the <strong>Development</strong> Agreement is consistent with the <strong>City</strong>'s General<br />
(e) The First Amendment to the <strong>Development</strong> Agreement fUlly complies with all currently<br />
applicable provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Glendale</strong> Municipal Code.<br />
(f) The First Amendment to the <strong>Development</strong> Agreement will not be detrimental to the public<br />
health, safety and general welfare because it encourages the construction <strong>of</strong> a project which is desirable and<br />
beneficial to the public.<br />
(g) The First Amendment to the <strong>Development</strong> Agreement is compatible with the orderly<br />
development <strong>of</strong> property in the surrounding area.<br />
28 J:IFILES\DOCFlLESIORDlDreamworks DA First Amend Ord.wpd<br />
3
RESOLUTION NO. _<br />
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF<br />
GLENDALE AUTHORIZING APPROVAL OF A FIRST AMENDMENT<br />
TO THE STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND<br />
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF<br />
GLENDALE TOGETHER WITH THE GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT<br />
AGENCY AND DREAMWORKS ANIMATION, LLC<br />
WHEREAS, the <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") is engaged in activities necessary to<br />
effectuate the Redevelopment Plan for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area<br />
rProject Area") by providing for the development <strong>of</strong> real property located within the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Project Area; and<br />
WHEREAS, on June 4,1996, the Agency adopted a resolution approving execution <strong>of</strong> a Statutory<br />
<strong>Development</strong> Agreement and Participation Agreement by and between the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> together with<br />
the <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency and DreamWorks Animation, LLC (the "Developer") for<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the 13.3 acre OreamWorks Animation campus in the Project Area (the "<strong>Development</strong><br />
Agreement"); and<br />
WHEREAS, on June 4,1996, the <strong>City</strong> Council <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> adopted an ordinance<br />
approving execution <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Development</strong> Agreement for development <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks Animation<br />
campus project (the "Project"); and<br />
WHEREAS, in connection therewith, on June 6, 1996 the <strong>City</strong>'s zoning administrator approved,<br />
with conditions, a standards and setback variance to allow construction within the Project <strong>of</strong> up to<br />
495,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> building area (gross) within seven (7) buildings and a 1,000 space parking garage<br />
structure with a varying building height between 40 feet to a maximum <strong>of</strong> 65 feet with architectural<br />
features up to 115 feet high where a maximum <strong>of</strong> 35 feet is allowed; to allow up to 10 feet high fencelwall<br />
where not more than 18" in height above ground surface is allowed to be located along Flower Street at a<br />
zero setback where a minimum <strong>of</strong> 5 feet and an average setback <strong>of</strong> 10 feet is required to any property line<br />
abutting a street in the M1 Restricted Industrial Zone; and<br />
WHEREAS, in connection therewith, on June 3, 1996 the zoning administrator approved, with<br />
1<br />
1 E
EXHIBIT A<br />
FIRST AMENDMENT TO<br />
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION L.L.C.<br />
STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT<br />
AND PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT<br />
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DREAMWORKS ANIMATION L.L.C. STATUTORY<br />
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (this<br />
"Amendment") is entered into as <strong>of</strong> , 2008 by and between the following<br />
parties: (I) CITY OF GLENDALE (the "<strong>City</strong>"), (2) GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY<br />
(the "Agency"), and (3) DREAMWORKS ANIMAnON L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability<br />
company ("Participant").<br />
RECITALS<br />
WHEREAS the <strong>City</strong>, the Agency and Participant entered into that certain Statutory<br />
<strong>Development</strong> Agreement and Participation Agreement (the "Agreement") effective as <strong>of</strong>June<br />
26, 1996 (the "Effective Date").<br />
WHEREAS the Agreement provides that Participant will comply with, among other<br />
things, the <strong>City</strong>'s MI Restricted Industrial Zone regulations in effect as <strong>of</strong> the Effective Date <strong>of</strong><br />
the Agreement, except where specifically modified by <strong>City</strong>'s approval <strong>of</strong> Conditional Use Pel111it<br />
Nos. 991-U and 9558 and Zone Variance No. 9557.<br />
WHEREAS on August 26, 1997, the <strong>City</strong> amended certain portions <strong>of</strong> the M I<br />
Restricted Industrial Zone, adding a new lndustrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Project designation<br />
that amended the height and other regulations governing development in the M I Zone, for a<br />
project that is classified as an Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Project.<br />
WHEREAS on September 16,2004, the <strong>City</strong> amended the <strong>Glendale</strong> Municipal Code (the<br />
"Code") to eliminate the M I Restricted Industrial Zone regulations and to substitute the IND<br />
Industrial Zone regulations, including an Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Project designation for<br />
a project meeting the requirements <strong>of</strong>an Industrial Mixed-Usc/Large Scale Project, as defined in<br />
Notc (I) afTable 13.13 - B afSection 30.13.030 afthe Code.<br />
WHEREAS the <strong>City</strong> and Agency have detennined that Participant's Project that is the<br />
subject <strong>of</strong> the Agreement is an Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Project.<br />
WHEREAS the <strong>City</strong>, Agency and Participant desire that the Code provisions for<br />
Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Projects within the IND Zone apply to Participant under the<br />
Agreement so that Participant may develop its campus in accordance with the height limits<br />
applicable to an Industrial Mixed-Use/Large Scale Project.<br />
WHEREAS the <strong>City</strong>, the Agency and Participant desire to amend the Agreement on the<br />
terms and subject to the conditions set forth below.<br />
NOW, THEREFORE, the Agency, the <strong>City</strong> and Participant. and each <strong>of</strong> them, agree as follows:<br />
-1-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment and it shall become<br />
effective as <strong>of</strong>the date it is attested by I.he <strong>City</strong> Clerk <strong>of</strong>the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Glendale</strong>.<br />
GLE DALE REDEVELOPMENT<br />
AGENCY ("Agency")<br />
By:<br />
Date:<br />
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORN1A<br />
("<strong>City</strong>")<br />
By:<br />
Date: _<br />
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION, L.L.c.,<br />
a Delaware limited liability company<br />
("Participant")<br />
By:<br />
Date:<br />
-3-<br />
APPROVED:<br />
Agency Special Counsel<br />
By: _<br />
APPROVED AS TO FORM<br />
<strong>City</strong> Attorney<br />
By: --------<br />
ATTEST<br />
<strong>City</strong> Clerk<br />
By:<br />
Date-:------------
development <strong>of</strong> the Project will provide many public benefits to the <strong>City</strong> through the imposition<br />
<strong>of</strong> the development standards and requirements under the provisions and conditions <strong>of</strong> this<br />
Agreement, including without limitation increased tax revenues (direct and indirect), installation<br />
<strong>of</strong> on-site and <strong>of</strong>f-site improvements, and location <strong>of</strong> a desirable industry and jobs within the<br />
<strong>City</strong>. In exchange for these and other benefits to the <strong>City</strong>, Participant will receive assurance that<br />
the Project may be developed during the term <strong>of</strong> this Agreement sUbject to the temIS and<br />
conditions <strong>of</strong> this Agreement.<br />
c. [§ 103] <strong>Glendale</strong> General Plan<br />
The Land Use Element <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Glendale</strong> General Plan designates the Site for Restricted<br />
Industrial uses. The General Plan states that certain non-industrial uses are appropriately located<br />
within industrial zones, and that commercial use associated with industry is not only acceptable,<br />
but at times desirable. Further, the General Plan acknowledges that growth in industrial zones.<br />
creales employment opportunities and broadens the Ciry's tax base. The General Plan provides<br />
for development with adequate streets, freeway access, underground utilities and development<br />
standards, including <strong>of</strong>f-street parking and landscaping requirements. The zoning and site<br />
developmem provided for in this Agreement are consistent with and help to implement the<br />
policies <strong>of</strong> the General Plan. Other than the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan, there<br />
are no other "specific plans" applicable to the Site as that phrase is used in Government Code<br />
§ 65867.5.<br />
D. [§ 104] The Redevelopment Plan<br />
This Agreemem is SUbject to the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan which was<br />
approved and adopted on December 15, 1992, by the <strong>City</strong> Councilor the <strong>City</strong> by Ordinance<br />
No. 5003, recorded in Official Records <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles County, California. The Redevelopment<br />
Plan is incorporated herein by reference and made a part here<strong>of</strong> as though fully set f0l1h herein.<br />
The Redevelopment Plan requires the Agency to provjde owners <strong>of</strong> real property in the<br />
Project Area with opportunity to participate in the redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the Project Area.<br />
This Agreement is consistent with the current provisions <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan.<br />
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 33457.1, any amendment to the Redevelopment Plan<br />
which changes the possible use <strong>of</strong> eminent domain at the Site, or changes the uses or<br />
development permitted on the Site, or which otherwise changes the restrictions or controls that<br />
apply to the Site shall require the prior written consent <strong>of</strong> Participant provided that Participant<br />
is nol in default under this Agreement and this Agreement has not been temIinated by this <strong>City</strong><br />
in accordance with Section 510. Amendments to the Redevelopment Plan applying to other<br />
property in the Project Area which do not affect the Site and Participant's use there<strong>of</strong> shall not<br />
require the consent <strong>of</strong> Participant or its successors; provided, however, <strong>City</strong> and Agency shall<br />
provide Participam wilh written nOlice as required by law.<br />
LWLA]\]JJ.x..I< 2
E. [§ 105] The Project Area<br />
The Project Area is located in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, California, and the exact boundaries<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Project Area are specifically described in the Redevelopment Plan.<br />
F. [§ 106] The Site<br />
The Site currently is controlled by Panicipant under the terms <strong>of</strong> a seven-year ground<br />
lease between FBTe Leasing Corp., a New York corporation (the "Fee Owner") and Participant<br />
dated as <strong>of</strong> May 17. 1996, and is that portion <strong>of</strong> the Project Area commonly known as 1000<br />
Flower Street, and comprised <strong>of</strong> and designated as: Assessor Parcel No. 5627-018-270, as<br />
illustrated on the "Site Map," attached herelo and incorporated herein as AuacluneOl lA, and<br />
legally described in the Legal Description, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment<br />
lB. Participant has the right to purchase the Site from the Fee Owner at the end <strong>of</strong> the term <strong>of</strong><br />
the ground lease.<br />
The Site may be expanded to include property contiguous to the Site, as described and<br />
provided for in Section 305 <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, when and if such contiguous property comes<br />
under the control <strong>of</strong> Participant.<br />
G. {§ 1071 Parties to the Agreement<br />
J. [§ 108] The <strong>City</strong><br />
The <strong>City</strong> is a municipal corporation operating with an adopted <strong>City</strong> Charter<br />
pursuant to Article XI <strong>of</strong> the California Constitution and with all powers and prerogatives<br />
granted thereby.<br />
2. [§ 109] The Agency<br />
The Agency is a public body, COflJorate and politic, exercising governmental<br />
functions and powers, and organized and existing under Chapter 2 <strong>of</strong> the Community<br />
RedevelopmcntLaw <strong>of</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> California (Health and Safety Code § 33000 el seq.). The<br />
principal <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> the Agency is located at <strong>City</strong> Hall Complex, 633 East Broadway, <strong>Glendale</strong>,<br />
California 91206-4387. "Agency" as used in this Agreement includes the <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Redevelopment Agency and any assignee <strong>of</strong>, or successor to its rights, powers ami<br />
responsibilities.<br />
3. [§ 110J The Participant<br />
The principal address <strong>of</strong> the Participant for purposes <strong>of</strong> this Agreement is:<br />
DreamWorks Animation L.L.c., 100 Universal Plaza, Bungalow 479, Universal <strong>City</strong>, Califomia<br />
91608, Phone: (818) 777-4600. Fax: (818) 733-5252. "Participant" as used in this Agreement<br />
shall mean DrcamWorks Animation LL.C., a Delaware limited liability company.<br />
LWLM \ 37JXJ I' 3
Participant shall be responsible for the performance <strong>of</strong> each and every obligation,<br />
covenant, and agreement herein contained which is the responsibiliry <strong>of</strong> Participant.<br />
Participant and the persons controlling the Participant also reserve the right, at<br />
their discretion, to reform, reorganize, transfer, purchase, or repurchase shares or interests<br />
amongst themselves regarding the Site without notice to or consent <strong>of</strong> the Agency or the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
Whenever the term "Participant" is used herein, such term shall include any<br />
nominee or assignee designated by Participant.<br />
H. [§ I11J Limitation on Changes by <strong>City</strong> and AQency<br />
During the duration <strong>of</strong> this Agreement and so long as the development and use <strong>of</strong> the Site<br />
remains in accordance with the Scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong>, attached hereto as Attacmnent No.2 and<br />
made a part here<strong>of</strong> by reference, as <strong>of</strong> the date <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, the <strong>City</strong> and the Agency shall<br />
impose only those policies, rules, regulations and laws <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> and Agency, respectively,<br />
except as they may be specifically waived or modified by Agency's approval <strong>of</strong> a parking<br />
exception and <strong>City</strong>'S approval <strong>of</strong> Conditional Use Permit No. 991-U, Conditional Use Permit<br />
No. 9558 and Zone Variance No, 9557, (Attachment 3) which are in force as <strong>of</strong> the Effective<br />
Date <strong>of</strong> this Agreement (and any companion action by the Design Review Board reviewing the<br />
architectural design <strong>of</strong> the project), and shall not impose any additional requirements or<br />
restrictions on the use or development <strong>of</strong> the Site except as expressly authorized under this<br />
Agreement.<br />
1. Uses <strong>of</strong> the Site shall be those "permitted uses" as defined by <strong>City</strong> zoning<br />
for [he "M I" Restricted Industrial Zone in effect at the time <strong>of</strong> execution <strong>of</strong> this Agreement by<br />
the parties hereto, The <strong>City</strong> and Agency agree that the uses contemplated by the Scope <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Development</strong> are permitte'd uses as defined by the <strong>City</strong> zoning for the "MI" Restricted Industrial<br />
Zone. The development standards, including development standards <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> Zoning Code<br />
which arc in effect and existing as <strong>of</strong> the Effective Date <strong>of</strong> thi,s Agreement, except as they may<br />
be specifically waived or modified by Agency's approval <strong>of</strong> a parking exception and <strong>City</strong>'s<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> Conditional Use Permit No. 991-U, Conditional Usc Permit No, 9558 and Zone<br />
Variance No. 9557 (and any companion action by the Design Review Board reviewing the<br />
architectural design <strong>of</strong> the project), and which are incorporated herein by reference as though<br />
fully set forth herein, shall be the policies, rules, regulations, standards and guidelines to be<br />
applied by the <strong>City</strong> and the Agency, respectively, 10 development <strong>of</strong> the Site. Notwithstanding<br />
any provision to the contrary in this Agreement, local ordinances mandated by Slate or federal<br />
law shall also apply to the development. The M1 Restricted InJustrial Zone regulations in effect<br />
at the time <strong>of</strong> ex.ecution <strong>of</strong> this Agreement are attached as Attachment 3A.<br />
2, Notwithstanding any provisions <strong>of</strong> this Agreement to the contrary,<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the Project shall be subject to changes 'occurring from time to time in the<br />
Uniform Building Code and other uniform construction codes involving fire, life and safety<br />
which are generally applicable on a citywide basis.<br />
l WL"l \ l1J:KI." 4
3. The <strong>City</strong> and Agency may impose only those restrictions on future<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the Site as provided in this § 111.<br />
ARTICLE II. [§ 200] DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE<br />
A. [§ 201] Scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong><br />
Each phase <strong>of</strong> the Site shall be developed by Panicipant in accordance with and within<br />
the limitations established therefor in the Scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong> and the Schedule <strong>of</strong><br />
Perfonnance (Attachment No.4) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.<br />
Participant agrees to use its best efforts, in accordance with irs own business judgement, taking<br />
into consideration financing and other economic considerations influencing its business decision,<br />
to implement the Scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong> and pursue the construction <strong>of</strong> the necessary<br />
improvements in accordance with the overall conceptual design plans for the development <strong>of</strong> the<br />
entire Site.<br />
The foregoing notwithstanding, Participant represents that it presently intends to construci<br />
improvements on the site totalling 495,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> floor area, and reserves the right 10<br />
construct such improvements in phases. However, Participant agrees that it shall develop and<br />
construct a first phase ("First Phase") upon the Site containing at least 250,000 square feel <strong>of</strong><br />
floor area. Construction <strong>of</strong> the First Phase improvements shall corrunence no laler than March<br />
1997, except as this date may be extended pursuant to Section 608 <strong>of</strong> this Agreement.<br />
Participant anticipates the completion <strong>of</strong> the First Phase <strong>of</strong> construction by approximately June<br />
1999.<br />
Notwithstanding any contrary provision or implication contained in this Agreement, In<br />
the Scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong> or in the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Perfonnanee:<br />
J. Except with respect 10 the perfonnance <strong>of</strong> obligations hereunder where<br />
time is expressly made <strong>of</strong> the essence, this Agreement shall nO! be conslrued or enforced so as<br />
to create a forfeirure <strong>of</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> the party obligated 10 perform where perfonnance has been<br />
substantial and the rights <strong>of</strong> the other pany have not been materially prejudiced; and<br />
2. All references in this Agreement (including the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Perfonnance)<br />
to a number <strong>of</strong> days in which either party shall have lo consent, approve or perform shall mean<br />
calendar days unless specifically stated to be business days.<br />
B. [§ 202] <strong>City</strong> Project Mana[!er<br />
The <strong>City</strong> Manager and the Executive <strong>Director</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Agency shall appoinl a <strong>City</strong> or<br />
Agency Employee to serve as Project Manager ("<strong>City</strong> Project Manager") for the <strong>City</strong>'s and<br />
Agency's review and approval <strong>of</strong> the Project. The <strong>City</strong> Project Manager shall be the single<br />
point <strong>of</strong> contact and reference at the <strong>City</strong>, and shall have the authority to coordinate and organize<br />
all <strong>City</strong> Departments 10 assist in expediting the required approvals and inspections for the<br />
Project. The <strong>City</strong> Manager shall have the authority to settle disputes between any <strong>City</strong><br />
LWL...1 171:!!l.14 5
Department in the event <strong>of</strong> conflicting interprelation <strong>of</strong> the various codes and regulations, unless<br />
otherwise required by law.<br />
C. [§ 203] Segmentation <strong>of</strong> Construction Permits<br />
<strong>City</strong> agrees to issue separate construction permits for construction <strong>of</strong> each building or<br />
structure located within the Project site, including but not limited to demolition permits, grading<br />
permits, foundation only permits, steel frame permits, shell and core permits and tenant<br />
improvement permits. The foundation only permits may include all work up to and including<br />
the first floor slab <strong>of</strong> any building, so that any basement portion <strong>of</strong> a building may be<br />
constructed as part <strong>of</strong> the foundation only permit. Sufficient information shall be submitted to<br />
the <strong>City</strong> as reasonably requested by the <strong>City</strong> to enable the <strong>City</strong> to issue such permits.<br />
D. [§ 204] Design Review Approval<br />
Participant shall prepare and submit to the <strong>City</strong>, and the <strong>City</strong> shall review under the<br />
applicable design review process (the "Design Review Approval"), drawings and related<br />
documents containing the plan for development <strong>of</strong> the Site. The design review process shall<br />
review and provide comments, if any, on the architectural design <strong>of</strong> the project. The Site shall<br />
be developed as generally established in the Design Review Approval, except for such changes<br />
which may be mutually agreed upon between the Participant and the <strong>City</strong> and Agency.<br />
E. l§ 205] Construction Drawings and Relaled Documents<br />
As and at the times eSlablished in the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Performance, Participant shall prepare<br />
and submit to <strong>City</strong> for review construction drawings and related documents for the development<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Sile consistent with the Design Review Approval and the Scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong>.<br />
Approval or disapproval shall be based solely upon those standards and guidelines <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong><br />
agreed to be applied to the Site in accordance with this Agreement. The construction drawings<br />
and related documents may be submitted in stages consistent with the Design Review Approval<br />
and the Scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong>. Final drawings, plans and specifications are hereby defined as<br />
those in sufficient detail to obtain a building permit from the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
During the preparation <strong>of</strong> all drawings and plans, the Agency slaff, <strong>City</strong> staff and<br />
Participant shall be available for progress meetings as needed to coordinate the preparation and<br />
review <strong>of</strong> conslruction plans and related documents to be submitted to the Agency and <strong>City</strong>. The<br />
Agency staff, <strong>City</strong> Staff and Participant shall communicate and consult informally as frequently<br />
as is necessary to insure that the fonnal submittal <strong>of</strong> any documents to the <strong>City</strong> can receive<br />
prompt and speedy consideration.<br />
If any revisions or corrections <strong>of</strong> plans approved by the Agency or <strong>City</strong> shall be required<br />
by any other government <strong>of</strong>ficial, agency, department or bureau having jurisdiction over the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the Site, Participant, Agency and <strong>City</strong> shall cooperate in good faith to obtain<br />
waiver <strong>of</strong> such requirements or to develop a mutually acceptable alremative, or revise, the plans,<br />
as they deem appropriate.<br />
6
F. I§ 206] <strong>City</strong> Approval <strong>of</strong> Plans. Drawings and Related Documents<br />
As referred to in § 205 <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, <strong>City</strong> shall have the right <strong>of</strong> review <strong>of</strong> all<br />
plans, drawings and related documents for the development <strong>of</strong> the Site. <strong>City</strong> shall reasonably<br />
approve or disapprove such plans, drawings, and related documents referred to in this<br />
Agreemem (and any proposed changes therein) within the times established in the Schedule <strong>of</strong><br />
Performance. Sufficient plan checkers shall be provided to check construction plans. If<br />
requested by Participant, the plans shall be checked on an expedited basis, at the standard plan<br />
check fee rates. An in-house lead plan checker, and additional plan checkers and outside<br />
consultams as needed, shall be assigned to this Project to give prompt attemion and make<br />
decisions to maimain the schedule and to provide consistency during design and final drawing<br />
submittals through construction. The Ciry Project Manager shall hold coordination meetings<br />
between the plan checkers and field inspectors, at the plan check stage, to minimize field<br />
inspection corrections due to design related code requirements. To eliminate conflicts or<br />
interpretations during construction, the approved plans shall be binding and not subject to<br />
interpretation during inspections unless required for fire or life safety reasons. <strong>City</strong> agrees that<br />
the Project shall be plan checked and inspected based on the codes and regulations that are in<br />
effect as <strong>of</strong> the Effective Date <strong>of</strong> this Agreement. All reviews and approvals shall be processed<br />
by <strong>City</strong> within a reasonably expeditious time (not longer than ten (lO) working days following<br />
each submission by Participant), and Participam shall be charged only standard processing fees<br />
in effect at the time <strong>of</strong> plan submission for such review and approvals. Such approval shall not<br />
unreasonably be withheld or delayed. Any construction drawings and related plans and documents<br />
which are consistent with a logical evolution <strong>of</strong> previously approved basic concept<br />
drawings and related plans and documents, shall not be disapproved by <strong>City</strong>. Any items so<br />
submitted and approved in writing by <strong>City</strong> shall not be subject to subsequent disapproval. Any<br />
disapproval shall state in writing the reasons for disapproval.<br />
Participant upon receipt <strong>of</strong> a disapproval shall revise such pOJ1ions <strong>of</strong> the plans, drawings<br />
or related documents in a manner that satisfies the reasons for disapproval or suggesls alternate<br />
solutions to the reasons for disapproval, and shall resubmit suc.h revised portions to <strong>City</strong> as soon<br />
as possible after receipt <strong>of</strong> the notice <strong>of</strong> disapproval. <strong>City</strong> shall approve or disapprove such<br />
revised portions in the same manner and within the same times as provided in this § 206 for<br />
approval or disapproval <strong>of</strong> plans, drawings, and related documents initially submitted to CilY.<br />
Any inspection or approval <strong>of</strong> plans, specifications and drawings made or granted<br />
pursuant to this Agreement shall not constitute an inspection or approval <strong>of</strong> the quality,<br />
adequacy, or suitability <strong>of</strong> such plans, specifications or drawings, nor <strong>of</strong> the labor, materials,<br />
services, or equipment to be furnished or supplied in connection with actual construction.<br />
Agency or <strong>City</strong> do not have any right, and hereby expressly disclaim any right, <strong>of</strong> super<br />
VISion or control over the architects, designers, engineers, contractors or other persons<br />
responsible for the drafting or fonnulation <strong>of</strong> lhe plans, drawings, and related documents <strong>of</strong><br />
Participant.<br />
7
<strong>City</strong> agrees to provide a sufficient number <strong>of</strong> qualified building inspectors to<br />
inspect the construction work on an as needed basis. Inspection shall be provided as necessary<br />
to maintain the construction schedule.<br />
G. [§ 207) Schedule <strong>of</strong> Performance<br />
Participant shall begin and complete or cause to be begun and completed all construction<br />
<strong>of</strong> the First Phase within the times specified in the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Perfonnance, or as such times<br />
may be extended pursuant to Section 608 <strong>of</strong> this Agreement. The Schedule <strong>of</strong> Perfonnance is<br />
also SUbject to revision from time to time as mutually agreed upon in writing by and between<br />
Participant, Agency and <strong>City</strong>.<br />
H. [§ 208J Indemnification During Construction; Bodily Injury and Property Damage<br />
Insurance<br />
During periods <strong>of</strong> construction on the Site pursuant to this Agreement, Participant agrees<br />
to, and shall, indemnify and hold the Agency and the <strong>City</strong> hannless from and against all<br />
liability, loss, damage, costs, or expenses (including attorneys' fees and court costs) arising from<br />
or as a result <strong>of</strong> the death <strong>of</strong> any person or any accident, injury, loss and damage whatsoever<br />
caused to any person or to the property <strong>of</strong> any person which shall occur on or adjacent to the<br />
Site and which may be caused by the performance <strong>of</strong> Participant, its agents, servants, employees<br />
and contractors or anyone d.irectly or indirectly employed by Participant, and whether such<br />
damage shall accrue or be discovered before or after the tennination <strong>of</strong> this Agreement. Nothing<br />
in this Section shall be construed to mean· that Participant shall hold the <strong>City</strong> or the Agency<br />
hannless and/or defend either from any claims arising from, or alleged to arise from, the<br />
negl igent acts, or negligent failure to act, on the part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> or the Agency. The <strong>City</strong> and<br />
Agency agree [0 fully cooperate with Participant in the defense <strong>of</strong> any matter in which<br />
Participant is defending and/or holding the <strong>City</strong> and/or the Agency harmless.<br />
Prior to the commencement <strong>of</strong> construction on the site, Participant shall furnish or shall<br />
cause lO be furnished, to the Agency and <strong>City</strong>, duplicate originals or appropriate certificates <strong>of</strong><br />
bodily injury and property damage insurance policies in the amount <strong>of</strong> at least $1,000,000<br />
combined single limits, naming the Agency and the <strong>City</strong> as additional insureds. Such insurance<br />
shall be maintained and kept in force until the Agency and <strong>City</strong> has issued a Certificate <strong>of</strong><br />
Completion (pursuant to § 220) for the First Phase. Additional certificates <strong>of</strong> insurance shall<br />
be provided in connection with subsequent phases <strong>of</strong> construction and shall be similarly released<br />
by the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
All policies or certificates issued by the respective insurers for insurance shall provide<br />
that such policies or certificates shall not be canceled or materially changed without at least<br />
thirty (3D) days' prior written notice to the <strong>City</strong> and the Agency. Copies <strong>of</strong> such policies or<br />
certificates shall be deposited with the <strong>City</strong> and the Agency together with appropriate evidence<br />
<strong>of</strong> payment <strong>of</strong> the premiums therefor; and, at least thirty (30) days prior 10 expiration dates <strong>of</strong><br />
expiring policies or contracts held by said <strong>City</strong> and Agency, copies <strong>of</strong> renewal or new policies<br />
or contracts or certificates shall be deposited with said <strong>City</strong> and Agency.<br />
tWL")1)7lW.IO 8
damages arising out <strong>of</strong> any activity <strong>of</strong> any such representatives perfonned and conducted on the<br />
Site pursuant to this § 212.<br />
M. [§ 213] <strong>City</strong> and Agency Approvals<br />
1. [§ 214] Approval By <strong>City</strong> Ordinance<br />
Upon adoption <strong>of</strong> the ordinance approving this Agreement by the <strong>City</strong> Council,<br />
this <strong>Development</strong> Agreement shall be recorded as provided by Section 603. The ordinance shall<br />
be consistent with the fonn shown in Attachment No.5 hereto and shall find and declare that<br />
the use <strong>of</strong> the Site in compliance with this Agreement shall be deemed to comply with the<br />
General Plan <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> and all ordinances <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>. The rules, regulations, and <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
policies governing pennined uses <strong>of</strong> the Site, governing density, and governing design,<br />
improvement and construction standards and specifications, applicable to development <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Site, shall be those rules, regulations and <strong>of</strong>ficial policies in force as <strong>of</strong> the Effective Date <strong>of</strong><br />
this Agreemen[ pursuant [0 Government Code § 65866 (other than Unifonn Building Code and<br />
other unifonn construction codes and issues involving fire, life and safety which are generally<br />
applicable on a citywide basis). The rules, regulations and policies specified in Government<br />
Code § 65866 shall be deemed to be vested in Participant and its successors and assigns pursuant<br />
to Government Code § 65865.4.<br />
2. [§ 215] Aporoval by Agency Resolution<br />
This Agreement shall also be approved by a resolution <strong>of</strong> the Agency consistent<br />
with the fonn shown in Auachment NO.6 hereto which resolution shall find and declare that the<br />
use <strong>of</strong> the Site in compliance with this Agreement shall be deemed to comply with the<br />
Redevelopment Plan. The rules, regulations and policies specified in Government Code § 65866<br />
shall be deemed to be vested in Panicipant and its successors and assigns pursuant to Health &<br />
Safety Code § 33339.5 and § 333.80.<br />
N. I§ 216] Agency Waiver <strong>of</strong> Eminent Domain<br />
Within thirty (30) days <strong>of</strong> the issuance <strong>of</strong> a Certificate <strong>of</strong> Completion for Phase 1 pursuant<br />
to Section 220, the Agency shall adopt a resolution pursuant to Health and Safety Code<br />
§ 33399(g) consistent with the form <strong>of</strong> resolution attached hcreto as Attachment No.7, whieh<br />
shall exempt the Site, during the term <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, provided that the site is occupied and<br />
maintained, from the use <strong>of</strong> eminent domain by the Agency for any purpose.<br />
O. I§ 217] Reimbursement <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Costs<br />
1. Participant shall reimburse to the Agency and the <strong>City</strong> certain costs and<br />
expenses ("<strong>Glendale</strong> Costs") incurred by the Agency and the <strong>City</strong>, subject to the payment<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> § 218. The <strong>Glendale</strong> Costs eligible for reimbursemem by Participant shall only<br />
include the following costS incurred after OCIober 24, 1995:<br />
tWU.J )7l:!tll' 10
6. In any year, if the combination <strong>of</strong> the Estimated Property Tax Increment<br />
Amount and the Lease Payment is less than the Total Amount, no Excess monies will be paid<br />
to Participant, and any deficit (the "Deficit") will be added to the next year's Total Amount<br />
(with simple interest at a six (6) percent rate), and no future year's Excess will be paid to<br />
Participant until all Deficits have been repaid; provided, however, that at any time Agency may<br />
demand repayment <strong>of</strong> the Deficits (plus accrued interest) up to the total cumulative Excess paid<br />
to the Participant (less any amounts previously repaid to Agency).<br />
7. Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prohibit Participant from<br />
contesting the validity or amounts <strong>of</strong> any tax assessment, encumbrance or lien, or to limit the<br />
remedies available to Participant in respect thereto, including an appeal <strong>of</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> the<br />
assessed fair cash value <strong>of</strong> the Site.<br />
8. In the event that Participant receives any refunds <strong>of</strong> Real Property Taxes,<br />
then promptly upon written request by Agency, Participant shall pay to Agency Agency's Share<br />
<strong>of</strong> such refunds, provided that Agency's Share <strong>of</strong> such refunds to the Los Angeles County Tax<br />
Assessor has been debited from Agency.<br />
Q. [§ 219] Utility Service, Rate and Infrastructure Agreements<br />
<strong>City</strong> shall use its best efforts to facilitate and enter into utility service, rate and<br />
infrastTUchlTe agreements with affected <strong>City</strong> Departments (including elecrricity, water and sewer)<br />
10 ensure sufficient capacity to service the Project at full buildout and to set rates faT the Project.<br />
The <strong>City</strong> and Participant shall negotiate in good faith to enter into such utility service, rate and<br />
infrastructure agreements. In connection with any agreement for water or use <strong>of</strong> water well<br />
easements on the Site, Participant agrees 10 make the water well easements available at no<br />
charge to the <strong>City</strong> for a period beginning at the termination <strong>of</strong> the Group's use <strong>of</strong> the water well<br />
easements and extending no longer than fifty (50) years from the Effective Date <strong>of</strong> this<br />
Agreement. As between the <strong>City</strong> and Participant, the <strong>City</strong> agrees that Participant shall have the<br />
right to use the water pumped from wells on-site for landscapil)g and/or the <strong>City</strong> agrees to make<br />
available to Participant an equivalent amount <strong>of</strong> reclaimed water subject 10 agreement between<br />
the parties as 10 the cost <strong>of</strong> bringing a reclaimed water line to the Site.<br />
R. [§ 220] Certificate <strong>of</strong> Completion<br />
Promptly after completion <strong>of</strong> construction and development <strong>of</strong> the improvements 10 be<br />
completed by Participant under the First Phase <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong> the Site, as generally and<br />
specifically required by this Agreement and in particular the Scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong> and the<br />
approved plans and specifications, the Agency shall furnish Participant with a Certificate <strong>of</strong><br />
Completion upon written request therefor by Participant after issuance by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> a Final Use<br />
and Occupancy Permit for the First Phase. The Agency shall not unreasonably withhold such<br />
Certificate <strong>of</strong> Completion. This section shall not prevent the issuance <strong>of</strong> a Temporary Use and<br />
Occupancy Permit for portions <strong>of</strong> any individual building, provided, however, that such<br />
occupancy does not pose a threat to life safety or the issuance <strong>of</strong> a Use and Occupancy Permit<br />
for an individual building while other buildings are under construction.<br />
LWLA] )11:!{j.1< 14
Such Certificate <strong>of</strong> Completion shall be, and shall so state, conclusive detennination <strong>of</strong><br />
satisfactory completion <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong> the construction required by this Agreement for the Site and <strong>of</strong><br />
full compliance with the terms here<strong>of</strong> with respect to such First Phase development. After the<br />
recordation <strong>of</strong> the Certificate <strong>of</strong> Completion, any parry then owning or thereafter purchasing,<br />
leasing or otherwise acquiring any imerest therein shall not (because <strong>of</strong> such ownership,<br />
purchase, lease, or acquisition) incur any obligation or liability under this Agreement with<br />
respect to the First Phase development. .<br />
In the event <strong>of</strong> Participant's election to develop additional phases <strong>of</strong> the Project and upon<br />
completion <strong>of</strong> construction <strong>of</strong> said future phases, the provisions <strong>of</strong> this § 220 shall apply.<br />
Any Certificate <strong>of</strong> Completion shall be in such form as to permit it to be recorded in the<br />
Recorder's Office <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles County.<br />
If the Agency refuses or fails to furnish a Certificate <strong>of</strong> Completion after written request<br />
from Participant, the Agency shall, within thirty (30) days <strong>of</strong> the wriuen request, provide<br />
Participant with a wrinen statement <strong>of</strong> the reasons the Agency refused or failed to furnish a<br />
Certificate <strong>of</strong> Completion. The statement shall also contain the Agency's opinion <strong>of</strong> the action<br />
Participant must take to obtain a Certificate <strong>of</strong> Completion. If the reason for such refusal is<br />
confined to the immediate unavailability <strong>of</strong> specific items or materials for landscaping. and/or<br />
other minor items as determined by the Agency, the Agency will issue its Certificate <strong>of</strong><br />
Completion upon the posting <strong>of</strong> a bond by Participant with the Agency in an amount representing<br />
a fair value <strong>of</strong> the work not yet completed. If the Agency shall have failed to provide such<br />
written statement within said 30-day period, Participant shall be deemed entitled to the<br />
Certificate <strong>of</strong> Completion for the Site.<br />
ARTICLE III.[§ 300] USE OF THE SITE<br />
A. [§ 301] Uses<br />
Participant covenants and agrees (for itself, its successors, its assigns, and every<br />
successor in interest to the Site or any part there<strong>of</strong>) that during construction and thereafter,<br />
Participam, such successor and such assigns shall devote the Sile (or any part there<strong>of</strong>) to the uses<br />
specified therefor in the Redevelopment Plan (as amended), the uses specified therefor in § 111<br />
<strong>of</strong> this Agreement, the Scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong> and the plans approved by the Agency and <strong>City</strong><br />
under this Agreement.<br />
B. I§ 302] Maintenance <strong>of</strong> the Site<br />
Participant covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, assigns, and every successor<br />
in interest to the Site or any part there<strong>of</strong>, that the Participant and such successors and assigns<br />
shall reasonably maintain the improvements on the Site and shall keep the Site free from any<br />
accumulation <strong>of</strong> debris, graffiti or waste materials, except subject to periods <strong>of</strong> construction to<br />
normal conslructionjob site conditions, and except subject to nonnal operations <strong>of</strong> the businesses<br />
that may be located al the Site.<br />
15
C. [§ 303] ObliQation 10 Refrain from Discrimination<br />
Pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 33435, Participanl covenants and agrees for itself.<br />
its successors, its assigns and every successor in interest to the Site or any part there<strong>of</strong>, that<br />
there shall be no discrimination against or segregation <strong>of</strong> any person, or group <strong>of</strong> persons on<br />
account <strong>of</strong> race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the<br />
sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment <strong>of</strong> the Site nor shall<br />
Participant, itself or any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such<br />
practice or practices <strong>of</strong> discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location,<br />
number, use or occupancy <strong>of</strong> tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees <strong>of</strong> the Site.<br />
D. [§ 304] Fonn <strong>of</strong> Non-discrimination and Non-segregation Clauses<br />
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 33436, Participant and such successors shall refrain<br />
from restricting the sale, lease, sublease, rental, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Site (or any part there<strong>of</strong>) on the basis <strong>of</strong> race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status,<br />
national origin, or ancestry <strong>of</strong> any person. All deeds, leases, or contracts pertaining thereto<br />
shall cOnlain or be subject to substantially the following non-discrimination or non-segregation<br />
clauses:<br />
1. In deeds: "The grantee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and<br />
assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination<br />
against or segregation <strong>of</strong>, any person or group <strong>of</strong> persons on account <strong>of</strong> race, color, creed,<br />
religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer,<br />
use, occupancy, lenure or enjoyment <strong>of</strong> the land herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee itself or<br />
any person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices <strong>of</strong><br />
discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy<br />
<strong>of</strong> tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees in the land herein conveyed. The<br />
foregoing covenants shall run with the land."<br />
2. In leases: "The lessee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and<br />
assigns, and all persons claiming under or through them, and this lease is made and accepted<br />
upon and subject to the following conditions: That there shall be no discrimination against or<br />
segregation <strong>of</strong> any person or group <strong>of</strong> persons, on account <strong>of</strong> race, color, creed, religion, sex,<br />
marital Matus, national origin, or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, renting, transferring, use,<br />
occupancy, tenure or enjoyment <strong>of</strong> the land herein leased, nor shall lessee itSelf, or any person<br />
claiming under or through it, eSlablish or permit such practice or practices <strong>of</strong> discrimination or<br />
segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, or occupancy <strong>of</strong> tenants, lessees,<br />
sublessees, tenants, or vendees in the land herein leased."<br />
3. In contracts entered into by the Agency: "There shall be no discrimination<br />
against, or segregation <strong>of</strong>, any person, or group <strong>of</strong> persons on account <strong>of</strong> race, color, creed,<br />
religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, rental,<br />
transfer, use, occupancy, lenure or enjoyment <strong>of</strong> the land, nor shall the transferee itself or any<br />
person claiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices <strong>of</strong><br />
LWL") )1J:'IlI< 16
discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy<br />
<strong>of</strong> tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees <strong>of</strong> the land. n<br />
E. [§ 305] Transfer <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Property<br />
As <strong>of</strong> or as soon after the Effective Date <strong>of</strong> this Agreement as is practicable, <strong>City</strong> or<br />
Agency shall transfer to Participant or its nominee fee title to the property consisting <strong>of</strong> an<br />
approximately one-half acre corner parcel adjacent to the southeast corner <strong>of</strong> the Site, including<br />
Assessor Parcel No. 5627-018-013 (llJe "<strong>Glendale</strong> Parcel") as more particularly described in<br />
Attachment No. Ie. <strong>City</strong> shall transfer, at no cost to Panicipam, fee title to the <strong>Glendale</strong> Parcel<br />
and to the adjacent portion <strong>of</strong> Victory Truck Boulevard resulting from the termination <strong>of</strong> the<br />
easement for Victory Truck Boulevard. Upon the transfer <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Glendale</strong> Parcel, the <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Parcel shall be included in the Site and shall be governed by the terms <strong>of</strong> this Agreement. The<br />
<strong>City</strong> and the Agency acknowledge that the developmeOl <strong>of</strong> the Site as contemplated under this<br />
Agreement, and Participan('s obligations under this Agreement, are dependent upon said<br />
property being acquired by Participant. In the event that no portion <strong>of</strong> the Project is constructed<br />
on the <strong>Glendale</strong> Parcel by the fifteenth armiversary <strong>of</strong> the Effective Date <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, title<br />
to the <strong>Glendale</strong> Parcel shall revert to the Agency.<br />
F. [§ 306J Quitclaim <strong>of</strong> Victory Truck Boulevard<br />
As <strong>of</strong> or before the Effective Date <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, CilY shall release that portion <strong>of</strong><br />
the Victory Truck Boulevard righl-<strong>of</strong>-way easements as recorded with the Office <strong>of</strong> the Los<br />
Angeles County Recorder on October 6, 1933 in Book 12433, Page 58, Official Records, and<br />
on October 31, 1957, in Book 14195, Page 337, Official Records, but only as said easement<br />
deeds affect the Sile and shall affect no other panion <strong>of</strong> ViclOry Truck Boulevard. Said release<br />
shall not affect any other rights, titles or interests the <strong>City</strong> or any other entity holds in said<br />
described property including public utilities and fire accessways. The <strong>City</strong> and Agency<br />
acknowledge that the development <strong>of</strong> the Site as contemplated undt:r this Agreement, and<br />
Participant's obligations under this Agreement, are dependent upon said easements being<br />
quitclaimed. In the event thal no ponion <strong>of</strong> the Project is construcled on the Site by lhe fifteenth<br />
anniversary <strong>of</strong> the Effective Dale <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, Participant shall grant 10 <strong>City</strong> a right-<strong>of</strong>way<br />
easement for ViclOry Truck Boulevard under the same terms and conditions as set forth in<br />
the above-referenced easements.<br />
G. [§ 307] Effect and Duralion <strong>of</strong> Covenants<br />
The covenants established in this Agreement shall, without regard to Lechnical<br />
classification and designation, be binding on Participant and any successor in interest to the Site<br />
or any part there<strong>of</strong> for the benefit and in favor <strong>of</strong> <strong>City</strong> and/or Agency, its successors and<br />
assigns, and on the <strong>City</strong> and/or Agency. Except as otherwise limited herein or by law, the<br />
covenants contained in this Agreement shall remain in effect during the duration <strong>of</strong> this<br />
Agreement in accordance with § 604 <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, unless this Agreement provides for their<br />
earlier lennination.<br />
17
The covenants against discrimination (as described in § 303 and § 304) shall remain in<br />
perpetuity. The covenants set forth in § 301 and § 302 shall remain in effect for the duration<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan.<br />
ARTICLE IV. [§ 400J EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURES<br />
A. I§ 401] Exemption from Future A2ency Eminent Domain<br />
In accordance with § 216 <strong>of</strong> this Agreemer", the Agency shall adopt a resolution which<br />
waives the Agency's power <strong>of</strong> eminent domain that could involve taking all or part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
property interests in the Site during the term <strong>of</strong> this Agreement and after the issuance <strong>of</strong> a<br />
Certificate <strong>of</strong> Completion for the First Phase. Providing that the Site remains occupied and<br />
maintained, such resolution shall have the effect <strong>of</strong> preventing the Agency from considering or<br />
initiating any proceeding in eminem domain regarding the Site unless and until the <strong>City</strong> Council<br />
approves an amendment to the Redevelopmelll Plan which specifically re-establishes such<br />
eminent domain powers over the Site as provided under Health and Safety Code § 33399(g).<br />
ARTICLE V. [§ 500] ANNUAL REVIEW, DEFAULTS, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION<br />
A. [§ 501] Annual Review.<br />
1. During the Term <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, the <strong>City</strong> shall review annually<br />
Participant's compliance with this Agreement. Such periodic review shall be limited in scope<br />
to good faith compliance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> this Agreement as provided in the <strong>Development</strong><br />
Agreement Act, and Participant shall have the burden <strong>of</strong> demonstrating such good faith<br />
compliance.<br />
2. Pre-Determination Procedure. Participanl's submission <strong>of</strong> evidence <strong>of</strong><br />
compliance with this Agreement, in a form which the <strong>Director</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Services lTlay<br />
reasonably establish, shall be made in wriling and transmitted to the <strong>Director</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong><br />
Services not later than thirty (30) days prior to the yearly anniversary <strong>of</strong> the Effective Date <strong>of</strong><br />
this Agreement.<br />
3. Evidence for Annual Review. Agency shall deliver to Participant a copy<br />
<strong>of</strong> any staff report and any other documents to be used or relied upon in conducting the annual<br />
review concerning ParticipanI's performance hereunder prior to comrnem.:ement <strong>of</strong> any such<br />
annual review by the <strong>Director</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Services, or if any such dOl:llmenI is subsequently<br />
created or received, within 48 hours <strong>of</strong> its creation or receipt by the Agency. ParticipanI shall<br />
be permitted a reasonable opportunity to respond (0 Agency's evaluation <strong>of</strong> its performance at<br />
each stage <strong>of</strong> the review process, either orally or in writing, at Participant's election.<br />
4. <strong>Director</strong>'s Determination. On or before the yearly anniversary <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Effective Date <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, the <strong>Director</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Services shall make a<br />
determinalion regarding whether or not Participant has complied in good faith with the<br />
provisions and conditions <strong>of</strong> this Agreement. This determination shall be made in writing with<br />
reasonable specificity, and a copy <strong>of</strong> the determination shall be provided to Participant in the<br />
1 WI.A) ]1):lO 14 18
manner prescribed in § 602. Copies <strong>of</strong> the determination shall also be available to members <strong>of</strong><br />
the public. Unless the <strong>Director</strong> finds evidence <strong>of</strong> non-compliance with the Agreement by<br />
Participant, no further action by the <strong>Director</strong>, the Planning Commission or the <strong>City</strong> Council shall<br />
be required and the annual review process for such year shall end.<br />
5. Appeal By Participant. In the event the <strong>Director</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong> Services<br />
makes a finding and determination <strong>of</strong> non-compliance, Participant shall be entitled to appeal that<br />
determination to the <strong>City</strong> Council. After a public hearing on the appeal, the <strong>City</strong> Council shall<br />
make wrinen findings and determinations, on the basis <strong>of</strong> subst.antial evidence, whether or not<br />
Participant has complied in gOQd faith with the provisions and conditions <strong>of</strong> this Agreement.<br />
B. l§ 502] Defaults - General<br />
1. Subject to the extensions <strong>of</strong> time set forth in § 608 <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, and<br />
subject to the expiration <strong>of</strong> the curative periods set forth in §§ 508 through 510, failure or delay<br />
by either party to perform any material term or provision <strong>of</strong> this Agreement constitutes a default<br />
under this Agreement. The party who so fails or delays must immediately, upon written notice<br />
in the manner prescribed in § 602, corrunence to cure, correct, or remedy such failure or delay<br />
and shall complete such cure, correction or remedy with reasonable diligence and during any<br />
period <strong>of</strong> curing shall not be in default.<br />
2. The injured parry shall give wrinen notice <strong>of</strong> default in the manner<br />
prescribed in § 602 to the party in default, specifying the default complained <strong>of</strong> by (he injured<br />
party. Delay in giving such notice shall not constitute a waiver <strong>of</strong> any default nor shall it change<br />
the time <strong>of</strong> default. Upon receipt <strong>of</strong> [he notice <strong>of</strong> default, the party in default shall promptly<br />
commence 10 cure the identified default(s) at the earliesl reasonable time after receipl <strong>of</strong> the<br />
notice <strong>of</strong> default and shall complete the cure <strong>of</strong> such default(s) not later than ninety (90) days<br />
after receipt <strong>of</strong> the nOlice <strong>of</strong> default, or such longer period as is reasonably necessary to remedy<br />
such defau1t(s), provided that lhe party shall continuously and diligently pursue such remedy ,It<br />
all limes until such default(s) is cured.<br />
3. Any failures or delay by either party in asserting any <strong>of</strong> its rights and<br />
remedies as 10 any default shall noL operate as a waiver <strong>of</strong> any default or <strong>of</strong> any such rights or<br />
remedies. Delays by either party in asserting any <strong>of</strong> iLS rights and remedies shall nOI deprive<br />
either pany <strong>of</strong> its righL La institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem<br />
necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies.<br />
C. l§ 503] Legal Actions<br />
1. [§ 504] Institution <strong>of</strong> Le[!al AClions<br />
Except as rights or remedies are limited by the provisions <strong>of</strong> this Article V, in<br />
addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to cure, correct,<br />
or remedy any default to recover damages for any default, or to obtain any other remedy<br />
consistent with the purpose <strong>of</strong> this Agreement including actions for specific performance, to<br />
quiel title and injunctive relief. Such legal actions must be inst.ituted in the Superior Coun <strong>of</strong><br />
LWL"J )71.'0.1' 19
the County <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles, State <strong>of</strong> California, in any other appropriate court in that County,<br />
or in the Federal District Court in the Central District <strong>of</strong> California.<br />
2. [§ 505J Applicable Law<br />
The laws <strong>of</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement<br />
<strong>of</strong> this Agreement.<br />
3. [§ 506] Acceptance <strong>of</strong> Service <strong>of</strong> Process<br />
In the event that any legal action is corrunenced by Participant against the Agency.<br />
service <strong>of</strong> process on the Agency shall be made by personal service upon the Executive <strong>Director</strong><br />
or Chairman <strong>of</strong> the Agency, or in such other manner as may be provided by law.<br />
In the event that any legal action is commenced by the Agency against the<br />
Participant, service <strong>of</strong> process on Participant shall be made by personal service upon Participant<br />
or in such manner as may be provided by law, and shall be valid whether made within or<br />
without the State <strong>of</strong> California.<br />
D. [§ 507] Rights and Remedies are Cumulative<br />
Unless the rights or remedies are limited by the provisions <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, the rights<br />
and remedies <strong>of</strong> the parties are cumulative and the exercise by either party <strong>of</strong> one or more <strong>of</strong><br />
such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, <strong>of</strong><br />
any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.<br />
E. [§ 508] Damages<br />
If either party defaults with regard to any <strong>of</strong> the provisions <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, the nondefaulting<br />
party shall serve written notice <strong>of</strong> such default in the manner prescribed in § 602 upon<br />
the defaulting party. In the event that any party to this Agreement defaults under the material<br />
provisions <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, the party nOl in default shall have all rights and remedies provided<br />
herein or by applicable law, which shall include, but not be limited to, compelling the specific<br />
performance <strong>of</strong> the party's obligation under this Agreement as provided in § 509.<br />
F. [§ 509) Specific Performance<br />
If either party default'; under any <strong>of</strong> the provisions <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, the non-defaulting<br />
parry shall serve written notice <strong>of</strong> such default in the manner prescribed in § 602 upon such<br />
defaulting party. If the default is not commenced to be cured within ninety (90) days after<br />
service <strong>of</strong> the notice <strong>of</strong> default and is not cured promptly within a reasonable time after the<br />
commencement, the non-defaulting parry, at its option, may institute an action for specific<br />
performance <strong>of</strong> the tenns <strong>of</strong> this Agreement.<br />
I.Wl.") \ l1)10.1' 20
G. [§ 510] Remedies and Rights <strong>of</strong> Tennination<br />
In addition to any other remedies the Agency and/or <strong>City</strong> may have, the Agency and/or<br />
<strong>City</strong>. at their option may tenninate this Agreement upon wrinen notice to the Participant if:<br />
1. Participant fails to timely perfonn any <strong>of</strong> its material obligations as<br />
provided in this Agreement and such failure is not cured within ninety (90) days after the date<br />
<strong>of</strong> written demand therefor by the Agency. Provided, however, if Participant is diligently<br />
attempting to cure such failure and continues to do so until the cure is completed. then the ninety<br />
(90) day curative period shall be extended for such reasonable time as may be required to<br />
perfonn such cure.<br />
ARTICLE VI. [§ 600] GENERAL PROVISIONS<br />
A. [§ 601] Effective Date<br />
This Agreement shall be effective upon the date on which this Agreement is auested by<br />
the <strong>City</strong> Clerk <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> after execution by Participant. the Agency and the Mayor<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> (the "Effective Date"). As provided in Section 65868.5 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Development</strong><br />
Agreement Act, and as provided in § 603, a copy <strong>of</strong> this Agreement shall be recorded with the<br />
Los Angeles County Recorder.<br />
B. [§ 602] Notices, Demands, Communications Between the Parties<br />
Formal notices, demands, and communications between the Agency and Participant shall<br />
be sufficiently given if sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid. return receipt<br />
requested, to the principal <strong>of</strong>fices <strong>of</strong> the Agency and Participant, as designated in § 106 and<br />
§ 107 here<strong>of</strong>. with a copy to Participam's counsel: George J. Mihlsten, Latham & Watkins, 633<br />
West Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, California 9U071, Phone: (213) 485-1234, Fax:<br />
(213) 891-8763. Such writlen notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same<br />
manner to such other addresses as either party may from lime to time designate by mail as<br />
provided in this § 602. Any such notice. demand or communication shall be deemed to have<br />
been received upon delivery. if given by personal delivery.<br />
C. [§ 603] Agreemenl Recordable<br />
This Agreement shall be recordable with the Los Angeles County Recorder pursuant to<br />
Government Code § 65868.5.<br />
D. I§ 604] Duration <strong>of</strong> Agreement<br />
This Agreement shall have a duration and remain in effect fifteen (5) years from the<br />
Effective Date <strong>of</strong> this Agreement. The duration <strong>of</strong> this Agreement may be extended, modified,<br />
or terminated by mutual written agreement <strong>of</strong> the panies hereto or their assigns.<br />
l WLI\)', 3n:!O.I' 21
commence and diligently process all required steps necessary for the implementation <strong>of</strong> this<br />
Agreemem and development <strong>of</strong> the Site in accordance with the terms <strong>of</strong> this Agreement.<br />
Panicipam shall, in a timely manner, provide the <strong>City</strong> and Agency with all documents, plans,<br />
fees, and other information necessary for the <strong>City</strong> to carry out its processing obligations. The<br />
<strong>City</strong> and Agency shall perform all ministerial acts and issue all pemits necessary to effectuate<br />
this Agreement. Processing <strong>of</strong> all permits and approvals required to be obtained from the <strong>City</strong><br />
and {he Agency shall be done on an expedited basis. No additional fees or costs, over and above<br />
the standard fees and costs in effect at the time <strong>of</strong> submittal for such permits and approvals, shall<br />
be charged to Participant for such expedited processing.<br />
2. Other Governmental Permits. Panicipant may apply in a timely roaMer<br />
for such other permits and approvals as may be required from other governmental or quasigovernmental<br />
agencies having jurisdiction over the Project as may be required for the<br />
development <strong>of</strong>, or provision <strong>of</strong> services to, the Project. The <strong>City</strong> and Agency shall cooperate<br />
with Participant in its endeavors to obtain such pennits and approvals and shall, from time to<br />
rime at the request <strong>of</strong> Participant, attempt with due diligence and in good faith to cooperate to<br />
ensure the availability <strong>of</strong> such pennits and approvals, or services, provided such agreements are<br />
reasonable and not detrimental to the <strong>City</strong> or Agency.<br />
3. Cooperation in the Event <strong>of</strong> Legal Challenge. In the event <strong>of</strong> any legal<br />
action instituted by another party or other governmental entity or <strong>of</strong>ficial challenging the validity<br />
<strong>of</strong> any provision <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, the parties hereby agree to affirmatively cooperate in<br />
defending said action; provided that each party shall bear its own costs.<br />
J. [§ 610] Amendments<br />
This Agreemem may be amended from rime to time by mutual consent in writing <strong>of</strong> the<br />
parties to this Agreement in accordance with Section 65868 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Development</strong> Agreement Act.<br />
Participant shall reimburse the <strong>City</strong> for its actual eosls, reasonably and necessarily incurred,<br />
including the COSI <strong>of</strong> any public hearings, LO review any amendments requested by Participant.<br />
K. [§ 611] Assignment<br />
J. The Site, or portions <strong>of</strong> the Site in the event <strong>of</strong> subdivision, as well as the<br />
rights and obligations <strong>of</strong> Participant under this Agreement, may be transferred or assigned in<br />
whole or in part by Pal1.icipant in accordance with the tenns <strong>of</strong> this Section 611. The consent<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> and Agency to an assignment <strong>of</strong> the rights under this Agreement shall not be<br />
unreasonably withheld or delayed in accordance with [he following agreed standards which<br />
provide that the assignee or transferee is a significant, high quality user <strong>of</strong> the space (taking into<br />
consideration the character, experience and financial viability <strong>of</strong> the assigm:e) and that there will<br />
be an adequate supply <strong>of</strong> parking to serve the use. The issue <strong>of</strong> whether, under the agreed<br />
standards, the Agency is unreasonably withholding its consent to the assignment shall be<br />
submitted to arbitration. Upon assignment or transfer <strong>of</strong> the rights under this Agreement, the<br />
obligations <strong>of</strong> Participant and the assignee or transferee shall be joint and several; provided,<br />
however, that upon Agency's approval <strong>of</strong> the assignee, then the:; assignor shall be relieved <strong>of</strong><br />
liability with respect to and obligations with respect to the Site <strong>of</strong> portions there<strong>of</strong> transferred<br />
I WI.....l' )lHO.I< 23
to the assignee. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit the Fee Owner's rights to sell, transfer<br />
or otherwise dispose <strong>of</strong> its interest in the Site.<br />
2. In the event Participant's rights under this Agreement are transferred to<br />
another entity, and such entity assumes in writing the obligations <strong>of</strong> Participant under this<br />
Section 218, then Panicipant shall be released from such Obligations. Unless such entity<br />
assumes the Obligations under Section 218, Participant will retain the Obligations, unless<br />
Participant agrees to repay the principal balance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Glendale</strong> Costs remaining to be repaid.<br />
3. Notwithstanding any other provisions <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, the Site, or<br />
portions <strong>of</strong> the Site in the event <strong>of</strong> subdivision, as well as the rights and obligations <strong>of</strong><br />
Participant under this Agreement, may be transferred or assigned by Participant to a financing<br />
entity or entities or to a Wholly-owned subsidiary or other affiliate controlled by Participant or<br />
the persons controlling Participant without the consent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> and Agency or the <strong>City</strong>,<br />
providing that the name "DreamWorks" be identified as the user <strong>of</strong> the Site, the assignee be<br />
properly capitalized and financed, that the intended use <strong>of</strong> the Site remains the same and thai<br />
Participant itself remains fully responsible to the Agency for the obligations <strong>of</strong> Participant under<br />
this Agreement.<br />
4. Notwithstanding any other provisions <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, Participant and<br />
Fee Owner reserve the right, at their discretion, to join and associate with other persons or<br />
entities in joint ventures, partnerships, or otherwise to develop the Site, or portions there<strong>of</strong>, or<br />
10 convey the Site, or portions there<strong>of</strong>, or assign the rights to the Site, or portions there<strong>of</strong>, or<br />
under this Agreement to a financing entity or to an entity owned or controlled by Participant or<br />
the persons controlling Participant.<br />
L. [§ 612] Inducement Agreemem<br />
DreamWorks L.L.c. shall assume the financial obligations <strong>of</strong> Participant under Section<br />
218 <strong>of</strong> this Agreement in the evem Participant fails to meet or otherwise satisfy these<br />
obligalions. Such Inducement Agreement shall be in the fonn attached to this Agreement as<br />
Attachment No. 10.<br />
ARTICLE VII. [§ 7(0) ENTIRE AGREEMENT, WAlVERS AND AMENDMENTS<br />
This Agreement shall be executed in five duplicate originals each <strong>of</strong> which is deemed to<br />
be an original. This Agreement includes twenty·five (25) pages and thirteen (13) attachments<br />
which constitute the entire understanding and agreement <strong>of</strong> the parties.<br />
This Agreement integrates all <strong>of</strong> the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental<br />
hereto, and supersedes all negmialions or previous agreements between the parties with respect<br />
to all or any pan <strong>of</strong> the Sile, including, without limitation, the Preliminary Agreement.<br />
All waivers <strong>of</strong> the provisions <strong>of</strong> this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the<br />
appropriate authorities <strong>of</strong> <strong>City</strong>, Agency and Participant and all amendments hereto must he in<br />
l.....l ...l }7}:'!l.14 24
ATTACHMENT lA<br />
SITE MAP<br />
1
ATTACHMENT IB<br />
SITE LEGAL DESCRlPTION<br />
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 7, BLOCK 81, SUBDIVISION OF RANCHO PROVlDENCIA<br />
AND SCOTT TRACT, SHOWN ON MAP OF SAID TRACT, IN THE CITY OF<br />
GLENDALE, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED IN<br />
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, IN BOOK 43 PAGES<br />
47 ET SEQ., OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, LYING NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTH<br />
LINE OF THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT FOR P<strong>UBLIC</strong> STREET PURPOSES CONVEYED<br />
BY DEED RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID<br />
COUNTY, IN BOOK 14195 PAGE 337, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND THE<br />
SOUTHWESTERLY 30 FEET OF FLOWER STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT MAP<br />
BETWEEN THE LIMITS OF THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE<br />
NORTHWESTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LINES, RESPECTIVELY OF SAID LOT 7.<br />
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE DWP ALL<br />
WATER AND WATER RlGHTS APPURTENANT WHETHER SURFACE OR SUBSURFACE<br />
AND ALSO RESERVING ALL OIL, GAS, AND PETROLEUM OR OTHER MJNERAL OR<br />
HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE<br />
SURFACE OF SAID LAND, WITHOUT THE RlGHT TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE<br />
OF SAID LAND FOR SUCH USE, WHICH RESERVATIONS REPLACE AND SUPERSEDE<br />
THE RESERVATIONS RESERVED BY THE BOARD OF WATER AND POWER<br />
COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST TO<br />
THE DWP) CONTAINED IN THAT CERTAIN GRANT DEED RECORDED AUGUST 16,<br />
1930 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 86! IN BOOK 10269, PAGE 36, OFFICIAL RECORDS.<br />
IC-!
ATTACHMENT lC<br />
GLENDALE PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION<br />
1B-1
I. ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN<br />
ATTACHMENT 2<br />
SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT<br />
The Site shall be designed and developed as an integrated complex as indicated on the<br />
preliminary site plan attached as Attaclunent lAo The improvements to be constructed on the<br />
Site shall be <strong>of</strong> architectural quality, shall be landscaped, and shall be effectively and<br />
aesthetically designed. The shape, scale <strong>of</strong> volume, exterior design. and exterior finish <strong>of</strong> each<br />
building, slruclUre and any other improvement must be consonant with, visually related 10,<br />
physically related to, and an enhancement to each other. The Participant's plans, drawings and<br />
proposals submitted 10 the Agency for approval shall describe in reasonable detail the<br />
architectural character intended for the improvements.<br />
The open spaces between buildings where they exist shall be designed, landscaped and<br />
developed consistent with the quality to which the Project is developed and maimained. The<br />
Project shall be in conformity with Article IV (Land Uses and <strong>Development</strong> Requirements) <strong>of</strong><br />
the Redevelopment Plan for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project.<br />
The <strong>City</strong> and Agency agree that the Basic Concept drawings described in § 204 conform<br />
to these architecture and design criteria.<br />
II. PARTICIPANT'S RESPONSIBILITIES<br />
A. Participant's Improvements<br />
Panicipanl shall develop the Site with a complex for tbe production <strong>of</strong> animated media<br />
and entertainment production uses and <strong>of</strong>fice, administration and accessory uses. 'me Project<br />
will be developed in two or more phases.<br />
1. Facilities<br />
The facilities will be developed in two or more phases. The Participant shall have<br />
the sole discretion, in accordance with its business judgement, to dctennine the facilities and<br />
uses to be developed in each phase. The First Phase shall contain no less than 250,000 square<br />
feet <strong>of</strong> noor area. The remaining development will consist <strong>of</strong> no more than 245,000 square feet<br />
<strong>of</strong> noor area, for a maximum development <strong>of</strong> 495,000 square feel. <strong>Development</strong> occurring<br />
beyond the First Phase development may be constructed in phases.<br />
The buildings will have a 65-foot overall height limit above the existing average<br />
grade <strong>of</strong> the Site, with up to twelve (12) architectural features, each with a maximum footprint<br />
<strong>of</strong> 1,500 square feet, with six (6) pennined to a height <strong>of</strong> 85 feet and one (1) permitted to a<br />
height <strong>of</strong> 115 feet.<br />
?_1
adjacent to the Los Angeles River. Following the grant <strong>of</strong> such pedestrian easement to <strong>City</strong><br />
and/or Agency, <strong>City</strong> and/or Agency shall improve and maintain the pedestrian easement in good<br />
condition and repair, consistent with the quality to which the Project is developed and<br />
maintained. Participant shall not be responsible for any COSts relating to physical improvements<br />
or maintenance costs with respect to the pedestrian easement.<br />
B. Sewer Encroachment Pennit<br />
Upon request by Participant, <strong>City</strong> shall gran! Participant a permanent encroachment permit<br />
or other permit necessary to build above the sewer line or lines, provided that Participant<br />
encases the below-building portion <strong>of</strong> the line to protect it structurally.<br />
C. Utilities<br />
The <strong>City</strong> shall consult with Participant prior to rerouting any utilities through, around or<br />
adjacent to the Site.<br />
D. Transfer <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Property and Adjacent Victory Truck Boulevard<br />
As <strong>of</strong> or before the Effective Date <strong>of</strong> this Agreement, <strong>City</strong> and Agency shall transfer to<br />
Participant or its assignee fee title to the <strong>Glendale</strong> Parcel, consisting <strong>of</strong> an approximately onehalf<br />
acre comer parcel adjacent to the southeast comer <strong>of</strong> the Site, including Assessor Parcel<br />
No. 5627-018-013, and shall use best efforts to expeditiously complete such transfer. <strong>City</strong> shall<br />
transfer, at no cost 10 Participant, fee title to the <strong>Glendale</strong> Parcel and the adjacent portion <strong>of</strong><br />
Victory Truck Boulevard resulting from the termination <strong>of</strong> the easement for Victory Truck<br />
Boulevard. The <strong>City</strong> and the Agency acknowledge that the development <strong>of</strong> the Site as<br />
contemplated under this Agreement is dependent upon said property being acquired by<br />
Participant.<br />
E. Child Care Facility<br />
<strong>City</strong> and Agency shall use their best efforts to work with Participant in finding a suitable<br />
child care facility, including the possible use <strong>of</strong> Agency or <strong>City</strong> property ,where available at the<br />
sale discretion <strong>of</strong> <strong>City</strong> and/or Agency.<br />
2-1
ATTACHMENT 3<br />
AGENCY AND CITY APPROYALS<br />
,-,
CITYOF <strong>Glendale</strong> CALIFORNIA<br />
Planmng DiVIsIOn<br />
633 E. Broadway, Room 103. <strong>Glendale</strong>, CA 91206·4386<br />
June 6, 1996<br />
DreamWorks Animation, L.L.C.<br />
Attention: Mr. Rob Vogel<br />
100 Universal Plaza<br />
Bungalow 479<br />
Universal <strong>City</strong>, CA 91608<br />
Gentlemen:<br />
Re; Case No. 9557-5<br />
1000 Flower Street<br />
(818)548-2140 (818)548-2144<br />
(818) 548-21 15 FAX (818)240-0392<br />
On June 3. 1996, the Zoning Administrator conducted and<br />
closed a public hearing, pursuant to the provisions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Municipal Code, Title 3D, Article IV, on your<br />
application for a Standards and Setback Variance requesting<br />
to allow construction within a proposed animation campus a<br />
project consisting <strong>of</strong> up to 495,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> building<br />
area (gross) within seven (7) buildings and a 1.000 space<br />
parking garage structure with varying building height<br />
between 40 feet to a maximum <strong>of</strong> 65 feet with architectural<br />
features <strong>of</strong> up to 115 feet high where a maximum building<br />
height <strong>of</strong> 35 feet is allowed; to allow up to 10 feet high<br />
fence/wall where not more than 18 H in height above ground<br />
surface is allowed to be located along Flower Street at 0'0"<br />
setback where a minimum <strong>of</strong> 5 feet and an average setback <strong>of</strong><br />
10 feet is required to any property line abutting a street<br />
in the "M1" Restricted Industrial Zone being All that<br />
Portion <strong>of</strong> lot 7, Block 81, <strong>of</strong> the Subdivision <strong>of</strong> Rancho<br />
Providencia and Scott Tract, and a portion <strong>of</strong> Victory Truck<br />
Boulevard located at 1000 Flower Street.<br />
After considering the evidence presented with respect to<br />
this application, the zoning Administrator has GRANTED<br />
WITH CONDITIONS your request based on the following<br />
findings:<br />
I. The strict application <strong>of</strong> the provisions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ordinance would result in practical difficulties or<br />
unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the general<br />
purposes and intent <strong>of</strong> the ordinance. The Code intends<br />
to promote reasonable development <strong>of</strong> property and to<br />
deny the request would unduly restrict the flexibility<br />
for such development. The applicant would be unable to<br />
achieve an architectural design maximizing landscape<br />
and open areas in proportion to built space if Code<br />
limits are strictly observed. The Code does not amply
Case No. 9557-$<br />
1000 Flower Street<br />
anticipate the unique needs <strong>of</strong> a research (animation) campus<br />
environment which is essential to the creative dynamics which the<br />
project is attempting to achieve, therefore ample "practical<br />
difficulty" is present with respect to the application to justify<br />
a variance.<br />
II. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to<br />
the property involved or to the intended use or development <strong>of</strong> the<br />
property that do not apply generally to other property in the same<br />
zone or neighborhood. The 13+ acre and triangle-shaped site is<br />
located adjacent to the Los Angeles River. It is bounded on two<br />
sides by Flower Street and Victory Truck Boulevard with varying<br />
topography and is across the street from commercial/industrial<br />
buildings within the Redevelopment Project Area. The site can be<br />
accessed via the Ventura (134) Freeway then through San Fernando<br />
Road. The size and location situations <strong>of</strong> this property afford<br />
unique opportunities for the proposed campus-style development<br />
project while maximizing open space areas on the property. More<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten than not, neighbors support this kind <strong>of</strong> development because<br />
they find this type <strong>of</strong> facility exceptional and an asset for the<br />
community. The project's location, adjacent to the freeway and<br />
the Los Angeles River provides a positive feature function for<br />
this neighborhoQd in the Redevelopment Project Area.<br />
Additionally, the isolation <strong>of</strong> the site (spatially) is unique in a<br />
way that contributes to justifying the highest variance sought .<br />
•<br />
III. The granting <strong>of</strong> the variance will not be materially detrimental<br />
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements<br />
in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located.<br />
Existing industrial and <strong>of</strong>fice building facilities are existing in<br />
the area and have provided good service to neighborhoods and the<br />
community. The proposed development will provide <strong>of</strong>fice services<br />
and facilities useful to the community and in accord with General<br />
Plan objectives as well as specific plan for the Redevelopment<br />
Project Area and the <strong>City</strong>'s strategic direction. It is noted that<br />
the maximum height proposed for the <strong>of</strong>fice building is at 65 feet<br />
and it is only the architecture (non-usable) features on top <strong>of</strong><br />
the building (usable) that will go as high as 115 feet as shown on<br />
elevations <strong>of</strong> the buildings. The variances will not conflict with<br />
adjacent <strong>of</strong>fices or neighbors or adversely affect them because <strong>of</strong><br />
the substantial separation <strong>of</strong> the higher elements <strong>of</strong> the project<br />
from adjacent property.<br />
IV. The granting <strong>of</strong> the variance will not be contrary to the<br />
objectives <strong>of</strong> the ordinance. The variance is the minimum<br />
necessary to afford the highest and efficient use <strong>of</strong> the property<br />
for the function the applicant wishes to have. Height and setback<br />
criteria are intended to promote compatibility among neighboring<br />
uses. The minimal impact <strong>of</strong> the project will be consistent with<br />
the goals <strong>of</strong> the ordinance. This variance will allow for best use<br />
<strong>of</strong> the property while providing a use that will be consistent with<br />
the Redevelopment Project Area and <strong>of</strong> service to the community.<br />
2
Case No. 9557-5<br />
1000 Flower Street<br />
APPROVAL <strong>of</strong> this Standards and Setback variance shall be subject to<br />
the following conditions:<br />
1. That the development shall be in substantial accord with the plans<br />
submitted with the application and presented at the hearing except<br />
for any modifications as may be required to meet specific Code<br />
standards or other conditions stipulated herein.<br />
2. That all necessary permits shall be obtained from the Permit<br />
Services Center and all construction shall be in compliance with<br />
the <strong>Glendale</strong> Building Code and all other applicable regulations.<br />
3. That Design Review Board approval shall be obtained prior to the<br />
issuance <strong>of</strong> a building permit for all structures.<br />
4. That all music or other sound produced on the premises shall not<br />
be audible <strong>of</strong>f-site so as not to disturb persons in other<br />
occupancies/businesses or on the public right-<strong>of</strong>-way.<br />
5. That noise be contained to the site, such that persons <strong>of</strong> normal<br />
sensitivity <strong>of</strong>f-site are not disturbed. The Zoning<br />
Administrator's opinion shall prevail to arbitrate any conflicts.<br />
6. That if any buildings, sidewalks, curb or gutter, fencing or<br />
landscape areas, etc., adjacent to the site are damaged during the<br />
course <strong>of</strong> construction on public or private property, the damage<br />
shall be repaired to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the Zoning Administrator<br />
for private property and the <strong>Director</strong> <strong>of</strong> Public Works for public<br />
property.<br />
7. That any proposed exterior lighting shall be directed onto the<br />
driveways, walkways, plazas and parking areas within the<br />
development and away from adjacent properties and the public<br />
right-<strong>of</strong>-way to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the Zoning Administrator.<br />
8. That parking and plaza areas shall be kept in good condition at<br />
all times, free <strong>of</strong> weeds and trash, with the landscaping areas<br />
maintained with live plants and an irrigation system.<br />
9. That landscaping areas shall be maintained in good condition with<br />
live plants and free <strong>of</strong> weeds and trash.<br />
10. That the planting <strong>of</strong> street trees as required, size, species, and<br />
spacing are to be determined by the Urban Forester/<strong>City</strong>'s Public<br />
Works l1aintenance Services Section, shall be provided. A tree<br />
planting permit and street tree removal permit shall be obtained<br />
prior to planting or removing <strong>of</strong> trees from this section.<br />
11. That the premises be maintained in a clean and orderly condition,<br />
free <strong>of</strong> weeds, trash, and graffiti.<br />
3
Case No. 9557-$<br />
1000 Flower Street<br />
12. That adequate means be provided for the collection <strong>of</strong> solid waste<br />
generated at the site and that all recyclable items be collected<br />
and properly disposed <strong>of</strong> to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the Integrated<br />
Waste Management Administrator <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>.<br />
13. That all pertinent mitigation measures listed in the DreamWorks<br />
Animation Campus Addendum to the Program EIR for the Redevelopment<br />
Plan for the San Fernando Road Corridor shall be met.<br />
14. That parking as required and provided herein shall be for the<br />
exclusive use <strong>of</strong> occupants/guests for the buildings on campus<br />
only. Any other uses <strong>of</strong> parking spaces will require prior<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> the Zoning Administrator.<br />
15. That a grading permit shall be obtained and site grading done to<br />
the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> Engineer.<br />
16. That minimum vertical clearance for accessibility and location <strong>of</strong><br />
path to accessible parking spaces, ramps and entrance<br />
accessibilities as required by the accessibility requirements <strong>of</strong><br />
the California Building Standards Code and Permit Services Section<br />
shall be met.<br />
17. That uniformed security guard service shall be provided 24 hours<br />
per day on site during construction to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Chief <strong>of</strong> Police.<br />
18. That on-site construction work with the exception <strong>of</strong> interior<br />
tenant improvements or other interior work after the building<br />
shell is completed shall commence at 7:00 a.m. and end at 7:00<br />
p.m. during summer months and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. after summer.<br />
Any deviations from this schedule shall be approved by the<br />
<strong>Director</strong> <strong>of</strong> Public Works.<br />
19. That construction workers shall be required to park inside the<br />
construction site and not on the streets.<br />
20. That loading and unloading <strong>of</strong> materials and deliveries during and<br />
after construction shall occur on-site and scheduling must be<br />
coordinated to avoid stacking <strong>of</strong> any trucks on the streets.<br />
21. That no storage <strong>of</strong> goods, materials, equipment, etc., shall be<br />
done on the public right-<strong>of</strong>-way without proper permits and<br />
approval from the <strong>Director</strong> <strong>of</strong> Public Works.<br />
22. That the five (S) transmission facility equipment shall be located<br />
a minimum <strong>of</strong> ten (10) feet from any property line. They shall be<br />
constructed <strong>of</strong> open mesh material unless otherwise required by the<br />
data transmission requirements and as approved by the Zoning<br />
Administrator. Antennas and supporting structures shall be a<br />
neutral color which blends with the surrounding colors as approved<br />
by the Zoning Administrator.<br />
4
I<br />
CITYOF <strong>Glendale</strong> CALIFORNIA<br />
Planning Division<br />
633 E. Broadway, Room 103. Glenaale, CA 91206·4386<br />
June 6, 1996<br />
DreamWorks Animation, L.L.C.<br />
Attention: Mr. Rob Vogel<br />
100 Universal Plaza<br />
Bungalow 479<br />
Universal <strong>City</strong>, CA 91608<br />
Gentlemen:<br />
Re: Case No. 9558-CU<br />
1000 Flower Street<br />
(818) 546·2140 (818) 548·2144<br />
(818) 548·21 1S FAX (618l240.0392<br />
On June 3, 1996, the Zoning Administrator conducted and<br />
closed a public hearing, pursuant to the provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Municipal Code, Title 30, Article VI, on your<br />
application for a Conditional Use Permit requesting to allow<br />
construction within an animation campus <strong>of</strong> a privately<br />
operated transmission facility and to install up to five (S)<br />
satellite dishes each with a maximum diameter <strong>of</strong> up to 18<br />
feet in the "MIN Restricted Industrial Zone being all that<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> Lot 7, Block 81, <strong>of</strong> the Subdivision <strong>of</strong> Rancho<br />
Providencia and Scott Tract, and a portion <strong>of</strong> Victory Truck<br />
Boulevard located at 1000 Flower Street.<br />
After considering the evidence presented with respect to<br />
this application, the Zoning Administrator has GRANTED<br />
WITH CONDITIONS your request based on the following<br />
findings:<br />
a. The proposed use is consistent with the various<br />
elements <strong>of</strong> the General Plan and specific plan for the<br />
area. The use <strong>of</strong> the property as an animation campus<br />
with <strong>of</strong>fice structures and parking garage are<br />
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and in<br />
keeping with the various elements and objectives <strong>of</strong> the<br />
General Plan. A transmission facility is an allowed<br />
use subject to a conditional use permit approval.<br />
b. The use and its associated structures and facilities<br />
will not be detrimental to the public health or safety,<br />
the general welfare, or the environment. The proposed<br />
development meets the intent <strong>of</strong> the zoning ordinance<br />
and will not be detrimental to the public health or<br />
safety. This facility will be beneficial and desirable<br />
for the public and the community. Similar uses and<br />
facilities in other areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> and within the<br />
vicinity have not proven to be detrimental to the<br />
general wel=are <strong>of</strong> the neighborhood or the environment.
Case No. 9558 CU<br />
1000 Flower Street<br />
The EIR and addendum indicate the project will not unduly impact<br />
the area in ways that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated.<br />
c. The proposed use and facility will not adversely affect or<br />
conflict with the adjacent uses or impede the normal development<br />
<strong>of</strong> surrounding property. The facility and equipment are well<br />
situated and no substantial evidence was submitted to indicate<br />
that the use and facility adversely impacts existing facilities,<br />
property values or normal development within the surrounding area.<br />
d. Adequate public and private facilities, such as utilities,<br />
landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation measures are<br />
or will be provided for the proposed use. Utilities, landscaping,<br />
parking spaces and good traffic circulation will be provided for<br />
the use. The facility and equipment is well planned and properly<br />
accommodated and located on the site.<br />
APPROVAL <strong>of</strong> this Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to the<br />
following conditions:<br />
1. That the development shall be in substantial accord with the plans<br />
submitted with the application and presented at the hearing except<br />
for any modifications as may be required to meet specific Code<br />
standards or other conditions stipulated herein.<br />
2. That all necessary permits shall be obtained from the Permit<br />
services Center and all construction shall be in compliance with<br />
the <strong>Glendale</strong> Building Code and all other applicable regulations.<br />
3. That Design Review Board approval shall be obtained prior to the<br />
issuance <strong>of</strong> a building permit for all structures.<br />
4. That all music or other sound produced on the premises shall not<br />
be audible <strong>of</strong>f-site so as not to disturb persons in other<br />
occupancies/businesses or on the public right-<strong>of</strong>-way.<br />
5. That noise be contained to the site, such that persons <strong>of</strong> normal<br />
sensitivity <strong>of</strong>f-site are not disturbed. The Zoning<br />
Administrator's opinion shall prevail to arbitrate any conflicts.<br />
6. That if any buildings, sidewalks, curb or gutter, fencing or<br />
landscape areas, etc., adjacent to the site are damaged during the<br />
course <strong>of</strong> construction on public or private property, the damage<br />
shall be repaired to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the Zoning Administrator<br />
for private property and the <strong>Director</strong> <strong>of</strong> Public Works for public<br />
property.<br />
7. That any proposed exterior lighting shall be directed onto the<br />
driveways, walkways, plazas and parking areas within the<br />
development and away from adjacent properties and the public<br />
right-<strong>of</strong>-way to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the Zoning Administrator.<br />
2
Case No. 9558 CU<br />
1000 Flower Street<br />
8. That parking and plaza areas shall be kept in good condition at<br />
all times, free <strong>of</strong> weeds and trash, with the landscaping areas<br />
maintained with live plants and an irrigation system.<br />
9. That landscaping areas shall be maintained in good condition with<br />
live plants and free <strong>of</strong> weeds and trash.<br />
10. That the planting <strong>of</strong> street trees as required, size, species, and<br />
spacing are to be determined by the Urban Forester/<strong>City</strong>'s Public<br />
Works Maintenance Services Section, shall be provided. A tree<br />
planting permit and street tree removal permit shall be obtained<br />
prior to planting or removing <strong>of</strong> trees from this section.<br />
11. That the premises be maintained in a clean and orderly condition,<br />
free <strong>of</strong> weeds, trash, and graffiti.<br />
12. That adequate means be provided for the collection <strong>of</strong> solid waste<br />
generated at the site and that all recyclable items be collected<br />
and properly disposed <strong>of</strong> to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the Integrated<br />
Waste Management Administrator <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>.<br />
13. That all pertinent mitigation measures listed in the DreamWorks<br />
Animation Campus Addendum to the Program EIR for the Redevelopment<br />
Plan for the San Fernando Road Corridor shall be met.<br />
14. That parking as required and provided herein shall be for the<br />
exclusive use <strong>of</strong> occupants/guests for the buildings on campus<br />
only. Any other uses <strong>of</strong> parking spaces will require prior<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> the Zoning Administrator.<br />
15. That a grading permit shall be obtained and site grading done to<br />
the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> Engineer.<br />
16. That minimum vertical clearance for accessibility and location <strong>of</strong><br />
path to accessible parking spaces, ramps and entrance<br />
accessibilities as required by the accessibility requirements <strong>of</strong><br />
the California Building Standards Code and Permit Services Section<br />
shall be met.<br />
17. That uniformed security guard service shall be provided 24 hours<br />
per day on site during construction to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Chief <strong>of</strong> Police.<br />
18. That on-site construction work with the exception <strong>of</strong> interior<br />
tenant improvements or other interior work after the building<br />
shell is completed shall commence at 7:00 a.m. and end at 7:00<br />
p.m. during summer months and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. after summer.<br />
Any deviations from this schedule shall be approved by the<br />
<strong>Director</strong> <strong>of</strong> Public Works.<br />
19. That construction workers shall be required to park inside the<br />
construction site and not on the screecs.<br />
3
Case No. 9558 CU<br />
1000 Flower Street<br />
20. That loading and unloading <strong>of</strong> materials and deliveries during and<br />
after construction shall occur on-site and scheduling must be<br />
coordinated to avoid stacking <strong>of</strong> any trucks on the streets.<br />
21. That no storage <strong>of</strong> goods, materials, equipment, etc., shall be<br />
done on the public right-<strong>of</strong>-way without proper permits and<br />
approval from the <strong>Director</strong> <strong>of</strong> Public Works.<br />
22. That the five (5) transmission facility equipment shall be located<br />
a minimum <strong>of</strong> ten (10) feet from any property line. They shall be<br />
constructed <strong>of</strong> open mesh material unless otherwise required by the<br />
data transmission requirements and as approved by the Zoning<br />
Administrator. Antennas and supporting structures shall be a<br />
neutral color which blends with the surrounding colors as approved<br />
by the Zoning Administrator.<br />
23. That transmission facility equipment shall be screened by<br />
landscaping or structures to minimize visual impact/intrusion<br />
while maintaining practical operation <strong>of</strong> the facilities.<br />
24. That all existing unused driveway aprons shall be closed by the<br />
applicant and an alley type apron be constructed in the main<br />
entrance as approved by the <strong>City</strong> Engineer.<br />
25. That all improvements in the public right-<strong>of</strong>-way that are to be<br />
abandoned or unused, primarily in the southeast corner <strong>of</strong> the<br />
property, shall be removed by the applicant at their expense.<br />
26. That any expansion or modification <strong>of</strong> the facility or use shall<br />
require a new variance/CUP application. Expansion shall<br />
constitute adding <strong>of</strong> floor area, additional unit or structure or<br />
any physical changes as determined by the Zoning Administrator.<br />
Under the provisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Municipal Code, Title 30, Article IX,<br />
any person affected by the above decision has the right to appeal said<br />
determination to the Board <strong>of</strong> Zoning Adjustments if it is believed that<br />
the decision is in error or that procedural errors have occurred, or if<br />
there is substantial new evidence which could not have been reasonably<br />
presented at the hearing. Any appeal must be filed within fifteen (15)<br />
days following the actual date <strong>of</strong> such action. Information regarding<br />
appeals and appeal forms will be provided by the Permit Services Center<br />
upon request and must be filed with the prescribed fee prior to expiration<br />
<strong>of</strong> the 15-day period, or until June 21, 1996 at the Permit Services<br />
Center, 633 E. Broadway, Room 101. Section 30.16.610 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Municipal Code, 1995, provides for the Zoning<br />
Administrator to have continuing jurisdiction over any<br />
Conditional Use Permit which is or has been granted and may<br />
revoke any Conditional Use Permit in whole or in part at any<br />
time for failure to comply \olith any condition or requirement<br />
imposed at the time <strong>of</strong> approval.<br />
4
WHEREAS, the Program EIR has the advantage <strong>of</strong> allowing<br />
more exhaustive consideration <strong>of</strong> impacts, including cumulative<br />
impacts, and major alternatives than would be available in a<br />
case-by-case environmental review, while avoiding duplicative<br />
reconsideration <strong>of</strong> basic policy considerations and allowing for<br />
consideration <strong>of</strong> broad policy issues at an early stage when<br />
greater flexibility exists (State CEQA Guidelines, § 1516B(b));<br />
and<br />
WHEREAS, CEQA provides that an EIR prepared in<br />
conjunction with the adoption <strong>of</strong> a redevelopment plan is to be<br />
treated as a Program EIR (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15180(b))j and<br />
WHEREAS, under CEQA all activities furthering a<br />
redevelopment plan must be considered to be a single Project,<br />
whose environmental impacts are to be examined when the plan is<br />
adopted (Public Resources Code § 21090); and<br />
WHEREAS, when a specific activity within an approved<br />
redevelopment area is proposed, under CEQA the lead agency (in<br />
this case the <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency) is required to<br />
prepare a written checklist or similar device to document its<br />
evaluation <strong>of</strong> the activity to determine whether the environmental<br />
impacts <strong>of</strong> the activity were covered in the Program EIR (State<br />
CEQA Guidelines, § 1516B(c) (4)); and<br />
WHEREAS, a written checklist has been prepared for the<br />
Activity and attached to the Addendum to the Program EIR as<br />
Table 1; and<br />
-2-
WHEREAS, this checklist demonstrates that the Activity<br />
will cause no new significant impacts and will require no new<br />
mitigation measures; and<br />
WHEREAS, in such circumstances the lead agency may<br />
approve the project as being within the scope <strong>of</strong> the Program EIR<br />
and no new EIR is required (State CEQA Guidelines,<br />
§ 15168 Ie) (2)); and<br />
WHEREAS, in this case, an Addendum to the Program EIR<br />
for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan has been<br />
prepared because there are no important revisions needed to the<br />
Program EIR, no substantial changes in circumstances, and no new<br />
significant effects not examined in the Program EIR (State CEQA<br />
Guidelines, § 15164(a)); and<br />
WHEREAS, the Addendum addresses only minor technical<br />
changes or additions to the Program EIR; and<br />
WHEREAS, the density at the site, if all improvements<br />
proposed by the applicant are constructed, will be greater than<br />
the average density throughout the Project Area, this is not<br />
deemed to be a new impact because the ultimate build-out in the<br />
Project Area is unchanged, and because some other activities in<br />
the Project Area over the next decades will build at less than<br />
the average density; and<br />
WHEREAS, in approving the Program EIR a statement <strong>of</strong><br />
overriding considerations was adopted regarding, among other<br />
matters, traffic congestion at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Flower Street<br />
and Western Avenuei and<br />
-3-
WdEREAS, it was deemed that no mitigation would be<br />
feasible at this intersection, given the ultimate build-out<br />
proposed under the Redevelopment Plan; and<br />
WHEREAS, while this is still the case, and the Addendum<br />
does not identify mitigation measures that would be feasible at<br />
ultimate build-out, the Addendum does identify mitigation<br />
measures at this intersection to mitigate the activities proposed<br />
by the applicant, as further set forth at pages 6-7 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
activity-specific traffic analysis performed by Kaku Associates<br />
dated May 17, 1996; and<br />
WHEREAS, the applicant proposed to construct a helipad<br />
on the site and to undertake helicopter landing and take <strong>of</strong>f<br />
operations at the site; and<br />
WHEREAS, the Addendum discloses that a Conditional Use<br />
Permit was issued by the <strong>City</strong> in 1958 (Case No. 991-U) allowing<br />
for four departure locations and one landing location at the<br />
site; and<br />
WHEREAS, helicopter landing and take-<strong>of</strong>f activities<br />
have been available for users <strong>of</strong> the site for over 38 years and;<br />
and<br />
WHEREAS, the Addendum includes at Appendix B-2 an<br />
acoustical analysis dated May 15 1996, performed by Arup<br />
Acoustics analyzing the noise impacts <strong>of</strong> the proposed helicopter<br />
take <strong>of</strong>f and landings at the site and determines that the impacts<br />
would not be significant and would not increase the current<br />
overall sound environment (Community Noise Equivalent Level<br />
(24-hours» <strong>of</strong> the neighborhood residential communities; and<br />
-4-
longer required by the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
SECTION 2: The issuance <strong>of</strong> the quitclaim deed for release<br />
and reversion <strong>of</strong> the right-<strong>of</strong>-way easement along Victory Truck<br />
Boulevard adjacent to the Crystal Springs site owned by FETC<br />
Leasing Corp., attached hereto and incorporated herein by this<br />
reference as Exhibit A, is hereby approved subject to the<br />
following conditions:<br />
(al That said quitclaim deed shall only affect those<br />
rights, titles and interest in that portion <strong>of</strong> described real<br />
estate adjacent to the Crystal Springs site owned by FBTC Leasing<br />
Corp. and no other portion <strong>of</strong> Victory Truck Boulevard; and<br />
(b) That said quitclaim deed shall expressly except and<br />
reserve all other rights, titles and interests ·the <strong>City</strong> holds in<br />
and to said described property including pUblic utility purposes<br />
and fire access and all other portions <strong>of</strong> said easements which<br />
are not included in said described property.<br />
SECTION 3: The <strong>City</strong> Manager is hereby authorized and<br />
directed to execute and deliver said quitclaim deed to FETe<br />
Leasing Corp. and to execute any other documents relevant to the<br />
release and reversion <strong>of</strong> said right-af-way easement.<br />
SECTION 4: This transaction is exempt from bidding or<br />
auction procedures pursuant to <strong>Glendale</strong> Municioal Code, 1995,<br />
Section 4.52.040(A) (3).<br />
III<br />
III<br />
III<br />
G:\FllES\OOCFILES\RESO\VTB.CSR<br />
2
RECORDING REQUESTED BY<br />
When Recorded Mail To<br />
Re: Quitclaim Deed to Portion<br />
<strong>of</strong> Victory Truck Blvd<br />
SPACE ABOVE TInS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE<br />
VALUE & CONSIDERAnON -NONE<br />
Documentary Transfer tax - NONE<br />
Signature <strong>of</strong> declarant-f+1 day <strong>of</strong> :JuNE: .1996.
Quitclaim Deed from <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Glendale</strong><br />
to FBTe Leasing Corp., as to a<br />
Portion <strong>of</strong>Victory Truck Blvd.<br />
EXHIBIT "A"<br />
LEGAL DESCRIPTION<br />
All ulat portion <strong>of</strong>Lot 7, Block 81, Snbdivision <strong>of</strong>Rancho Providencia and Scott Tract,<br />
shown on ule map <strong>of</strong>said Tract, in ule <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Glendale</strong>, Connty <strong>of</strong>Los Angeles, State<br />
<strong>of</strong>CaJifomia, recorded in the <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong>the County Recorder <strong>of</strong>said county, in Book 43,<br />
Pages 47, et seq., <strong>of</strong>Miscellaneous Records, lying northerly <strong>of</strong> the south line <strong>of</strong>that<br />
certain easement for public street purposes conveyed by deed to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>,<br />
recorded in the <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong>the County Recorder <strong>of</strong>said county, in Book 14195, Page 337,<br />
Official Records, and the southwesterly 30 feet <strong>of</strong> Flower Street, as shown on said<br />
Tract Map between ule limits <strong>of</strong>the northeasterly prolongation <strong>of</strong>the norrllwesterly and<br />
southeasterly lines, respectively <strong>of</strong> said Lot 7.<br />
-3-
ATTACHMENT 3A<br />
Ml ZONE REGULATIONS<br />
"' ,
30.840,0<br />
Chapter 30.84<br />
"M1" RESTRICTED INDUSTRL"L ZONE<br />
Sections:<br />
30.84.010<br />
30.84.020<br />
30.84.030<br />
30.84.040<br />
30.84.050<br />
30.84.060<br />
30.84.070<br />
30.84.080<br />
30.84.090<br />
30.84.100<br />
30.84.110<br />
30.84.120<br />
30.84.130<br />
30.84.140<br />
30.84.010 Description and purpose.<br />
The M 1 zone is intended as a zone for restricted<br />
industrial development including research. development<br />
and testing, limited manufacturing, assembly<br />
and service activilies in conformance with the comprehensive<br />
general plan <strong>of</strong> the city. In order to<br />
protect the public health, safety and generaJ welfare.<br />
landscaping and performance standards' have been<br />
established to foster compatibility between uses and<br />
the orderly and planned use <strong>of</strong> land resources. (Prior<br />
code § 30-2500)<br />
30.84.020 Permitted primary uses and<br />
structures.<br />
a, No building, structure or land shall be used<br />
and no building, structure or use in the M I zone<br />
shall be erected. structurally altered. enlarged or<br />
eSLablished, except the following permined uses and<br />
SlJUcrures.<br />
O. Ambulance services.<br />
Description and purpose,<br />
Permitted primary wes and<br />
structures.<br />
Permitted accessory uses and<br />
structures.<br />
Permitted temporary uses and<br />
structures.<br />
Conditional uses and<br />
structures.<br />
Perfonnance standards.<br />
Design review.<br />
Height.<br />
Setback requirements.<br />
Landscaping and screening.<br />
Parking.<br />
Lighting.<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong>top equipmenL<br />
Trash collection aTea'>.<br />
788<br />
I. Audio and visual products manUfacturing, including<br />
recording.<br />
2. Bookbinderies.<br />
3. Chemical products manufacturing, including<br />
cosmetics, perfume blending and toiletries (except<br />
soap).<br />
4. Clothing apparel and fabricated textile manufacturing.<br />
5. Copying services. inclUding but not limited<br />
to photostating and blueprinting.<br />
6. Data processing fmns.<br />
7. Day care centers.<br />
8. Elecrronic instrument manufacturing and assembly.<br />
9. Emenainment production (audio/visual).<br />
10. Food and beverage processing plants, except<br />
feed and flour mills.<br />
II. Jewelry manufacturing.<br />
12. Laboratories (experimental or testing);<br />
13. Leather products manufacturing, excepllear.her<br />
tanning.<br />
14. Offices (all).<br />
15. Optical device manufacturing and assembly.<br />
16. Packaging plants.<br />
17. Parking lots or structures in compliance with<br />
lhe provisions <strong>of</strong> chapter 30.124 <strong>of</strong> this litle.<br />
18. Photographic equipment and supplies manufacturing,<br />
including film reels, screens, chemicals,<br />
etc.<br />
19. Plastic products manufacturing, excluding<br />
stamping processes.<br />
20. Precision connector manufacturing, including<br />
electrical cables and conduit systems.<br />
21. Precision instnlments manufacturing,<br />
22. Printing, publishing and lithographic services.<br />
23. Publicly and privately operated public utility<br />
uses.<br />
24. Recording and sensory instrument or device<br />
manufacturing and assembly.<br />
25. Recycling and processing centers, municipal.<br />
26. Research, development and testing, including<br />
scientific research or experimenlal development <strong>of</strong><br />
maLerials, methods and products.<br />
27. Specialty melal prototype and machine development<br />
and testing.
30.84.060<br />
in any manner so as to create or maintain any dangerous.<br />
lnjUriOllS. noxious or otherwise objectionable<br />
coodmon caused by fire, ex.plosion or other hazards:<br />
noise or vibration; smoke. dust or other fonn <strong>of</strong> air<br />
pollution; liqUid or solid refuse or wastes: or any<br />
other substance, condition or element used in such<br />
a manner or in such amount as to adversely affect<br />
the surrounding area or adjoining premises.<br />
b. Air Quality. Any activity. operation or device<br />
which causes or te.lds to cause !.he release <strong>of</strong> air<br />
contarrunants into the atmosphere shall comply wilh<br />
lhe rules and regulations <strong>of</strong> !.he South Coast Air<br />
Quality Management District and with the follow<br />
Ing:<br />
1. Visible Emissions. No visible emissions <strong>of</strong> air<br />
contaminants or particulate m.aner shall be discharged<br />
into the atmosphere. No combustible refuse<br />
incineration shall be permitted.<br />
2. Dust. Windborne dusts and debris across lot<br />
lines shall be prevented by planting, wetting, com·<br />
pacting, paving or other suitable treatment <strong>of</strong> land<br />
surface: storing, treating or enclosing materials;<br />
controlling sources <strong>of</strong> dust and debris by cleaning;<br />
or such orner measures as may be required.<br />
3. Odors. No odorous material shall be: pennitted<br />
so as to be obnoxious to persons <strong>of</strong> norma.l<br />
sensitivity as readily det.ectible at the property line<br />
or at any point <strong>of</strong>f-site where the odor is greater.<br />
c. Waste and Contaminants. No wastewater,<br />
radioactive material or other potential groundwater<br />
contaminant shall be discharged into or under the<br />
ground surface except for such groUDdwater recharge<br />
operations as may be conducted by or under<br />
the supervision <strong>of</strong> the Los Angeles County Rood<br />
Conlrol DiSlnct and/or the city <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. ArJy<br />
discharge into a public sewer. private sewer, private<br />
sewerage disposal system or intO the ground <strong>of</strong> any<br />
materials that may contaminate any water supply.<br />
interfere with bacterial processes in sewerage treal·<br />
ment, or otherwise cause the emission <strong>of</strong> dangerous<br />
or <strong>of</strong>fensive elements is prohibited. All indusoi.a.l<br />
uses shall comply with the provisions <strong>of</strong> chapters<br />
8.32, 8.44, 8.56 and 13.40 penaining to refuse,<br />
weeds. sewer construction and sewer use. LiqUid<br />
wastes shall be disposed <strong>of</strong> only by authorized dis-<br />
790<br />
charge to a public sewer system or by transport to<br />
an acceptable disposal facility. Burning. dumping,<br />
or littering <strong>of</strong> solid wastes is prohibited. Solid<br />
wastes shall be disposed <strong>of</strong> only by l!'arlsport to an<br />
acceptable disposal facility, except that inert solid<br />
materials may be utilized in landfLils and construe.<br />
tion when specifically authorized by a grading per·<br />
mit or building permit.. and organic materials may<br />
be utilized in connection with normal and customary<br />
landscaping and agricultural activities providing that<br />
such activities meet all the requirements <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Municipal Code and these environmental<br />
perfonnance standards; and do not endanger ground·<br />
water quality.<br />
d. Vibration. No activities shall be permitted<br />
which cause objectionable vibration to adjoining<br />
property except for construction activities in connection<br />
with an effective building permit.<br />
e. Noise. No noise shall be generaled in the MI<br />
zone which causes the maximum sound level [0<br />
exceed the noise levels specified in chapter 8.36 <strong>of</strong><br />
this Code. Funher, when a Ml zone boundary line<br />
abuts a residential zone, no increase: in the ambient<br />
noise base level for industrial zones shall be permitted.<br />
Such noise measurements shall be taken al the<br />
residential zone property line or at any point within<br />
the residential zone where the noise level from the<br />
industrial use is greater. No steady impulse noise<br />
(such as hammering or riveting) or steady audible<br />
lone components (such as whines, screeches or<br />
hums) shall be detectible from any residentially<br />
zoned property which is adjacent to a MI use.<br />
r. Outdoor Uses. All uses except parking, stor·<br />
age <strong>of</strong> shopping carts. vending machines. and inci·<br />
dental or temporary uses, subject to very specific<br />
standards contained within this cbapter, shall be<br />
conducted entirely within a building.<br />
Shopping can storage shall be located adjacent 10<br />
the entry <strong>of</strong> a building and shaJI be screened with<br />
a minimum three (3) foot.. six (6) inch high solid<br />
walVfence or combination <strong>of</strong> fence and landscaping<br />
to obscure the visibility <strong>of</strong> shopping carts from the<br />
adjacent public rigbts-<strong>of</strong>·way. Where the ZOning<br />
administrator. in his/her discretion. determines thal<br />
screening interferes with the can re:movallremevaJ
PERFORMANCE SCHEDULE<br />
1. ExecUlion <strong>of</strong> the Agreement By<br />
AQ:ency and <strong>City</strong>.<br />
First Phase<br />
2. Approval - Firsl Phase Plans - First<br />
Phase. The <strong>City</strong> shall approve the<br />
Stage I and Stage II Design Review<br />
for the First Phase.<br />
3. Approval - Construction Pennirs <br />
First Phase. The <strong>City</strong> shall respond<br />
with plan check corrections (initial<br />
or back-check) and approve the<br />
Building Pennits (including<br />
structural steel, foundation, shell<br />
and core, grading, and tenant<br />
improvements, together or<br />
separately).<br />
4. Completion - First Phase.<br />
Participant shall complete<br />
construc(ion <strong>of</strong> First Phase.<br />
Additional Phases <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong><br />
5. Notification <strong>of</strong> <strong>Development</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
Additional Phases. Participant shall<br />
provide nOlice to Agency <strong>of</strong><br />
Participant's intent to proceed with<br />
development <strong>of</strong> additional phases <strong>of</strong><br />
the Project as authorized under the<br />
provisions <strong>of</strong> this Agreement.<br />
6. Exercise <strong>of</strong> Option to Proceed with<br />
Additional Phases. Participant shall<br />
provide notice to the Agency <strong>of</strong><br />
Participant's election to exercise its<br />
option to proceed with the<br />
additional developmem <strong>of</strong> the Site.<br />
ATIACHMENT 4<br />
SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE<br />
Within fifteen (15) days after approval<br />
<strong>of</strong> this Agreement by the <strong>Glendale</strong> <strong>City</strong><br />
Council.<br />
By <strong>City</strong> within ten (l0) working days<br />
after receipt <strong>of</strong> complete plans by <strong>City</strong>.<br />
By <strong>City</strong> within ten (10) working days<br />
after receipt <strong>of</strong> complete plans (or<br />
responses to corrections) by <strong>City</strong>.<br />
Five (5) years after the Effective Dale<br />
<strong>of</strong> this Agreement, unless extended<br />
pursuant to Section 608 <strong>of</strong> this<br />
Agreement.<br />
Within tcn (10) years <strong>of</strong> Ihe Effeclive<br />
Dale <strong>of</strong> this Agreement.<br />
Within fifteen (15) years <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Effective Dale <strong>of</strong> this Agreement in<br />
accordance with Section 111 <strong>of</strong> this<br />
Agreement.
ATTACHMENT 5<br />
FORM OF ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AGREEMENT
. The adoption <strong>of</strong> the Statutory <strong>Development</strong> Agreement and<br />
Participation Agreement contained herewith as Exhibit 1 and the<br />
provisions <strong>of</strong> the Statutory <strong>Development</strong> Agreement and Participation<br />
Agreement and Participation Agreement itself are consistent with the<br />
standards, policies and goals <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan for the San<br />
Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area as last amended<br />
by Ordinance No. 5003 on December 15, 1992.<br />
c. The adoption <strong>of</strong> the Statutory <strong>Development</strong> Agreement and<br />
Participation Agreement itself are consistent with the goals <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 30 1995, <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Municipal Code.<br />
d. The adoption <strong>of</strong> the Statutory <strong>Development</strong> Agreement and<br />
Participation Agreement contained herewith as Exhibit 1 and the<br />
provisions <strong>of</strong> the Statutory <strong>Development</strong> Agreement and the<br />
Participation Agreement itself are consistent with the goals <strong>of</strong> all other<br />
specific plans applicable to the Site.<br />
e. Other than as set forth above, there are no other specific or land use<br />
controls adopted by the <strong>City</strong> or the <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
applicable to the Site described in the Statutory <strong>Development</strong><br />
Agreement and Participation Agreement.<br />
f. The Site described in the Agreement is not within any zone or<br />
jurisdiction governed by any regional Coastal Zone Conservation<br />
Commission.<br />
g. The provisions <strong>of</strong> the Statutory <strong>Development</strong> Agreement and the<br />
Participation Agreement comply with all applicable laws <strong>of</strong> the State <strong>of</strong><br />
California and the United States <strong>of</strong> America.<br />
h. The approval and implementation <strong>of</strong> the Statutory <strong>Development</strong><br />
Agreement and Participation Agreement are necessary for the effective<br />
redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the San Fernando Road Corridor <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Redevelopment Project Area and otherwise are necessary for the<br />
protection <strong>of</strong> the fiscal health <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> and the health, safety, and<br />
general welfare <strong>of</strong> the people <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>.<br />
SECTION 2. Public Hearing Conducted.<br />
a. A public hearing on this ordinance and the accompanying Statutory<br />
<strong>Development</strong> Agreement and Participation Agreement was held by the<br />
(2 )
ATTACHMENT 6<br />
FORM OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE AGREEMENT<br />
< •
ATIACHMENT 7<br />
FORM OF RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO<br />
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE § 33399(G)1<br />
, ,
Recording Requested by:<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
DRAFT FORM ONLY<br />
RESOLUTION NO. __<br />
A RESOLUTION OF THE GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY<br />
PURSUANT TO HEALTH & SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 33399(g)<br />
WAIVING THE AGENCY'S RIGHT TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN<br />
REGARDING PROPERTY SUBIECT TO A STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT AND<br />
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GLENDALE,<br />
THE GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY<br />
AND DREAM WORKS ANIMATION, L.L.C.<br />
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code § 33399(g) provides thaI the<br />
Redevelopment Agency may exempt certain property from the future use <strong>of</strong> eminent domain<br />
if the owners participate in the redevelopment <strong>of</strong> their propeny in conformity with the<br />
Redevelopment Plan;<br />
AND WHEREAS, [he site described below will be redeveloped by the owners<br />
pursuant to a Statutory <strong>Development</strong> and Participation Agreement in conformity with the<br />
Redevelopment Plan;<br />
NOW THEREFORE, THE GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOLVES AS<br />
FOLLOWS:<br />
SECTION 1. Owner <strong>of</strong> the Parcels.<br />
The owner <strong>of</strong> the propeny included within the scope <strong>of</strong> the waivers and agreements provided<br />
by this resolution is:<br />
(1) FBTe Leasing Corp., a New York corporation.<br />
SECTJO 2. Findinl!s and Determinations.<br />
The <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency fmds and determines as follows:
a. Redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the property described below as contemplated in the<br />
Statutory <strong>Development</strong> and Participation Agreement will be consistent with the tenns and<br />
restrictions <strong>of</strong> the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area.<br />
b. Such redevelopment will eliminate all aspects <strong>of</strong> the property that may<br />
be considered blighted within the meaning <strong>of</strong> Health and Safery Code § 33030 through<br />
33033, inclusive.<br />
c. Such redevelopment will render tile property unnecessary for any other<br />
effective redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the Project Area as set forth in Health & Safety Code §<br />
33367(d)(lO).<br />
SECTION 3. Exemption From Furure Eminent Domain.<br />
Pursuant to Health and Safely Code § 33399(g) all <strong>of</strong> the property described in Section 4<br />
below is hereby made exempt from the use <strong>of</strong> eminent domain by the <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Redevelopment Agency. The <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency shall have no power <strong>of</strong><br />
eminent domain as to rhat property unless the redevelopment plan is hereafler amended 10<br />
expressly make the property subject to eminent domain.<br />
1996.<br />
APPROVED AS TO FORM<br />
Agency Counsel<br />
Date:<br />
ATTEST:<br />
Agency Secretary<br />
Passed by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency on the day <strong>of</strong>__<br />
Chairman
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )<br />
) ss.<br />
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )<br />
I, AILEEN B. BOYLE, Secretary to <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency, certify<br />
that the foregoing resolution was passed by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency by a vote <strong>of</strong><br />
a majoriry <strong>of</strong> its members held on the _ day <strong>of</strong> , __' and !.hal the same 'was<br />
adopted by the following vote:<br />
Agency Secretary<br />
Ayes<br />
Noes<br />
Absent<br />
, A
ATTACHMENT 8<br />
LIST OF IMPROVEMENTS<br />
The costs <strong>of</strong> the following Improvements shall be considered Public Improvement<br />
CostS in accordance with Paragraph 1(f) <strong>of</strong> Section 217 <strong>of</strong> this Agreement and may be paid<br />
for by any Excess, in accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> Paragraph 5 <strong>of</strong> Section 218 <strong>of</strong> this<br />
Agreement.<br />
A. Sound walls adjacent to any freeway or highway within the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the Site.<br />
B. Child care facilities for the benefit <strong>of</strong> employers within the San Fernando<br />
Corridor Redevelopment Project Area.<br />
In addition to the foregoing Improvements, lhe following additional Improvements<br />
may be included as Public Improvement Costs or paid for with any Excess subject to<br />
agreement between Agency and Participant. This list is illustrative and not exhaustive. The<br />
cos! <strong>of</strong> Olher Improvements nO( listed may be paid for with the mutual wriuen consent <strong>of</strong><br />
Agency and Participant.<br />
1. Pedestrian/bicycle path/access road improvements along the Los Angeles River<br />
adjoining and in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the Site.<br />
2. Landscaping improvements within the public rights-<strong>of</strong>-way adjoining and in the<br />
vicinity <strong>of</strong> .the Site.<br />
3. Street, sidewalk, curb and gutter improvements within the pUblic rights-<strong>of</strong>-way<br />
adjoining and in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the Site.<br />
4. Ulilily improvements upon the Site and in areas adjoining and in the vicinilY <strong>of</strong><br />
the Site.<br />
" .
ATTACHMENT 9<br />
GLENDALE COSTS REPAYMENT SCHEDULE
FISCAL YEAR ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX TOTAL AMOUNT<br />
JULY I INCREMENT AMOUNT<br />
1997 25,000 41,928<br />
1998 78,490 107,510<br />
1999 249,684 278,704<br />
2000 192,310 221,330<br />
2001 195,943 224,963<br />
2002 199,669 231,228<br />
2003 203,488 236,861<br />
2004 207,400 240,773<br />
2005 211,406 244,779<br />
2006 215,506 248,879<br />
2007 219,701 255,994<br />
2008 223,992 262,371<br />
2009 228,381 266,760<br />
2010 232,867 271,246<br />
2011 237,452 275,831<br />
2012 242,137 258,128<br />
2013 246,925 246,925<br />
2014 251,815 251,815<br />
2015 256,809 256,809<br />
2016 261,910 26] ,910<br />
2017 267,118 267,118<br />
2018 272,435 272,435<br />
2019 277,864 277,864<br />
2020 283,405 283,405<br />
2021 289,062 289,062<br />
2022 294,835 294,835<br />
2023 300,727 300,727<br />
2024 306,740 306,740<br />
2025 312,876 312,876<br />
2026 3J9,137 319,137<br />
2027 325,526 325,526<br />
TOTAL 7,430,610 7,934,469
ATTACHMENT 10<br />
INDUCEMENT AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT C<br />
Second Addendum<br />
to the<br />
Program Environmental Impact Report<br />
for the<br />
Redevelopment Plan for the San Fernando<br />
Road Corridor<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus<br />
SCH #92041055<br />
March 2008<br />
PI1:paredfOr<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
633 E. Broadway, Room 201<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong>, CA 91206<br />
Prepared try<br />
PlJ5&J<br />
12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430<br />
Los Angeles, C1\ 90025
Second A.ddendum to the Program EIR, DreamWorks Campus<br />
Page 13<br />
Sile Specific Analysis in the First Addendum<br />
Grading The size and scope <strong>of</strong> the proposed site grading operation would result in less<br />
than significanl impacts, consislent 'wlth the pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong>grading impacts in the Program EIR<br />
Seismic. There is no indication <strong>of</strong> unusual seIsmic risk associated with the development <strong>of</strong><br />
the proposed site. which would be COnSlrLlcted in accordance with all applicable seismic<br />
safety codes. 11,e development <strong>of</strong> the Drcam\'\'orks campus would result in less than<br />
significant impacts and is, therefore. consistent with the SClsnuc impacts identified in the<br />
Prograrr. EI R.<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> Proposed Project Impacts<br />
lbe proposed designation <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks campus as an Indusuial Mixed Use/L:uge<br />
Scale Prajl-oct in the lND zoning district, revision <strong>of</strong> the height lim.it, and construction <strong>of</strong> a<br />
secondary access gate wilh aSSOCIated pa,'ing acti"jties would not result in any new grading<br />
or SeIsmic impacts not preVIOusly anal),zt.-d and disclosed in the Program EIR. Ibe tOial<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> de\'elopment permitted on the site would not change, and future development on<br />
me DreamWorks campus would be subject to Ihe mitigation measures in the Program EIR.<br />
4.2 Air Quality<br />
Redevelopment Plan Program EIR Impacts<br />
ConslrllcfiOfF. Consrruction emissions
Second Addendum to the Program EIR, DreamWorks Campus<br />
Page 21<br />
resources, such as the nearby Santa Monica or Verdugo Mountains, would only be partially<br />
or mtermittently obstructed.<br />
As noted, above, future development on the Dream\\iorks campus would not conflict with<br />
applicable <strong>City</strong> policies related to visual resources. The proposed project achieves all<br />
applicable objectives <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan and is consIstent wuh the General Plan,<br />
including the General Plan objective <strong>of</strong> reflecting " ...a high level <strong>of</strong> architectural, landscape,<br />
urban design, and land lise prmciples..." Further, it would comply with devdopmcnt<br />
stnndards set forth III <strong>City</strong> Ordinances for the Industrinll\1ixed Ulie/Largc Scale Project in<br />
the JND zoning dilitnct (i.e., comply with established minimum setback criteria). Tl1crefore,<br />
hmd use Impacts <strong>of</strong> the proposed deSIgnation <strong>of</strong> the Dream\Vorks campus as an Industrial<br />
r..lixed Usc/Large Scale Project in the IND zorung district, increase in the pennated height<br />
linut, and limited use <strong>of</strong> a new driveway on Flower Street for secondalY access to the campus<br />
would be less tlUlll significlllt, consistent with the pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> l:lIld use impacts identified 111<br />
the Prognim EIR and First Addendum.<br />
4.7 Risk <strong>of</strong> Upset<br />
Redevelopment Plan Program EIR Impacts<br />
Risk <strong>of</strong> upset impacts would be less than significant and would be further reduced wilh<br />
implementatiun <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR.<br />
Site Specific Analysis in the First Addendum<br />
The Dream\'Xlurks campus dues not tepresent a risk <strong>of</strong> upset and would result in a Jess than<br />
significant impact. The development is comistent with the pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> risk <strong>of</strong> upset impacls<br />
identified in the Progr:lln Rllt<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> Proposed Project Impacts<br />
The proposed designation <strong>of</strong> the Dream\Vurks campus as an IndusLrial Mixed Use/Large<br />
Scale Project in the IND zoning district, revision <strong>of</strong> the height limit, and construction uf a<br />
secondary access gale would not result in any new risk <strong>of</strong> upset impacls not previously<br />
analyzed and disclosed in the Program EIR The total amount <strong>of</strong> development permitted on<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agt:m;y<br />
LEGAL_US_\V # 58371827.1<br />
March 2008
Second Addendum to the Program EIR, DrcmnWorks Campus<br />
Page 2]<br />
previously identified in the Program ElR. The development <strong>of</strong> the Dream\XIorks campus<br />
falls within the pr<strong>of</strong>.t.le <strong>of</strong> traffic impacts in the Program EIR.<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> Proposed Project Impacts<br />
The proposed designation <strong>of</strong> the Dream\X/orks campus as an Industrial Mixed Use/Large<br />
Scale Project In rhe IND zomng district, revision <strong>of</strong> the heighr limit, and construction <strong>of</strong> a<br />
scconJalY access gate would noT result in any new transportation and circulation impacTs not<br />
previously analyzed :md disclosed ill the Program ElR. The total amount <strong>of</strong> Jevelopment<br />
permitted on the site would not change, and furore development on the Dream\Vorks<br />
campus would be subject to the mitib>
Second Addendum to the Program EIR, DreamWorks Campus<br />
Page 24<br />
significant level. This mitigation would allow only right t11rm tnto and out <strong>of</strong> the secondary<br />
access driveway.<br />
Mil! 4.9-1 'fbe suolldary aa('ss gale sball!JJlIt lin/it,d arrus, asjol!ows:<br />
• Enlry ji"OlIJ /IOrtbboll//(! FIGJ/Jfr SJrut sball be pmbibited<br />
• Exit 10 lIorthbollnd Flown Jlmt sball be pwliibilrd<br />
111lv14.9-2 He pro/ul applicant sliall be rrspomible for papllellt <strong>of</strong>fers to the <strong>City</strong> reql/irrd to pOSI<br />
apprOpliaf( sigm as l/lrll as pli)'Jiral bameT:> to fIIj()1"((' tlint IlImiJlg lIl()b'eIllmts.<br />
As there are no other turning movements that would be affected by the proposed projeec<br />
other than entrance to and exit from this secondary gate, implementation <strong>of</strong> the above<br />
mitigation measures to eliminate potential safety hnards would reduce this impact to less<br />
than sigOlficant.<br />
4.10.1 Police Services<br />
Redevelopmcnt Plan Program EIR Impacts<br />
Police service impacts would be ,ubstantiaUy lessened with the mitigation measures<br />
ider.tificd 111 the Program EIR and the benefiClal1l11pacts <strong>of</strong> redevelopment.<br />
Site Specific Analysis in the First Addendum<br />
The development is comistent with the police protection issues as addressed in The Program<br />
ElR. Therefore, less than significant Impacts on pulice services would occur.<br />
Analysis <strong>of</strong> Proposed Project Impacts<br />
The propused designation <strong>of</strong> the Dream\X'orks campus as an lndustrial11ixed Use/Large<br />
Scale Project m the IND zoning district, revision <strong>of</strong> the heighT limit, and consl1'llction <strong>of</strong> a<br />
secondary access gate would not result in any new police services impacts !lot previously<br />
analyzeJ and disclosed in the Program Ellt The total amount <strong>of</strong> devdopment permitteJ on<br />
the site would nor change, and future developmenr on the Dream\V'orks campus would be<br />
subject to the mitigation measures 111 the Program ElR.<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
LEGAL us W # 58171827 I<br />
March 2008
Second Addendum to the Program EIR, DrcamWorks Campus<br />
Page 38<br />
which would substantially reduce one or mOre significant effects <strong>of</strong> the project, are feasible,<br />
but not adopted as part <strong>of</strong> the proJcct, or (iv) mitigation measures or ahernatives which are<br />
new and would substantially reduce am: or mort: significant effects <strong>of</strong> the project are<br />
avaJ.1ablt:, but not adopted as part <strong>of</strong> tbe project; and 2) changes to the EIR made by the<br />
Second Addendum do nOI raise important new issues about the significant effects on the<br />
environment. NOlle <strong>of</strong> the abm-e conditions would be met as a result <strong>of</strong> the changes to the<br />
proJcct (the designation <strong>of</strong> Ihe Dream\Vorks campus as an Industrial Mixed Use/Large Scale<br />
Project III the li"JD zolling district and revision <strong>of</strong> the height limit), and no additional<br />
environmenlal analysis or rn-iew is required, other than as Jlrovided in this Second<br />
Addendum.<br />
No substantja! changes h3\'e becn proposed to the Redt.'vclopmelll Plan described in the<br />
Program EIR thai would requirc major revisions to the Program ElK The project described<br />
in Ihe Program EJR included the development <strong>of</strong> the DreamWlorks campus. 1be proposed<br />
Jcsignation <strong>of</strong> rhe Dream\Xlork:; campus :IS an Industrial t>.1.ixcd Usc/Large Scale Projcci in<br />
the IND zoning district and revision <strong>of</strong> the hcight limit in accordance with the <strong>City</strong><br />
standards fa! an Industriall\1ixed Use/Large Scale Project in Ihe IND zoning district woult!<br />
not alter lhe IOtal amount <strong>of</strong> development permitted on the site. None <strong>of</strong> lhe conditions or<br />
circulTlstancl:s that would require preparation <strong>of</strong> a subsccluel11 or supplemental El R pursuant<br />
to Public l{csourccs Code Section 21166 exists in connection with the changes to Ihe San<br />
Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan.<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
LI:.(jAL us W _ SlJ71127I<br />
March 2008
DD<br />
• •0 ;;<br />
" u<br />
c<br />
;l<br />
..lnrl...a
..11:>
ADDENDUM TO THE PROGRAM EIR I<br />
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE<br />
SAN FERNANDO ROAD CORRIDOR<br />
ADDENDUM REGARDING THE<br />
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION CAMPUS<br />
June 1996<br />
State Clearinghouse # 92041055<br />
Prepared for:<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
633 East Broadway, Room 201<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong>, California 91205<br />
Prepared by:<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 130<br />
Santa Monica. California 90401<br />
peR<br />
PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
1. INTRODUCTION 1<br />
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3<br />
3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ' 22<br />
4.1. EARTH 22<br />
4.2. AIR 26<br />
4.3. WATER (HYDROLOGY) " 36<br />
4.4. NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41<br />
4.5. LIGHT AND GLARE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48<br />
4.6. LAND USE 52<br />
4.7. RISK OF UPSET 60<br />
4.8. POPULATION/HOUSING 64<br />
4.9. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION " 68<br />
4.10. P<strong>UBLIC</strong> SERVICES 87<br />
4.10.1. POLICE 87<br />
4.10.2. FIRE , 90<br />
4.10.3. SCHOOLS , 93<br />
4.10.4. LIBRARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97<br />
4.11. ENERGY " 100<br />
4.12. UTILITIES....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
4.12.1. WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 101<br />
4.12.2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104<br />
4.12.3. ELECTRICITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 107<br />
4.12.4. NATURAL GAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109<br />
4.12.5. SOLID WASTE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 111<br />
Page i<br />
Page<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)<br />
4.13. HUMAN HEALTH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114<br />
4.14. RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 116<br />
4.15. CULTURAL RESOURCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118<br />
4.16. ISSUES NOT INCLUDED IN THE FOCUS OF THE PROGRAM EIR<br />
AS ESTABLISHED IN THE INITIAL STUDY 120<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page ii<br />
Page<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Figure<br />
LIST OF FIGURES<br />
1 Redevelopment Plan Area . . . . . . . . . . . .<br />
2 Project Location Within Redevelopment Area<br />
3 Aerial Photograph <strong>of</strong> Project Site and Vicinity<br />
4 Project Site Plan . . . . . . .<br />
5 Noise Monitoring Locations<br />
6 View <strong>of</strong> the Proposed <strong>Development</strong> from the West<br />
7 View <strong>of</strong> the Proposed <strong>Development</strong> from the Northeast<br />
8 View <strong>of</strong> the Proposed <strong>Development</strong> from the South<br />
9 Study Area and Location <strong>of</strong> Analyzed Intersections .<br />
10 Project Trip Distribution Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . .<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agen(;y<br />
Page iii<br />
Page<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
9<br />
44<br />
56<br />
57<br />
58<br />
69<br />
80<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Table<br />
LIST OF TABLES<br />
1 Summary <strong>of</strong> San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan Impacts and<br />
Dreamworks Animation Campus Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14<br />
. 2 Pollutant Standards and East San Fernando Valley Ambient Air Quality Data 27<br />
3 SCAQMD Emissions Thresholds<br />
4 Redevelopment Plan Post-Construction Occupancy Emissions<br />
5 Project Emissions<br />
6 Local Carbon Monoxide Concentration Summary 33<br />
7 Previous and Future Helicopter Noise Levels .. 46<br />
8 Combined Helicopter and Existing Ambient Noise Levels -- Helicopter<br />
Operations Plus Current Ambient Noise Levels . . 46<br />
9 Level <strong>of</strong> Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections 72<br />
10 Level <strong>of</strong> Service Definitions for All-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections 72<br />
11 Existing Intersection Levels <strong>of</strong> Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74<br />
12 Year 2027 Intersection Levels <strong>of</strong> Service from Redevelopment Plan FEIR 75<br />
13 Estimated Project Site Trip Generation Under Redevelopment Plan .... 77<br />
14 Year 2010 Intersection Levels <strong>of</strong> Service with Redevelopment Plan Growth --<br />
Without <strong>Development</strong> on the Project Site 78<br />
15 Estimated Project Trip Generation. . . . . . . . 81<br />
16 Year 2010 Intersection Levels <strong>of</strong> Service - Project Impact Analysis 82<br />
17 Year 2010 Intersection Level <strong>of</strong> Service Analysis with Project Mitigation 86<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page iv<br />
Page<br />
28<br />
28<br />
30<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addeodwn EIR<br />
June 1996
1. INTRODUCTION<br />
This document is an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the San<br />
Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan (hereafter, Redevelopment Plan) which was<br />
certified on November 17, 1992 (Resolution No. 480) by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency.<br />
The Final Environmental Impact Report (hereafter, Program EIR) is comprised <strong>of</strong> an Initial<br />
Study, which is appended to the Draft EIR; the Draft EIR with technical appendices dated July<br />
13, 1992; and the Final EIR volwne dated November 12, 1992. A program EIR is defmed in<br />
Section 15168(a) <strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines as an EIR which may be prepared on a series <strong>of</strong><br />
actions which are related to one another and can be characterized as one large project. Under<br />
Section 15180(b) <strong>of</strong> the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, "An EIR on<br />
a redevelopment plan is to be treated as a program EIR. .. ".<br />
The subject <strong>of</strong> this Addendum is a site specific project, the DreamWorks Animation<br />
Campus, proposed by DreamWorks SKG on a site located within the San Fernando Road<br />
Corridor Redevelopment Area. This document is an Addendum to the Program EIR, responsive<br />
to Section 15168(c) <strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines addressing program EIRs, which states,<br />
"...Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light <strong>of</strong> the program EIR to<br />
determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared." Section 15168(c)4<br />
<strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines states further that, "Where subsequent activities involve site specific<br />
operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the<br />
evaluation <strong>of</strong> the site and the activity to detennine whether the environmental effects <strong>of</strong> the<br />
operations were covered in the program EIR. "<br />
The DreamWorks Animation Campus project consists <strong>of</strong> a site specific project located<br />
within the Redevelopment Area. As such, it is a subsequent activity to the Redevelopment<br />
program. An addendum is a more comprehensive form <strong>of</strong> documentation than a written<br />
checklist, and has been selected to address the potential environmental consequences <strong>of</strong> the<br />
project in the context <strong>of</strong> those attributable to the Redevelopment Plan, as documented in the<br />
EIR. Pursuant to Sections 15162(a) and 15164(e) <strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines, preparation <strong>of</strong> a<br />
subsequent EIR was determined not to be appropriate. As evidenced by the analyses and<br />
conclusions presented in this Addendum, the proposed site specific project does not represent<br />
substantial change in the underlying Redevelopment Plan assumptions regarding the project site<br />
made in the EIR, and neither such differences between the project and the Redevelopment Plan<br />
as will exist, nor new information not available at the time the EIR was prepared, will involve<br />
Planning ConsultantS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 1<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn EIR<br />
June 1996
'.<br />
1. Introduction<br />
new environmental effects not previously considered or cause a substantial increase in the<br />
severity <strong>of</strong> significant effects identified in the EIR.<br />
The environmental analyses in this Addendum review each <strong>of</strong> the environmental subjects<br />
evaluated in the EIR, first summarizing the fmdings <strong>of</strong> the EIR, then analyzing specific impacts<br />
<strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks Animation Campus. In all cases, the purpose <strong>of</strong> the Addendum is to<br />
determine whether the project's impacts had been sufficiently contemplated in the EIR regarding<br />
the larger Redevelopment Plan and whether those impacts would or would not be significant<br />
environmental impacts, in their own right. Mitigation measures are identified as and if<br />
applicable. Where significant adverse impacts are identified, a determination is made as to<br />
whether implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures will reduce impacts to acceptable nonsignificant<br />
levels.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 2<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn EIR<br />
June 1996
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW<br />
peR<br />
P LAN N I N G CON S U L TAN T S RES E·A R C H
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN<br />
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW<br />
The Redevelopment Plan which is analyzed in the Program EIR contains land use and<br />
infrastructure policies and regulations intended to eliminate conditions <strong>of</strong> blight in the area and<br />
revitalize and upgrade the commercial, industrial, and public properties within the project area.<br />
As identified in Figure 1 on page 4, the 727-acre Redevelopment Plan Area (hereafter,<br />
Redevelopment Area) extends along the entire length <strong>of</strong> the San Fernando Road corridor within<br />
the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, and also includes areas west to the Golden State Freeway in the northern<br />
half and to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-<strong>of</strong>-way in the southern half, and up to one-half<br />
east <strong>of</strong> the corridor along major streets, including Broadway Boulevard and Colorado<br />
Boulevard. The Redevelopment Plan provides for existing and future development <strong>of</strong> an<br />
estimated 2.3 million square feet <strong>of</strong> commercial and related space, 11.48 million square feet <strong>of</strong><br />
industrial space and 548 residential units. 1<br />
THE PROJECT SITE<br />
As shown on Figures 2 and 3 on pages 5 and 6, respectively, the DreamWorks<br />
Animation Campus site is located northeast <strong>of</strong> the Golden State (1-5) and Ventura (SR-134)<br />
Freeway Interchange in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, approximately 500 feet north <strong>of</strong> Griffith Park<br />
within the northerly third <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Area. The triangularly shaped property is<br />
proposed to include the unimproved right-<strong>of</strong>-way for Victory Truck Boulevard and encompasses<br />
approximately 13.4 acres at 1000 Flower Street, <strong>of</strong> which an engineering survey established that<br />
11.06 acres are in the primary parcel and 2.34 acres are in the Victory Truck Boulevard right<strong>of</strong>-way.<br />
The site adjoins the Los Angeles River on the south, Flower Street on the northeast,<br />
and private industrial property to the northwest. Surrounding land uses include an array <strong>of</strong> light<br />
industrial activities to the east, north and northwest, all in the Redevelopment Area, and, across<br />
the Los Angeles River, Griffith Park to the southwest in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles.<br />
Fonnerly owned by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles Department <strong>of</strong> Water and Power, the<br />
project site served as a field headquarters for the operation <strong>of</strong> reservoirs, pumping stations,<br />
tanks and wells, and as a storage yard for related equipment and materials. Since 1958, the site<br />
I<br />
Program EIR, Final EIR Volume. page 1-9.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 3<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddendlBJl EIR<br />
June 1996
Planning<br />
Consultants<br />
Research<br />
N<br />
A a 10CXl<br />
Redevelopment<br />
Project •<br />
Boundary<br />
SOURCE: Katz Hollis<br />
Page 5<br />
2000<br />
o<br />
a:<br />
<<br />
> W..J<br />
::><br />
o CD<br />
o z<br />
< cr<br />
a::I<br />
Figure 2<br />
Project Location within<br />
Redeveloplllent Area
2. Project Overview<br />
has been heavily utilized for helicopter operations and maintenance. The Los Angeles Police<br />
Department, <strong>Glendale</strong> Police Department, Burbank Police Department, and a commercial<br />
helicopter service have utilized the site as a heliport under Conditional Use Pennirs (CUPs)<br />
from the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> and appropriate pennits from the Federal Aviation Administration<br />
and the California Department <strong>of</strong> Transponation. Originally, the site was used by Heliport,<br />
Inc., which utilized the site for helicopter landings and take<strong>of</strong>fs from 1958 to 1968. The<br />
original conditional use application shows that the site had four departure sites and one landing<br />
site at this time. The Los Angeles Police (LAPD) airborne unit was the major user <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
from 1964 until 1972 when the <strong>Glendale</strong> Police and Burbank Police air support units moved<br />
their operations to the site. LAPD helicopter operations were moved to a downtown location<br />
in 1983. In 1988 the Burbank airborne law enforcement unit moved to Burbank Airport,<br />
followed in 1992 by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Police air support unit.<br />
During the peak years <strong>of</strong> operation (1972 to 1983) when all three police departments<br />
were operating out <strong>of</strong> the project site, the LAPD used seven Bell 47G5 piston helicopters, one<br />
Bell 47G5A, one Bell 47G3B1, 16 Bell 206B single engine turbine models, one UHIB (Bell<br />
204), and a CH46. From 1972 to 1992, three Hughes 300 piston model aircraft were used by<br />
the <strong>Glendale</strong> Police. The Burbank Police shared the use <strong>of</strong> these three Hughes aircraft with the<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Police from 1972 to 1988. 2<br />
Records <strong>of</strong> police flight operations for the years 1974-1992 were readily available. The<br />
following flight statistics are based on that infonnation. From 1974 to 1978, there were<br />
approximately 586 flight events (landings or take<strong>of</strong>fs) per week. The LAPD was operating 24<br />
hours a day and on weekdays during this time. From 1978 to 1983, after which time the LAPD<br />
moved downtown, the average number <strong>of</strong> flight events per week was 886. From 1983 to 1988,<br />
when the <strong>Glendale</strong> and Burbank Police Departments were operating together, weekly flights<br />
totalled 300. From 1988 to 1992, when the <strong>Glendale</strong> Police air support unit was operating<br />
alone, approximately 200 flight events per week occurred. 3 Existing facilities on the site<br />
include a helicopter hangar, two temporary <strong>of</strong>fice buildings (trailers on concrete foundations),<br />
a storage shed, and a helipad.<br />
2<br />
3<br />
Helipon Consultams, letter to <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency dated March 7, 1996 (see Appendix B-2).<br />
Ibid.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 7<br />
DreamWorks Animation CanJpus AddeodlDD EIR<br />
June 1996
THE PROPOSED PROJECT<br />
2. Project Overview<br />
The DreamWorles Animation Campus is proposed in order to create new entertainment<br />
industry facilities, including animation facilities and <strong>of</strong>fice use. The objectives <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
project are as follows:<br />
• To create and maintain a media and entertainment production complex to meet the<br />
expanding needs <strong>of</strong> the entertainment industry in Southern California in a location<br />
that is conveniently located for a large part <strong>of</strong> the creative and technical talent that<br />
forms the industry;<br />
• To redevelop and enhance the project site within the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> and the<br />
Southern California region as a premier entertainment industry center;<br />
• To strengthen and maintain the economic vitality <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, Los<br />
Angeles County and adjacent areas by providing business and job opportunities<br />
associated with the development and operation <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks Animation<br />
Campus;<br />
• To rehabilitate the physical appearance <strong>of</strong> the property in order to create an aesthetic<br />
and functional asset in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>;<br />
• To create an integrated production facility and associated uses that respects<br />
neighboring land uses and natural resources as well as nearby residential and<br />
business communities.<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks Animation Campus calls for the removal <strong>of</strong> all<br />
existing on-site structures and equipment, to be followed with development <strong>of</strong> up to 495,000<br />
square feet <strong>of</strong> building area in two or more phases to be used for the creation and production<br />
<strong>of</strong> animated films anq other media. An estimated 1,400 employees are expected to work on the<br />
campus upon completion <strong>of</strong> full build-out. Approximately seven buildings and a parking<br />
structure are proposed with vehicular access via a main entrance and two secondary access<br />
points, provided on Flower Street. A site plan for the project is presented as Figure 4 on<br />
page 9.<br />
The design for the DreamWorks Animation Campus is modelled upon a campus plan<br />
designed around a series <strong>of</strong> courtyards that respond to Southern California's Mediterranean<br />
climate. At full buildout there will be approximately seven buildings and a parking structure,<br />
interconnected through arcades, verandas, and bridges. Buildings will be two to four stories<br />
in height with pitched tile ro<strong>of</strong>s, covered terraces and porches. Consistent with the<br />
Mediterranean theme, several towers or campaniles (the tallest measuring up to 115 feet) may<br />
be incorporated into the building design as architectural accents. The main buildings, ranging<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 8<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn ErR<br />
Iune 1996
2. Project Overview<br />
from 30,000 to 85,000 square feet each, will be clustered around a central piazza. Courtyards<br />
and landscaping are an integral part <strong>of</strong> the site layout. An ornamental garden/water feature may<br />
be incorporated into the design <strong>of</strong> the project. A decorative grove <strong>of</strong> trees will provide<br />
landscaped orientation to the adjacent Los Angeles River along the southern boundary <strong>of</strong> the<br />
property.<br />
A parking structure serving the facilities will be situated on the northwestern comer <strong>of</strong><br />
the property and may include five levels above ground, with a helipad to be located just above<br />
the top level. Helicopter operations, which are currently pennitted for the site, will continue.<br />
It is proposed that the current unimproved right-<strong>of</strong>-way easement for Victory Truck Boulevard<br />
<strong>of</strong> approximately· 2.34 acres, which extends over the Southern portion <strong>of</strong>the site, be quitclaimed<br />
prior to project development.<br />
RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROJECT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN<br />
The Redevelopment Plan defines allowable land uses and development standards for the<br />
Redevelopment Area in general; and the DreamWorks site in particular. The Redevelopment<br />
Plan incorporates the development standards (building height, setback criteria, etc.) already set<br />
forth in the <strong>City</strong> Zoning Ordinances for each <strong>of</strong> the zoning districts adopted in the<br />
Redevelopment Plan. These documents establish a Restricted Industrial land use classification<br />
(Ml Zone) for the DreamWorks site. Neither the Redevelopment Plan nor the Zoning<br />
Ordinances establishes a maximum density or intensity <strong>of</strong> Restricted Industrial usage on any<br />
individual property. The <strong>City</strong>, by design, has only established regulations restricting front yard<br />
setback distances and building heights as applied to individual properties. The Ml zone allows<br />
heights up to 35 feet and requires ten foot setbacks adjacent to streets. Thus, within these<br />
parameters and dependent upon the configuration and constraints <strong>of</strong> any particular site, a range<br />
<strong>of</strong> intensities or floor area ratios, which is the ratio <strong>of</strong>existing or expected building area divided<br />
by associated land area (hereafter, FAR), from as low as 0.3 FAR to as high as 1.5 FAR would<br />
be expected by the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
In order to estimate the total amount <strong>of</strong> development that should reasonably be expected<br />
in the Redevelopment Area, and to evaluate the environmental impacts <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment<br />
Plan, the Program EIR made documented assumptions regarding land use intensities for each<br />
cited land use aggregated across all properties within particular zoning districts. These<br />
assumptions took the fonn <strong>of</strong> average densities, expressed in the case <strong>of</strong> Restricted Industrial<br />
uses as FAR.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 10<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
2. Project Overview<br />
within the DreamWorks Animation Campus were included in the average Restricted Industrial<br />
development assumptions made as part <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan and evaluated in the Program<br />
EIR.<br />
The incremental Animation Campus floor area in eXKSS <strong>of</strong> the average FAR assumption<br />
for Restricted Industrial uses in TAZ 2 represents only 2.4% <strong>of</strong> total Restricted Industrial uses<br />
forecast in the TAZ, only 0.9% <strong>of</strong> all industrial uses in the Redevelopment Area, and only<br />
0.7% <strong>of</strong> all non-residential uses in the Redevelopment Area. By any <strong>of</strong> these measures, the<br />
proposed project's density represents an insignificant deviation from the expectations expressed<br />
in the Redevelopment Plan, one that is well within the range <strong>of</strong> normal variation to be expected<br />
in a large area over a 35-year implementation period.<br />
INTENDED USES OF THIS DOCUMENT<br />
The proposed project site is consistent with the current Restricted Industrial land use<br />
designation for the site by the <strong>Glendale</strong> General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This<br />
environmental document may be used for all purposes cited in the Program EIR in addition to<br />
all discretionary approvals and actions which may be required for this project, including but not<br />
limited to:<br />
• Statutory <strong>Development</strong> Agreement.<br />
• Participation Agreement.<br />
• Height Variance.<br />
• Parking Exception.<br />
• Conditional Use Permit (for the installation and llse <strong>of</strong> satellite dishes).<br />
• Design Review Process.<br />
• Such other discretionary actions as may be required, but cannot be identified at this<br />
time.<br />
Planning Consullams Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 12<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> this DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum to the Program EIR<br />
as it pertains to the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan is to compare project<br />
impacts to the impacts identified in the Program EIR for the Redevelopment Plan and to<br />
determine: (1) whether the Animation Campus project's impacts were adequately addressed in<br />
the Program EIR and (2) whether this Addendum represents new information, or a change in<br />
any <strong>of</strong> the significance conclusions.<br />
The evaluation in this Addendum has determined that the DreamWorks Animation<br />
Campus project's impacts are within the parameters <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan impacts<br />
identified in the Program EIR and that there is no new information which would change the·<br />
conclusions <strong>of</strong> the Program EIR. The Summary Table on the following pages compares the<br />
respective impacts, issue by issue, <strong>of</strong> the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Plan and<br />
the DreamWorks Animation Campus project.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 13<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 1. Earth<br />
fault, located near the base <strong>of</strong> the San Gabriel Mountains in the northern part <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. Due<br />
to the approximately six mile distance <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Area from this fault, potential<br />
hazards due to fault rupture are not present in the Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment<br />
Area is not in a potential liquefaction area nor are there static fresh water bodies proximate to<br />
the area in which seiches could occur. Although new development would expose people and<br />
structures to groundshaking in the event <strong>of</strong> an earthquake, no unusual or unique risk due to<br />
groundshaking would be posed by the Redevelopment Plan.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
Grading. Elevations on the site range from approximately 450 feet to 463 feet above<br />
sea level. The major soil association extant on the site is Tujunga-Soboba. A geotechnical<br />
evaluation <strong>of</strong> the property has determined that the site is generally blanketed by about five to<br />
20 feet <strong>of</strong> variable fill consisting predominantly <strong>of</strong> silty, fme to medium sand with occasional<br />
gravel and debris. 8 Underlying the fill soils are native deposits consisting <strong>of</strong> fine to coarse<br />
silty sand and clean sand. The site is traversed by a 10 to 80 foot wide and 1,100 foot long<br />
drainage ditch running across the site from west to east, which empties into the Los Angeles<br />
River, adjacent to the southern border <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
The impact <strong>of</strong> any inherent soil limitations that may exist on the proposed project site<br />
would be lessened through standard engineering techniques utilized during site preparation. Due<br />
to the relatively variable topography <strong>of</strong> the site, grading work will be required to bring the site<br />
grade to the desired elevation for construction purposes. In addition, replacement <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong><br />
the existing fill soils may be required. The acceptability <strong>of</strong> existing fills would have to be<br />
determined at the time <strong>of</strong> construction. It is estimated that approximately 100,000 cubic yards<br />
<strong>of</strong> the dirt on site would need to be redistributed in order to bring the site to a level pad and<br />
that approximately 10,000 cubic yards would need to be imported. 9 The size and scope <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed grading operation would not be considered significant with implementation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
mitigation measures identified in the Earth section <strong>of</strong> the Program EIR.<br />
Seismicity. Although additional investigation may need to be performed to obtain more<br />
precise information on liquefaction potential once specific building layouts have been<br />
8<br />
9<br />
Dames & Moore. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard.<br />
November 1995. page 5.<br />
Ibid. page 8.<br />
Planning ConsullllnlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 23<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
. June 1996
4. 1. Earth<br />
detennined, preliminary indications are that the potential for liquefaction on the site is low. 10<br />
Therefore, seismic related settlements are expected to be minimal and structures on site should<br />
perfonn adequately during potential seismic events. Although development <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
project would expose people and strUctures to groundshaking in the event <strong>of</strong> an earthquake, no<br />
unusual or unique risk due to groundshaking would result from development <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
project. With implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures cited in the Program EIR, the seismic<br />
risk to which the proposed project would be exposed would be consistent with any restricted<br />
industrial development in the Redevelopment Area, resulting in less than significant impacts.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
The following grading and seismic mitigation measures were listed in the Program EIR<br />
and may apply to the proposed project: 11<br />
1. Proposed developments will be required to comply with all applicable State and<br />
local building codes relating to seismic design including the seismic design<br />
criteria contained in the Uniform Building Code.<br />
2. Complete soils and geotechnical reports shall be conducted by qualified<br />
engineering soil scientists/geologists prior to project approval for all nonresidential<br />
projects and residential projects as required by the <strong>City</strong> Engineer.<br />
This investigation shall involve surface, subsurface, and laboratory analysis to<br />
identify any potential hazards. This analysis shall also include, but Dot be<br />
limited to, investigation <strong>of</strong> soils and groundwater characteristics necessary to<br />
detennine hazard potential and identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce<br />
other seismic hazards to less than significant levels. Any recommendations<br />
stemming from these investigations shall be considered as conditions <strong>of</strong> approval.<br />
3. <strong>Development</strong> shall be subject to grading permits reviewed and approved by the<br />
<strong>City</strong> Engineer or their designers. Prior to issuance <strong>of</strong> grading permits, a soils<br />
engineering report conforming to <strong>City</strong> requirements shall be submitted and<br />
approved by the <strong>City</strong> Engineer.<br />
10 Dames & Moore, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, LADWP Crystal Springs Mainterumce Yard,<br />
November 1995, page 7.<br />
11<br />
Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.1-7 and 3.1-8.<br />
PlaMing Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 24<br />
DreamWorks ADimation Campus AddcPdWl EIR<br />
June: 1996
12<br />
4. 1. Earth<br />
4. An erosion control plan shall be required and subject to review and approval by<br />
the <strong>City</strong> Engineer. This plan shall contain detailed, verifiable procedures and<br />
methods for implementing this plan. Components <strong>of</strong> an erosion control plan may<br />
include, but not be limited to, the following:<br />
Temporary culverts, ditches, dams, settling ponds, sandbagging, or<br />
similar measures to be installed where needed during construction<br />
activities to collect excess water and sediments flowing out <strong>of</strong><br />
construction sites and to reduce erosion;<br />
Straw, hydroseeding, mulching, soil binders, or other suitably acceptable<br />
materials or techniques to be instituted for uncovered soils, as needed,<br />
during construction activities for the duration <strong>of</strong> these activities; and<br />
Postponing grading activities during periods when wind gusts exceed 25<br />
mph and during the rainy season. 12 The rainy season is generally<br />
considered to run from November 15 through April 15.<br />
It is understood that this provision is intended to mean that grading activities could be suspended during a rain<br />
storm, but not throughout the rainy season.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 25<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum Em<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOP:MENT PLAN Il\1PACTS<br />
4. ENVffiONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.2. AIR<br />
The Redevelopment Area is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) which<br />
covers a 6,600 square-mile area including all <strong>of</strong> Orange County, and the non-desert portions<br />
<strong>of</strong> Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. Maintenance and improvement <strong>of</strong><br />
ambient air quality in the SoCAB is the responsibility <strong>of</strong> the South Coast Air Quality<br />
Management District (SCAQMD).<br />
Two types <strong>of</strong> thresholds are used to measure the Redevelopment Area's impact on the<br />
ambient air quality conditions <strong>of</strong> both the local area and on the SoeAB as a whole. The fIrst<br />
set <strong>of</strong> thresholds is that <strong>of</strong> the ambient air quality standards (AAQS) promulgated by the<br />
California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency<br />
(USEPA). Both the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and the state ambient air<br />
quality standards (SAAQS) are presented in Table 2 on page 27. Table 2 also compares AAQSs<br />
to the ambient air quality data as measured for the East San Fernando Valley Source Receptor<br />
Area.<br />
The second set <strong>of</strong> thresholds applies to the Redevelopment Area's total regional<br />
emissions <strong>of</strong> criteria pollutants for both construction and post-construction occupancy. These<br />
thresholds were promulgated by the SCAQMD in their April, 1993 CEQA Air Quality<br />
Handbook and are presented in Table 3 on page 28. Both the AAQSs and the emission<br />
thresholds used in the Program EIR are consistent with the. current thresholds.<br />
Table 4 on page 28 presents the post-eonstruction occupancy emissions for the<br />
Redevelopment Area as estimated in the Program EIR and compares these emissions to the<br />
SCAQMD emission thresholds. The Program EIR (page 3.2-10) states that short-term<br />
(construction) emissions associated with the development plan while significant, can be mitigated<br />
below the level <strong>of</strong> significance. However, the long-term impacts (post-construction occupancy,<br />
page 3.2-11) are significant and adverse, and camlOt be mitigated below the level <strong>of</strong><br />
significance.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 26<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK<br />
June 1996
Carbon Monoxide<br />
Nitrogen Oxides<br />
Reactive Organic Compounds<br />
Particulate Matter<br />
Sulfur Oxides<br />
Table 3<br />
SCAQMD EMISSIONS TImESHOLDS<br />
Construction<br />
(Pounds per Day)<br />
550<br />
100<br />
75<br />
150<br />
150<br />
Table 4<br />
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN<br />
POST-CONSTRUCTION OCCUPANCY EMISSIONS<br />
(Pounds per Day)<br />
4. 2. Air<br />
Post-Construction Occupancy<br />
(Pounds per Dav)<br />
550<br />
55<br />
55<br />
150<br />
150<br />
Reactive Carbon Nitrogen Particulate<br />
Organic Gases Monoxide Oxides Matter<br />
4. 2. Air<br />
and coating, and vehicular emissions from on-site construction equipment and <strong>of</strong>f-site<br />
construction worker vehicle trips. The SCAQMD Handbook provides screening tables to<br />
determine potential air quality impacts from construction. The SCAQMD minimum threshold<br />
for potential significant adverse construction air quality impacts is 559,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> gross<br />
floor area. The project has a gross floor area <strong>of</strong> 495,000 square feet and therefore is below the<br />
SCAQMD screening level for construction impacts. This is not inconsistent with the Program<br />
EIR, which states a significant but mitigable impact due to construction <strong>of</strong> all anticipated<br />
development within the Redevelopment Area.<br />
Regional Operational Impacts<br />
The proposed project is located within the Redevelopment Area, based upon the variable<br />
distribution <strong>of</strong> development discussed in Section 2, Project Overview. Therefore, its emissions<br />
from post-construction occupancy <strong>of</strong> the project facility are contained in the emission estimates<br />
generated for the Redevelopment Area as presented in Table 4 on page 28. The emissions<br />
presented in Table 4 are based on CARB Urban Emission (URBEMIS3) model nms. The<br />
URBEMIS model calculated emissions based on gross floor area. The project site floor area<br />
represents approximately 3.33-percent <strong>of</strong> the area allocated in the Redevelopment Plan for<br />
Industrial use. Emissions for the Restricted Industrial use were obtained from the URBEMIS3<br />
printouts from the Program EIR1 3 , and the project related emissions were determined based<br />
on the assumption that 3.33-percent <strong>of</strong> the emissions assigned to the Restricted Industrial land<br />
use were allocated to this proposed project. These project-related emissions are presented in<br />
Table 5 on page 30.<br />
The Traffic/Circulation section <strong>of</strong> this document discusses the fact that the project will<br />
generate higher levels <strong>of</strong> tripmaking than those associated with the Program EIR's analysis for<br />
Restricted Industrial land use. Therefore, the project's emissions were recalculated using the<br />
methodologies presented in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, trip data from the<br />
project specific traffic analysis, trip lengths from the Program EIR, and emission factors from<br />
the CARB emission factor model EMFAC7-F. These emissions are presented in Table 5. The<br />
calculations used in determining these emissions are included in Appendix A. The recalculated<br />
emissions as presented, are approximately equal to or less than those originally calculated in the<br />
Program EIR, even though the project is forecast to increase the number <strong>of</strong> trips over what was<br />
originally allocated to the project. This defacto emission reduction is primarily attributable to<br />
the workings <strong>of</strong> the URBEMIS3 model used to generate the emissions presented in the Program<br />
EIR.<br />
1.3 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. Appendix G. Air Quality Worksheers.<br />
Planning ConsulranlS Resean:h<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 29<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK<br />
June 1996
Table 6<br />
LOCAL CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATION SUMMARY<br />
I-hr Concentration - 2010 8-hr Concentration - 2010<br />
4. 2. Air<br />
Intersection Receptor No-Prolect With Project Change Background Total Future Change Backeround Total Future<br />
Flower/Western<br />
3.5 3.5 0.0 8.2 8.2 0.0 7.1 7.1<br />
2 4.4 4.5 0.1 8.2 8.3 0.1 7.1 7.2<br />
3 4.6 4.7 0.1 8.2 8.3 0.1 7.1 7.2<br />
4 2.7 2.8 0.1 8.2 8.3 0.1 7.1 7.2<br />
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<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 33<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum Ern<br />
June 1996
Construction<br />
4. 2. Air<br />
unloading. These measures will be implemented by the developer with<br />
design review by the <strong>City</strong>;<br />
• Transit use incentives by employers to encourage public transit use by<br />
employees;<br />
• Encouragement <strong>of</strong> carpooling and vanpooling.<br />
• Alteration <strong>of</strong> normal daily truck delivery routes to avoid congestion at peak<br />
hours;<br />
• Consideration <strong>of</strong> developing staggered work hours; and<br />
• Consideration for providing convenient bus shelters and bus turnouts along<br />
the major arterials to encourage ridership and improve traffic flow.<br />
3. Low-pressure sodium lighting using full cut-<strong>of</strong>f luminaries shall be used<br />
whenever suitable for outdoor security and general illumination lighting when<br />
such lighting is replaced or newly installed in projects under the Agency's<br />
jurisdiction. High-pressure sodium lighting, mercury vapor or tungsten<br />
incandescent lighting shall not be permitted without specific overriding<br />
justification. This requirement shall apply principally to architectural, space, and<br />
security lighting, and shall not apply to animation industry or process specific<br />
activities.<br />
4. The Developer/Participant shall monitor the SCAQMD's rule making procedure<br />
to ensure that adequate standards are established for toxic emissions, and that<br />
abatement <strong>of</strong> toxic emissions within the project area proceeds in accordance with<br />
these standards.<br />
1. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize<br />
exhaust' emissions and conform to state and federal regulations for emissions<br />
control.<br />
2. Grading activities shall be restricted to prevent wind entrailUllent <strong>of</strong> fugitive dust,<br />
when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour.<br />
3. The SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be complied with to reduce fugitive dust impacts.<br />
4. Construction activities shall be halted during Stage Two smog alerts and in the<br />
event <strong>of</strong> local Stage Two smog forecasts.<br />
5. During grading activities, topsoil mounds shall be stabilized to prevent wind<br />
erosion and release <strong>of</strong> dust and particulates. This may be accomplished through<br />
regular watering, hydroseeding, netting, chemical applications, or other<br />
PlalUling Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 34<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendmn EIR<br />
June 1996
PlaMing Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
4. 2. Air<br />
acceptable methods. During grading and construction, water trucks or sprinklers<br />
shall be used to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust<br />
residue from leaving the site(s). Watering shall include regular morning and<br />
afternoon applications after work is completed for the day. Chemical palliatives<br />
may also be used as directed by the Developer/Participant. Truck loads <strong>of</strong> soil<br />
or debris shall be covered or wetted.<br />
Page 35<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPl\1ENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IM:PACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.3. WATER (HYDROLOGY)<br />
Drainage. The Program EIR defmes a significant drainage impact as follows: 15<br />
"Drainage impacts are considered significant if run<strong>of</strong>f exceeds the design capacity<br />
<strong>of</strong> the drainage works and flows cannot be accommodated by planned drainage<br />
facilities. "<br />
The Redevelopment Plan Area lies within the drainage basin for the Los Angeles River.<br />
Redevelopment Plan drainage impacts, due to increased run<strong>of</strong>f and/or sediment load during<br />
grading and construction activities, are considered adverse but less than significant, and can be<br />
substantially lessened with the implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures identified in the<br />
Program EIR.<br />
To mitigate existing drainage deficiencies throughout the entire Redevelopment Area,<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan includes extensive improvements to the storm drain<br />
system. Because the area is already nearly completely developed, development in the area is<br />
not expected to significantly change run<strong>of</strong>f volumes. With implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation<br />
measures, the short-term adverse drainage impacts that would occur during development <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Redevelopment Area can be substantially reduced. Long term flooding impacts would be<br />
considered less than significant.<br />
Flood Control. The Program ErR defmes the threshold <strong>of</strong> significance relative to<br />
flooding as follows: 16<br />
"Flooding impacts are considered significant ifdevelopment within the designated<br />
lOO-year flood zone is subject to future flooding."<br />
The Los Angeles County DepaI1ment <strong>of</strong> Public Works and the U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong><br />
Engineers are responsible for regional flood control within the County. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
15 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.3-2.<br />
16 Ibid.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 36<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddCDClum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 3. Water (Hydrology)<br />
partIcIpates in the National Flood Insurance Administration program through the Federal<br />
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA has identified and mapped areas which are<br />
at risk due to periodic flooding. Areas within the Redevelopment Area identified as being<br />
within the designated lOO-year flood zone are the Los Angeles Flood Control Channel and the<br />
Verdugo Wash. The Redevelopment Plan includes construction <strong>of</strong> capital improvements which<br />
are expected to reduce flooding.<br />
Build-out <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan would result in less than significant flooding<br />
impacts. The only areas within the Redevelopment Area that are within the lOO-year flood zone<br />
are the Los Angeles River and the Verdugo Wash channels.<br />
Surface/Groundwater Resources. The Program EIR defines significant surface/<br />
groundwater resources impacts as follows: 17<br />
"Impacts to surface/groundwater resources are significant if the project will<br />
substantially degrade water quality to levels below levels acceptable to the<br />
Regional Water Quality Control Board."<br />
There are no dependable surface water sources in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> and the<br />
Redevelopment Area has limited groundwater resources. However, the <strong>City</strong> does use<br />
groundwater supplied from wells within the Redevelopment Area for domestic purposes. A<br />
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) remedial investigation <strong>of</strong>the San Fernando Basin,<br />
an aquifer which underlies the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, was completed for the purpose <strong>of</strong> identifying<br />
groundwater contamination. 18 Through the use <strong>of</strong> groundwater monitoring wells it was<br />
determined that contamination in the groundwater could cause a significant risk to human health<br />
if the water was consumed without treatment. The largest quantities <strong>of</strong> these contaminants were<br />
found in current or previous industrial areas and has reduced the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>'s ability to<br />
produce water from one <strong>of</strong> the two wells that the <strong>City</strong> utilizes for drinking water purposes,<br />
although only ten percent <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>'s potable water supply comes from the ground. The other<br />
well that the <strong>City</strong> utilizes is not within the contamination area. The EPA is in the process <strong>of</strong><br />
implementing a Superfund treatment program <strong>of</strong> the groundwater in the San Fernando Basin so<br />
that it can again be used for consumption. 19 As part <strong>of</strong> this remediation program, the EPA<br />
has proposed use <strong>of</strong> three wells on the project site for extraction purposes. With<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures found in the Program EIR, the Redevelopment Plan<br />
17 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.3-2.<br />
18 Ibid.<br />
19 <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Depanmenr <strong>of</strong> Public Services, Will Wilson, telephone conversation, February 11, 1996.<br />
Planning Consullants Resean:h<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 37<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn ErR<br />
June 1996
4. 3. Water (Hydrology)<br />
will not significantly decrease water quality below existing levels because in general new<br />
development will replace old development, thus not substantially changing the quantity <strong>of</strong> land<br />
covered by impervious surfaces, and because <strong>of</strong> <strong>City</strong> enforcement <strong>of</strong> National Pollutant<br />
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
Drainage. The DreamWorles Animation Campus site contains a drainage ditch, running<br />
from west to east across the southern portion <strong>of</strong>the property, which drains the site during heavy<br />
rains. 20 This swale drains through the southeast comer <strong>of</strong> the property and enters directly<br />
into the Los Angeles River. A drainage study will 1?e required to determine what sort <strong>of</strong><br />
replacement drainage structures will be needed to accommodate the run<strong>of</strong>f associated with the<br />
project site.<br />
A new 60-inch storm drain borders the northeast side <strong>of</strong> the site along Flower Street and<br />
the 96-inch Paula Avenue storm drain runs under the current easement for Victory Truck<br />
Boulevard. Both <strong>of</strong> these drains outfall directly into the Los Angeles River, to the southeast<br />
and south <strong>of</strong> the project site, respectively. The Los Angeles County Flood Control District has<br />
indicated that the Paula Avenue stonn drain has been designed to receive run<strong>of</strong>f from only the<br />
western third <strong>of</strong> the project site. 21 Therefore, a storm drain shall be installed on-site that<br />
would direct drainage from the eastern two thirds <strong>of</strong> the property into the adjacent Los Angeles<br />
River via the existing spillway. The proposed storm drain would also accommodate some storm<br />
water run<strong>of</strong>f from the southern end <strong>of</strong> Flower Street, adjacent to the property. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Public Services, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and<br />
the U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers shall review project stonn drain plans to ensure that the<br />
plans meet <strong>City</strong>, County, and U:S. Army Corps standards and that the Los Angeles River has<br />
adequate capacity to accommodate project generated run<strong>of</strong>f. On-site drainage would be<br />
adequately managed with the construction <strong>of</strong> the proposed stonn drain and the implementation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the other mitigation measures identified at the end <strong>of</strong> this section.<br />
Flood Control. The proposed project is not within a lOO-year flood zone and is<br />
designated within FEMA Flood Zone D. Within Flood Zone n, flood hazards are<br />
undetermined but flooding is possible. No mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements<br />
20 Dames & Moore. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard,<br />
November 3, 1995, page 4.<br />
21<br />
B & E Engineers, Paul Mangaudis. telephone conversation, April 3, 1996.<br />
Planning ConsullllnlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> RedeveloJHDent Agency<br />
Page 38<br />
DreamWorks ADimatiou Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 3. Water (Hydrology)<br />
apply in Flood Zone D. The Los Angeles River, which serves as a flood control channel and<br />
is adjacent to the project site, will accommodate and contain stormwater associated with a 100year<br />
frequency storm event, according to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps.22 Since the<br />
proposed project is not in a IOO-year flood zone and the Redevelopment Plan includes capital<br />
improvements which are expected to adequately reduce flooding potential in the Redevelopment<br />
Area, the proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant impact due to potential<br />
flooding.<br />
Surface/Groundwater Resources. The project site contains a drainage ditch which<br />
facilitates drainage <strong>of</strong> the site during periods <strong>of</strong> heavy rain.23 Recent borings <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
conducted for a Geotechnical Report indicate that groundwater was encountered at a depth <strong>of</strong><br />
28 feet. 24 Although at one time there were four groundwater wells operating on-site, three <strong>of</strong><br />
the wells have been plugged and are considered abandoned dry holes and one has been<br />
completely removed. Based on the site assessment that was prepared for the project site, there<br />
is no information to suggest that either historical or current activities have contributed to<br />
groundwater contamination beneath the site. 25 Maps from the EPA groundwater investigation<br />
reveal that the project site is in an area <strong>of</strong> "least (lowest) groundwater contamination...26 The<br />
three on-site wells that EPA proposed as part <strong>of</strong> its groundwater remediation program extraction<br />
system will be relocated to positions along the site's northern boundary where their functions<br />
will be maintained without interference with proposed structures and activities. Neither the<br />
existing or proposed uses would present any substantial risk <strong>of</strong> contamination to surface or<br />
groundwater on the site. Proposed project impacts on groundwater would, with the mitigation<br />
measures included in the Program EIR, be less than significant.<br />
MITIGATION l\1EASURES<br />
In addition, the following mitigation measures from the Program EIR may be applicable<br />
to this project.27<br />
22 A IOO-year storm event is defined as a storm with a one in one-hundred chance <strong>of</strong>occurring within a given<br />
year.<br />
23 Dames &: Moore. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard.<br />
November 3. 1995. page 4.<br />
24 Ibid, page 5.<br />
25 Dames & Moore. Phase 11 Site Characterization. January 25. 1996. page 5.<br />
26 Program EIR Final EIR Volume. Appendices. Section F. Attachment C.<br />
27 Ibid. pages 3.3-4 and 3.3-5.<br />
Planning Consull3nts Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 39<br />
DrcamWork$ Animation CamPII!i Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Drainage.<br />
4. 3. Water (Hydrology)<br />
1. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Public Services, Los Angeles County Flood<br />
Control District, and, U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers shaH review and approve<br />
project storm drain plans prior to project construction.<br />
2. At the project level, developers shall comply with NPDES pennit requirements<br />
within the construction area, to maintain the existing drainage flow and to collect<br />
excess water and sediments flowing from construction sites. (Existing<br />
requirement enforced through standard <strong>City</strong> procedures).<br />
3. At the project level, developers shall be required to submit erosion control plans<br />
if required by the <strong>City</strong> Engineer for approval prior to the release <strong>of</strong> a grading<br />
permit during the rainy season <strong>of</strong> November 15 - April 15.<br />
4. Necessary storm drain improvements shall be constructed on site or within the<br />
adjacent public right <strong>of</strong> way as practicable as part <strong>of</strong> the proposed project.<br />
5. Necessary storm drain improvements shall be constructed as part <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
project.<br />
Flooding. No applicable mitigation measures are contained in the Program EIR.<br />
. Surface/Groundwater Resources. The only appropriate groundwater mitigation<br />
measure would be review by a hydrological engineer, as indicated below: 28<br />
6. Specific· projects proposed within the Project Area shall be reviewed for their<br />
effect on groundwater quality by a hydrology engineer. Mitigation required as<br />
the result <strong>of</strong> review shall be implemented by the Developer/Participant.<br />
28 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, pages 3.3-4 and 3.3-5.<br />
Planning ConsulranlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 40<br />
DreamWorks Animation Cam.- Addendum ElK<br />
JUI1C 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.4. NOISE<br />
The Program EIR defmes the threshold <strong>of</strong> significance for noise as follows: 29<br />
"Noise impacts are considered to be significant if the project will increase noise or<br />
vibration levels to a level considered "nonnally unacceptable" for a given land use as<br />
established by the General Plan for that use. The noise impact is also significant if<br />
noise levels on the property exceed acceptable levels for the proposed use. "<br />
Different land uses have different thresholds for noise level acceptability, as suggested<br />
in the threshold. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> General Plan defmes the "nonnally acceptable"<br />
threshold for various land uses in tenns <strong>of</strong> Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) with<br />
a maximum <strong>of</strong> 75 .decibels (dB) for industrial uses, 70 dB for commercial uses, and 60 dB for<br />
single family residential uses. 30<br />
Existing noise sources in the Redevelopment Area include construction activities, rail,<br />
aircraft, motor vehicle, and stationary sources. Almost all <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Area currently<br />
experiences CNEL <strong>of</strong> 60 dB or greater. Parcels along San Fernando Road, near the freeways,<br />
and the railway regularly experience a noise level <strong>of</strong> 70 dB CNEL. This range <strong>of</strong> noise is<br />
normally acceptable or conditionally acceptable for <strong>of</strong>fice or industrial uses, which comprise the<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> land uses in the area, although there are some non-conforming residential uses in<br />
the Redevelopment Area that are exposed to 70 dB CNEL noise levels.<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan will result in increased noise levels during<br />
the construction <strong>of</strong> individual projects. Redevelopment Plan construction noise impacts are<br />
29 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.4-6.<br />
30 The decibel (dB) is the accepted standard unit for measuring the amplitude <strong>of</strong>sound because it accounts for<br />
the largest variations in sound levels andreflects the way people perceive changes in sound levels. A-weighted<br />
(dB(A)) sound levels are typically used to account for the response <strong>of</strong>the human ear and are adjusted to human<br />
hearing characteristics. In California, to evaluate the community noise environment on a daily basis. the<br />
community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is used as a noise descriptor. The CNEL is the time average <strong>of</strong>all<br />
A-weighted levels for a 24-hourperiod with a 10 dB upward adjustment added to those noise levels occurring<br />
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.<br />
and 10:00 P.M. to account for the general increased sensitivity <strong>of</strong>people to evening and nighttime noise.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 41<br />
DrcamWorks Aaimation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 4. Noise<br />
therefore considered to have a short-tenn significant impact when III close proximity to<br />
residential uses.<br />
Although the Redevelopment Plan will cause traffic volumes to increase along San<br />
Fernando Road, the Golden State (1-5) Freeway, and the Ventura (SR-134) Freeway, resulting<br />
in increased noise levels in the areas adjacent to those roadways, these impacts would be<br />
considered less than significant since the existing and future land uses (commercial, <strong>of</strong>fice,<br />
industrial) in those areas are not considered noise sensitive and anticipated noise levels are<br />
under the CNEL <strong>of</strong> 75 dB "nonnally unacceptable" threshold for those types <strong>of</strong> uses.<br />
Redevelopment Plan generated traffic is anticipated to incrementally increase ambient noise<br />
levels on arterial streets. Sensitive land uses in the Redevelopment Area may be significantly<br />
affected by traffic generated noise.<br />
PROJECT Il\1PACTS<br />
The DreamWorks Animation Campus site is bordered by Ml Zone (Restricted Industrial)<br />
land uses to the north, east, and west. The Golden State (1-5) Freeway lies further to the west.<br />
The Los Angeles River borders the site to the south. with <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles Griffith Park<br />
soccer fields and the Ventura (SR-134) Freeway further south.<br />
A noise study perfonned on the project site included in Appendix B to this document,<br />
indicates that the existing noise environment on-site is dominated by freeway noise. 31 Other<br />
noise sources include train noise from the railroad tracks, located approximately 1,300 feet<br />
away from the project site. although train noise is not easily detected due to distance and the<br />
predominance <strong>of</strong> freeway noise. The other contributor to the noise environment on-site is the<br />
sporadic sound <strong>of</strong> small propeller aircraft and helicopters. Freeway noise levels currently reach<br />
a high <strong>of</strong> 62 dBA Leq32 on the site, sporadic aircraft noise reaches a level <strong>of</strong> 70 dBA. and<br />
train noise reaches a high <strong>of</strong> 70 dBA. 33 Overall, the existing hourly Leq on-site ranges from<br />
54 to 64 dB with an existing CNEL <strong>of</strong> 67 dB. 34 Although these noise levels could cause<br />
constraints for some outdoor activities, they are not so high that indoor activities could not be<br />
31 Crystal Springs Noise and Vibration Assessment Repon. Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates. October /3. /995.<br />
32 Leq stands for equivalent sound level. Leq is an equivalent steady-state A-weighted sound level averaged over<br />
a specified period <strong>of</strong>time.<br />
33 Crystal Springs Noise and Vibration Assessment Repon. Paul S. Veneklasen and Associates. October 13. 1995<br />
(see Appendix C).<br />
34 Ibid.<br />
Planning Consu)umts Re5Carch<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 42<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum DR<br />
June 1996
35<br />
4. 4. Noise<br />
made acceptable for sound critical uses with proper design. The "normally unacceptable"<br />
threshold at an industrial site as established by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, is specified as a CNEL <strong>of</strong><br />
75 dB. 35<br />
Construction noise on the project site could range anywhere from 70 to 105 dBA at a<br />
distance <strong>of</strong> 50 feet from the source, depending on the type <strong>of</strong> equipment used. Construction<br />
noise impacts on the project site are anticipated to be less than significant, due to the lack <strong>of</strong><br />
sensitive land uses in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the site. The nearest sensitive land use is a residential<br />
neighborhood, located approximately 1,200 feet away, which due to distance and a dense array<br />
<strong>of</strong> intervening industrial buildings acting as sound barriers would not experience any significant<br />
noise impact due to construction actiVities.<br />
As indicated in Section 2. <strong>of</strong> this document, Project Overview, the project site has been<br />
active since 1958 in the operation <strong>of</strong> helicopters. The site was used by Helicopters, Inc. from<br />
1958 to 1964, by the Los Angeles Police Department from 1964 to 1983, by the <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Police Department from 1972 to 1992, and by the Burbank Police Department from 1978 to<br />
1988. 36<br />
A noise study analyzing historical and future helicopter noise levels associated with the<br />
proposed project was performed by Arup Acoustics and is attached as Appendix B to this<br />
document. A letter describing the history <strong>of</strong> helicopter operations at the project site was<br />
prepared by Heliport Consultants and is included as Appendix B to this document. Helicopter<br />
flight information for the years 1974 through 1992 was made available by the Los Angeles,<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong>, and Burbank police air support units. Based on this information, past and future<br />
noise levels generated by helicopter operations were estimated for the project site and four <strong>of</strong>fsite<br />
receptor locations. These receptor locations, depicted in Figure 5 on page 44, Noise<br />
Monitoring· Locations" consist <strong>of</strong> single- and multi-family residential areas and represent the<br />
noise sensitive land uses that are closest to the project site. As indicated on Figure 5, these<br />
locations, numbered one through four, are approximately 1,200, 1,900, 1,600, and 1,900 feet<br />
away, from the project site, respectively.<br />
Table 7 on page 46 shows that the CNEL generated by helicopter operations at the four<br />
receptor locations ranged from as low as 49 dB in the years 1974 through 1977 to as high as<br />
62 dB in the years 1978 through 1983. During the entire 18 year period identified on Table<br />
7, an average <strong>of</strong> 67 percent <strong>of</strong> these flight events (landing or take <strong>of</strong>f) occurred between the<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. General Plan. Noise Element. Figure 5. page 36.<br />
36 Letter from Helipon Consultants. March 7. 1996. page 2.<br />
PlaMing Consullants Research<br />
Glrndalr Rfdevelopment Agency<br />
Page 43<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeoolllJJ EIR<br />
June 1996
Planning<br />
Consultants<br />
Research<br />
N<br />
A<br />
Page 44<br />
Figure 5<br />
Noise Monitoring Locations
39<br />
4. 4. Noise<br />
hours <strong>of</strong> 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., 18 percent occurred between 7:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M., and<br />
15 percent occurred between 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. The average number <strong>of</strong> flight events<br />
per weekday that occurred over the entire 18 year period ranged from a low <strong>of</strong> 49 in the years<br />
1989 through 1992 to a high <strong>of</strong> 159 in the years 1978 through 1983. 37 Although some flight<br />
events occurred on weekends, the majority <strong>of</strong> events occurred on weekdays. The helicopter<br />
noise study prepared for this document was based on weekday trips. Table 7 indicates that<br />
these flight'events only increased the ambient noise levels at the receptor locations by a<br />
maximum CNEL <strong>of</strong> 0.47 dB.<br />
The existing ambient noise level at all four receptor locations is a CNEL <strong>of</strong> 66.96. This<br />
exceeds the significance threshold for a CNEL <strong>of</strong> 60 dB for residential areas, as established by<br />
the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. 38 It is estimated that the proposed project will generate approximately<br />
ten flight events per day.39 Almost all <strong>of</strong> these flight events will occur between the hours<br />
<strong>of</strong> 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. Approximately one to two flights per month will occur between<br />
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<br />
estimated CNEL that would be generated by each <strong>of</strong> these flight events at the four receptors<br />
would range from 24 to 35 dB, as indicated on Table 8. However, the existing background<br />
. noise, in combination with the sound generated by these individual flight events, would not<br />
increase the ambient noise levels at the four receptor locations, as indicated in Table 8 on page<br />
46, due to the predominance <strong>of</strong> freeway and railroad noise. Since the ambient noise levels at<br />
the receptor locations would not be increased by project helicopter flights, and since the most<br />
<strong>of</strong> these flights would occur between the hours <strong>of</strong> 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M., with none occurring<br />
between 10 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., project generated helicopter operations would have a less than<br />
significant impact on noise sensitive land uses in the project vicinity.<br />
As there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the proposed project, project<br />
generated traffic wop.ld not have a significant impact on ambient noise levels, unlike the<br />
Redevelopment Plan as a whole which would result in mobile noise impacts in the industrial<br />
areas adjacent to certain residential areas. Similar to the Redevelopment Plan, stationary noise<br />
sources on-site are anticipated to have less than significant impacts.<br />
37 ArupAcoustics, DreamWorks SKGAnimation Campus <strong>Glendale</strong> Helipon Noise Assessments, May 15,1996,<br />
page 5, Table 2.<br />
38 <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, General Plan, Noise Elemenr, Figure 5, page 36.<br />
[bid, page 5, Table 5.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 45<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Receptor<br />
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
a Measured in CNEL.<br />
Table 7<br />
PREVIOUS AND FUI1JRE HELICOPTER NOISE LEVELS a<br />
1974-1977<br />
54<br />
51<br />
59<br />
49<br />
Source: Arup Acoustics, May 1996.<br />
1978-1983<br />
57<br />
53<br />
62<br />
52<br />
Table 8<br />
1978-1988<br />
59<br />
57<br />
59<br />
55<br />
1989-1992<br />
COMBINED HELICOPTER AND EXISTING AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS a<br />
(Helicopter Operations Plus Current Ambient Noise Levels)<br />
57<br />
55<br />
57<br />
53<br />
4. 4. Noise<br />
Future<br />
Receptor<br />
Existing<br />
CNEL<br />
CNEL With Previous Helicopter Operations<br />
1974-1977 1978-1983 1978-1988 1989-1992<br />
CNEL<br />
Future<br />
with Project<br />
1 66.96 67.03 67.11 67.21 67.13 66.96<br />
2 66.96 66.96 67.03 67.15 67.07 66.96<br />
3 66.96 67.11 67.43 67.29 67.13 66.96<br />
4 66.96 67.03 66.99 67.06 67.03 66.96<br />
a Measured in CNEL<br />
Source: Arup Acoustics, May 1996.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
The following noise mitigation measure may be applicable to the proposed project, as<br />
follows: 40<br />
40 Telephone conversation with Lonnie Brown, <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Neighborhood Services, April 2, 1996.<br />
Planning ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 46<br />
33<br />
29<br />
35<br />
24<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addend\llll ErR<br />
June 1996
4. 4. Noise<br />
1. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Public Works Division shall be notified prior to<br />
construction activities that would occur between the hours <strong>of</strong> 7:00 P.M. and 7:00<br />
A.M. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a legal<br />
holiday.<br />
Planning Consultants Rl:5Cart:h<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 47<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeDdum ErR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVmONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.5. LIGHT AND GLARE<br />
The Program EIR states the following significance tlrreshold for light and glare:<br />
"A project will generally result in significant light and glare impacts if the<br />
project includes lighting features that will shine onto adjacent properties, interrupt<br />
operations <strong>of</strong> a light sensitive use (such as an obs.ervatory), or produce intrusive<br />
glare effects. "<br />
The Redevelopment Area currently consists <strong>of</strong> residential, commercial and industrial<br />
development <strong>of</strong> varying intensities; each <strong>of</strong> which utilize relatively high levels <strong>of</strong> lighting for<br />
interiors and exteriors, security, parking, signage, and landscaping. 41 Traffic in the area may<br />
produce light and glare effects from headlights and from reflections <strong>of</strong>f vehicle windows and<br />
chrome. Roadways, sidewalks, and building materials, including windows can also reflect<br />
sunlight, thereby producing glare. New construction within the Redevelopment Area has the<br />
potential to increase light and glare from the same type <strong>of</strong> sources.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
The proposed project consists <strong>of</strong> approximately seven (7), two to four story buildings,<br />
each interconnected with arcades, verandas, and bridges and each having courtyards, terraces<br />
and patios. These buildings will cluster around a piazza in a Mediterranean style and include<br />
several architectural towers, one <strong>of</strong> which could be as much as 115 feet in height and located<br />
in the center <strong>of</strong> the site. Acting as a visual buffer from the freeways to the south and west, a<br />
grove <strong>of</strong> trees will be planted along the southern property boundary, adjacent to the Los<br />
Angeles River. In addition, there will be a parking structure which will be five levels above<br />
ground, with a helipad above the top level.<br />
Each <strong>of</strong> these elements would require interior and exterior lighting for security, parking,<br />
walkways, signage, landscaping, etc. Lighting on the DreamWorks Animation Campus will<br />
41 Program E/R. Final EIR Volume. page 3.5-1.<br />
Planning Consullllnts Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 48<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK<br />
June 1996<br />
, .
4. 5. Light and Glare<br />
likely be visible from surrounding properties and may spillover marginally onto adjoining<br />
properties. However, because the project site is located within an M1 Zone (Restricted<br />
Industrial) area and is surrounded by uses pennitted in that zone to the west, north and east,<br />
and by the Los Angeles River, soccer fields beyond the Los Angeles River, and a freeway to<br />
the south. lighting spillover from the site will not have a significant effect on any uses<br />
considered sensitive to night lighting. Reflected glare from building materials is not expected<br />
to produce adverse effects on-site, on neighboring properties, or in the vicinity, due to the site's<br />
relative isolation and the varied architectural fonns indicated in the preliminary project design<br />
(see Figure 6 on page 56 in Section 4.6, Land Use.)<br />
The proposed project's buildings, parking structure, and the towers were also evaluated<br />
for potential shading impacts to adjacent land uses. .Shading is a common and expected<br />
occurrence in urbanized areas, including the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Area.<br />
All buildings, trees, landfonns and other features rise appreciably above grade cast shadows.<br />
Shading is positive when it provides cooling effects during warm seasons and the <strong>Glendale</strong> area<br />
can be quite warm during the summer months. It can also be negative, if shading <strong>of</strong> sensitive<br />
uses occurs for extensive periods, particularly in the cooler parts <strong>of</strong> the year. Redevelopment<br />
Plan shading impacts were not analyzed in the Program EIR, since shading is directly related<br />
to building size and location and evaluation on a program level when building masses are<br />
unknown is not productive. Analyses <strong>of</strong>shading impacts are appropriate for individual projects,<br />
where sensitive uses might be affected.<br />
To detennine the extent <strong>of</strong> shadow cast by the project, this analysis examines the project<br />
elements which are the tallest and closest to the site boundary. Anticipated maximum shadow<br />
lengths for representative building heights on the DreamWodes Animation Campus are identified<br />
in the text table below. As shown, on the winter solstice, the highest proposed project<br />
structure, the 115 foot high central campanile, would project its longest shadow <strong>of</strong> 348 feet in<br />
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<br />
A.M., the shadow would. not extend beyond the northwesterly project property boundary. At<br />
3:00 P.M., the shadow would extend into the adjacent industrial property across Flower Street<br />
by approximately 55 feet. This distance exceeds the minimum required street setback line for<br />
M1 Zone properties by 45 feet.<br />
Because <strong>of</strong> their proximity to the property lines, other lower pr<strong>of</strong>ile project structures<br />
would also cast shadows onto adjacent properties. For example, assuming a 40-foot height for<br />
the parking structure, 121 foot shadows would be cast some 91 feet into the adjacent property<br />
to the northwest and 38 feet into the adjacent property across Flower Street. Project buildings<br />
along the Flower Street frontage would briefly shade the frontage across Flower Street.<br />
Planning COlWllrants Rcsurch<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 49<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
MAXIMUM SHADOW LENGTHS AND BEARINGS<br />
DURING THE SUMMER AND WINTER SOLSTICES<br />
4. 5. Light and Glare<br />
Summer Solstice Winter Solstice<br />
9:00 A.M. I 85° W a 9:00 A.M. I 45° W<br />
Height <strong>of</strong> Structure 5:00 P.M. 185° E 3:00 P.M. I 45° E<br />
35 47 106<br />
40 53 121<br />
60 80 182<br />
115 153 348<br />
a Bearing is identified in degrees from north (e.g.• 85° W means 85 degrees west <strong>of</strong>nonh).<br />
Surrounding land uses are limited to those pennitted in the Restricted Industrial zone and<br />
are not considered shadow-sensitive, as evidenced by their design and the nature <strong>of</strong> their<br />
occupancy. This is also evidenced by the development standards <strong>of</strong>the M-I zone which provide<br />
no setback criteria from property lines other than along street frontages, and then only ten (10.0)<br />
feet, which would allow more <strong>of</strong>f-site shading from compliant structures than would occur from<br />
the proposed project. Accordingly, no significant project shading or other light and glare<br />
impacts not previously anticipated in the Program ErR are expected.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
The following light and glare mitigation measures, as identified in the Program ErR, may<br />
apply to the proposed project: 42<br />
42<br />
1. The Agency and the <strong>City</strong> design review <strong>of</strong> all projects shall include review <strong>of</strong><br />
lighting plans and illuminated signage to ensure minimal spillover and glare.<br />
(Existing review requirement).<br />
2. Buildings shall not use reflective glass that will cause excessive glare to motorists<br />
or residents.<br />
Program EIR. FinaL EIR Volume. page 3.5-2.<br />
Planning ConsullaniS Resean:h<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 50<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendaan EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 5. Light and Glare<br />
3. Outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed so that all direct illumination is<br />
confined to the site and adjacent properties are protected from spillover<br />
illumination. The level <strong>of</strong> lighting in parking lots and along walkways shall<br />
comply with <strong>City</strong> code requirements.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 51<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addemlwn EIR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVffiONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.6. LAND USE<br />
The Program EIR defmes the following significance thresholds for land use: 43<br />
"Land use impacts are considered significant if the project will result in 1) development<br />
inconsistent with the General Plan land use policy or zoning for a given area; 2)<br />
conflicts with regional land use plans or policies; 3) substantial land use conflicts, or 4)<br />
loss <strong>of</strong> significant open space resources."<br />
The Redevelopment Area encompasses relatively level terrain and is highly urbanized.<br />
The area is dominated by industrial, manufacturing, and commercial uses with pockets <strong>of</strong><br />
residential development. The industrial, manufacturing, and commercial uses are a mix <strong>of</strong>older<br />
and more recent,one- and two-story facilities, <strong>of</strong>ten characterized by an architectural simplicity<br />
and functionality. The residential areas consist <strong>of</strong> single- and multi-family neighborhoods.<br />
Existing development in the Redevelopment Area includes 7,804,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> industrial<br />
space including the DreamWorks site, 997,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> commercial space, 511 dwelling<br />
units, 2.9 acres <strong>of</strong> parks and open space and 1.6 acres <strong>of</strong> vacant parcels. The Redevelopment<br />
Plan provides for an additional 3,676,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> industrial space, 1,289,000 square feet<br />
<strong>of</strong> commercial space, and 37 dwelling units, which upon full development <strong>of</strong> the Plan would<br />
result in a total <strong>of</strong> 11,480,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> industrial space, 2,286,000 square feet <strong>of</strong><br />
commercial space, and 548 dwelling units.<br />
The Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> General Plan and relies<br />
on development standards within a series <strong>of</strong> zoning districts established by the Zoning<br />
Ordinances. Objectives <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan are as follows: 44<br />
1. The elimination and prevention <strong>of</strong> the spread <strong>of</strong> blight and deterioration and the<br />
conservation, rehabilitation, and redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Area in<br />
accordance with the General Plan, Specific Plans, the Redevelopment Plan, and<br />
local codes and ordinances.<br />
43 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.6-1.<br />
44 Ibid. pages 1-6 and 1-7.<br />
PlaMing ConsulranlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 52<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 6. Land Use<br />
2. The promotion <strong>of</strong> private sector investment within the Redevelopment Area to<br />
prevent the loss <strong>of</strong>, and to facilitate, conunercial sales activity. An important<br />
objective will be the retention <strong>of</strong> existing and attraction <strong>of</strong> new industrial<br />
development within the Redevelopment Area.<br />
3. The achievement <strong>of</strong> an environment reflecting a high level <strong>of</strong> concern for<br />
architectural, landscape, urban design, and land use principles appropriate for<br />
attainment <strong>of</strong> the objectives <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan.<br />
4. The retention and expansion <strong>of</strong> as many existing businesses as possible by means<br />
<strong>of</strong>redevelopment and rehabilitation activities and by encouraging and assisting<br />
the cooperation and participation <strong>of</strong> owners, businesses, and public agencies in<br />
the revitalization <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Area.<br />
5. The provision for increased revenues to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>.<br />
6. The creation and. development <strong>of</strong> local job opportUnities and the preservation <strong>of</strong><br />
the area's existing employment base.<br />
7. The replanning, redesign, and development <strong>of</strong> areas which are stagnant or<br />
improperly utilized.<br />
8. The expansion <strong>of</strong> the community's supply <strong>of</strong> housing (inside or outside the<br />
Redevelopment Area), including opportunities for very low-, low-, and moderateincome<br />
households.<br />
9. Improve and enhance the local and regional transportation system.<br />
The Redevelopment Plan is expected to lead to more efficient use <strong>of</strong> available land for<br />
more intensive development, and the elimination <strong>of</strong> unattractive, poorly maintained structures<br />
and land uses. Reconsolidation and reassemblage <strong>of</strong> some existing parcels is also anticipated,<br />
thus making the parcels more accessible and developable. Although the Redevelopment Plan<br />
is consistent with adopted local and regional plans and policies, its implementation would alter<br />
the existing character <strong>of</strong> the area by developing currently vacant or underutilized land and<br />
increasing the intensity <strong>of</strong> development. Such development could result in localized land use<br />
conflicts, including noise (especially during construction phases), traffic. and the size and<br />
PlaMing Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 53<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
45<br />
4. 6. Land Use<br />
configuration <strong>of</strong> new buildings. 45 However, mitigation measures should be available at the<br />
project level that would substantially reduce site specific noise, traffic and aesthetic impacts.<br />
Mitigation measures identified in the Land Use section and in other impact sections <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Program EIR, including Noise, Transportation/Circulation, and Recreation, would reduce the<br />
Redevelopment Plan's land use iinpacts to acceptable, non-significant levels.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
Land Use Consistency. The project site is located within an industrial/manufacturing<br />
area, most <strong>of</strong> which, including the site itself, is designated by the Redevelopment Plan for<br />
Restricted Industrial Zone uses and accordingly is zoned M-l. The Golden State (1-5) Freeway<br />
is also to the west and the Los Angeles River, <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles Griffith Park soccer fields,<br />
and Ventura (SR-134) Freeway are to the south. The project site has been used for many years<br />
by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles Department <strong>of</strong> Water and Power for <strong>of</strong>fices, storage, and<br />
groundwater pumping, and as an active heliport by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Police Department and Los<br />
Angeles Police Department. 'This property is not extensively improved, and has only a few<br />
structures and facilities, as indicated in the Aerial Photograph presented on Figure 3 on page 6.<br />
The proposed use <strong>of</strong> the site, an animation studio and related facilities, is entirely<br />
consistent with the Redevelopment Plan and General Plan, and directly implements all or most<br />
<strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> the aforementioned Redevelopment Plan objectives as they apply to Restricted<br />
Industrial development on specific properties. The applicant would be required to execute an<br />
Participation Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency, as described in the Redevelopment<br />
Plan, in which the applicant agrees to develop the property in conformance with the Plan.46<br />
The unimproved Victory Truck Boulevard is proposed for inclusion as part <strong>of</strong> the project site<br />
adjacent to the Los Angeles River. As indicated in the Plan, "existing streets and alley may<br />
be abandoned, closed or modified as necessary for proper use and/or development. "47<br />
Setback requirements in the M-1 zone are limited to a provision that structures shall be<br />
no closer than five feet and an average <strong>of</strong> ten feet from any street. The project would meet this<br />
minimum requirement. Proposed development is approximately 35 feet from the northwestern<br />
border, adjacent to Restricted Industrial use, and approximately 85 feet from the southern<br />
Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.6-8.<br />
46 Redevelopment Plan for the San Fernando Road Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. page 6.<br />
47 Ibid. page 16.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 54<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn ElK<br />
June 1996
4. 6. Land Use<br />
border. adjacent to the Los Angeles River. There are no floor area ratio restrictions in the t\f-l<br />
zone.<br />
The height limitation in the M-l zone is 35 feet. In order to maximize usable open<br />
space adjacent to and among the individual structures and for either aesthetic purposes, elements<br />
<strong>of</strong> the project would be taller than this limit. Each <strong>of</strong> the primary structures would consist <strong>of</strong><br />
rather complex building forms with multiple ro<strong>of</strong>s at varying levels. These structures would<br />
vary from 30 to 65 feet in height. Several architectural towers, or campaniles, would be<br />
approximately 65 feet in height, while one such tower may be as high as 115 feet. A height<br />
variance is proposed which would allow each on-site structure to exceed 35 feet and the<br />
campaniles to be 65 feet and, in the one instance, up to 115 feet high.<br />
In instances when rigorous application <strong>of</strong> the development standards in a given zoning<br />
district would serve to frustrate rather than implement the objectives <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan<br />
and/or General Plan, and where no unacceptable adverse consequences are anticipated, variances<br />
are the mechanism by which appropriate adjustments are made. Supported by appropriate<br />
findings, variances when approved are not inconsistent with General Plan policy or zoning intent<br />
in an area.<br />
Aesthetics. The project site is visible from the adjacent properties to the east and west,<br />
from Flower Street, and from the levee and proposed bike path along the south side <strong>of</strong> the Los<br />
Angeles River chaIlllel. The site can also be seen from traffic on the westbound Ventura (SR<br />
134) and northbound Golden State (1-5) Freeways.<br />
The proposed project would improve the appearance <strong>of</strong> the project site and provide a<br />
beneficial effect in the Redevelopment Area. The project consists <strong>of</strong> an integral complex <strong>of</strong><br />
multiple structures articulated with variable heights and ro<strong>of</strong> lines. It has been designed in a<br />
Mediterranean style clustered around a "piazza II and interconnected with arcades, verandas, and<br />
bridges. Figures 6, 7 and 8 on pages 56, 57 and 58 depict the project upon completion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
structures except those intended at the east and west ends <strong>of</strong> the site. The proposed buildings<br />
would be two to four stories high, ranging from 30,000 to 85,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> floor area<br />
each. Included among the buildings would be courtyards, terraces, patios, and several<br />
architectural towers. A parking structure with five levels above ground is also proposed. A<br />
helipad would be located on top <strong>of</strong> the parking structure. Landscaping features may include an<br />
ornamental garden/water feature and a grove <strong>of</strong> trees adjacent to the Los Angeles River, which<br />
would act as a visual and acoustic buffer from the freeways to the south and west. The grove<br />
<strong>of</strong> trees along the Los Angeles River and other usable landscaped open space areas are estimated<br />
to occupy approximately 2.5 acres, or twenty percent <strong>of</strong> the site. Project development would<br />
Planning ConsulLanlS Resl:arch<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agenq'<br />
Page 55<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn EIR<br />
June 1996
Planning<br />
Consultants<br />
Research SOUF1CE: A. V MedIa. los Angeles. Jan·1996<br />
Figure 8<br />
View <strong>of</strong> the Propose.d <strong>Development</strong><br />
from the South
4. 6. Land Use<br />
therefore enhance and improve the existing character <strong>of</strong> the area in a positive way, due to the<br />
architectural design and the use <strong>of</strong> landscaping.<br />
The proposed project achieves all applicable objectives <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan and<br />
is consistent with the General Plan. It would house an approved land use in the Restricted<br />
Industrial District (M-I Zone) and would substantially exceed the minimum setback criteria<br />
established in that zone. To do so and to achieve the Plan objective to reflect II ••• a high level<br />
<strong>of</strong> architectural, landscape, urban design and land use principals..., II the project has applied for<br />
a height variance under the established procedures <strong>of</strong> the Zoning Ordinance. No resulting<br />
conflicts with adjacent land uses are anticipated. The project would therefore not have any<br />
significant land use impacts.<br />
MITIGATION l\1EASURES<br />
The following mitigation measure, as identified in the Program EIR, may apply to the<br />
proposed project: 48<br />
1. <strong>Development</strong> will be required to meet all <strong>City</strong> development standards to ensure<br />
compatibility with adjacent land uses, adequate infrastructure and parking.<br />
48 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. pages 3.6-8 and 3.6-9.<br />
Planning Consuhams ReSQrth<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 59<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeDdum Em<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.7. RISK OF UPSET<br />
The Program EIR defines significance thresholds for the risk <strong>of</strong> upset as the<br />
following: 49<br />
"Impacts are considered significant if the project will result in 1) an unusual or unique<br />
risk <strong>of</strong> explosion or the release <strong>of</strong> hazardous substances in the event <strong>of</strong> accident or upset<br />
conditions; 2) possible interference with an emergency response or emergency evacuation<br />
plan; 3) creation <strong>of</strong> potential health hazards to people or animal or plant populations in<br />
the area affected; 4) locating potentially hazardous facilities in proximity to sensitive<br />
receptors such as schools, day care facilities, hospitals, and convalescent homes."<br />
Potential ris.k <strong>of</strong> upset issues identified in the Redevelopment Area include underground<br />
storage tanks (UST), hazardous material transport, and urban fires. There are 13 USTs within<br />
the Redevelopment Area, <strong>of</strong> which seven were contaminated and were being cleaned up at the<br />
time that the Program EIR was completed. The sites were contaminated either due to leakage<br />
or spills. Although the entire Redevelopment Area lies within a "vulnerability zone," defined<br />
by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency as an area where people may be exposed to<br />
health hazards in the event <strong>of</strong> accidental releases <strong>of</strong> hazardous materials from activities within<br />
or adjacent to that area, this is considered a normal condition for industrial districts. Any<br />
Redevelopment Plan sites which have been occupied by uses which pose potential risks <strong>of</strong><br />
contamination will ·be examined and appropriate remediation will be identified and implemented<br />
prior to new development. The Redevelopment Plan itself does not represent an unusual or<br />
unique risk <strong>of</strong> explosion or release <strong>of</strong> hazardous substances.50 Section 4.3, Water<br />
(Hydrology), includes an analysis <strong>of</strong> the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)<br />
Superfund project to remediate groundwater contamination in the Redevelopment Area.<br />
The potential for transportation accidents involving the transport <strong>of</strong> hazardous material<br />
also presents a risk to the Redevelopment Area. Some designated uses within the<br />
Redevelopment Area include the use and transport <strong>of</strong> hazardous materials. State and Federal<br />
49 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.7-6.<br />
50 Ibid, page 3.7-7.<br />
Planning Consulranu Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 60<br />
DreamWorks Animation CamPIIS Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 7. Risk <strong>of</strong> Upset<br />
Although there are facilities that use potentially hazardous materials or that have<br />
experienced leaking USTs in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the project site, the likelihood <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> these<br />
facilities having an impact on the project site is low, due to either the extent <strong>of</strong> the problem.<br />
location, distance, or the direction <strong>of</strong> groundwater flow, as indicated in an assessment prepared<br />
for the project site. 54 Section 4.3., Water (Hydrology), includes a description <strong>of</strong> the EPA<br />
Superfund project as it relates to the project site.<br />
The risk <strong>of</strong> upset level <strong>of</strong> the proposed project would be comparable to that <strong>of</strong> any other<br />
Restricted Industrial development in the Redevelopment Area that either would not use or would<br />
use limited amounts <strong>of</strong> hazardous materials. Fire prevention standards and procedures for the<br />
hydrology, storage and disposal <strong>of</strong> hazardous material for the proposed project would follow<br />
those prescribed in the Uniform Building Code, and other applicable regulations. Therefore,<br />
similar to the Redevelopment Plan, the project does not represent an unusual or unique risk <strong>of</strong><br />
explosion or release <strong>of</strong> hazardous substances, and does not change the conclusions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Program EIR. The project would have a less than significant impact with the implementation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures listed below.<br />
MITIGATION l\1EASURES<br />
Although the hazardous material assessment found no significant level <strong>of</strong> contamination<br />
on-site, to address the possibility that some undetected localized areas <strong>of</strong> contamination could<br />
still exist, the following mitigation measures are recommended: 55<br />
1. If suspect soils (discolored, odorous, or stained) are encountered during<br />
excavation, sampling and testing <strong>of</strong> the excavation face or a stockpile for<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>iling and from the base <strong>of</strong> the excavation area, should beperfonned.<br />
2. If impacted soils are encountered and conI1.I1l1.ed by testing, special handling and<br />
disposal to a sanitary dump site or hazardous materials dump site will be<br />
required.<br />
54 Dames & Moore. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard.<br />
November 22. 1995, page 20.<br />
55 Dames & Moore. Phase II Site Characterization. LADWP Crystal Springs Maintenance Yard. January 25.<br />
I996. page 20.<br />
Planning ConsultanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redenlopment Agency<br />
Page 62<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 7. Risk <strong>of</strong> Upset<br />
3. Contingency plans for worker's protection should be developed, including<br />
monitoring and response if odors or elevated levels <strong>of</strong> volatile organic vapors or<br />
soil contamination are encountered during excavation. These plans should<br />
include a provision for handling excess amounts <strong>of</strong> potentially contaminated<br />
groundwater.<br />
4. To minimize the possibility <strong>of</strong> migration <strong>of</strong> volatile organic vapors from the<br />
groundwater table up into excavation areas under the proposed structures, slabson-grade<br />
shall include a visqueen layer, for the purposes <strong>of</strong> creating a moisture<br />
seal and vapor barrier.<br />
Planning Consultams Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 63<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
56<br />
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.8. POPULATION/HOUSING<br />
The Program EIR defines impacts on population and housing as the following:<br />
"Impacts on population are significant if population growth exceeds projections<br />
for the area and results in a demand for housing and private and public services<br />
which exceed supply in the short- or long-tenn. Housing impacts are considered<br />
significant if the proposed project would result in the loss <strong>of</strong> substantial housing<br />
or if the proposed project would generate an additional demand for housing<br />
which exceeds regional growth projections. ,,56<br />
The Redevelopment Area had approximately 511 residential units and 1,323 pennanent<br />
residents in 1990. At buildout <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan, the area's population could increase<br />
by 96 people, residing in 548 dwelling units. This new population results in an increased<br />
demand for 37 housing units, based on a household size <strong>of</strong> 2.59 persons per household, which<br />
would be accommodated with implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan. 57<br />
Although a very limited amount <strong>of</strong> housing development is planned within the<br />
Redevelopment Area, substantial nonresidential development is anticipated. In 1990, the<br />
Redevelopment Area contained approximately 8.97 million square feet <strong>of</strong> nomesidential<br />
development, providing an estimated 16,412 jobs based on a floor area to employee ratio <strong>of</strong> 2.8<br />
per 1,000 square feet. The Program EIR states that according to the <strong>City</strong>'s General Plan, the<br />
Redevelopment Area could include an estimated additional 4.97 million square feet <strong>of</strong><br />
nonresidential development and an additional 12,576 jobs, resulting in a total <strong>of</strong> 13.94 million<br />
squire feet and 28,988 jobs at buildout. 58 Of these total employees, 10 percent or 2,899<br />
employees are expected to reside in the <strong>City</strong>, requiring 2,376 housing units. The<br />
Redevelopment Plan activities will therefore result in an increase <strong>of</strong> 1,258 new residents to the<br />
Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-2.<br />
57 Ibid. page 3.6-7.<br />
58 Ibid. page 3.8-3.<br />
Planning ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 64<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
60 Ibid. page 3.8-6.<br />
61 Ibid. Table 9 page 3.8-4.<br />
4. 8. Population/Housing<br />
<strong>City</strong>, demanding a total <strong>of</strong> 1,031 housing units, which can be accommodated by the total<br />
housing growth anticipated by the <strong>City</strong>'s General Plan.59<br />
Because growth projections are consistent with local plans and because the<br />
Redevelopment Plan results in an overall increase in housing units for the <strong>City</strong> and is therefore<br />
consistent with regional plans, it was concluded in the Program EIR that popUlation and housing<br />
impacts from redevelopment activities would be considered less than significant.60<br />
PROJECT IM:PACTS<br />
The DreamWorks Animation Campus consists <strong>of</strong> 495,000 square feet <strong>of</strong> development,<br />
on land zoned for Restricted Industrial uses. The project is expected to employ 1,400<br />
employees at build-out, corresponding to the employee generation rate <strong>of</strong> 2.8 employees per<br />
1,000 square feet established in the Program EIR for Research and <strong>Development</strong> Restricted<br />
Industrial uses (which represents 55 percent <strong>of</strong> the Restricted Industrial uses proposed in the<br />
Redevelopment Plan).61 Approximately 140 <strong>of</strong> these new employees are expected to reside<br />
in <strong>Glendale</strong>, according to <strong>City</strong> trends discussed in the Program EIR. 62 Using the regional<br />
housing ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.22 jobs per housing unit in the year 2010 stated in the Program EIR. these<br />
employees would create a demand for 115 housing units in the <strong>City</strong>.63 The proposed project<br />
does not include development <strong>of</strong> any residential components; therefore. no housing demand will<br />
be accommodated on-site. Because the projected population growth is consistent with the <strong>City</strong>'s<br />
General Plan, and the additional housing units demanded from employees <strong>of</strong> the project can be<br />
accommodated with the General Plan's housing projections, the proposed project is considered<br />
consistent with local plans. Furthermore, because the proposed project adds additional<br />
employment to a "housing rich" area, and does not result in demolition <strong>of</strong> any housing units,<br />
the proposed project is also consistent with regional plans. Therefore, the proposed project<br />
would result in a less than significant impact overall.<br />
In order to provide a comparison with the Redevelopment Plan, this evaluation <strong>of</strong>project<br />
population and housing impacts fIrst estimates the population and housing units that would be<br />
generated on the project site using the Program EIR's average intensity assumptions (FAR) for<br />
59 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, Table 1, page 1-9.<br />
62 Ibid. page 3.8-3, slares that 10% <strong>of</strong>new employees in <strong>Glendale</strong> are expected to also reside in Ihe Cil)'.<br />
63 Ibid.<br />
Planning Consulrants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 65<br />
Dn:amWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK<br />
June 1996
4. 8. Population/Housing<br />
moderate income housing units. 64 However, because the proposed project will not involve<br />
the demolition <strong>of</strong> housing units, these measures do not apply. Furthermore. because no<br />
significant impacts on housing or population are projected with implementation <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
project, no further mitigation measures are proposed.<br />
64 Program E1R. Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-8.<br />
PlaMing Consuhllms Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 67<br />
DrumWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
. June 1996
4. San Fernando Road & Sonora Avenue<br />
5. San Fernando Road & Grandview Avenue<br />
6. San Fernando Road & Highland Avenue<br />
7. San Fernando Road & Fairmont Avenue<br />
8. San Fernando Road & Doran Street<br />
9. San Fernando Road & California Avenue<br />
10. San Fernando Road & Broadway<br />
11 . Flower Street & Grandview Avenue<br />
4. 9. Transponalion/Circularian<br />
The fIrst ten <strong>of</strong> these intersections were analyzed in the San Fernando Road Corridor<br />
Redevelopment Plan FErR. The latter intersection has been included given its proximity to the<br />
project site and the proposed location <strong>of</strong> a project egress driveway onto Flower Street opposite<br />
Grandview Avenue.<br />
Environmental Setting<br />
The assessment <strong>of</strong> existing conditions relevant to this study includes streets and<br />
highways, traffic volumes, and operating conditions on the street system.<br />
Street and Highway System<br />
Regional access to the study area is provided by the Golden State Freeway (Interstate<br />
5) and the Venmra Freeway (State Route 134). Key freeway interchanges serving the study<br />
area include the Western Avenue interchange with 1-5 and the Victory Boulevard/Riverside<br />
Drive and San Fernando Road interchanges with SR 134. Brief descriptions <strong>of</strong> the major streets<br />
serving the study area are as follows:<br />
• Flower Street - Flower Street is a northwest-southeast minor arterial providing<br />
direct access to the proposed project site. South <strong>of</strong> the project site, it bends ninety<br />
degrees and becomes a northeast-southwest street terminating at Air Way. It<br />
provides four travel lanes and on-street parking.<br />
• San Fernando Road - San Fernando Road is a four-lane northwest-southeast major<br />
arterial running through the western part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. It provides access<br />
to SR 134 and connects the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> to <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Burbank to the north and to<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles to the south. Parking is generally allowed on both sides <strong>of</strong> San<br />
Fernando Road north <strong>of</strong> Fairmont Avenue. South <strong>of</strong> Fairmont Avenue, parking is<br />
only allowed on the east side <strong>of</strong> San Fernando Road, with railroad tracks paralleling<br />
the west side.<br />
PlaMing Consullllnts Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redeyelopment Agency<br />
Page 70<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
• Lake Street - Lake Street is a two-lane local street running parallel to 1-5. It<br />
continues in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> Burbank: and tenninates at Magnolia Boulevard.<br />
• Western Avenue - Western Avenue is a four lane major arterial within the study<br />
area. Western Avenue has a full cloverleaf interchange with 1-5 and serves as an<br />
important northeast-southwest corridor.<br />
• Sonora Avenue - Sonora Avenue is classified as a major arterial serving the study<br />
area. It provides four lanes and is a major connection between the study area and<br />
SR 134 via Victory Boulevard/Riverside Drive.<br />
• Grandview Avenue - Grandview Avenue is a minor arterial between Flower Street<br />
and Glenoaks Boulevard. It provides four travel lanes and on-street parking.<br />
Existing Intersection Peak Hour Traffic Volumes<br />
Existing A.M. and P.M. peak hour traffic counts, conducted in 1992, were obtained from<br />
the San Fernando Corridor Redevelopment Plan FEIR for the ten study intersections analyzed<br />
in the FEIR. New counts were conducted at the Flower Street/Grandview Avenue intersection<br />
in January <strong>of</strong> 1996 as part <strong>of</strong> this study. The existing intersection peak hour traffic volumes<br />
are included in Appendix C.<br />
Intersection Level <strong>of</strong> Service Methodology<br />
Level <strong>of</strong> service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition <strong>of</strong> traffic<br />
flow, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. Level<br />
<strong>of</strong> service definitions are included in Tables 9 and 10 on page 72. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
considers LOS D to be the minimum acceptable level <strong>of</strong> service.<br />
In accordance with <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> procedures, the "Intersection Capacity Utilization II<br />
(lCU) method <strong>of</strong> intersection capacity analysis was used to determine the intersection volume<br />
to capacity (VIC) ratio and corresponding LOS for the turning movements and intersection<br />
characteristics at the study intersections controlled by traffic signals. A capacity value <strong>of</strong> 1,600<br />
vehicles per hour per lane was used, with a clearance interval <strong>of</strong> 0.1.<br />
"<br />
The intersection <strong>of</strong> Flower Street/Grandview Avenue is controlled by stop signs on all<br />
approaches. The "All-Way Stop Control" method (Transportation Research Board, 1994) was<br />
employed to detennine the average vehicular delay and corresponding level <strong>of</strong> service for this<br />
location.<br />
Planning Consultants Re5earch<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agen9'<br />
Page 71<br />
DreamWork5 Animation Campus Addendum ElR<br />
June 1996
Existing Intersection Levels <strong>of</strong> Service<br />
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
Table 11 on page 74, summarizes the existing weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour VIC<br />
ratio or average delay and corresponding level <strong>of</strong> service at each <strong>of</strong> the eleven analyzed<br />
intersections. Under existing conditions, each <strong>of</strong> the eleven intersections operate at acceptable<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> service (i.e., LOS D or better) during both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours.<br />
Redevelopment Plan hnpacts at Year 2027<br />
Table 12 on page 75 summarizes Year 2027 levels <strong>of</strong> service as projected in the<br />
Redevelopment Plan FEIR for the ten intersections common to the two studies, both with and<br />
without implementation <strong>of</strong> the traffic mitigation program proposed in the Redevelopment Plan<br />
FEIR. Intersection configurations with the long-term mitigation measures proposed in the<br />
Redevelopment Plan FEIR are illustrated in Appendix C. With implementation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Redevelopment Plan mitigation program, six <strong>of</strong> the ten intersections are projected to operate at<br />
acceptable levels <strong>of</strong> service (LOS D or better) at Year 2027. No mitigation measures were<br />
identified in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR for the Flower Street/Western Avenue and Flower<br />
Street/Sonora Avenue intersections.<br />
Redevelopment Plan Impacts at Year 2010<br />
Year 2010 Cumulative Base Traffic Forecasts<br />
The Redevelopment Plan FEIR forecast traffic growth to the Year 2027, including an<br />
ambient background growth rate <strong>of</strong> 1% per year (from 1992 to 2027), related projects, and<br />
development <strong>of</strong> all uses anticipated in the San Fernando Corridor Redevelopment Plan. Year<br />
2010 cumulative base (Le., without project) volumes for this addendum were projected by: (1)<br />
interpolating the traffic growth projected in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR on a straight-line<br />
basis to the Year 2010 (including the background growth rate, traffic generated by related<br />
projects, and traffic generated by the Redevelopment Plan uses); and (2) subtracting traffic<br />
which would be generated by Restricted Industrial development identified in the Redevelopment<br />
Plan FEIR for the project site. The second step was performed to provide a Year 2010 base<br />
for analysis assuming no development on the project site.<br />
Planning ConsulranlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 73<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Table 12<br />
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
YEAR 2027 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE FROM REDEVELOPJ.\,1ENT PLAN FEIR<br />
Redevelopment Plan<br />
Year 2027 With<br />
Redevelopment Plan<br />
Mitigation Program<br />
Intersection<br />
1. Lake St & Sonora Ave<br />
Hour<br />
A.M. Peak<br />
VIC<br />
0.61<br />
LOS<br />
B<br />
VIC<br />
a<br />
LOS<br />
P.M. Peak 0.79 C<br />
a<br />
2. Flower St & Western Ave A.M. Peak 1.55 F<br />
P.M. Peak 2.22 F<br />
3. Flower St & Sonora Ave A.M. Peak 0.86 D<br />
P.M. Peak 1.00 E<br />
4. San Fernando Rd & Sonora Ave A.M. Peak 0.92 E 0.68 B<br />
P.M. Peak 1.03 F 0.83 D<br />
5. San Fernando Rd & Grandview Ave A.M. Peak 1.08 F 0.85 D<br />
P.M. Peak 1.51 F 0.83 D<br />
6. San Fernando Rd & Highland Ave A.M. Peak 1.13 F 0.81 D<br />
P.M. Peak 1.12 F 0.80 C<br />
7. San Fernando Rd & Fairmon! Ave A.M. Peak 1.14 F 0.96 E<br />
P.M. Peak 1.18 F 0.90 D<br />
8. San Fernando Rd & Doran St A.M. Peak 1.04 F 0.80 C<br />
P.M. Peak 1.67 F 1.02 F<br />
9. San Fernando Rd & California Ave A.M. Peak 0.74 C 0.56 A<br />
P.M. Peak 0.94 E 0.72 C<br />
10. San Fernando Rd & Broadway A.M. Peak 0.82 D 0.66 B<br />
a Intersection is not impacted. therefore, no mitigation is required.<br />
P.M. Peak 1.13 F 0.85 D<br />
b Unavoidable significant impact: no mitigation recommended in the Redevelopment Plan Program EIR.<br />
Source: Colton/Beland/Associates. Inc., wFinal Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan for the<br />
San Fernando Road Corridor, W November 1992.<br />
Planning Consullants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 75<br />
DreamWorks AJWnation CampllS Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996<br />
b<br />
b<br />
b<br />
b
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
The traffic study conducted as part <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan FEIR assumes that the<br />
project site develops as Restricted Industrial use to an FAR <strong>of</strong> 0.75. Given the site area <strong>of</strong><br />
12.21 acres per County Assessor records (not including the proposed quitclaim <strong>of</strong> the Victory<br />
Truck Boulevard easement), it is estimated that the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study<br />
includes development <strong>of</strong> about 398,900 square feet <strong>of</strong> Restricted Industrial uses on the project<br />
site.<br />
Using the trip generation rates published in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR, Table 13 on<br />
page 77, indicates that this level <strong>of</strong> development would generate approximately 365 trips during<br />
the A.M. peak hour and 390 trips during the P.M. peak hour. These trips were distributed<br />
across the street system using distribution patterns from the Redevelopment Plan FEIR, and<br />
were subtracted from the Year 2010 base traffic forecasts to represent Year 2010 volumes<br />
without any development on the project site.<br />
The projected Year 2010 cumulative base traffic volumes at the eleven study<br />
intersections are included in Appendix C. These forecasts represent projected conditions at<br />
Year 2010 with development under the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan throughout the<br />
Redevelopment Plan area,· but without any development on the project site.<br />
Levels <strong>of</strong> Service and Mitigation Measures<br />
The Year 2010 cumulative base traffic forecasts were analyzed to detennined the<br />
projected future peak hour levels <strong>of</strong> service at the eleven study intersections, without any<br />
development on the project site and without consideration <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures proposed<br />
in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR. Table 14 on page 78, summarizes the results <strong>of</strong> this analysis.<br />
As can be seen in Table 14, four <strong>of</strong> the intersections (Flower Street/Western Avenue,<br />
San Fernando Road/Sonora Avenue, San Fernando Road/Grandview Avenue, and San Fernando<br />
Road/Doran Street) are projected to operate at poor levels <strong>of</strong> service <strong>of</strong> E or F during one or<br />
both <strong>of</strong> the A.M. and P.M. peak hours under Year 2010 conditions with development throughout<br />
the Redevelopment Plan area but with no development on the project site.<br />
The Redevelopment Plan FEIR proposed mitigation measures at three <strong>of</strong> these locations<br />
to mitigate Year 2027 conditions. An analysis was conducted to detennine what components<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan FEIR mitigation program would need to be implemented to mitigate<br />
the Redevelopment Plan traffic impacts at 2010 with no development on the project site. The<br />
Planning ConsulranlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redenlopment Agency<br />
Page 76<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addeadum EJR<br />
June 1996
Table 13<br />
4. 9. Transponation/Circulalion<br />
ESTIl\lATED PROJECT SITE TRIP GENERATION UNDER REDEVELOPI\1ENT PLAN<br />
Land Use<br />
Restricted Industrial<br />
Size A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour<br />
Acre Sg.Ft.<br />
12.2 398,901 Rate<br />
Trips<br />
following summarizes those elements considered necessary by the Year 2010 (resultant<br />
intersection configurations are illustrated in Appendix C):<br />
In<br />
0.76<br />
303<br />
Out<br />
0.16<br />
64<br />
Total<br />
0.92<br />
367<br />
In<br />
0.12<br />
48<br />
Out<br />
0.86<br />
343<br />
Total<br />
4. San Fernando Road & Sonora Avenue - Widen the westbound Sonora Avenue<br />
approach to provide one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through!<br />
right-turn lane.<br />
5. San Fernando Road & Grandview Avenue - Widen the northbound San Fernando<br />
Road approach to provide one left-tum lane, two through lanes, and one shared<br />
through/right-tum lane. Stripe the westbound Grandview Avenue approach to<br />
provide one left-turn lane, one shared left-turn/through lane and one shared<br />
througbJright-turn lane.<br />
8. San Fernando Road & Doran Street - Widen the southbound San Fernando Road<br />
approach to provide two left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared<br />
through/right-tum lane. Widen the eastbound Doran Street approach to provide<br />
one shared left-turn/through lane and one shared through/right-tum lane.<br />
Table 14 on page 78, also indicates the projected operating conditions with<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> these mitigation measures. As shown in Table 14, each <strong>of</strong> tpe intersections,<br />
except one, is projected to operate at acceptable levels <strong>of</strong> service (LOS D or better) under Year<br />
2010 cumulative base conditions with growth. throughout the Redevelopment Plan area but<br />
without development <strong>of</strong> the project site.<br />
The exception is the intersection <strong>of</strong> Flower Street/Western Avenue, for which no<br />
mitigation measures were determined to be feasible in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR. The<br />
Redevelopment Plan FEIR concluded that Redevelopment Plan impacts at this location would<br />
constitute a significant unavoidable impact, and adopted a statement <strong>of</strong> overriding considerations<br />
regarding the same.<br />
Planning ConsullalU$ Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agenc)"<br />
Page 77<br />
0.98<br />
391<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Table 14<br />
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN GROWTH<br />
(Without <strong>Development</strong> on the Project Site)<br />
Year 2010<br />
Year 2010 Cumulative Base<br />
Cumulative Base with Redevelopment<br />
Existing (Unmitigated) Mitigations<br />
Intersection Hour VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS<br />
I. Lake Street & A.M. Peak 0.35 A 0.47 A<br />
Sonora Avenue P.M. Peak 0.39 A 0.59 A<br />
2. Flower Street & A.M. Peak 0.59 A 1.01 F<br />
Western Avenue<br />
P.M. Peak 0.84 D 1.49 F<br />
3. Flower Street & A.M. Peak 0.46 A 0.62 B<br />
Sonora Avenue<br />
P.M. Peak 0.53 A 0.73 C<br />
4. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.76 C 0.96 E 0.75 C<br />
Sonora Avenue P.M. Peak 0.73 C 0.88 0 0.88 0<br />
5. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.63 B 0.85 D 0.78 B<br />
Grandview Avenue<br />
P.M. Peak 0.86 D 1.08 F 0.82 D<br />
6. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.66 B 0.83 0<br />
a<br />
Highland Avenue P.M. Peak 0.68 B 0.86 D<br />
a<br />
7. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.61 B 0.74 C<br />
a<br />
Fairmont Avenue P.M. Peak 0.67 B 0.78 C<br />
a<br />
8. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.70 B 0.83 D 0.79 C<br />
Doran Street<br />
P.M. Peak 0.79 C 1.11 F 0.84 D<br />
9. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.52 A 0.63 B<br />
a<br />
California Avenue P.M. 'Peak 0.61 B 0:77 C<br />
a<br />
10. San Fernando Road & A.M. Peak 0.51 A 0.62 B<br />
a<br />
Broadway<br />
P.M. Peak 0.71 C 0.84 D<br />
a<br />
II. Flower Street & A.M. Peak 2.0 A 2.8 A<br />
a<br />
Grandview Avenue C<br />
P.M. Peak 2.2 A 5.3 B<br />
a<br />
a Intersection is not impacted, therefore. no mitigation is required.<br />
b Intersection is impacted, however, no mitigation is recommended in the Redevelopment Plan Program EIR.<br />
e Intersection controlled by stop signs On all approaches. Indicates average delay (in seconds) and LOS for the<br />
intersection.<br />
Planning ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 78<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
. June 1996<br />
a<br />
a<br />
b<br />
b<br />
a<br />
a
Land Use acre S9.Ft.<br />
Animalion Studio 13.4 495,000 Rate a. b<br />
a Rates are per 1.000 sq.jt.<br />
Table 15<br />
ESTIMATED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION<br />
4. 9. TransponalionJCirculalion<br />
Size A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour<br />
Trips<br />
In<br />
1.07<br />
530<br />
b Trip generation rates for the proposed project were developed using DreamWorks Playa Vista rates. assuming<br />
40% <strong>of</strong>fice and 60% production/stage suppon.<br />
Impact Criteria<br />
In accordance with the evaluation conducted in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR and in<br />
recognition <strong>of</strong> <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> level <strong>of</strong> service standards, a project traffic impact would be<br />
considered significant if one <strong>of</strong> the following conditions are met:<br />
Out<br />
0.13<br />
64<br />
Total<br />
1.20<br />
594<br />
In<br />
0.19<br />
94<br />
Out<br />
0.90<br />
446<br />
Total<br />
• the addition <strong>of</strong> project traffic to an intersection operating at LOS A, B, C, or D<br />
causes the intersection operation to decline to LOS E or F; or<br />
• the addition <strong>of</strong> project traffic to an intersection operating at LOS E causes an<br />
increase in the intersection VIC ratio <strong>of</strong> 0.02 or more; or<br />
• the addition <strong>of</strong> project traffic to an intersection operating at LOS F causes an<br />
increase in the intersection VIC ratio <strong>of</strong> 0.01 or more.<br />
Project Impact Analysis<br />
The Year 2010 traffic forecasts with development <strong>of</strong> the proposed project were analyzed<br />
to determine the projected future peak hour levels <strong>of</strong> service at the eleven study intersections,<br />
assuming implementation <strong>of</strong>those elements <strong>of</strong>the Redevelopment Plan FEIR mitigation program<br />
identified previously as necessary by the Year 2010. Table 16 on page 82 summarizes the<br />
results <strong>of</strong> this analysis. As indicated on Table 16, the project is projected to have an impact<br />
on Year 2010 conditions with the Redevelopment Plan mitigation at one <strong>of</strong> the eleven analyzed<br />
intersections: Flower Street/Western Avenue.<br />
Planning Consultants Rcsearch<br />
Glendalc RflicYclopmcnt Agcncy<br />
Page 81<br />
1.09<br />
540<br />
DrcamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
Table 16<br />
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
Year 2010<br />
Cumulative<br />
Base<br />
(with Project Additional<br />
Redevelopment Year 2010 Increase Project<br />
Peak Mitigated) with Project in VIC Impact<br />
Intersection Hour VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS<br />
1. Lake Street & A.M. 0.47 A 0.53 A 0.06 NO<br />
Sonora Avenue P.M. 0.59 A 0.60 A 0.01 NO<br />
2. Flower Street & A.M. 1.01 F 1.08 F 0.07 YES<br />
Western Avenue P.M. 1.49 F 1.54 F 0.05 YES<br />
3. Flower Street & A.M. 0.62 B 0.74 C 0.12 NO<br />
Sonora Avenue P.M. 0.73 C 0.89 D 0.13 NO<br />
4. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.75 C 0.76 C 0.01 NO<br />
Sonora Avenue P.M. 0.88 D 0.89 D 0.01 NO<br />
5. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.78 C 0.83 D 0.05 NO<br />
Grandview Avenue P.M. 0.82 D 0.84 D 0.02 NO<br />
6. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.83 D 0.88 D 0.05 NO<br />
Highland Avenue P.M. 0.86 D 0.87 D 0.01 NO<br />
7. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.74 C 0.78 C 0.04 NO<br />
Fairmont Avenue P.M. 0.78 C 0.82 D 0.04 NO<br />
8. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.79 C 0.80 C 0.01 NO<br />
Doran Street P.M. 0.84 0 0.86 0 0.02 NO<br />
9. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.63 B 0.63 B 0.00 NO<br />
California Avenue P.M. 0.77 C 0.77 C 0.00 NO<br />
10. San Fernando Road & A.M. 0.62 B 0.62 B 0.00 NO<br />
Broadway P.M. 0.84 D 0.84 D 0.00 NO<br />
11. Flower Street & A.M. 2.8 A 26.90 D 24.10 NO<br />
Grandview Avenue a<br />
P.M. 5.3 B 25.20 D 19.90 NO<br />
a Intersection controlled by stop signs on all approaches. IndicaJes average delay (in seconds) and LOS for the<br />
most constrained movements.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 82<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Adclemiwn EIR<br />
June 1996
Project Impacts at Year 2027<br />
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
It is estimated that the project site (not including the proposed quitclaim <strong>of</strong> the Victory<br />
Truck Boulevard easement) represents approximately 9% <strong>of</strong> the total area designated for<br />
Restricted Industrial uses in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study. It also represents<br />
about 9% <strong>of</strong> the trips estimated in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for Restricted<br />
Industrial uses at buildout <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan in the Year 2027.<br />
The higher density <strong>of</strong> the proposed project (approximately 0.85 FAR as opposed to the<br />
0.75 FAR assumed in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for Restricted Industrial uses<br />
in traffic analysis zone [TAZ] 2) would represent about 11 % <strong>of</strong> the overall Restricted Industrial<br />
floor area projected in the Redevelopment Plan. The projected higher levels <strong>of</strong> tripmaking<br />
associated with the project would represent the equivalent <strong>of</strong> about 14% <strong>of</strong> the floor area and<br />
trips projected in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for Restricted Industrial uses<br />
throughout the Redevelopment Plan area.<br />
However, as discussed in Section 2.0, Project Overview, the 0.75 FAR assumed in the<br />
Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study for TAZ 2 represents an average for all Restricted<br />
Industrial parcels throughout the zone, and it is considered very unlikely that all such parcels<br />
would fully develop to a uniform level. Since the project site is one <strong>of</strong> the larger contiguous<br />
parcels in the area, it provides greater development flexibility and is less constrained by setback<br />
requirements. As such, the project site is considered to be more apt to develop at a greater<br />
density than smaller parcels in the area, and it is believed that the higher density and tripmaking<br />
<strong>of</strong> the proposed project are already encompassed in the long-term Year 2027 traffic projections<br />
contained in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR traffic study. Therefore, the proposed project is not<br />
expected to create any additional long-term traffic impacts beyond those previously identified<br />
in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR.<br />
Site Access Impacts<br />
The proposed project site plan includes access to the site from Flower Street at a nwnber<br />
<strong>of</strong> locations. The Main Gate would be located on Flower Street approximately 200 feet south<br />
<strong>of</strong> Grandview Avenue and would be available for both employee and visitor ingress to and<br />
egress from the site. Access to a perimeter service road and a secondary egress from the<br />
proposed parking structure would be provided on Flower Street opposite Grandview Avenue.<br />
Separate truck access to the project loading dock is proposed to be located further south along<br />
Flower Street.<br />
Planning ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 83<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addeadum EIR<br />
. June 1996
4. 9. Transponation/Circulalion<br />
The following summarizes potential impacts associated with the proposed site access<br />
plan, based on review and evaluation <strong>of</strong> the potential operation <strong>of</strong> each access location (as<br />
discussed in the following section, each <strong>of</strong> these impacts can be mitigated):<br />
• Main Gate - It is anticipated that security arrangements for the -project would<br />
require visitors to check-in with a guard and employees to enter and leave the site<br />
via card-key operated gates. Given this, adequate storage area should be provided<br />
on-site to accommodate entering vehicles queuing prior to the guard/gate locations.<br />
• Secondary Access Opposite Grandview Avenue - Given the potential number <strong>of</strong><br />
project employees (estimated to be approximately 1.400 at full occupancy). the size<br />
<strong>of</strong> the proposed projectparking structure (approximately 1.000 spaces). and the<br />
projected peak hour project trip generation, this second project parking egress is<br />
considered necessary during periods <strong>of</strong> peak: exiting traffic. The perimeter service<br />
road is proposed to be gated for security purposes. and its use is expected to be<br />
infrequent. The recommended configuration for the project driveway at the Flower<br />
Street/Grandview Avenue intersection is discussed in the Mitigation Measures Section<br />
below.<br />
• Loading Dock Access':' The project site plan as initially proposed does not provide<br />
adequate space on-site for truck maneuvering and would require trucks to back into<br />
the loading dock from Flower Street. Trucks backing into the site from Flower<br />
Street would create conflicts with traffic flows on Flower Street. particularly as<br />
traffic increases in the future commensurate with redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the area.<br />
It is anticipated that, with implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures discussed below.<br />
the project would not create any new unavoidable significant impacts beyond those already<br />
identified in the Redevelopment Plan FEIR.<br />
Planning ConsulranlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 84<br />
DreamWork$ Animation Campus Addendmn EtR<br />
June 1996
Table I7<br />
4. 9. Transportation/Circulation<br />
YEAR 2010 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS WITH PROJECT MITIGATION<br />
Year 2010<br />
Cumulative Year 2010<br />
Base With Project<br />
Peak<br />
Intersection Hour VIC LOS VIC LOS<br />
2. Flower Street & A.M. 1.01 F 1.08 F<br />
Western Avenue P.M. 1.49 F 1.54 F<br />
Source: Kaku Associates. Inc.<br />
Year 2010<br />
With Residual<br />
Project Mitigation Impact<br />
Increase Project<br />
in VIC Impact VIC LOS<br />
0.07 YES 0.98 E NO<br />
0.05 YES 1.38 F NO<br />
inside travel lane to turn left into the project site. (A schematic drawing <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed Flower Street/Main Gate intersection is included in Appendix C.)<br />
• Secondary Access Opposite Grandview Avenue - The Flower Street/Grandview<br />
Avenue intersection should continue to be controlled by stop signs on all approaches,<br />
with the project's driveway and the existing ingress-only driveway serving the<br />
adjacent parcel (owned by Prudential) forming the southwest leg <strong>of</strong> the intersection.<br />
One inbound lane is proposed to be provided on the project driveway to provide<br />
access to the perimeter service road. Two stop-controlled exit lanes should be<br />
provided on the driveway (one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane).<br />
Since the rightmost exit lane serving project traffic bOWld for Grandview Avenue<br />
would be <strong>of</strong>fset from the Grandview Avenue eastbound departure by approximately<br />
eight feet, pavement markings should be used to guide these vehicles both through<br />
the intersection and past vehicles parked in the curb lane on Grandview Avenue east<br />
<strong>of</strong> Flower Street. This may require removal <strong>of</strong> one on-street parking space on<br />
Grandview Avenue. (A schematic drawing <strong>of</strong>the proposed Flower Street/Grandview<br />
Avenue intersection is included in Appendix C.) As indicated in Table 16 on page<br />
82, it is projected that the Flower Street/Grandview Avenue intersection would<br />
operate at acceptable levels <strong>of</strong> service with the project.<br />
• Loading Dock Access - The project site plan should be designed to permit trucks to<br />
enter the site in a forward manner, with sufficient area provided on-site for trucks to<br />
maneuver and back into the loading dock.<br />
Planning Consultants RCKarch<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 86<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 10. 1. Police<br />
mitigation measures, the Program EIR concluded that the Redevelopment Plan will result in a<br />
less than significant impact. 67 No analysis <strong>of</strong> nonresidential population impacts on police<br />
services was provided.<br />
PROJECT IM:PACTS<br />
As discussed in Section 4.8 <strong>of</strong> this Addendum, Population/Housing, the DreamWorks<br />
Animation Campus is expected to employ 1,400 new employees at project build-out. Based on<br />
a worst-case analysis, this results in 140 new residents in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. This total<br />
increased population would result in a need for an additional .14 police <strong>of</strong>ficer.68 Because<br />
the proposed project results in the need for additional <strong>of</strong>ficers, which would reduce the <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
to resident ratio to a slight degree, the proposed project would result in an adverse impact to<br />
police protection. However, as with the Redevelopment Plan, with implementation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
mitigation measures proposed below, the project impact will be considered less than significant.<br />
Although the demand for additional police protection is included in the Redevelopment<br />
Area projections <strong>of</strong> 2.0 <strong>of</strong>ficers, a worst case analysis is provided as follows to evaluate the<br />
projects's increase in police service needs as if it were an increase above and beyond the total<br />
Redevelopment Plan needs identified in the Program EIR. Under this analysis, Restricted<br />
Industrial development assumptions for the original 12.21 acre site (per Assessor's parcel data)<br />
were interpolated from the Redevelopment Plan. Using the Program EIR's average intensity<br />
assumptions (FAR) for Restricted Industrial uses on a 12.21 acre site (excluding the Victory<br />
Truck Boulevard right-<strong>of</strong>-way), would support 1,070 employees and result in 112 new residents<br />
to the <strong>City</strong>. This total increased population would result in a need for an additional 0.11 police<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers.<br />
Based on the evaluation, the proposed project allows for an increase from the averaged<br />
growth projection for residential population <strong>of</strong> 28 (from 112 to 140), as compared to the<br />
averaged density assumptions. This increase represents a statistically insignificant 1.3 percent<br />
<strong>of</strong> the total residential population anticipated with the Redevelopment Plan, which also is well<br />
within the expected range <strong>of</strong> outcomes for a buildout redevelopment program over 35-years.<br />
This difference would indicate a need for an additional 0.04 police <strong>of</strong>ficers. This is a small<br />
demand on its own, as well as a small percentage <strong>of</strong> the 2.0 additional <strong>of</strong>ficers required with<br />
the entire Redevelopment Plan.<br />
67 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.10-3. The two (2) <strong>of</strong>ficers were based on a total new residential<br />
population <strong>of</strong>2. 040.<br />
68 Based on the Program EIR's two (2) <strong>of</strong>ficers per 2,040 residential population.<br />
Planning Consulranrs Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 88<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddendlDD ElK<br />
June 1996
4. 10. I. Police<br />
Therefore, because the proposed project will not create a substantial additional impact<br />
on police protection not already addressed in the Program EIR, the proposed project would<br />
result in an adverse, but less than significant impact on police services.<br />
MITIGATION l\1EASURES<br />
The proposed project may be responsible for complying with the applicable mitigation<br />
measures which were proposed in the Program EIR, including the following: 69<br />
1. Lighting, landscaping, parking, and building plans for development within the<br />
Project Area shall be reviewed by the Police Department and/or other appropriate<br />
<strong>City</strong> divisions prior to fmal approval and shall be in conformance with all<br />
applicable <strong>City</strong> codes, ordinances, and regulations.<br />
2. The Agency/<strong>City</strong> shall consider requiring developers to provide private on-site<br />
security personnel on a project-by-project basis.<br />
69 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.10-2.<br />
PlaMing ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 89<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campm Addend.... EIR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Il\1PACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.10. P<strong>UBLIC</strong> SERVICES<br />
4.10.2. FIRE<br />
In the absence <strong>of</strong> <strong>City</strong> established standards, the Program EIR defmed impacts on flIe<br />
protection as the following:<br />
"...impacts on frre protection are considered significant if the proposed project<br />
will substantially exceed the current level <strong>of</strong> protection which results in a total<br />
response time <strong>of</strong> three minutes and an ISO ranking <strong>of</strong> Class 3 for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> and current Class 1 for the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Division. ,,70<br />
Level <strong>of</strong> service is ranked by a scale <strong>of</strong> five classifications (Classes 1 through 5) by the<br />
Insurance Service Organization (ISO) with Class 1 being the highest and best level <strong>of</strong> service.<br />
The ISO has ranked the entire- <strong>City</strong> at "Class 3" and the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Division at "Class 1."<br />
Service in the area is currently considered adequate in tenns <strong>of</strong> staffmg, response time, and the<br />
availability <strong>of</strong> water flow for [lIe protection purposes. For the majority <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment<br />
Area, fire protection is provided by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Division. The remainder <strong>of</strong> the<br />
area, the far west end, is served by the Burbank Fire Depamnent under a joint agreement with<br />
the <strong>City</strong>. The <strong>Glendale</strong> Division is supported by a fire-fighting force consisting <strong>of</strong> 50 personnel<br />
on duty at all times, and total response time to the Redevelopment Area is identified by the Fire<br />
Chief as three minutes. Also, there are no known deficiencies in the availability <strong>of</strong> water flow<br />
for fire fighting purposes.<br />
Evaluated against the significance threshold, implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan<br />
could adversely impact fire protection due to increased development overall in the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
Compensating at least in part for adverse impacts is the beneficial impact <strong>of</strong> replacing blighted,<br />
potentially unsafe buildings with newer structures which must be constructed under current,<br />
safer fire codes. These mitigating features, along with public improvements associated with the<br />
Redevelopment Plan, and the mitigation measures specified in the Program EIR will reduce<br />
program impacts to less than significant levels. 71<br />
70 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.10-4.<br />
71 Ibid, page 3.10-5.<br />
Planning ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 90<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendmn EIR<br />
. June 1996
4. 10. 2. Fire<br />
2 1 /2 inches. Fire hydrants shall be capable <strong>of</strong> providing a required fire flow <strong>of</strong><br />
60,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a<br />
five-hour duration. The distance between hydrants shall not exceed 250 feet, and<br />
the maximum travel distance along a roadway frontage shall not exceed 150 feet.<br />
Hydrants shall be placed in the parking area under the same regulations.<br />
3. All structures in the Project Area shall be protected by separate combined<br />
standpipe systems, including automatic fire sprinkler systems, designed to the<br />
standards established by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Division. Adequate on-site water<br />
supply shall be capable <strong>of</strong> supplying fire protection systems for a period <strong>of</strong> 30<br />
minutes and shall be used for fire protection purposes only. Fire protection<br />
systems shall be zoned to provide proper pressures for operations at any level <strong>of</strong><br />
the structure.<br />
4. Each fire control room shaH be accessible directly from the outside and readily<br />
accessible for emergency responders. The room shall not be used for other<br />
purposes and shall be sized in accordance with Fire Division requirements.<br />
5. Smoke control and removal shall be accomplished through mechanical means<br />
designed in accordance with methods approved by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Division.<br />
6. The fire alarm system must utilize a graphic-type annunciator to provide rapid<br />
response by emergency equipment and personnel who may be unfamiliar with the<br />
structure.<br />
7. Emergency electrical power shall be provided to power all emergency equipment<br />
including, but not limited to, fire alarms, fire pumps, emergency lighting,<br />
elevators, and smoke control fans. Emergency power shall be capable <strong>of</strong><br />
providing power to all emergency equipment for a period <strong>of</strong> eight hours <strong>of</strong><br />
continuous use.<br />
8. The project's parking facilities shall be approved by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Division<br />
for parking adjacent to all structures to determine proper access to all parts <strong>of</strong><br />
the structure.<br />
9. All structures may be required to have Fire Division access on a minimum <strong>of</strong><br />
two sides. Fire Division connections serving the combined standpipe system<br />
shall be provided and accessible along each access roadway. Additionally, each<br />
floor shall have breakable windows with the appropriate indicating signs affixed.<br />
All breakable windows shall be constructed <strong>of</strong> tempered glass.<br />
PlaMing Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 92<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ErR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL Il\1PACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.10. P<strong>UBLIC</strong> SERVICES<br />
4.10.3. SCHOOLS<br />
The Program EIR defmes impacts on schools as the following:<br />
"Impacts _on school districts are considered significant if the project will result<br />
in generation <strong>of</strong> students and demands for school services which exceed the short<br />
or long-term capacity <strong>of</strong> district facilities, and normal district fInancing sources<br />
will not <strong>of</strong>fset project-related costs <strong>of</strong> providing additional facilities and<br />
services. ,,73<br />
The <strong>Glendale</strong> Unified School District (District) provides public education for children<br />
residing in the Redevelopment Area. According to the District, all but three (Keppel<br />
Elementary, Mountain Avenue Elementary and Crescenta Valley High School) <strong>of</strong> the District's<br />
26 elementary, junior high, and high schools are currently overcrowded, and all schools within<br />
the District fall below the "Enrollment Site Standards" set by the Urban Planning and Design<br />
Criteria. In order to expand District facilities, the District levies developer fees <strong>of</strong> $1.72 per<br />
square foot <strong>of</strong> residential, and $0.28 per square foot <strong>of</strong> non-residential development.74 In<br />
addition, school construction costs are estimated to be $10,000 per student. 75<br />
Student generation occurs both directly from new residential development and indirectly<br />
from non-residential development. The units proposed in the Redevelopment Plan will generate<br />
468 new students in the District over the 20-year horizon <strong>of</strong> the plan, based on the District's<br />
student generation factor <strong>of</strong> 0.4 students per residential unit. 76 This will result in a total<br />
student population in the Redevelopment Area at buildout <strong>of</strong> 1,169. Due to the current<br />
overcrowded conditions at District schools, along with the existing extensive use <strong>of</strong> portable<br />
73 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.10-9.<br />
74 Ibid, page 3.10-7.<br />
75 The District in its comments on the Draft EIR indicated that school construction costs $125.00persquarefoot<br />
and an average <strong>of</strong>80 squarefeet per student. Therefore on average. school cons/ruction costs $10. ()()(). 00per<br />
student.<br />
76 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.J()"J2.<br />
Planning Consultan!$ Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 93<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AcIdenclum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 10. 3. Schools<br />
classrooms at District schools, it was concluded that potentially significant impacts would occur<br />
at all grade levels as a result <strong>of</strong> redevelopment activities. Because <strong>of</strong> the gradual rate <strong>of</strong><br />
increase in enrollment <strong>of</strong> 24 students per year, implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan<br />
should not result in any unique or unusual demands on the District. In addition, nonresidential<br />
and residential development would result in the District receiving approximately $3,099,000 in<br />
developer fees from Redevelopment Plan activities. 77 The 468 new students generated by the<br />
Redevelopment Plan would, at $10,000 per student, require $4,680,000 in construction costs<br />
over the lifetime <strong>of</strong> the plan. While the developer fees would not be sufficient to cover all<br />
construction costs related to the new students, and the District would require additional State<br />
funds, the fees would substantially mitigate the effect <strong>of</strong> the additional students. Therefore, the<br />
Program Em concluded that the Redevelopment Plan would have an adverse, but less than<br />
significant, impact on schools.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
The Campus is expected to generate 1,400 new employees, and approximately 140 new<br />
residents, in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> at project buildout, as discussed in Section 4.8, Population!<br />
Housing, <strong>of</strong> this Addendum. Using the regional housing ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.22 jobs per housing unit in<br />
the year 2010, these employees would create a demand for 115 housing units in the <strong>City</strong>. This<br />
total housing demand is a worst-case scenario based on average <strong>City</strong> trends. 78 The Animation<br />
Campus is being proposed at this location in part because <strong>of</strong> the existing employee pool <strong>of</strong><br />
animators, managers, and other staff living within the <strong>City</strong> and in the surrounding communities.<br />
It is likely that many <strong>of</strong> the future employees will be drawn from this existing work force<br />
already living within a close conunuting distance to the project site and that these employees<br />
would find it uIlllecessary to relocate to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. The actual increase in <strong>City</strong><br />
housing units would likely be less than the 115 projected..<br />
In the worse-case scenario, utilizing the student generation rate established by the<br />
District <strong>of</strong> 0.4 students per unit, the 115 total housing units resulting from the proposed project<br />
would increase the student population Districtwide by 46. To accommodate 46 new students,<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> new facilities may be necessary, resulting in an average total construction cost<br />
<strong>of</strong> $460,000. The proposed project would be responsible for development fees on the 495.000<br />
77 The total is based on the District's developer fees <strong>of</strong>$1.65per squarefeet <strong>of</strong>residential, and $0. 27persquare<br />
foot <strong>of</strong>non-residential development as indicated in the Program EIR. An average 1,000 square feet per unit<br />
is assumed for residential development.<br />
78 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-3. states that 10percent <strong>of</strong>new employees in <strong>Glendale</strong> are expected<br />
to reside in the <strong>City</strong>.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 94<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendmn EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 10. 3. Schools<br />
square feet <strong>of</strong> nonresidential development proposed ($0.27 per square feet) 79, resulting in a<br />
(Otal fee <strong>of</strong> $133,650. As with the Redevelopment Plan as a whole, developer fees would not<br />
cover all construction costs related to the additional 46 students, but would substantially mitigate<br />
the impact to below a significant level. Remaining construction costs would require additional<br />
State funds.<br />
In order to identify how the project impacts relate to the Redevelopment Plan, this<br />
evaluation estimates the impact generated from development on the project site using the<br />
Program EIR's average intensity assumptions (FAR) for Restricted Industrial uses on an 12.2<br />
acre site (per Assessor's parcel data). Based upon these averaged asswnptions, the proposed<br />
project's site would contain a total <strong>of</strong> 398,900 square feet <strong>of</strong> development, 1,116 employees.<br />
and 112 new residents. These residents would require 88 new housing units based on the<br />
regional average <strong>of</strong> 1.22 jobs per housing unit. Utilizing the District's 0.4 students per unit<br />
generation rate, these units would increase the student population in the District by 35, or 11<br />
fewer students than the DreamWorks Animation Campus project.<br />
This difference <strong>of</strong> 11 new students represents 2.3 percent <strong>of</strong> the total students generated<br />
with buildout <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan. Similarly. the proposed project would result in<br />
increased school costs over those required using the Program EIR's average intensity<br />
assumptions. An additional $110,000 in construction costs would be required; and an additional<br />
$30,446 in developer fees would in part pay for these added construction costs. As with student<br />
generation, these figures represented 2.4 percent <strong>of</strong> the totals for the Redevelopment Plan as<br />
a whole. These are paid in part by developer fees. Although the student generation and school<br />
developer fees estimated with implementation <strong>of</strong> the proposed project would be slightly greater<br />
than that assumed with the averaging <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Area, it represents a small and<br />
statistically insignificant proportion <strong>of</strong> the total growth.<br />
Although less than significant, this difference in the actual student and school cost<br />
generation and the averaged student and school cost generation is consistent with the Plan<br />
because the Redevelopment Plan anticipates variation in development densities on different sites<br />
and therefore variation in student generation from these sites. Because <strong>of</strong> the existing<br />
overcrowding in District schools, and developer fees not fully covering school construction<br />
costs, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact. The developer fees<br />
79<br />
The non-residential development fee is currently $0.28per square fOOl and will go up 10 $0.30persquarefoot<br />
on June 1, 1996. However, for comparison purposes, the rate <strong>of</strong> $0.27 per square fOOl, as found in the<br />
Program EIR, is utilized here.<br />
Planning ConsulQnlS Rcsealdl<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 95<br />
DreamWorks ADimation Campus Addendlllll EIR<br />
. June 1996
4. 10. 3. Schools<br />
would, however, substantially mitigate the effect <strong>of</strong> the additional students, and therefore an<br />
adverse, but less than significant, impact is expected.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
The proposed project may be subject to the following mitigation measure as found in the<br />
Program EIR 80 :<br />
1. <strong>Glendale</strong> Unified School District should continue to make regular and timely<br />
application to the State <strong>of</strong> California for funding to construct new classrooms and<br />
other facilities in response to enrollment growth.<br />
In addition, an agreement between the <strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency and the <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Unified School District was executed on March 16, 1996, in which the Agency agreed to share<br />
the increment <strong>of</strong>property taxes generated by redevelopment activity in the Redevelopment Area<br />
over the base year equalized assessment role with the District. As a result, the District will<br />
benefit directly from the increased property value due to development <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorlcs<br />
Animation Campus.<br />
80 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume. page 3.10-13.<br />
Planning ConsultanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 96<br />
DrumWorks Animation Campus Addeadum EIR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL Il\1PACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.10. P<strong>UBLIC</strong> SERVICES<br />
4.10.4. LmRARY<br />
The Program EIR defmes impacts on libraries as the following:<br />
"Impacts to library facilities are considered significant if projected resource<br />
demand is estimated to substantially exceed the supply <strong>of</strong> library resources at<br />
buildout, or if resource demands cause the ratio <strong>of</strong> books per capita to fall below<br />
the existing 3.48... 81<br />
Six library facilities are currently available in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, including the Central<br />
and Grandview libraries, which are located closest to the Redevelopment Area. These facilities<br />
average 106,826 volumes, providing 3.48 books per capita and circulating 7.51 books per capita<br />
annually. The library system has an on-going need for staff and materials.<br />
Additional development resulting from Redevelopment Plan activities has the potential<br />
to increase the amount <strong>of</strong> library resources demanded <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Glendale</strong> library system, and<br />
increased funding would be required to afford adequate service. 82 However, the amount <strong>of</strong><br />
the increased demand can not be adequately quantified, and due to budget constraints additional<br />
needs <strong>of</strong> the library system will not be available in the near future. The Program EIR<br />
concluded that the impacts on the library system would be adverse but less than significant with<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> a program by which the business community can donate computers, s<strong>of</strong>tware<br />
and other materials for public use to the Central Library.83<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
While the city does not have established standards for impacts to libraries in general,<br />
increases in population result in an increasing demand for library services and facilities.<br />
81 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.10-14.<br />
82 Ibid, page 3.10-14.<br />
83 Ibid, page 3.10.14.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 97<br />
DreamWork'S Animation Campus AddendlllD EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 10. 4. Library<br />
Although the DreamWorks Animation Campus project does not include residential development,<br />
some <strong>of</strong> the 1,400 anticipated employees may reside locally and utilize the <strong>Glendale</strong> library<br />
system. Approximately 140 <strong>of</strong> these new employees would be expected to reside in <strong>Glendale</strong>,<br />
according to <strong>City</strong> trends discussed in the Program EIR, which yields a conservative, worst-case<br />
impact assessment for the project. 84 The addition <strong>of</strong> any new households in the <strong>City</strong> would<br />
result in an adverse impact on library services, because this increase would result in a reduction<br />
<strong>of</strong> the total volumes per capita without the addition <strong>of</strong> new volumes. However, the proposed<br />
mitigation measure below would result in the donation <strong>of</strong> additional library materials from the<br />
proposed project,. which would result in a less than significant impact after implementation.<br />
In order to identify how the DreamWorks project impacts relate to the Redevelopment<br />
Plan, the plan's employee population should be evaluated against that derived for the site,<br />
assuming development under the Program EIR's average intensity assumptions (FAR) for<br />
Restricted Industrial uses and an 12.21 acre site (per Assessor's parcel data). Based upon these<br />
averaged assumptions, the proposed project's site would contain a total <strong>of</strong> 398,900 square feet<br />
<strong>of</strong> development, 1,116 employees (based on the Program EIR's generation rate <strong>of</strong> 2.8<br />
employees per 1,000 square feet), and 112 new residents.<br />
Thus, the proposed DreamWorks project represents an increase from the averaged<br />
projection for employment <strong>of</strong> 284 employees (from 1,116 to 1,400). This increase represents<br />
a statistically insignificant 0.95 percent <strong>of</strong> the total employment anticipated with the<br />
Redevelopment Plan activities which is well within an expected range <strong>of</strong> outcomes for a large<br />
Redevelopment program over a 35-year period. In addition, 28 more new residents (from 112<br />
to 140) would result with implementation <strong>of</strong> the proposed project, as compared to the averaged<br />
density assumptions. This increase represents 1.1 percent <strong>of</strong> the total residential population<br />
anticipated with the Redevelopment Plan, which also is well within the expected range <strong>of</strong><br />
outcomes for such a redevelopment program.<br />
Given current <strong>City</strong> library needs and budget constraints, any additional demand on<br />
library facilities will result in an adverse impact. However, implementation <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
mitigation measure would result in the proposed project having an adverse, but less than<br />
significant impact on library services by assisting the library system with new materials and<br />
equipment.<br />
84 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.8-3, Slales lhallOpercent o/new employees in <strong>Glendale</strong> are expecled<br />
10 also reside in lhe <strong>City</strong>.<br />
PIaMing ConsullanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 98<br />
DreamWorks Animalion Campus Addendwn EIR<br />
June 1996
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
4. 10. 4. Library<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> the Program EIR mitigation measure below 85 may be required to<br />
reduce proposed project impacts to a level below significance.<br />
1. A program shall be operated through the business community where businesses<br />
can donate microcomputers, computer programs, management training videos,<br />
and other materials for public use to the Central Library business and<br />
management services collection.<br />
85 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.10-14.<br />
PJaMing COnsullllnlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 99<br />
DreamWorks ADimation Campus Addeadum ElK<br />
June 19%
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.11. ENERGY<br />
Energy consumption is addressed in Section 4.12.3, Electricity, and in Section 4.12.4,<br />
Natural Gas. Please refer to those Sections.<br />
Planning ConsultanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 100<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.12. UTILITIES<br />
4.12.1. WATER<br />
The Program EIR states the following threshold <strong>of</strong> significance with regard to water<br />
supply: 86<br />
"Appendix G <strong>of</strong> the CEQA Guidelines indicates that significant impacts on water<br />
supply can be expected if implementation <strong>of</strong>the proposed project will involve the<br />
potential to create demands for water in excess <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>'s supply."<br />
The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Public Service provides water for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Glendale</strong>. Ninety percent <strong>of</strong> this. water is imported from the Metropolitan Water District or<br />
from <strong>City</strong>-owned wells. Ten percent is provided by Grandview Wells in the San Fernando<br />
groundwater basin and Glorietta Wells in Verdugo Canyon Basin, both in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>.<br />
The project area is served by the Western and Diedrich Reservoirs. The <strong>City</strong>'s water system<br />
consistently meets or exceeds water quality standards set by the State and County Deparnnents<br />
<strong>of</strong> Health. To supplement <strong>City</strong> water supplies, a reclaimed water delivery system is being<br />
installed in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> and may be accessible to the project site. Presently, water<br />
pressure within the Redevelopment Area is low and limits fire fighting efforts. Water main<br />
replacements have been made at locations within the Redevelopment Area, and more extensive<br />
upgrading <strong>of</strong> the system is needed. New development encouraged by the Redevelopment Plan<br />
will be reviewed by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Department and must comply with all water supply and<br />
pressure requirements to assure adequate fire flows.<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan would result in a demand for potable water<br />
due to occupancy <strong>of</strong> the various land uses. In areas where development levels increase. system<br />
upgrades may be necessary. Build-out <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan would result in the<br />
consumption <strong>of</strong> approximately 3A43,5oo gallons per day (gpd) <strong>of</strong>water. including existing land<br />
uses. This is a 51 percent increase as compared to the existing 2.281.200 gpd that are currently<br />
being consumed in the Redevelopment Area. The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> has adequate water capacity<br />
to satisfy the needs <strong>of</strong> the built-out Redevelopment Area. Therefore, impacts on the water<br />
86 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.12-2.<br />
Planning Consuhanrs Re:scan:h<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong>: Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 101<br />
DromWorks Animation Campwi Addendum EIR<br />
. June 1996
4. 12. 1. Water<br />
system due to completion <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan would be adverse, but less than significant<br />
with implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
The proposed DreamWorks Animation Campus site is currently served by an 8 inch<br />
water line along Flower Street. A reclaimed water delivery system should be completed before<br />
project completion and may be accessible to the project site. Due to the currently low water<br />
pressure within the Redevelopment area, project needs for water pressure for fire flow will need<br />
to be satisfied. <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Department review and Project compliance with fire flow<br />
requirements will be required. Based upon the Restricted Industrial rates contained in the<br />
Program EIR, the proposed project would consume 123,750 gpd <strong>of</strong> water, resulting in less than<br />
significant impacts with the implementation <strong>of</strong> the recommended mitigation measures and the<br />
reclaimed water delivery system being built by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>.<br />
Although water consumption for the project is included in the Redevelopment Area<br />
generation projections, a worst case analysis is provided herein to determine the project's impact<br />
in relation to the Redevelopment Area as a whole and to account for the project's increase in<br />
water consumption above and beyond the Program EIR's assumptions for the Redevelopment<br />
Area. An average sized Restricted Industrial use, based on the original 12.21 acre site (per<br />
County Assessor's records), is taken from the estimated average Restricted Industrial use floor<br />
area ratio, as discussed in Section 2, Project Overview, <strong>of</strong> this document. A comparison<br />
indicates that the proposed project would consume 123,750 gpd <strong>of</strong> water, while the average<br />
restricted industrial use on the proposed site would consume 99,640 gpd. This 24,110 gpd<br />
increase in water consumed by the project represents approximately 0.7 percent <strong>of</strong> the total<br />
built-out Redevelopment Plan daily water demand <strong>of</strong> 3,443.5mgd, including existing uses. As<br />
a percentage increase in overall demand, the project demand would be less than significant<br />
representing an anticipated variation in density which is normal and expected within the<br />
Redevelopment Plan parameters and underlying Program EIR assumptions. Project water<br />
consumption is almost entirely within the overall Redevelopment Plan projections for water<br />
consumption, is well within the expected range <strong>of</strong> results for a program <strong>of</strong> this magnitude, and<br />
does not approach the significance thresholds identified in the Program EIR.<br />
PlaMing Consullants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agt'ncy<br />
Page 102<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
4. 12. I. Water<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> mitigation measures 1 through 7, as identified in the Program EIR<br />
and set forth below, may be required for the proposed project.87<br />
1. Developers shall work with the <strong>City</strong> during the design phase to ensure adequate<br />
water supply and service to the proposed project.<br />
2. Individual development plans shall be submitted to the <strong>Glendale</strong> Fire Department<br />
for review to ensure that adequate fire flows are provided to the project site prior<br />
to final project approval.<br />
3. Developers shall be responsible for funding the construction <strong>of</strong> all <strong>of</strong>f-site storage<br />
. tanks and pump stations as required to adequately serve the subject property.<br />
4. Building construction shall include water conservation devices such as low flow<br />
toilets, low volume shower heads, tum <strong>of</strong>f adapters and faucet flow control.<br />
5. <strong>Development</strong> projects shall have a minimum <strong>of</strong> landscaping requiring heavy<br />
irrigation and shall include drought resistant planting.<br />
6. <strong>Development</strong> plans shall be reviewed by the <strong>City</strong> to ensure that adequate flows<br />
can be provided prior to project approval.<br />
7. Sections <strong>of</strong> Title 20 and Title 24 <strong>of</strong> the California Code <strong>of</strong> Regulations regarding<br />
water consumption and conservation will be enforced.<br />
87 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-4.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 103<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.12. UTILITIES<br />
4.12.2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL<br />
The Program EIR defInes the threshold <strong>of</strong> signifIcance regarding impact on sewage<br />
disposal as follows:<br />
"Impact on the sewer system is considered signifIcant if sewage generated by<br />
development will exceed the existing or planned capacity <strong>of</strong> the sewer collection<br />
or treatment system, or extend a sewer nunk line with capacity to serve new<br />
development...88<br />
Wastewater generated in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> is treated at the <strong>Glendale</strong>/Los Angeles<br />
Reclamation Plant and at the Hyperion Treatment Plant (collectively hereafter, HTP) in Los<br />
Angeles. The HTP has the capacity to provide treatment to approximately 420 million gallons<br />
per day (mgd) <strong>of</strong> wastewater, including a 10 mgd capacity for sewage delivery from the <strong>City</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. To date, the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> has not exceeded this amount. Currently the HTP<br />
is treating an average daily flow <strong>of</strong> 380 mgd. Approximately 7.0 mgd <strong>of</strong> the sewage generated<br />
by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> are being sent to the HTP, leaving a large unutilized allotment <strong>of</strong> three<br />
mgd.<br />
The <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>'s sewer system that lies north <strong>of</strong> the Ventura Freeway and within<br />
the Redevelopment Area is considered inadequate, due to undersized sewer lines. However,<br />
as part <strong>of</strong> the public improvements included within the Redevelopment Plan, the sewer system<br />
shall be improved and expanded. A reclaimed water delivery system is being installed in the<br />
<strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> and will be accessible to the project site by July <strong>of</strong> this year. 89 Reclaimed<br />
water can be used for irrigation, toilets, and air conditioning systems.<br />
As indicated in the Program EIR, the Redevelopment Plan would result in the generation<br />
<strong>of</strong> approximately 3,344,690 additional gallons per day (gpd) <strong>of</strong> sewage by the year 2027. In<br />
areas where development levels increase, system upgrades may be necessary. Adverse effects<br />
88 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-6.<br />
89 Mr. Don Lee, <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong><strong>Glendale</strong> Departmenl <strong>of</strong>Public Services. Personal communication. March I I, 1996.<br />
Planning ConsultanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 104<br />
DreamWOl"ks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 12. 2. Sewage Disposal<br />
on the sewer system due to implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan would be mitigated to<br />
less than significant levels with public improvements and implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation<br />
measures found in the Program EIR, resulting in sewage impacts that would be adverse, but less<br />
than significant.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
The DreamWorks Animation Campus site is currently served by an active 12-inch sewer<br />
line along Flower Street and an 18-inch sewer line (status unknown as <strong>of</strong> 3/11/96) that runs<br />
through the southern portion <strong>of</strong> the property. Based upon the Restricted Industrial rates<br />
contained in the Program EIR, the proposed project would generate approximately 121,280 gpd<br />
<strong>of</strong> sewage. This amount would not present a significant impact on the <strong>City</strong>'s sewer system.<br />
As with the Redevelopment Plan, implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures identified in the<br />
Program EIR are considered sufficient to reduce proposed project impacts on the sewer system<br />
to below a level <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
Although project sewage generation is included in the Redevelopment Area generation<br />
projections, a worst case analysis is provided herein to detennine the project's impact in relation<br />
to the Redevelopment Area as a whole and to account for the project's increase in sewage<br />
generation as if it were above and beyond the Program EIR's assumptions for the<br />
Redevelopment Area. In order to estimate maximum potential sewage generation under a worst<br />
case scenario, the projected volume <strong>of</strong> project sewage to be generated on a daily basis was<br />
compared to the volume that would be generated by an average sized restricted industrial usage<br />
on the 12.21 acre site (excluding the Victory Truck Boulevard right-<strong>of</strong>-way) (per the County<br />
Assessor's records), as discussed in Section 2., Project Overview, <strong>of</strong> this document. The size<br />
<strong>of</strong> this theoretical development was based on the estimated average Restricted Industrial use<br />
floor area ratio, as identified in the Land Use section <strong>of</strong> the Program BIR. Utilizing sewage<br />
generation factors for Restricted Industrial uses cited in the Program EIR,90 the proposed<br />
project would generate 121,280 gpd, as compared to the 97,647 gpd that would be generated<br />
by an average Restricted Industrial use on the proposed site. This 23,633 gpd increment<br />
represents 0.7 percent <strong>of</strong> the 3,344,600 gpd sewage generation attributable to the<br />
Redevelopment Plan, a level which is well within an expected range <strong>of</strong> results for a large<br />
redevelopment program. over a 35-year period, and is within the parameters <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Redevelopment Plan and underlying Program EIR assumptions.<br />
90 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12·7.<br />
Planning Consullants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 105<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum ElK<br />
June 1996
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
4. 12. 2. Sewage Disposal<br />
The following mitigation measures were listed regarding this issue in the Program EIR,<br />
and may be applicable to this project. 91<br />
1. The projects shall submit plans to the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> for review pnor to<br />
recordation <strong>of</strong> [mal map, if any.<br />
2. Hook-up fees and system expansion costs, if required, shall be borne by the<br />
developer.<br />
91 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume. page 3.12-8.<br />
Planning COll$Ullllnls Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 106<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn EIR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IM:PACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.12. mll..rrIES<br />
4.12.3. ELECTRICITY<br />
The Program EIR states that project impacts on electrical services would be considered<br />
significant under the following circumstances: 92<br />
"Impacts on electrical utilities are considered significant if the proposed project<br />
would require significant expansion to existing energy systems, such as a new<br />
generation plant, or the development <strong>of</strong> new sources <strong>of</strong> power. "<br />
Electrical service is provided by the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Public Service. It<br />
is anticipated that the <strong>City</strong> can service all the electricity that will be required through the end<br />
<strong>of</strong> the century, at which point· other sources <strong>of</strong> power will need to be obtained.<br />
Completion <strong>of</strong>the Redevelopment Plan would result in the consumption <strong>of</strong>approximately<br />
1,499 megawatt hours (mWh) <strong>of</strong> electricity per day. Such an increase would require 12<br />
kilovolts <strong>of</strong> capacity to be added to the project area.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
Based upon the consumption rates for Restricted Industrial uses contained in the Program<br />
EIR, electricaf consumption for the DrearnWorks project will be 61.03 mWh per day. No<br />
element <strong>of</strong> on-site electrical usage would be excessive or wasteful. Therefore, given the current<br />
and future availability <strong>of</strong> electricity as stated in the Program EIR, the project would not have<br />
a significant impact on the <strong>City</strong>'S supply <strong>of</strong> electricity with implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation<br />
measures identified in the Program EIR.<br />
Although electrical consumption for the project is for the· most part included in the<br />
Redevelopment Plan generation projections, the increment <strong>of</strong> electrical consumption attributable<br />
to the difference between the project, as proposed. and an average Restricted Industrial density<br />
92 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-9.<br />
Planning Consullants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 107<br />
DreamWorks Animation CamplQ Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 12. 4. Natural Gas<br />
Industrial density assumption in the Program ErR is also identified. The natural gas consumed<br />
by the average Restricted Industrial use (see Section 2, Project Overview, <strong>of</strong> this document) on<br />
the original 12.21 acre (per County Assessor's records) site was determined to be 43,837 cubic<br />
feet per day, or 10,163 cubic feet per day less than the theoretical project. This small<br />
increment represents an insignificant 0.06 percent increase in the total 1.61 million cubic feet<br />
that would be consumed by the entire Redevelopment Area, including existing development.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
. The following mitigation measure from the Program EIR may be applicable to the<br />
proposed project: 95<br />
1. Specific measures recommended to reduce natural gas consumption include:<br />
• Use <strong>of</strong> an automatic flue gas damper when using a gas heating system;<br />
• Use <strong>of</strong> electrically-lighted pilot lights for all gas systems;<br />
• Insulation <strong>of</strong> all gas-heated hot water tanks; and<br />
• Installation or retr<strong>of</strong>itting with solar water heaters.<br />
95 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-12.<br />
PlaMing Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 110<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.12. UTILITIES<br />
4.12.5. SOLID WASTE<br />
The Program EIR defmes the threshold <strong>of</strong> significance for solid waste generation as<br />
, follows: 96<br />
"Impacts on solid waste/hazardous waste may be considered significant if the proposed<br />
project will 1) increase solid waste by a substantial amount; 2) result in the substantial<br />
modification, relocation or closure <strong>of</strong> an active solid waste facility or hazardous waste<br />
facility."<br />
The Integrated Waste Management Section <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> Public Wodes<br />
Division provides refuse, collection service for the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, including the<br />
Redevelopment Area. Collected solid waste is deposited at the Scholl Canyon landfill, the<br />
capacity <strong>of</strong> which is estimated to last for another 17 years. 97 As noted in the Program EIR,<br />
successful implementation <strong>of</strong> the California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill<br />
(AB) 939) at the local level should result in a 50 percent reduction or diversion <strong>of</strong> solid waste<br />
by the year 2000.<br />
Although additional solid waste generated by the built-out Redevelopment Plan would<br />
represent a small percentage <strong>of</strong> the total solid waste generated in the county as a whole,<br />
cumulative growth would reduce the overall capacity <strong>of</strong> the, Scholl Canyon landfIll. Thus the<br />
Redevelopment Plan would have an incrementally adverse impact on solid waste disposal<br />
facilities. However, successful implementation <strong>of</strong> AB 939 will result in a 50 percent reduction<br />
or diversion <strong>of</strong> solid waste by the year 2000, and would substantially lessen the Redevelopment<br />
Plan impacts.<br />
96 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-14.<br />
97 Based on the Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.12-14, published in November <strong>of</strong>1992, which eSlimated<br />
a 20 year capaciry.<br />
Planning Consulranu Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page III<br />
DreamWorks AnimatioD Campus Addeodum EIR<br />
June 1996
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
4. 12. 5. Solid Waste<br />
Upon completion, the DreamWorks Animation Campus would include approximately<br />
1,400 employees. Using employee based solid waste generation rates found in the Program<br />
EIR, the proposed project would generate approximately 42,700 pounds <strong>of</strong> solid waste per day.<br />
As with the Redevelopment Plan, the project's potentially adverse effects, when considered<br />
alone, would be below the significance threshold with the implementation <strong>of</strong> AB 939 and with<br />
the utilization <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures described in the Program EIR.<br />
Although solid waste generation for the project is for the most part included in the<br />
Redevelopment Area generation projections, the increment <strong>of</strong> solid waste generation attributable<br />
to the difference between the project, as proposed, and average Restricted Industrial density<br />
assumptions in the Program EIR is also identified for comparison with the Redevelopment Plan<br />
as a whole. Solid waste generation <strong>of</strong> a theoretical project on the original 12.21 acre (per<br />
County Assessor's records) site using the average Restricted Industrial use floor area ratio, as<br />
identified in Section 2, Project Overview, <strong>of</strong> this document would be approximately 34,029<br />
pounds per day, or 8,671 pounds per day less than the proposed project. Compared with the<br />
1,094,000 pounds per day <strong>of</strong> solid waste projected for existing and proposed Redevelopment<br />
Plan development, the project increment represents an insignificant 0.08 percent increase in<br />
overall solid waste generation.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
The following mitigation measures were identified for this issue in the Program EIR, and<br />
may be applicable to this project to meet the goals <strong>of</strong> AB 939. 98<br />
1. The Developer/Participant will incorporate applicable measures <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>'s<br />
Source-Reduction and Recycling Element in project approvals including:<br />
• The project shall submit a Recycling Plan. The Plan shall include the following<br />
elements: A site plan <strong>of</strong> the proposed area shall identify location(s) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
recycling enclosure(s) relative to the facility or complex.<br />
• Identify all materials to be collected and recycled.<br />
98 Program EIR, Final E1R Volume, pages 3.12-16 and 3.12-17.<br />
Planning ConsulcanlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 112<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campm Addendmn EIR<br />
June 1996
•<br />
•<br />
Planning ConsullllnlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
4. 12. 5. Solid Wasle<br />
The developer shall notify in writing the Integrated Waste Management Section<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Public Works Division <strong>of</strong> the recycling enclosure location, and if<br />
necessary, provide a gate opener or key to gain access to the recycled materials<br />
storage area.<br />
The developer shall provide a plan describing what measures will be taken to<br />
educate and promote the <strong>City</strong>'s recycling programs to the new owner(s),<br />
manager, and tenants <strong>of</strong> the building. Recycling rules and regulations shall be<br />
included as part <strong>of</strong> all rental, lease, or purchase agreements. This plan shall be<br />
submitted to Integrated Waste Management Section prior to issuance <strong>of</strong><br />
Certificate <strong>of</strong> Occupancy.<br />
Page 113<br />
DrearnWorks Animation Campus Addendum EJR<br />
June 1996
4. 13. Human Health<br />
to expose people to less health hazards than those already extant, and would result in less than<br />
significant human health impacts.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
<strong>Development</strong> <strong>of</strong> the proposed project would not pose any unusual 9r unique human<br />
health concerns. The project will move existing groundwater monitoring wells from existing<br />
to new locations along the eastern property line where they will continue to provide the same<br />
role as at present. There are no habitats on site that would be suitable for any sort <strong>of</strong> vector<br />
which would survive the construction process, during which the entire site will be converted<br />
to buildings, hardscape and landscaped open space. Although it is possible that the soil at the<br />
project site could contain the fungus responsible for the disease known as Valley Fever, the<br />
fungus is not unique to the site or to the Redevelopment Area and is endemic to the<br />
southwestern United States. The likelihood <strong>of</strong> Valley Fever occurring would be reduced with<br />
the appropriate mitigation measures identified below. Therefore, proposed project impacts on<br />
human health, when considered by themselves or as part <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan, would be<br />
less than significant.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
Measures which reduce the formation <strong>of</strong> fugitive dust from soil which might contain the<br />
fungus responsible for the disease known as Valley Fever will mitigate potential associated<br />
human health impacts. The following mitigation measure, from Section 4.2, Air Quality, <strong>of</strong><br />
this Addendum may therefore be applicable. With respect to other potential human health issues<br />
analyzed above, no additional mitigation measures would be required.<br />
1. During grading activities, topsoil mounds shall be stabilized to prevent wind<br />
erosion and release <strong>of</strong> dust and particulates. 'This may be accomplished through<br />
regular watering, hydroseeding, netting, chemical applications, or other<br />
acceptable methods. During grading and construction, water trucks or sprinklers<br />
shall be used to keep all areas where vehicles move damp enough to prevent dust<br />
residue from leaving the site(s). Watering shall include regular morning and<br />
afternoon applications after work is completed for the day. Chemical palliatives<br />
may also be used as directed by the Developer/Panicipants. Truck loads <strong>of</strong> soil<br />
or debris shall be covered or wetted.<br />
PlaMing ConsulranlS Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 115<br />
Dre.amWorks Animation Campus Addendum E1R<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.14. RECREATION<br />
The Program EIR defines impacts on park and recreation facilities as the following:<br />
"Impacts on recreation facilities are considered significant if the project creates<br />
a demand for recreation services which substantially exceeds the existing ratio<br />
<strong>of</strong> 1.22 acres <strong>of</strong> developed parkland per 1,000 permanent residents. Recreation<br />
impacts are also significant ifa project forecloses important opportunities to meet<br />
recreation needs or substantially interferes with attainment <strong>of</strong> recreation<br />
goals... 101<br />
The <strong>Glendale</strong> Parks and Recreation Division operates thirty-three (33) developed park<br />
and recreation sites in the <strong>City</strong>. While the <strong>City</strong> goal is to provide two acres <strong>of</strong> developed park<br />
space per 1,000 permanent residents, the current ratio is 1.22. To remedy this deficiency, the<br />
1990 Recreation Plan identifies the need to develop 11 new parks, two <strong>of</strong> which are planned<br />
in the Redevelopment Area.<br />
The Redevelopment Plan activities will increase the demand for park and recreation<br />
facilities by increasing the permanent population from both employee generated households and<br />
new dwelling units. 102 While this demand is considered an adverse impact, based on <strong>City</strong><br />
standards, it is reduced to below a significant level by additional park acreage to be provided<br />
with implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan.<br />
PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
As stated in Section 4.8, Population/Housing, the DreamWorks Animation Campus is<br />
conservatively expected to result in 140 new permanent residents in the <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong> due<br />
entirely to employment growth. The pennanent population growth will result in an increased<br />
101 Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. page 3.14-3.<br />
102 Ibid.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 116<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 14. Recreation<br />
demand for park facilities <strong>of</strong> 0.28 acres, based on a <strong>City</strong> standard <strong>of</strong> 2.0 acres per thousand<br />
population, or 0.17 acres based on the existing ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.22 per thousand population.<br />
To provide a comparison with the Redevelopment Plan, an evaluation can be perfonned<br />
using interpolated average intensity assumptions for Restricted Industrial uses on the original<br />
12.21 acre site (excluding the Victory Truck Boulevard right-<strong>of</strong>-way) (per County assessor<br />
records), based on an average floor area ratio (FAR) <strong>of</strong> 0.75. On this basis, the project site<br />
would result in 116 new residents to the <strong>City</strong>, or 22 fewer new residents than the proposed<br />
Animation Campus, resulting in a need for an additional 0.22 acres <strong>of</strong> recreation facilities based<br />
on the 2.0 acre standard, or 0.14 based on the existing 1.22 acre ratio.<br />
Using either the 2.0 acre or 1.22 acre ratio, the DrearnWorks Animation Campus'<br />
incremental increase in residents' park needs represent a 0.08 acre and a 0.03 acre increase,<br />
respectively, above the theoretical project resident's demand for park space. As a percentage<br />
<strong>of</strong> the 6.0 new acres required to serve the entire Redevelopment Plan, 0.08 acre represents a<br />
maximum 1.3 percent increase. When considered an addition to the total Redevelopment Plan<br />
demand, this increase would be considered at most marginally adverse were it not mitigable.<br />
However, the DreamWorks Animation Campus includes some 2.5 acres <strong>of</strong> usable passive and<br />
some active on-site open space for the exclusive use <strong>of</strong> its employees which should more than<br />
mitigate this very small incremental effect. Consequently, the proposed project should have no<br />
more recreation impact than was contemplated in the Redevelopment Plan Program EIR, and<br />
due to on-site passive and active recreation features, likely less.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
The following Program EIR mitigation measure applies to the entire Redevelopment<br />
Plan, and thus collectively to all projects through tax increment fInancing: 103<br />
1. The Redevelopment Agency/<strong>City</strong> shall implement all feasible measures <strong>of</strong> the<br />
program outlined in the 1990 Recreation Plan as build-out occurs within the<br />
Project Area.<br />
103 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume. page 3.14-4. See also Program EIR. Final EIR Volume. Table 2. Public<br />
Improvements List. pages I-II through 1-22.<br />
Planning Consull3Jlts Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 117<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddeDduIn Em<br />
June 1996
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IMPACTS<br />
4. ENVffiONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.15. CULTURAL RESOURCES<br />
The Program EIR defined the following significance threshold for cultural resources:<br />
"Cultural resources are considered significant if the project disrupts or adversely<br />
effects a prehistoric or historic archaeological site, a property <strong>of</strong> historic or<br />
cultural significance to a community or ethnic or social group, or a<br />
paleontological site except as a part <strong>of</strong> a scientific study. n<br />
Two <strong>of</strong> the <strong>City</strong>'s historically significant structures are located in the Redevelopment<br />
Area: the old Southern Pacific Railroad Station (built in 1923) and the Grand Central Air<br />
Tenninal (now part <strong>of</strong> the Grand Central Industrial Centre, built in 1928). Although no known<br />
historic structures .are located on or near the project site, a comprehensive survey and<br />
documentation <strong>of</strong> the pre-1942 buildings is recommended in the Program EIR.I04<br />
The Redevelopment Area has a low potential for containing undisturbed significant<br />
prehistoric archaeological resources. Therefore, impacts on archaeological resources are<br />
considered only potentially adverse, but with implementation <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures less<br />
than significant. Finally, no paleontological resources are known within the Redevelopment<br />
Area; therefore, impacts on these resources are considered less than significant.<br />
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS<br />
None <strong>of</strong> the known historically significant structures found in the Redevelopment Area<br />
are located within the proposed project's boundaries, or would be otherwise affected by the<br />
project. Further, the existing structures on the project site are recent, post 1942 temporary<br />
structures which are not considered historically significant.<br />
As the site lies on the flood plain <strong>of</strong> the pre-channelized Los Angeles River and is<br />
covered with fill material varying in depth from five to 20 feet, the potential for undisturbed<br />
104 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.15-3.<br />
PlaMing Consultants Resean:h<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 118<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum Em<br />
June ]996
4. 15. Cultural Resources<br />
on-site arshaeological resources is extremely low. Finally, as with the Redevelopment Area,<br />
no paleontological resources are believed to exist on the proposed project site. Therefore<br />
project impacts on cultural resources are considered less than significant.<br />
MITIGATION MEASURES<br />
Impacts to historical structures are considered less than significant with implementation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the proposed project, and no known archaeological or paleontological resources are known<br />
to exist on the site.. Nonetheless, the following Program EIR-required mitigation measure is<br />
required <strong>of</strong> all projects to ensure that no significant impact would result and may apply to the<br />
proposed project, should archaeological resources be discovered during project<br />
construction: 105<br />
1. The Developer or Participant should seek to avoid damaging effects on<br />
archaeological resources. Should such resources be discovered and avoidance<br />
prove not feasible, the importance <strong>of</strong> the site shall be evaluated by a qualified<br />
archaeologist. Mitigation measures included in Appendix K <strong>of</strong> the CEQA<br />
Guidelines shall be incorporated into the project. In general, these guidelines<br />
require the following:<br />
• Preservation <strong>of</strong> sites in-place as the preferred manner <strong>of</strong> avoiding damage to<br />
historic and prehistoric archaeological resources;<br />
• <strong>Development</strong> and implementation <strong>of</strong> an excavation plan for sites that cannot<br />
be preserved; and<br />
• Stopping <strong>of</strong> excavation in the event <strong>of</strong> discovery <strong>of</strong> human remains until the<br />
. coroner has detennined that no investigation <strong>of</strong> the cause <strong>of</strong> death is required;<br />
or, if descendants have made a recommendation <strong>of</strong> the property owner<br />
regarding proper disposal <strong>of</strong> the remains, or until descendants have failed to<br />
make a recommendation within 24 hours <strong>of</strong> notification. If no<br />
recommendation is received, remains shall be interred with appropriate<br />
dignity on the property in a location not subject to future development.<br />
105 Program EIR, Final EIR Volume, page 3.15-4.<br />
Planning Consullants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 119<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus AddendUIII EIR<br />
June 1996
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS<br />
4.16. ISSUES NOT INCLUDED IN THE FOCUS OF THE PROGRAM EIR<br />
AS ESTABLISHED' IN THE INITIAL STUDY<br />
This Addendum follows the outline for the Program EIR, evaluating and reporting the<br />
DrearnWorks Animation Campus project's impacts in the order in which they appear in that<br />
document. Three additional issues were evaluated in the Initial Study prepared by the <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Redevelopment Agency for the Redevelopment Plan 106 and were determined not to be<br />
potentially significant: Plant and Animal Life, Natural Resources, and Aesthetics. The<br />
following discussion summarizes why each <strong>of</strong> these issues was considered not to be potentially<br />
significant in evaluation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan and how these issues have been addressed<br />
in this Addendum.<br />
Plant and Animal Life. The Initial Study states that the Redevelopment Area is<br />
presently urbanized, little or no natural vegetation exists, and no unique or rare species <strong>of</strong> plant<br />
,or animals occur in the area. 107 Riparian vegetation is identified in the Verdugo Wash, an<br />
area not to be affected by the Redevelopment Plan. Further, removal <strong>of</strong> indigenous plants is<br />
regulated by the <strong>City</strong>'s Tree Preservation Ordinance.<br />
The DrearnWorks project site has been graded, developed and utilized for many years<br />
by the Los Angeles Department <strong>of</strong> Water and Power. As such, it supports only sparse<br />
vegetation. This fragment <strong>of</strong> the property has been previously disturbed and is now fenced <strong>of</strong>f<br />
from the remainder <strong>of</strong> the site. Volunteer vegetation has resulted from disuse but includes no<br />
resources with particular biotic value. No wetlands exist on site, since vegetation on-site<br />
consists primarily <strong>of</strong>upland species, including mustard, red brome grass, sunflower, castor bean<br />
and eucalyptus and there is no indication <strong>of</strong> hydrophytic vegetation, wetlands hydrology, or<br />
hydric soils, or a high water mark indicative <strong>of</strong> other waters on-site. 108<br />
106 Program EIR, FifUll EIR Volume. Appendix A.<br />
107<br />
Ibid, page 19.<br />
108 Letters from Woodward-Clyde Consul/ants. April 3, 1996 and February 7, 1996, U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong><br />
Engineers, February 26, 1996, and the California Depanmenr <strong>of</strong>Fish and Game, April 5, 1996, attached<br />
hereto as Appendix D.<br />
Planning Consulrants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 120<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendum EIR<br />
June 1996
4. 16. Issues Not Included in the Focus <strong>of</strong> the Program EIR as Established in the Initial Study<br />
Natural Resources. <strong>Development</strong> <strong>of</strong> individual redevelopment projects during the buildout<br />
period will utilize traditional building materials and consume natural resources during<br />
construction. The Initial Study concluded that this use was not significant.<br />
Similarly, the construction <strong>of</strong> the 13.4-acre DreamWorks Animation Campus project (as<br />
proposed to include the Victory Truck Boulevard easement) represents a very small portion <strong>of</strong><br />
the natural resources which may be consumed with implementation <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan,<br />
and a statistically insignificant increment <strong>of</strong> all development and associated natural resource<br />
consumption which may occur in the region by 2027 when the Redevelopment Plan is expected<br />
to complete its implementation.<br />
Aesthetics. The objectives <strong>of</strong> the Redevelopment Plan include improving the aesthetics<br />
<strong>of</strong> the area. Because <strong>of</strong> this, the Initial Study concluded that aesthetically <strong>of</strong>fensive development<br />
is not anticipated, 109 and no further discussion <strong>of</strong> this issue was required <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Redevelopment Plan. An evaluation <strong>of</strong> as yet unknown individual project designs would not<br />
have been possible; though all future projects would be required to comply with the<br />
Redevelopment Plan objectives.<br />
To demonstrate that the DreamWorks Animation Campus complies with Redevelopment<br />
Plan objectives, a discussion <strong>of</strong> aesthetic issues regarding the project is addressed in this<br />
Addendum in Section 4.6, Land Use.<br />
109 Program EIR. FilUll EIR Volume. Appendix A, page 22.<br />
Planning Consultants Research<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Page 121<br />
DreamWorks Animation Campus Addendwn EIR<br />
June 1996
ApPENDIX 0<br />
BIOTA LETTERS<br />
peR<br />
PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH
D. BIOTA LETTERS<br />
This Appendix contains four letters, the first two being analyses from Woodward-Clyde<br />
<strong>of</strong> the plant and animal life on the project site. The third and fourth letters, from the U.S.<br />
Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers and California Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game respectively, consist<br />
<strong>of</strong> their determinations regarding the biota at the project site.
Woodward-Clyde<br />
Engineering & sciences applied 10 Ihe earth & its environment<br />
April 3, 1996<br />
Project No. 9553164U<br />
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS<br />
California Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game<br />
530 East Montecito Street, Room 104<br />
Santa Barbara, CA 93103<br />
805-568-1227<br />
Attention: Ken Wilson<br />
REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF<br />
DETERMINATION OF NON-JURISDICTION<br />
Dear Mr. Wilson:<br />
This letter is to request that the California Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game (CDFG) review<br />
the following information and advise us whether you concur with our determination that the<br />
CDFG does not have jurisdiction over the following proposed project.<br />
The subject property is the Los Angeles Department <strong>of</strong> Water and Power ("DWP") Crystal<br />
Springs Maintenance Yard, located at 1000 Flower Street, <strong>Glendale</strong>, California (the<br />
"Property"). (Enclosed as Figure 1 is a site map.) Currently, the Property is being<br />
considered for development <strong>of</strong> a low rise <strong>of</strong>fice complex. If developed, it is anticipated<br />
that the Property will have to be regraded because <strong>of</strong> the bearing capacity <strong>of</strong> the soils.<br />
There is a topographical condition on the Property that will be impacted by regrading.<br />
The topographical condition is a low area running east-west in the southern portion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Property. This low area ranges in size from approximately 20 to 60 feet in width and 2 to<br />
10 feet in depth, and extends from the eastern boundary <strong>of</strong> the Property to the boundary <strong>of</strong><br />
the channelized Los Angeles River, which is adjacent to the Property. Portions <strong>of</strong> the low<br />
area are lined with concrete. It is our understanding that, when the Property is regraded,<br />
this low area will be regraded.<br />
On December 1, 1995, Woodward-Clyde evaluated the topographical condition and<br />
performed a jurisdictional delineation <strong>of</strong> waters <strong>of</strong> the United States and CDFG jurisdiction<br />
at the Property to determine if wetlands or other waters <strong>of</strong> the United States were present<br />
based on methodology described in the U.S. Army Corps <strong>of</strong> Engineers' (Corps) 1987<br />
manual and CDFG guidelines. For the following reasons, Woodward-Clyde determined<br />
Woodward.C1rde Consultants. A subsidiary <strong>of</strong> Woodward·Clyde Group, Inc.<br />
Sunroad Plaza 3, Suite 1000.1615 Murray Canyon Road· San Diego, California 92108<br />
619-294-9400· Fax 619-293-7920
California Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game<br />
April 3, 1996<br />
Page 2<br />
Woodward-Clyde<br />
that the CDFG does not have jurisdiction on site pursuant to Section 1600 <strong>of</strong> the Fish and<br />
Game Code.<br />
Based on a review <strong>of</strong> historical aerial photographs and topographic maps, it appears that<br />
the low area is a result <strong>of</strong> landform modification. The photographs and maps indicate that<br />
substantial landform modification occurred on the Property when the Los Angeles River<br />
was channelized. It also appears that additional fIII material was added to portions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Property, further raising the .elevation <strong>of</strong> other portions <strong>of</strong> the Property. (Enclosed are<br />
copies <strong>of</strong> the historical aerial photographs and topographic maps.)<br />
At the time <strong>of</strong> the survey, the low area consisted <strong>of</strong> dry ground, with portions completely<br />
devoid <strong>of</strong> vegetation. Vegetation observed in other portions <strong>of</strong> this low area consisted<br />
primarily <strong>of</strong> upland species, including mustard (Brassica nigra), red brorne grass (Bromus<br />
madritensis ssp. rubens), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), castor bean (Ricinis communis)<br />
and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus ssp.). No indicators <strong>of</strong> hydrophytic vegetation, wetlands<br />
hydrology, or hydric soils were observed and no ordinary high water mark indicative <strong>of</strong><br />
other waters was observed. Therefore, pursuant to the 1987 manual, no jurisdictional<br />
wetlands or other waters <strong>of</strong> the United States were determined to be present. (Enclosed as<br />
Figures 2 and 3 are photographs <strong>of</strong> the Property and the low area taken during the survey.)<br />
Based on our observations <strong>of</strong> the Property and the review <strong>of</strong> historical aerial photographs<br />
and topographic maps, we believe that this low area is not a jurisdictional wetland or water<br />
<strong>of</strong> the United States as defmed by the Corps, nor does it contain jurisdictional areas<br />
regulated by the CDFG. The Corps has agreed with us and sent us a letter <strong>of</strong> confirmation<br />
(Attachment A). If the CDFG does not concur with our detennination, please advise us as<br />
soon as possible. If we do not receive a response to this request within thirty days, we will<br />
assume that the CDFG concurs with our determination as stated herein.<br />
Very truly yours.<br />
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS<br />
Bill Magdych, Ph.<br />
Senior Project Scientist<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Wetland Scientist No. 195<br />
WPM:hal<br />
Enclosures<br />
W\9'i:i3164U\SKG·D·L DOC
California Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game<br />
April 3, 1996<br />
Page 3<br />
bee: Ms. Maria Pilar Hoye, Esq.<br />
W:\9553164U\SKG·D-L.DOC<br />
-. Woodward-Clyde
112<br />
SCALE 1: 24000<br />
o<br />
tHISTORIC USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP-1928<br />
1<br />
REFERENCE: USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map,<br />
"<strong>Glendale</strong>. California" Quadrangle, 1928 Reprinted 1948.<br />
I.<br />
I"<br />
,r·.
LOOKING ACROSS THE LOW AREA TO THE EAST<br />
IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROJECT AREA.<br />
FIGURE 2<br />
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE
LOOKING ACROSS THE LOW AREA TO THE NORTHWEST<br />
IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROJECT AREA.<br />
LOOKING ACROSS THE LOW AREA TO THE NORTH<br />
IN THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROJECT AREA.<br />
FIGURE 3<br />
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE
1928 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
W:\9553IMU\SKG·D-L.DOC<br />
ATTACHMENT A<br />
.-.<br />
LETTER FROM THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS<br />
CONFIRMING LACK OF JURISDICTION FOR<br />
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY<br />
Woodward-Clyde
A-I. REGIONAL BURDEN ANALYSIS<br />
The following data includes a summary <strong>of</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> vehicle trips and vehicle miles<br />
that would be generated by the proposed project on a daily basis. Also included area the daily<br />
project generated mobile source emissions. This summary has been incorporated into Section<br />
4.2, Air <strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the EIR.
A-2. CALINE ANALYSIS DATA<br />
The following data consists <strong>of</strong> the CALINE dispersion model data for estimating carbon<br />
monoxide concentrations in the project vicinity. These results include Existing and Year 2010<br />
concentrations, with and without the proposed project. These results have been summarized in<br />
Section 4.2, Air <strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the EIR.
A-3. EMFAC7 DATA<br />
The results <strong>of</strong> the EMFAC7 emission factor model that was run to estimate potential<br />
project generated pollutants are included herein. This data has been summarized in Section 4.2,<br />
Air <strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the BIR.
lENV028Fl.l<br />
TIME RATE ADJUSTMENT BAGS 1 "<br />
YEAR, 2010 DEWPOINT: 10<br />
INSPECTION" MAINTENANCE, YES<br />
SEASON, SUMMER<br />
LIGIlT DUTY AUTOS<br />
NCAT CAT DIESEL<br />
CALTRANS DIVISION OF<br />
NEW TECHNOLOGY, MATERIALS AND RES£l\ROl<br />
EMFAC7Fl.l Rl\TES AS OF 1/25/94<br />
OREAMWORKS 2010 SUMMER<br />
COLD STARTS<br />
HOT STAATS<br />
HOT STAB<br />
20.0<br />
80.0<br />
0.0<br />
LOA 69.0<br />
llBO o. a<br />
TABLE 1, ESTIMATED TRAVEL FRACTIONS<br />
LIGIlT DtrTY TRUCKS MEl) DUTY TRUCKS URBAN BUS<br />
NCAT CAT DIESEL NCAT CAT DIESEL<br />
LDT 19.4<br />
HlX) 1- 2<br />
MCY 0.5<br />
RUN DAnS, ENV028Fl.l<br />
EMFAC7Fl.l<br />
MOT<br />
lIDO<br />
HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS<br />
NCAT CAT DIESEL<br />
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<br />
TRIP 0.02 ".'4 0.04 0.00 ".97 0.03 0.00 100.00 100.00 11.54 88.46 100.00<br />
\ VEH 0.05 99.85 0.10 0.00 ".'4 0.06 0.00 100.00 100.00 12.53 87.47 100.00<br />
lENV028F1.1 CALTRANS DIVISIOl'< OF RUN PATES, ENV028Fl.1<br />
NEW TECHNOLOGY. MATERIALS AND RESEARCH EMFAC7Fl.l<br />
TIME RATE ADJUSTMENT BAGS 1 "<br />
EHFAC7F1.1 RATES AS OF 1/25/H<br />
ORE.lI./1WORKS 2010 SUMMER<br />
YEAR, 2010 DEWPOINT: 10 \ COLD S.TAATS 20.0 \ LOA 69.0 1 LOT 19.4 1 MDT 6.4<br />
INSPECTIOl'< " MAINTENANCE: YES 1 HOT STAATS 80.0 1 UBD 0.0 1 IlPG 1-2 1 HOD 3.6<br />
SEASON, SUMMER , HOT STAB 0.0 \ MCY 0.5<br />
POLLtrrANT NAME, CARBON MONOXIDE IN GRAMS PER MILE<br />
TABLE 2, COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS<br />
SPEED TEMPERA1VRE IN DEGREES FAHRENHEIT<br />
MPH 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85<br />
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<br />
3 46.82 H.71 42.1$ 39.36 36.39 33.41 30.56 27." 25.84 24.22 23.41 23.4S<br />
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<br />
10 16.04 15.37 14 .58 13.70 12.78 11.87 11.01 10.23 '.58 9.11 8.90 8.97<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
60 4.45 4.30 4.13 3.95 3.77 3.60 3.H 3.31 3.21 ) .14 3.14 3.20<br />
65 6.37 6.17 5.9. 5.74 5.54 5.35 5.19 5. OS 4.96 •• 92 4.96 5.07<br />
6.4<br />
3.6<br />
1/29/9.<br />
1/29/9.<br />
MCY<br />
ALL<br />
100.00<br />
100.00<br />
100.00<br />
1/2'/96<br />
1/29/96<br />
"IDLE EMISSIONS IN GRAMS/MIN, DERIVED FROM 3 MPH RATES<br />
lENV028Fl.l CALTRANS DIVISIOl'< OF RUN DATES, ENV028Fl.1 1/29/96<br />
NEW TECHNOLOGY. MATERIALS AND RESEARCH EI1FAC7F1-1 1/29/96<br />
EMFAC7Fl.1 RATES AS OF 1/25/94<br />
TIME RATE ADJUSTMENT BAGS 1 • DREAMWORKS 2010 SlIMMER<br />
YEAR, 2010 DEWPOINT, 10 COLD STARTS 20.0 LOA 69.0 LVT 19.4 MDT 6 .•<br />
INSPECTION" MAINTENANCE, YES HOT STARTS 80.0 llBD 0.0 IlPG 1.2 IiDD 3.6<br />
SEASOl'
ApPENDIX B<br />
NOISE ANALYSIS<br />
peR<br />
PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH
B-1. HELICOPTER NOISE ASSESSMENT<br />
This assessment includes measurements <strong>of</strong> on-site ambient noise levels, estimates <strong>of</strong><br />
helicopter noise levels in the past at the project site, and predictions <strong>of</strong> project generated<br />
helicopter noise levels. The results <strong>of</strong> this assessment have been incorporated into Section 4.4,<br />
Noise <strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the EIR.
B-2. HELICOPTER NOISE ASSESSMENT<br />
This assessment includes measurements <strong>of</strong> on-site ambient noise levels, estimates <strong>of</strong><br />
helicopter noise levels in the past at the project site, and predictions <strong>of</strong> project generated<br />
helicopter noise levels. The results <strong>of</strong> this assessment have been incorporated into Section 4.4,<br />
Noise <strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the EIR.
Arup Acoustics<br />
Consultants in Acoustics • Noise • Vibration<br />
May 15, 1996<br />
Ms. Ricarda Bennen<br />
Heliport Consultants<br />
148 Gazania Court<br />
Thousand Oaks, CA 91362<br />
DreamWorks SKG Animation Campus <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Heliport Noise Assessments<br />
Dear Ms. Bennett:<br />
2440 South Sepulveda BoulEMlfd<br />
Suite 180<br />
los Angeles<br />
California 90064<br />
(310) 312·5040<br />
Facsimile (310) 312-5788<br />
This report presents the results <strong>of</strong> our noise study <strong>of</strong> the proposed DreamWorks Heliport, which is<br />
to be located on the Department <strong>of</strong> Water and Power site (Crystal Springs Site) at the intersection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Ventura and Golden State Freeways, within the city <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>. The purpose <strong>of</strong> this stUdy was<br />
to evaluate:<br />
a. Potential noise impacts <strong>of</strong> the DreamWorks proposed heliport operation on the surrounding<br />
neighborhood communities, and<br />
b. The historical flight noise levels associated with the previous use <strong>of</strong> the heliport.<br />
ON SITE NOISE MEASUREMENTS<br />
Background noise measurements were conducted at the Crystal Springs Site (on site) and four<br />
surrounding neighborhood locations as shown in Figure 1. The neighborhood sites are found to<br />
the North, East and West <strong>of</strong> the Crystal Springs Site and were selected to represent the<br />
residential properties near the heliport. At these locations, exterior sound readings were<br />
undertaken for periods <strong>of</strong> 10 minutes during the early afternoon <strong>of</strong> Thursday and Friday, February<br />
29 and March 1, 1996. The on site measurements were conducted continuously for a 24-hour<br />
period, starting at 3:00 p.m. Thursday, February 29 through March 1,1996.<br />
DATA ACQUISITiON SYSTEM<br />
The ambient noise survey was carried out using a Larson-Davis model 870 portable noise monitor<br />
and associated microphone. The data acquisition system used to measure the background noise<br />
levels meet and exceed the requirements for the Type I standard instruments as defined in the<br />
American National Standard Institute (ANSI) specifications S14, IEC651, and IEC804. The<br />
microphone was calibrated prior to and after completion <strong>of</strong> the survey to ensure the accuracy <strong>of</strong><br />
measurements.<br />
NOISE DESCRIPTORS<br />
In evaluating and describing ambient noise, se.veral metrics are used to describe the noise<br />
measurements. In this report the results <strong>of</strong> measurements and calculations are presented in terms<br />
0... "'",p & ".""... e-no. lid.<br />
90' t.4...... 51_ '260. Son F.- CA 94103<br />
Pnono (4IS) 951-11445. F_(4IS) 951·909Il
Arup Acoustics<br />
Ms. Ricarda Bennett<br />
May 15, 1996<br />
Page 2<br />
<strong>of</strong> two widely used metrics, Equivalent continuous sound level and Community Noise Equivalent<br />
Level as follows:<br />
Equivalent Sound Level- Symbolized by Leq, this measure represents the level <strong>of</strong> a continuous<br />
steady sound which over a specified time period contains the same total sound energy as the<br />
actual time varying sound <strong>of</strong> interest,<br />
Community Noise Equivalent Level- Symbolized by CNEL, this rating represents an energy<br />
averaged noise level over a 24-hour period. Noise levels measured during evening hours <strong>of</strong> 7:00<br />
p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and night time hours <strong>of</strong> 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. are adjusted (increased) by 5dB<br />
and 10dB, respectively. These time <strong>of</strong> day adjustments are included to account for the apparent<br />
increased sensitivity to and annoyance at noise during the evening and night time hours.<br />
EXISTING AMBIENT SOUND ENVIRONMENT<br />
The existing noise levels at the Crystal Springs Site and neighboring residential areas are<br />
influenced primarily by the Ventura and Golden States Freeways, street and railroad traffic. In<br />
particular, the sound environment at the neighboring homes (North and East <strong>of</strong> the Crystal Spring<br />
Site) is dominated by vehicular traffic noise from San Fernando Way and frequent train operations<br />
along San Fernando Way.<br />
Overall, on an hourly Leq basis the current sound environment ranges between 54 dBA<br />
(recorded at 1:00 a.m.) and 64 dBA (recorded at 6:00 a.m.). On a 24-hour CNEL basis, the current<br />
sound environment was calculated at 67 dBA. The results <strong>of</strong> the field noise measurements are<br />
shown in Table 1.<br />
Table 1 - Ambient Noise Measurements, Leq (1 hour)<br />
Location Starting Time Leq (dBA) Starting Time Leq (dBA) Starting Leq (dBA)<br />
(Hrs) (Hrs) Time<br />
(Hrs)<br />
On site 1500 62.7 1600 62.9 1700 61.7<br />
1800 62.7 1900 62.3 2000 62.6<br />
2100 62.0 2200 59.5 2300 59.7<br />
2400 56.7 0100 54.3 200 55.0<br />
0300 56.8 0400 60.4 0500 62.2<br />
0600 64.0 0700 63.6 0800 63.6<br />
0900 61.2 1000 61.1 1100 60.1<br />
1200 61.6 1300 61.1 1400 60.3<br />
Neighborhood Duration Leq (dBA)<br />
1 1520-1530 64.0<br />
2 1410-1420 61.0<br />
3 1545-1555 66.0<br />
4 1600-1610 68.0<br />
"
Arup Acoustics<br />
Ms. Ricarda Bennett<br />
May 15, 1996<br />
Page 3<br />
PAST HELIPORT OPERATIONS<br />
OPERATION INFORMATION<br />
Historical flight operation information from Heliport Consultants shows that the Heliport at Crystal<br />
Springs Site has been active since 1958 facilitating flight activities by Heliport Inc. and various<br />
police departments. The actual flight information, however, is available only for the time period <strong>of</strong><br />
1974 through 1992. During this period the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the<br />
combined <strong>Glendale</strong>/ Burbank Air Support Units used the heliport facility, for various helicopter<br />
operations such as patrol, sUNeiliance and training. Table-2 presents the historical flight<br />
operations classified into three time categories <strong>of</strong> daytime. evening time and night time to<br />
correspond to the time categories associated with calculation <strong>of</strong> the CNEL noise metric.<br />
These ,time classifications illustrate the number <strong>of</strong> take<strong>of</strong>f and landings (noise events) associated<br />
with the weekday use <strong>of</strong> the heliport during the daytime hours <strong>of</strong> 7:00 a.m.- 7:00 p.m., 7:00 p.m.<br />
10:00 p.m., and 10:00 p.m.- 7:00 a.m. In general, the heliport site was used more frequently<br />
during weekdays than weekends. Thus, in order to represent the worst noise scenario, the<br />
weekday operation volumes were used to calculate the previoUS CNEL values.<br />
Table 2 - Historical Operation Flight-Events at <strong>Glendale</strong> Crystal Springs DWP Site<br />
Operation Number <strong>of</strong> Events Per Day<br />
Period (Year) Police Department (Per Time Category) Total<br />
0700-1900 1900-2200 2200-0700 (Per Week Day)<br />
1974-1977 LAPD 65 13 16 94<br />
1978-1983 LAPD/<strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank 105 28 26 159<br />
1984-1988 <strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank 40 15 10 65<br />
1989-1992 <strong>Glendale</strong> 35 '10 4 49<br />
TYPES OF HELICOPTERS<br />
Different types <strong>of</strong> helicopters utilized the heliport site in connection with previous flight operations<br />
by LAPD and <strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank police departments. Information from Heliport Consultants<br />
indicates that, during the "peak" years <strong>of</strong> operation (i. e. the highest number <strong>of</strong> helicopters per<br />
year), LAPD employed a fleet <strong>of</strong> helicopters that included primarily the Bell 47 and Bell 206. The<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong>/ Burbank air support fleet included mainly Hughes 300 helicopters.<br />
Table 3 represents the fleet mixture for "peak" years and for both LAPD and <strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank Air<br />
Support units. A statistical analysis <strong>of</strong> the helicopter fleet mixture was carried out in order to<br />
calculate the probability <strong>of</strong> a specific type <strong>of</strong> helicopter being used in a typical weekday flight<br />
operation. Table 3 illustrates the estimated probability <strong>of</strong> occurrence <strong>of</strong> various helicopter types in<br />
a typical operation. As can be seen, the results <strong>of</strong> the statistical analysis indicate that LAPD's fleet<br />
operation used Bell 206 and Bell 47 helicopters more frequently than Bel! 204 and Hughes 500<br />
helicopters.<br />
"
Arup Acoustics<br />
Ms. Ricarda Bennett<br />
May 15, 1996<br />
Page 5<br />
employed by DreamWorks operation has not been determined, thus the noise calculation <strong>of</strong><br />
future heliport operations is based on the Sikorsky S76 helicopter. A common helicopter for<br />
passenger transportation, a Sikorsky S76, is used for calculation purposes. According to FAA<br />
tests (ibid.), in general the twin turbine S76 generates about 3 dBA (SEL) 2 higher noise level<br />
than the single turbine Bell 206L helicopter. The CNEL results for a possible day <strong>of</strong> helicopter<br />
flights is illustrated in Table 5 where there are 4 daytime trips and 1 evening trip for a total <strong>of</strong> 10<br />
landings and take<strong>of</strong>fs.<br />
Table 5 - Future Flight Operation and Estimated CNEL Values (possible operation scenario)<br />
Based on Sikorsky S76 Helicopter<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Flight-Events per Day Estimated CNEL at<br />
(oer Time Cateaories Neic hborhood Locations<br />
0700-1900 I 1900-2200 I 2200-0700 Total Per Day 1 2 I 3 I 4<br />
8 I 2 I 0 10 33 29 I 35 I 24<br />
CONCLUSIONS<br />
A comparison <strong>of</strong> the estimated CNEL values <strong>of</strong> the previous and proposed flight operations is<br />
presented in Table 6 for neighborhood locations 1, 2, 3 and 4. As can be seen, the flight<br />
operations proposed by DreamWorKs produces, on average, noise levels 23dB-28dB lower than<br />
previous use <strong>of</strong> the heliport, as shown by the values given in the last row <strong>of</strong> Table 6.<br />
Table 6 - Difference in CNEL Values Between Historical and<br />
Proposed DreamWorks Flight Operations<br />
Neighborhood Difference in CNEL<br />
Locations (Previous Operations - Proposed Operations)<br />
1974-1977 1978-1983 1978-1988 1989-1992<br />
1 21 24 26 24<br />
2 22 24 28 26<br />
3 24 27 24 22<br />
4 25 28 31 29<br />
Averaae 23 25 28 25<br />
The noise impact from the historical and proposed helicopter flight operations on the existing<br />
sound environment is shown in Table 7. As illustrated by CNEL values in Table 7, the proposed<br />
DreamWorKs helicopter flight operations would not increase the current overall sound<br />
environment (CNEL (24-hrs)) <strong>of</strong> the neighborhood residential communities. The results <strong>of</strong> noise<br />
calculations further indicate that the previous use <strong>of</strong> heliport could have increased the current<br />
CNEL level by less than 1 dB. In contrast, the DreamWorks projected helicopter operation will<br />
have no measurable impact on the current CNEL sound environment.<br />
2 SEL = Sound Exposure Level<br />
"
site.<br />
B-3. HELICOPTER OPERATIONS LETTER<br />
This letter describes the history <strong>of</strong> helicopter operations that have occurred at the project<br />
"
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Glenndale Heliport<br />
The plans for the Dream Works Campus calls for the ground<br />
level landing site to be replaced by the ro<strong>of</strong>top helipad on<br />
the top floor <strong>of</strong> the parking structure in the northern<br />
quadrant <strong>of</strong> the lot. The advantages to an elevated ro<strong>of</strong>top<br />
helipad is that it will be more secure from people wandering<br />
onto the landing site and the flight paths will be protected<br />
from any future building on the campus in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
helipad.<br />
COMPARISON OF FLIGHT ACTIVITY:<br />
The <strong>Glendale</strong> Heliport has been available for helicopter<br />
flight activities at this site for over 38 years. The<br />
conditional use for the heliport was originally obtained by<br />
Heliport, Inc. who utilized the heliport site for about six<br />
years beginning in 1958. The property was then leased by DWP<br />
to the respective air support units <strong>of</strong> Los Angeles, Burbank<br />
and <strong>Glendale</strong> police departments from approximately 1964 to<br />
1992. The LAPD airborne unit were the major users and sole<br />
occupants <strong>of</strong> the site from 1964 to 1972 when the <strong>Glendale</strong><br />
Police air support moved their unit to the <strong>Glendale</strong> Heliport.<br />
The Burbank Police 'air support unit came to the site in 1972<br />
and shared equipment and flights schedules with <strong>Glendale</strong>.<br />
The LAPD left <strong>Glendale</strong> in 1983 for Hooper Heliport in<br />
downtown Los Angeles. Five years later, in 1988, the Burbank<br />
airborne law enforcement unit moved to Burbank Airport. They<br />
were followed four years later by the <strong>Glendale</strong> Police<br />
Department air support.<br />
There was a period <strong>of</strong> time from 1978 (after Burbank came to<br />
the site) until 1983 (before LAPD moved to Hooper Heliport)<br />
that all three police agencies conducted operations from the<br />
heliport. The heliport site then reverted to the property<br />
owner, the Los Angeles Department <strong>of</strong> Water and Power (DWP),<br />
which maintained the helistop to this date.<br />
since the operation <strong>of</strong> helicopters from this site covers an<br />
expanse in time <strong>of</strong> approximately 38 years, it is<br />
understandable that some <strong>of</strong> the operational records have been<br />
archived, lost or just never existed. Information on<br />
helicopter operations by the airborne law enforcement units<br />
2<br />
"
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Glenndale Heliport<br />
for the years 1974 through 1992 was the data that was most<br />
readily available either through documentation or through<br />
interviews with personnel who were familiar with the flight<br />
operations. 1<br />
Flight data for the past 18 years (1974-1992) was gathered<br />
through extensive interviews with representative <strong>of</strong> the<br />
airborne police departments who were knowledgeable about the<br />
daily operations schedule. Information was obtained on the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> aircraft in use, the hours <strong>of</strong> operations and the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> operations and scheduled shifts. The original<br />
number <strong>of</strong> flight operations combined both a take<strong>of</strong>f and<br />
landing event into one operation. For this report, the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> operations was doubled (or, multiplied by "2") in<br />
order to determine the number <strong>of</strong> flight events (see Tables 1,<br />
2 and 3).<br />
The type <strong>of</strong> aircraft ranged from single engine, piston driven<br />
rotorcraft such as a Bell 47 to twin engine, twin rotor<br />
military model aircratt such as a CH46. During the peak<br />
years <strong>of</strong> operation (1974 to 1983), the LAPD used seven (7)<br />
Bell 47G5 piston helicoptersi one Bell 47G5Ai one Bell<br />
47G3Bli 16 Bell 206B single engine turbine models; one (1)<br />
UH1B (Bell 204); and on an infrequent basis, a CH46. At the<br />
site, <strong>Glendale</strong> and Burbank shared three (3) Hughes 300 piston<br />
model aircraft from 1972 to 1992.<br />
Tables 1,2, and 3 provides a summary <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong><br />
aircraft by shift segregated by weekend and weekday. As can<br />
he seen in the three tables, the flights for the LAPD<br />
occurred 24 hours a day over 7 days a week, except for<br />
weekends. In addition to the three regularly scheduled<br />
patrols (Patrol Day, PM and AM) with varied shifts, there<br />
were surveillance flights along with maintenance and training<br />
flights. As might be expected, there were less flights on<br />
the weekend than during the week.<br />
A more detailed review <strong>of</strong> the Tables reveals there were<br />
approximately 94 flight events (a landing or a take<strong>of</strong>f) per<br />
24 hour period during the week. The number <strong>of</strong> flights<br />
decreased on a weekend day to 58 take<strong>of</strong>fs or landings. A<br />
total <strong>of</strong> 586 flights occurred per week just from the LAPD<br />
1<br />
Interviews with Officer/Pilot Charles perriquey and<br />
Sergeant/Pilot Dick Eyster, LAPDi captain Ron Allison,<br />
and Senior pilot John Parmann, <strong>Glendale</strong> Police Dept.<br />
3
<strong>Glendale</strong> Redevelopment Agency<br />
Glenndale Heliport<br />
aircraft alone. This combined with the 300 weekly flights<br />
from the <strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank airborne law enforcement<br />
helicopters brought the total to 886 flights per week during<br />
those years <strong>of</strong> dual occupancy at the <strong>Glendale</strong> Heliport site.<br />
These numbers translate into 2519 flights per month for the<br />
LAPD operations and, for the <strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank units, 1290<br />
(for the years 1978 to 1988) and 860 (for the years 1988 to<br />
1992). It should be noted that during the span <strong>of</strong> 1978 to<br />
1983 the operations <strong>of</strong> LAPD and <strong>Glendale</strong>/Burbank can be<br />
combined for a total <strong>of</strong> 3809 take<strong>of</strong>fs or landings per month.<br />
since the studio has not begun operations, it is difficult to<br />
state with certainty how many flights will occur per day.<br />
However, even if Dream Works SKG flew every day in an average<br />
month (i.e. 30 days), the resulting 120 to 240 flight events<br />
(or, 4 to 8 flight events per day) would be considerably<br />
below the previous flights which ranged from 860 to 3809<br />
flights for a given month. Further, the flights related to<br />
Dream Works are not apticipated to occur in the early morning<br />
hours after 12 AM.<br />
While no helicopter has been selected at this time, the<br />
typical charter aircraft will be a single or a twin turbine<br />
engine aircraft in the weight category <strong>of</strong> 5,000 to 12,000<br />
pounds.<br />
If I can be <strong>of</strong> any further assistance, or should you have any<br />
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.<br />
Best regards,<br />
Ricarda L. Bennett, Esq.<br />
RLB:<br />
4<br />
"
TABLE 1<br />
Total Number <strong>of</strong> Flight Events for<br />
Los Angeles Police Dept Air Support<br />
at<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Helistop, Crystal Springs DWP Site<br />
Period: 1974 -1983<br />
Operating Classir. Time Period (A) (B) (e) (D)<br />
by Shift EventsIWeek EventslWk Events/7 Events!<br />
Day End Day Day Week Month<br />
C=5(Al+2CBI D=4.3ICI I<br />
Patrol Day 9AM-5PM 24 16 152 654<br />
Patrol PM 5PM-1 AM 24 24 168 7Z1.<br />
Patrol AM 1 AM-4AM -4 2 24 103<br />
OnCaU 4AM-9AM Varied<br />
SurveUlance Oaf 9AM-5PM 18 12 114 490<br />
Surveillance PM! 5PM-1 AM 8 4 48 206<br />
Training Oay/90% 12 0 60 258<br />
NighV10%<br />
Maintenance Oay18AM-5 4 0 20 86<br />
PM<br />
TOTAL EVENTS 94 68 686 2619<br />
1. Avg. number <strong>of</strong> weeks In a month equals 4.3<br />
2. Operations varied<br />
Harch 21, 1996<br />
C:\UORK\HElCON\063GRA\HIST\OPSHrST.Tal<br />
"
TABLE 2 "<br />
Total Number <strong>of</strong> Flight Events for<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> and Burbank Police Air Support<br />
at<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Helistop, Crystal Springs OWP Site<br />
Period: 1978 -1988<br />
Operating (A) (8) (C) (D) (E)<br />
Classif. Avg. Tot. Evts Tot.Evts. Eventsl7 Eventsl<br />
by Shift EventslWeek for fi Day Week forWk Day Week Month<br />
by Time Day End D=B+C E=-C.3(D)'<br />
Period A=Bl5 Sun Evts=O<br />
7AM.4PM 2S 100 0 100 .4JO<br />
3 PM·11 PM 20 96 ',- 100 430<br />
4<br />
5PM·1 AM 20 96 4 100 430<br />
Total Events N.A. 292 8 300 1290<br />
1. Avg. number or weeks per month equals 4.3<br />
TABLE 3<br />
Total Number <strong>of</strong> Flight Events for<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Police Air Support<br />
at<br />
<strong>Glendale</strong> Helistop, Crystal Springs OWP Site<br />
Period: Mid-19BB - 1992<br />
Operating (A) (8) eC) (0) (E)<br />
Classlf. Avg. EventslWeek Day Tot. Evts for Tot. Evts Eventsl7 Eventsl<br />
byShift A-Bl-4 fi oayWeek forWkEnd Day Week Month<br />
Mon.CO Evts SunEvtscO D=B+C E.....3(o)·<br />
7AM·4PM 2S 100 0 100 430<br />
4PM-11 PM 24 96 4 100 430<br />
Total Events N.A. 196
ApPENDIX C<br />
TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND<br />
LANE CONFIGURATIONS<br />
peR<br />
PLANNING CONSULTANTS RESEARCH<br />
'.
C-l. PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES<br />
The following data includes AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes for the traffic srudy<br />
intersections, broken down into left tum, right tum, and through bound traffic, including<br />
Existing and Year 2010 traffic. The Year 2010 traffic volumes consist <strong>of</strong> traffic volumes with<br />
and without project generated traffic. This data is summarized and incorporated into Section<br />
4.9, Transportation/Circulation <strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the EIR.<br />
"
C-2. LANE CONFIGURATIONS<br />
The following figures depicts the existing and post-mitigation traffic study intersections.<br />
This infonnation is summarized and incorporated into Section 4.9, Transportation/Circulation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Addendum to the EIR.
Exhibit F<br />
CITY OF GLENDALE CALIFORNIA<br />
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION<br />
To: Allen Castillo, Project Manager, <strong>Development</strong> Services<br />
Vilia Zemaitaitis, Senior Planner, Planning Department<br />
From: Alan Loomis, Principal Urban Designer, Planning Department<br />
Date: 7 Apnl 2008<br />
Re: Stage I & II Agency Design Review for DreamWorks Expansion<br />
The following comments are an evaluation <strong>of</strong> the above project based on drawings prepared by Gensler<br />
Architects and dated March 2008. Summary comments are provided on the final page <strong>of</strong> this memo.<br />
Context<br />
The project is located on the 13.3 acre DreamWork.s Animation campus in the GC3 (Grand Gentral<br />
Creative Campus) district. The DreamWorks campus is already developed with a variety <strong>of</strong> buildings,<br />
clustered around common courtyards and gardens. The architectural and landscape design <strong>of</strong> the campus<br />
is suggestive <strong>of</strong> an Italian Tuscan or Venetian village, an effect that is amplified by the rich red, orange and<br />
terra cotta colors <strong>of</strong> the buildings.<br />
The proposed building will be located on the outside edge <strong>of</strong> the campus, facing Flower Street along with a<br />
new secondary entrance to the campus. As a consequence, the building will have a limited visibility from<br />
within the campus, but instead will have a prominent presence towards the Flower Street. The building will<br />
therefore be a significant "gateway" structure to the GC3 district, especially when the Flower I Fairmount<br />
Street improvements are completed.<br />
Project Description<br />
The project is a new five-story <strong>of</strong>fice building (with full basement). Although taller and larger than existing<br />
structures on the campus, the new building's materials, details and colors will match the existing campus.<br />
The project also includes an addition to the existing parking structure - however, because this addition<br />
merely extends further into the existing campus, the following discussion does not address the parking<br />
structure.<br />
Project Design<br />
Existing Buildings, Adaptive Reuse, and/or Historic Preservation<br />
• Exisling Buildings- Although the new <strong>of</strong>fICe building is sited such that it will appear to be a new freestanding<br />
structure, it is in fact an extension <strong>of</strong> the eXisting "lakeside- building. As noted above, the new<br />
building will also match the finishes, materials, and details <strong>of</strong> existing buildings on the campus.
Overall Site Plan, Height, Mass, and Landmark Features<br />
• Site Plan - The new building is essentially "L" shaped and located to occupy a vacant comer <strong>of</strong> the<br />
OreamWorks campus.<br />
• Height and Massing - The building is five-stories with a full basement (and consequently considered a<br />
six-story structure by code). A fourth floor ro<strong>of</strong> terrace at the northwest elevation partially erodes the<br />
overall building bulk and mass. Otherwise, variation in building height and mass is limited to the ro<strong>of</strong> line<br />
- a slightly taller ro<strong>of</strong> form creates a centralized mass on the southeast far;ade. However, there is<br />
otherwise no manipulation <strong>of</strong> the building mass on this far;ade, with the exception <strong>of</strong> a relatively small<br />
projecting "Juliet" balcony. Increasing the size <strong>of</strong> this balcony from one story to two (by extending the<br />
third floor) would increase the variation to this fa9GIde. Alternatively, a more creative response to the<br />
"gateway" condition <strong>of</strong> the site, as described below, <strong>of</strong>fers other options to reduce the apparent bulk <strong>of</strong><br />
the building.<br />
• Landmark Architectural Features - This corner <strong>of</strong> the OreamWorks campus will be prominent "gateway"<br />
to the GC3 district as people enter via Flower Street (especially after the new freeway access is<br />
completed). The most imposing feature <strong>of</strong> the proposed design is the southeast far;ade facing this<br />
entrance. This falfade is essentially symmetrical, with only some minor balconies to relieve a five-andhalf<br />
story tall vertical walt. The focal point <strong>of</strong> this walt is a billboard-sized "OreamWorks" logo. Although<br />
this large walt and sign will provide a "gateway" icon to the GC3 district, it does so largely because <strong>of</strong><br />
size. not because <strong>of</strong> any deliberate design. A far more adventurous and exciting design might propose a<br />
campanile tower (similar to that found in the center <strong>of</strong> the campus) at this comer <strong>of</strong> the building. Not<br />
only would such a tower create a literal landmark feature, but it also could be used to reduce the<br />
apparent scale and mass <strong>of</strong> the new building (especially if the tower is also painted a different color).<br />
Street Frontage and Fafade Design<br />
• Setbacks- The new building is located parallel to Flower Street, with a landscaped setback that varies<br />
from 4 to 10 feel. This setback condition is generally the same as the existing building on Flower Street,<br />
however, because the new building is approXimately twice as high as the existing structure, this setback<br />
may feel less generous.<br />
• Frontage and Facade Design- The OreamWorks campus is afenced enclave, with controlled and gated<br />
access points. Ailihe existing buildings on the campus therefore face the main campus quad, not<br />
streets or sidewalks as they would in an urban setting. The new building will be no different, although it<br />
does actually front Flower Street. No aspect <strong>of</strong> the Flower Street elevation acknowledges the pUblic<br />
sidewalk or even the new secondary entrance in fronl <strong>of</strong> the building itself. Although security concerns<br />
may preclude an actual entrance, a ground level arcade or other similar design feature may have <strong>of</strong>fered<br />
a more ·public" appearance to the structure. Instead, the design employs recessed balconies at floors<br />
four and five to provide shadow relief on the Flower Street far;ade. These balconies do not extend<br />
across the entire elevation, although if they did so, they might define the far;ade as a three story building<br />
with a two-story ·crown". This might help reduce the visual appearance <strong>of</strong> the bUilding's height.<br />
Page2<strong>of</strong>3
Materials, Colors, Lighting, and Signs<br />
• Materials and Colors - The materials and colors <strong>of</strong> the project (plaster finish with decorative reveals,<br />
metal windows with stone sills, and clay tile rooQ match the existing campus architecture.<br />
• Lighting- The proposal does not indicate specific light locations or fixtures. However, the proposal<br />
indicates the intent to match light fixtures found on the existing campus.<br />
• Signs- The proposal does not indicate specific locations for minor directional signs. As with the lighting,<br />
the submission indicates an intent to match the existing campus sign program.<br />
The exception is the large "DreamWorks" logo sign on the southeast elevation, facing the proposed<br />
Flower I Fairmount realignment. This will be one <strong>of</strong> the primary entrances to the GC3 district and is an<br />
appropriate location for signature signs. The proposed "DreamWorks" sign will be a simple and elegant<br />
cut-metal sign mounted six inches from the facade similar to other identity signs on the campus. The<br />
drawings do not indicate any lighting for this sign, although back lighting or some external spot fixtures<br />
would be acceptable.<br />
Open Space, Landscape and Public An<br />
• Open Space - The new building has no dedicated open space other than the street side setbacks,<br />
however, the DreamWor1c;s campus has agenerous central quad and courtyard.<br />
• Landscape - As with the lighting and signs, the proposal indicates an intent to match existing landscape,<br />
but does not provide a detailed landscape plan.<br />
• Public Art - Only projects within the Downtown Specific Plan are required to include public art. The<br />
proposal does not include a public art component.<br />
Summary Comments and Recommendations<br />
The proposal is consistent with the limited design standards established by both the San Fernando Road<br />
Corridor Redevelopment Plan and the existing development agreement between the <strong>City</strong> and<br />
OreamWorks. The proposal additionally utilizes the same materials, colors, and details as the existing<br />
architecture on the DreamWorks Animation campus. It is an architecturally conservative extension <strong>of</strong> the<br />
OreamWorks campus, and except for the fact that the proposal will be the tallest building on the campus,<br />
there is no reason to otherwise think it will be appear incompatible with existing structures. As such, the<br />
project is consistent with adopted design policies and standards, and could be approved as presented.<br />
However, the building will have a prominent presence on Flower Street and consequently serve as the<br />
"gateway" structure to the GC3 district Although the proposal clearty announces the studio's identity to<br />
Flower Street with a billboard-sized "DreamWorks' sign, the design has nonetheless missed a significant<br />
opportunity to create a memorable architectural icon. This iconography could be established with a more<br />
dramatic and civic oriented architecture, perhaps incorporating a campanile-type tOVoJer (similar to the tower<br />
inside the campus). Therefore it is recommended the design be modified to addresses these issues and<br />
the public "gateway" status <strong>of</strong> the bUilding's location.<br />
Page 3013
Redevelopment Project Area consistent with the existing lND zoning and with the<br />
goals <strong>of</strong> the redevelopment area. (Land Use Element Goal, page 7)<br />
h. Provide opportunities for coordinated as well as designed expansion <strong>of</strong> desirable<br />
commercial and industrial uses adjacent to areas where such expansion is in<br />
conformance with the goals <strong>of</strong> this plan. This project meets this goal because it<br />
provides for expansion <strong>of</strong>commercial activities in confonnance with the existing<br />
lND land use designation and IND zoning which allows for development <strong>of</strong><br />
mixed-use/large scale projects. (Land Use Element Goal, page 8)<br />
c. Encourage more intensified development <strong>of</strong> industrial areas (Land Use Element<br />
Goal, page 8). The project meets this goal because it allows for build-out <strong>of</strong> this<br />
mixed-use/large scale project consistent with the IND zoning designation and<br />
with minor modifications to the existing development agreement parameters.<br />
d. Encourage high rise <strong>of</strong>fice use within or adjacent to regional commercial centers.<br />
(Land Use Element Goal, page 8) This project is consistent with thjs goal<br />
because it allows for <strong>of</strong>fice development along the San Fernando corridor in a<br />
desib'llated redevelopment area. The IND zone allows for Industrial Mixed<br />
Use/Large Scale projects which permit development to a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 175<br />
feet above average grade or 10 stories, whichever is less.<br />
e. Provide opportunities for the expansion <strong>of</strong> revenue producing industrial and<br />
commercial establishments within the parameters <strong>of</strong>other community goals (Land<br />
Use Element Goal, page 8). This project is consistent with this land use goal<br />
because it provides for an expansion <strong>of</strong>revenue producing commercial<br />
establishments in compliance with currcnt lND land use and zoning designations.<br />
Furthermore, the location <strong>of</strong> this project in a redevelopment project area promotes<br />
community goals for economic expansion and provides for future job<br />
oPP0l1unities.<br />
The proposed project complies with the following IND development standards (GMC<br />
Section 30.13.030):<br />
Lot Area<br />
IND Zone Project<br />
10,000sq.ft. minimum<br />
(.23 acre)<br />
13.3 acres<br />
Existing: 331,784 54.ft.<br />
Building Area N/A Proposed: 128,718 S4.fl.<br />
Total: 460,502 S4.ft.<br />
Street Front Setback on.<br />
Interior Setbacks o fl.<br />
Height Limit<br />
9' proposed for Lakeside<br />
Annex from Flower S1.<br />
32' proposed for parking<br />
structure extension<br />
50 fl. Approx. 93 ft. for Lakeside<br />
(up to 175 ft or 10 stories**) Annex-Addition<br />
2.0 spacesl1,OOO S4.n.<br />
Parking (based on approved ORA<br />
Parking Exception 5-30-96)<br />
Parking Struchlre: 872<br />
Surface Parking: 319<br />
Total: 1,191 spaces<br />
(921 required)
presented anticipated impacts on shade/shadow, aesthetics and traffic/circulation. Even<br />
with the increase in pennitted height, the shade and shadow impacts <strong>of</strong>the designation <strong>of</strong><br />
the DrcamWorks campus as an "Industrial Mixed Use/Large Scale Project" in the fND<br />
zoning district were detennined to be less than significant, as analyzed in 4.6 Land Use<br />
(Views) and 4.16 Shade and Shadow. Furthennore, the traffic impacts resulting from the<br />
placement <strong>of</strong> the emergency access and service gate on Flower Street are to be reduced to<br />
less than significant upon the application <strong>of</strong> the following two mitigation measures:<br />
MM 4.9·) The secondary access gate shall have limited access, as follows:<br />
• Entry from northbound Flower Street shall be prohibited<br />
• Exit to northbound Flower Street shall be prohibited<br />
MM 4.9·2 The project applicant shall be responsible for payment <strong>of</strong> fees to the <strong>City</strong><br />
required to post appropriate signs as well as physical barriers to enforce<br />
these turning movements.<br />
All future development would be required to incorporate applicable mitigation measures<br />
from the Program EIR, and comply with Agency and <strong>City</strong> land use and architectural<br />
guidelines.<br />
NEXT STEPS<br />
The Planning Commission's comments and motion will be presented to the<br />
Council/Agency, along with the project's Stage I & II Final Design submittal, Second<br />
Addendum to the Final Program EIR, and the proposed First Amendment to the<br />
<strong>Development</strong> Agreement. The Council/Agency hearing has been scheduled for April 8,<br />
2008, and will be duly publicly noticed.<br />
EXlJIBITS<br />
1. Dran <strong>of</strong> First Amendment to the <strong>Development</strong> Agreement lor "DreamWorks<br />
Animation LLC"<br />
2. Design Review Plans, submitted by Gensler, March 2008<br />
3. Draft Memo for Stage I & [J Final Design Review<br />
4. Second Addendum to the Final Program EIR
MOTION<br />
MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GERO, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KANE<br />
THAT THE PLANNrNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE<br />
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TJ IE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE STATUTORY<br />
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR DREAMWORKS ANIMATION, LLC, AND<br />
THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:<br />
SECTION 1. Based on the staff report, draft first amendment to the statutory<br />
development agreement, secoll,d addendum to the program environmental impact report<br />
t
k. The Statutory <strong>Development</strong> Agreement includes conditions for development <strong>of</strong><br />
the site, outlines agency and city approvals, and provides for the compliance with<br />
applicable mitigation measures.<br />
SECTION 2. Based upon the facts, testimony and other evidence received, and<br />
upon studies and investigation made by the PlalUling Commission and on its behalf, the<br />
Planning Commission finds that First Amendment to the Statutory <strong>Development</strong><br />
Agreement for DreamWorks Animation LLC is conslstent wIth the following statements,<br />
goals and policies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Glendale</strong> General Plan:<br />
a. Reinforce <strong>Glendale</strong>'s image and community identity within the greater Los<br />
Angeles area metropolitan complex. This project meets this goa] <strong>of</strong> the Land Usc<br />
Element because the modification <strong>of</strong>this development agreement allO\vs for an<br />
expansion <strong>of</strong>large scale economic opportunities III the San Felllando Corridor<br />
Redevelopment Project Area consistent with the existing IND zoning and with the<br />
goals orthe redevelopment area. (Land Use Elemcnl Goal, page 7)<br />
b. Provide opportunities for coordinated as well as designed expansion <strong>of</strong>desirable<br />
commercial and industrial uses adjacent to areas where such expansion is in<br />
eonfonnance wlth the goals <strong>of</strong> this plan. This project meets this goal because it<br />
provides for expansion <strong>of</strong> commercial activities in confOlU1ance with the existing<br />
IND land use desibrnation and lND zoning which allows for development <strong>of</strong><br />
mixed-use/large scale projects. (Land Use Element Goal, page 8)<br />
c. Encourage more intensified development <strong>of</strong> industrial areas (Land Use Element<br />
Goal, p
a. The Final Program ElR for the San Fernando Road Conidor Redevelopment<br />
Project Plan ("Enal Program ElR"), as certified by the Agency on November 17,<br />
1992.<br />
b. The Program ElR for the project area, which assumed the build-out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
DreamWorks project area, cited significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality<br />
and traffic resulting [rom the implementation orthe San Fernando Road<br />
Redevelopment Plan.<br />
c. In addition to certifying the Program EIR, a statement <strong>of</strong> overriding<br />
considerations was adopted on November 17, 1992.<br />
d. In June 1996, a First Addendum to the Final Program EIR was tired <strong>of</strong>f the Final<br />
Program EIR to analyze the build-out <strong>of</strong>thc oliginal DreamWorks Animation<br />
campus project and <strong>Development</strong> Agreemcnt, including 495,000 square feel o[<br />
building area, a parking structure and associated facilities. At full build-OUl, the<br />
project would include seven buildings, with accent towers up to 115 feet and a<br />
1.000 car parking structure.<br />
e. 111 September 2004, the project site was re-zoned from MI (Restricted Industrial)<br />
to IND (Industrial) as pal1 <strong>of</strong>the San Fernando Corridor Re-zoning study and<br />
reviewed under the negative declaration prepared by RBF Consulting and<br />
approved by the <strong>City</strong> Council on August 10,2004.<br />
f. The Second Addendum to the Final Program Effi., prepared by PBS& J in March<br />
2008, addresses the designation o[the DreamWorks campus as an Industrial<br />
Mixed Use/Large Scale Project in the IND zoning district and the modification <strong>of</strong><br />
the height limit, parking garage extension, surface parking extension and<br />
secondary employee and emergency access road.<br />
g. The Second Addendum specifically discusses the potential environmental effects<br />
<strong>of</strong>the following:<br />
• Installation <strong>of</strong>a new secondary employee and emergency access road from<br />
Flower Street, and associated surface parking and landscaping along the<br />
roadway; and Construction and operation <strong>of</strong> the new Lakeside AIU1ex<br />
building, cxpansion o[ the existing parking structure, provision <strong>of</strong>a<br />
secondary employee-only and fire access gate from Flower Street,<br />
associated surface paving <strong>of</strong>the new roadway to connect the existing fire<br />
access road, striping <strong>of</strong> parking spaces and landscape activities along the<br />
secondary roadway; and<br />
• Amendment <strong>of</strong>the <strong>Development</strong> Agreement.<br />
h. The Second Addendum concludes that the above items do not rcpresent a<br />
substantial change to the San Fernando Road Redevelopment Plan, nor do they<br />
present any new information or substantial impact not previously analyzed or<br />
disclosed in the Program EIR and the First Addendum, which would warrant<br />
preparation <strong>of</strong> the subsequent or supplemental EIR.<br />
I. The traffic impacts resulting from the placement o[ the emergency access and<br />
service gate on Flower Street are to be reduced to less than significant upon the<br />
application <strong>of</strong> the following two mitigation mcasures:<br />
J. Even with the increase in permitt.ed height, thc shade and shadow impacts <strong>of</strong>the<br />
designation <strong>of</strong> the DrcamWorks campus as an "Industrial Mixed Use/Large Scale<br />
Project" in the IND zoning district were detennined to be less than significant, as<br />
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<br />
quality or traffic impacts previously identified in thc Program EIR.<br />
SECTION 4. The Planning Commission has considered the Second Addendum<br />
to the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan for the San<br />
Fernando RO
ATTEST:<br />
I, Hassan Haghani, Commission Secretary, certify thai the foregoing resolution<br />
was adopted by the Planning Commission <strong>of</strong>lhe <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Glendale</strong>, by a majority orlhe<br />
members there<strong>of</strong> at a meeting held on the 2 1ld dCly <strong>of</strong> April, 2008, and that the same was<br />
adopted by the following vote:<br />
Ayes:<br />
Noes:<br />
Absent<br />
Abstain:<br />
Gero, Kane<br />
Ramirez<br />
Manoukian, Torgerson<br />
ommission Secretary