AGENDA GLENDALE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 2012 633 EAST BROADWAY, ROOM 105, GLENDALE, AT 9:30 A.M.
Welcome to the meeting of the Planning Hearing Officer. Meetings are broadcast live on cable channel 6 (GTV6) and rebroadcast throughout the week. Call (818) 548-4013 for program schedules. DVDs and Videotapes of the proceedings are available for purchase in the City Clerk’s Office by calling (818) 548-2090. PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES AND PAGERS WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING ROOM.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, auxiliary hearing aids, sign language translation, and Braille transcripts are available upon request. Assisted listening devices are available same-day upon request. At least 48 hours (or two business days) notice is required for requests regarding sign language translation and Braille transcription services.
If you have any question about matters on the agenda, or requests for assistance, please contact Community Development Department at (818) 548-2115 during regular business hours.
(1) LOCATION: 216 NORTH BRAND BOULEVARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PCUP1200337
APPLICANT: Elissa Glickman
OWNER: Glendale Redevelopment Agency
CASE PLANNER: Jeff Hamilton
PROJECT DESCRIPTION An application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the on-site sales, service and consumption of beer and wine in the Downtown Specific Plan, Alex Theater District, located at 216 North Brand Boulevard, in the “DSP/Alex Theater District” zone described as Lots 17, 7 and 8 in Block 5 of the Glendale Boulevard Tract, as per map recorded in Book 5 Page 167 of Maps.
In addition, an expansion of the Alex Theatre is proposed. In Phase I, 7,835 square feet of floor area will be added with approximately 5,000 square feet in a basement level and the remainder at the street and 2nd story levels. In a future Phase II, an additional 5,009 sq. ft. of floor area would be added at the street and 2nd story levels. The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and approved the proposed physical alterations at the public hearing of December 12, 2011.
Date Agenda Posted: March 14, 2012 HM:sm
216 N. Brand Blvd. PCUP1200337 February 15, 2012
CITY OF GLENDALE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PCUP1200337
MEETING DATE: March 21,2012
TO: Planning Hearing Officer
PREPARED BY: Jeff Hamilton, Senior Planner
ADDRESS: 216 N. Brand Blvd., The Alex Theatre
APPLICANT: Elissa Glickman, CEO, Glendale Arts 116 W. California Ave. Glendale, CA 91203
OWNER: City of Glendale
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 17, 7 and 8 in Block 5 of the Glendale Boulevard Tract, as per map recorded in Book 5 Page 167 of Maps.
APN: 5642-016-908 and 5642-016-909
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
A. Applicant Proposes: Application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the on-site sales, service and consumption of beer. and wine in the Downtown Specific Plan, Alex Theatre District. A Conditional Use Permit is required to sell or consume alcoholic beverages in this District. In addition, an expansion of the Alex Theatre is proposed. In Phase I, 7,835 square feet of floor area will be added with approximatelY 5,000 sq. ft. in a basement level and the remainder at the street and 2nd story levels. In a future Phase II, an additional 5,009 sq. ft. of floor area would be added at the street and 2nd story levels.
B. CEQA Status: A Negative Declaration has been prepared and made available for public review.
C. Project History:
April 8, 2011 BB1106467, a building permit for "forecourt improvements, including selective removal and installation of paving, doors, interior box office, non-bearing walls, planters, concrete seating units with potted plants", submitted. Not yet issued. BP11 06474, a plumbing permit for "installing 4 fixtures", submitted. Not yet issued. BE1106458, an electrical permit for "installing 10 new branch circuits", submitted. Not yet issued.
Dec. 12,2011 The Historic Preservation Commission, as the review authority for the alterations to the structure, reviewed and approved the proposed physical alterations at a public hearing.
1 of 12 216 N. Brand Blvd. PCUP1200337 February 15, 2012
D, Related Concurrent Permit Applications: None
RECOMMENDATION: Approve with conditions
SITE CONTEXT
GENERAL PLAN: Downtown Specific Plan/Alex Theatre District
lONE: Downtown Specific Plan/Alex Theatre District
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PROPERTY AND USES: The project site is approximately 21,500 square feet on Brand Boulevard between Wilson Avenue to the south and California Avenue to the north. The site is a through-lot with frontage on Brand Boulevard and Maryland Avenue.
The existing building sits on or near the easterly property line. The Alex Theatre is a three-story building totaling approximately 32,000 square feet with seating for 1,431 patrons. There is a large forecourt on the site outside the west entrance facing Brand Boulevard. A small ticket booth and the theater marquee are located at the extreme west side of the site. The forecourt, the ticket booth and the marquee will not be altered as part of the theater expansion.
The Alex Theatre was built in 1925 as both a movie house and a venue for live performances. The marquee and signature tower were added in 1940. In 1992, the Glendale Redevelopment Agency purchased the Theatre and began rehabilitation in 1993. The Theatre reopened in 1994. It was designated as a local landmark on the Glendale Register in 1977 and was designated on the National Register of Historic Places in 1995.
NEIGHBORING lONES AND USES Zoning Existing Uses North DSP/Alex Theatre District Commercial retail South DSP/Alex Theatre District & DSP/Maryland Commercial retail and city parking lot East DSPlTransitional City parking lot and office West DSP/Alex Theatre District . Commercial retail and offices Project Site DSP/Alex Theatre District Theater
COMMENTS FROM OTHER CITY DEPARTMENtS No comments were received from other City departments regarding this proposal, other than standard code regulations, and the somewhat general comments listed beloyv.
Police Department: Submitted a checklist of standard conditions regulating noise and disturbances, dancing, and compliance with State Alcohol Beverage Control Board (ABC) licensing requirements.
2 of 12 216 N. Brand Blvd. PCUP1200337 February 15, 2012
Building & Safety: Required the project to conform to the Building Code and State Accessibility Standards
REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT
Conditional Use Permit:
Pursuant to Section 30.42.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code, a Conditional Use Permit for a theater with on-site sale, service, and consumption of alcoholic beverages may be granted only if the following findings of fact can be made:
A. That the proposed use will be consistent with the various elements and objectives of the general plan.
B. That the use and its associated structures and facilities will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment.
C. That the use and facilities will not adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal development of surrounding property.
D. That adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation measures are or will be provided for the proposed use.
E. For applications involving the sale, serving or consumption of alcoholic beverages, the follbwing criteria shall be considered in making the findings in subsection a. through d. above:
1. That where an existing or proposed on-site use is located in a census tract with more • than the. recommended maximum concentration of on-site uses or that where an existing or proposed off-site use is located in a census tract with more than the recommended maximum concentration of off-site uses, both as recommended by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, such use does not or will not tend to intensify or otherwise contribute to the adverse impacts on the surrounding area caused by such over concentration;
2. That where the existing or proposed use is located in a crime reporting district with a crime rate which exceeds twenty (20) percent of the city average for Part I crimes, as reported by the Glendale Police Division, such use does not or will not tend to encourage or intensify crime within the district;
3. That the existing or proposed use does not or will not adversely impact any church, public or p'rivate school or college, day care facility, public park, library, hospital or residential use within the surrounding area;
4. That adequate parking and loading facilities are or will be provided for the existing or proposed use, or other reasonable alternatives satisfy the transportation and parking needs of the existing or proposed use; and
3 of 12 216 N. Brand Blvd. PCUP1200337 February 15, 2012
5. That, notwithstanding consideration of the criteria in subsections 1 through 4 above, the existing or proposed use does or will serve a public necessity or public convenience purpose for the area. .
ANALYSIS The conditional use permit process allows the City to monitor the community's general concerns typically associated with land uses that are allowed but that need additional review to ensure they do not create negative impacts on the neighborhood. The proposed sales and consumption of beer and wine at the Alex Theatre in the DSP Alex Theatre District requires aptJroval of a CUP and the following analysis identifies how the project can make the required findings for CUP approval.
The proposal will be consistent with the various elements and objectives of the City's General Plan. The property is located in the General Plan's Downtown Specific Plan Land Use area. This mixed use development district encompasses most of the Central Glendale Redevelopment Project Area and provides for a wide array of commercial (retail. service, office, entertainment) uses, including the continued operation of Alex Theatre. The City's Zoning Code is a land use tool that implements the Land Use Element. The property is zoned DSP - Alex Theatre District, which features "a variety of intimate-scale retail, restaurant and service uses located within traditional storefronts" (DSP,Chapter 2.1.1, pg. 22). The project is. consistent with DSP land use policy 3.1.1 which promotes "many land use options to . encourage healthy urban districts .... " The proposed sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Alex Theatre will enhance it:;; economic viability, helping it to remain a vibrant focal point in Glendale. The continued operation and viability of the Alex Theatre is consistent with policy 3.1.2 which promotes a "24-Hour Downtown" with "appropriate land uses that extend the life of Downtown into the evenings and weekends .... " The Alex Theatre will continue to playa key role in the night-life of downtown Glendale.
The City Council recently adopted (March 15, 2011) an Arts and Entertainment District, primarily along Maryland Avenue in the DSP Maryland District. This downtown art and entertainment district encourages the concentration of arts, cultural and entertainment venues and associated dining and retail uses along the newly created "Entertainment Streets" (DSP designation, pg. 63). While the subject property is not located along an "Entertainment Street", it is nearby to the north and would be in close proximity to and compatible with such uses. The proposed on-site alcoholic beverage service and consumption would be ancillary to the theater.
The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health or safety and the general welfare, and will not adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses or impede their normal development. The Alex Theatre has operated on the property since its construGiion in 1925. It has served the community as a live theater, movie theater and commercial and movie filming venue both before and after it was remodeled and reopened in 1994. Alcoholic beverages have been sold and consumed on the property in the past, butlhey were offered by a contractor operating on the property, not the Alex Theatre itself. This conditional use permit would allow the continued sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, an activity that has occurred on the property for years. There have been no notable negative impacts to the neighborhood by the operation ofthe Theatre or the sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the property. There is no is residential development adjacent to the property at this time, though a mixed-use project including residences was approved by the City on the property immediately to the south. Other residences are located further to the north and east of the site on Maryland and Louise. There is
4 of 12 216 N. Brand Blvd. PCUP1200337 February 15, 2012
a church located to the east on Wilson at Louise. Allan F. Daily High School (for continuation students) is less than Y. mile from the site. The Central Library, which is part of Central Park, is just over Y. mile to the south. Staff does not anticipate that these uses would be adversely impacted for several reasons. There have been no objections or complaints received about the existing sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Theatre. Patrons will be primarily. parking in the lot to the east of the building and walking across Maryland to the site. The actual hours of operation are sporadic-the Theatre is not open every day, just for special events. For example, in March and in April, 2012, the Theatre only has events scheduled for five days each month. The building does not have openings along the side and rear elevations. Furthermore, there is an expectation that individuals living in the downtown area would experience and be exposed to the wide variety of commercial uses found in downtown. Various City Departments have been notified of this application and no concerns have been raised regarding the nature of this application's request on these surrounding land uses. Therefore, the proposed sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Theatre is not anticipated to be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment.
Additionally, an initial study was prepared for the project. According to the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration, it was determined that the Alex Theatre would have either no impacts or less than significant impacts on the community. In response to the standard routing of the project for interdepartmental comments, the City's Police Department and Traffic Engineering Section commented that the project will not have adverse impacts; they recommended typical conditions that may be applied to the project should it be approved. No negative comments were received from other City Departments. Hence, the proposed expansion of the Alex Theatre and the sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages is not anticipated to adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal development of surrounding property.
Adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation measures are provided for the proposed use. S.ince approving the conditional use permit would allow the continued sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the property, there will be no change in impacts to utilities, parking spaces or traffic circulation. The proposed expansion would occur on hardscaped areas-no landscaping will be removed. Traffic and parking were evaluated as part of the environmental review and the project was found to have less than significant impacts in both these areas. Therefore, adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation measures are provided for the proposed banquet hall activity and alcoholic beverage service and consumption.
The Zoning Code requires that projects with CUP applications for alcohol sales, service and consumption address the following additional issues: ABC license concentration and crime rate for the subject census tract, and the possibility of the use being a public convenience and necessity. This location is within census tract 3020.02, which allows for 4 On-Sale establishments based on the ABC guidelines. There are currently 21 On-Sale establishments in this tract. However, the census tract is located in within the Downtown Specific Plan area, where such uses are appropriate and encouraged. Furthermore, alcoholic beverages have been offered on the property in the past through a contracior. The only change as a result of this conditional use permit is that the Alex Theatre itself will be entitled to offer alcoholic beverages for sale and consumption. Based on Part 1 crime statistics for census tract 3022.01 in 201 0, there were 224 crimes, 187 percent above the city wide average of 78. This is not unexpected since the site is located in a part of town with a high population density and substantial number of commercial businesses, all factors which will tend to increase the crime rate compared to
50112 216 N. Brand Blvd. PCUP1200337 February 15, 2012 other, more homogenous single family neighborhoods. The Police have not expressed any concerns about the proposed operation and have proposed conditions of approval that will reduce the potential for problems being generated by the sales and consumption of alcohol on the site. Because this siie is in the Downtown Specific Plan area, alcohol sales and consumption are appropriate and encouraged and this will not be a new use on the site. Lastly, the proposed sales and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Theatre serves a public convenience in that it has occurring for many years, it is an accepted ancillary function to the Theatre, and it will help the Theatre remain economically viable.
Based on the above analysis, the proposed sales, service and consumption of alcohol at the Alex Theatre meets the findings for granting the conditional use permit request as conditioned.
RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that all of the findings for the Conditional Use Permit for the sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages can be made, and therefore, recommends approval of this entitlement. Staff suggests that the Hearing Officer consider the attached draft findings and conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit 2 - Reduced Plans Exhibit 3 - Interdepartmental Comments Exhibit 4 - HPC Staff Report from December 12, 2011 Exhibit 5 - Negative Declaration with Response to Comments
6 of 12 216 N. Brand Blvd. PCUP1200337 February 15, 2012
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. PCUP 2010-013 DRAFT FINDINGS
Pursuant to Section 30.43.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code, a Conditional Use Permit for a new banquet hall may be granted only if findings of fact can be made:
A. The proposal will be consistent with the various elements and objectives of the City's General Plan. The property is located in the General Plan's Downtown Specific Plan Land Use area. This mixed use development district er)Compasses most of the Central Glendale Redevelopment Project Area and provides for a wide array of commercial (retail. service, office, entertainment) uses, including the continued operation of Alex Theatre. The City's Zoning Code is a land use tool that implements the Land Use Element. The property is zoned DSP - Alex Theatre District, which features "a variety of intimate-scale retail, restaurant and service uses located within traditional storefronts" (DSP, Chapter 2.1.1, pg. 22). The project is consistent with DSP land use policy 3.1.1 which promotes "many land use options to encourage healthy urban districts .... " The proposed sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Alex Theatre will enhance its economic viability, helping it to remain a vibrant focal point in Glendale. The continued operation and viability of the Alex Theatre is consistent with policy 3.1.2 which promotes a "24-Hour Downtown" with "appropriate land uses that extend the life of Downtown into the evenings and weekends .... " The Alex Theatre will continue to playa key role in the night-life of downtown Glendale. The Circulation element identifies Brand Boulevard as a Major Arterial, and its right-of-way of 130 feet and improved width of 100 feet meets the city standards for roadway width. Maryland Avenue is identified as an Urban Collector, and its right-of-way of 60 feet and improved width of 40 feet meets the city standards for roadway width. The Noise Element discusses land use conflicts related to' noise and Section 4.43 of the Noise Element notes that potential noise impacts are controlled through the enforcement of the Noise Ordinance. The project site is not identified as parkland by the Recreation Element. The development features no housing component that would be addressed by the Housing Element, and will be constructed per all applicable Building & Fire Code standards that address any seismic, geological, and fire hazards identified in the Safety Element. Therefore, the project and its associated uses area are consistent with the elements and objectives of the City's General Plan.
B. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health or safety and the general welfare, and will not adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses or impede their normal development. The Alex Theatre has operated on the property since its construction in 1925. It has served the community as a live theater, movie theater and commercial and movie filming venue since it was remodeled and reopened in 1994. Alcoholic beverages have been sold and consumed on the property in the past, but they were offered by a contractor operating on the property, not the Alex Theatre itself. This conditional use permit would allow the continued sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, an activity that has occurred on the property for years. There have been no notable negative impacts to the neighborhood by the operation of the Theatre or the sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the property. There is no is residential development adjacent to the property at this time, though a mixed-use project in.cluding residences was approved by the City on the property immediately to the south. Other residences are located further to the north and east of the site on Maryland and Louise. There is a church located to the east on Wilson at Louise. Allan F. Daily HighSchool (for continuation students) is less than Y. mile from the site. No park is the nearby. The Central Library is just over Y. mile to the south. Staff does
7 of 12 216 N. Brand Blvd. PCUP1200337 February 15, 2012
not anticipate that these uses would be adversely impacted for several reasons: there have been no objections or complaints raised to this point about the existing sales and consumption of alcohoHc beverages at the Theatre; the patrons will be primarily parking in the lot to the east of the building and walking across Maryland to the site; conditions of approval require security and enforcement measures to prevent disturbances and noise impacts; the building does not have openings along the side and rear elevations; and other conditions relating to the operation of the Theatre have been included. Furthermore, there is an expectation that individuals living in the downtown area would experience and be exposed to the wide variety of commercial uses found in downtown. Various City Departments have been notified of this application and no concerns have been raised regarding the nature of this application's request on these surrounding land uses. Therefore, the proposed sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Theatre is not anticipated to be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment.
C. The use and facilities will not adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal development of surrounding property. The site and facility are located in the Downtown Specific Plan area and surrounded by existing commercial, institutional and residential uses. Approval of a conditional use permit to allow for continued service and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Alex Theatre is not anticipated to adversely affect or conflict with the adjacent uses, or impede the normal development of surrounding property. As noted above in Finding A, the proposed uses would be consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, and would not have a negative impact on the normal operation and development of surrounding tenants and properties. According to the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration, it was determined that the Alex Theatre would have either no impacts or less than significant impacts on the community. In response to the standard routing of the project for interdepartmental comments, the City's Police Department and Traffic Engineering Section commented that the project will not have adverse impacts; they recommended typical conditions that may be applied to the project shOUld it be approved. No negative comments were received from other City Departments. Hence, the proposed expansion of the Alex Theatre and the sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages is not anticipated to adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal development of surrounding property.
D. Adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation 'measures are provided for the proposed use. Since approving the conditional use permit would allow the continued sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages on the property, there will be no change in impacts to utilities, parking spaces or traffic circulation. The proposed expansion would occur on hardscaped areas-no landscaping will be removed. Traffic and parking were evaluated as part of the environmental review and the project was found to have less than significant impacts in both these areas. Therefore, adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation measures are provided for the proposed banquet hall activity and alcoholic beverage service and consumption.
E. For applications involving the sale, serving or consumption of alcoholic beverages, the following criteria shall be considered in making the findings in subsection a. through d. above:
1. This location is within census tract 3020.02, which allows for 4 On-Sale establishments based on the ABC guidelines. There are currently 21 On-Sale establishments in this
8 of 12 216 N. Brand Blvd. PCUP1200337 February 15, 2012
tract. However, the census tract is located in within the Downtown Specific Plan area, where such uses are appropriate and encouraged. Furthermore, alcoholic beverages have been offered on the property in the past tlirough a contractor. The only change as a result of this conditional use permit is that the Alex Theatre itself will be entitled to offer alcoholic beverages for sale and consumption. The alcohol sales, service and consumption would not be the primary use at Theatre events, but rather complementary to such activities. Therefore, the on-site sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages will not tend to intensify or otherwise contribute to the adverse impacts on the surrounding area caused by such over concentration;
2. Based on Part 1 crime statistics for census tract 3022.01 in 2010, there were 224 crimes, 187 percent above the city wide average of 78. This is not unexpected since the site is located in a part of town with a high population density and SUbstantial number of commercial businesses, all factors which will tend to increase the crime rate compared to other, more homogenous single family neighborhoods. Because this site is in the Downtown Specific Plan area, alcohol sales and consumption are appropriate and encouraged and this will not be a new use on the site .. The sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Theatre has occurred in the past without any problems being noted by the Police. It can be assumed that the continuation of this activity as a result of approving this conditional use permit will not tend to encourage or intensify crime within the district, given the proposed conditions of approval and history of responsible operation;
3. The proposed sales of alcoholic beverages will not adversely impact any church, public or private school or college, day care facility, public park, library, hospital or residential use within the surrounding area. There is no is residential development adjacent to the property at this time, though a mixed-use project including residences was approved by the City on the property immediately to the south. Other residences are located further to the north and east of the site on Maryland and Louise. There is a church located to the east on Wilson at Louise. Allan F. Daily High School (fo,continuation students) is less than Y. mile from the site. The Central Library, which is part of Central Park, is just over Y. mile to the south. Staff does not anticipate that these uses would be adversely impacted for several reasons. There have been no objections or complaints received about the existing sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Theatre. Patrons will be primarily parking in the lot to the east of the building and walking across Maryland to the site. The actual hours 6f operation are sporadic-the Theatre is not open every day, just for special events. For example, in March and in April, 2012, the Theatre only has events scheduled for five days each month. The building does not have openings along the side and rear elevations. Furthermore, there is an expectation that individuals living in the downtown area would experience and be exposed to the wide variety of commercial uses found in downtown;
4. Adequate parking and loading facilities are provided for the proposed sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Alex Theatre. As stated in tile Negative Declaration, most customers and staff of the Theatre park in the various city parking lots and structures that are nearby. There are three public garages and· several surface parking lots with a total of over 2,000 parking spaces within 1,000 feet of the project site, making them readily accessible to pedestrians. Recent parking studies conducted by the City's Traffic and Transportation Section have found that the maximum utilization rates in these facilities was 71 percent, and most of the time well under that, meaning that the
9 of 12 216 N. Brand Blvd. PCUP1200337 February 15, 2012
vast majority of the spaces are available for use by the public. Because the project will not change the parking demand for the facility, and because there is substantial parking capacity in the various parking facilities nearby, the proposed sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Theatre would not resultin significant parking impacts; and
5. Notwithstanding consideration of the criteria in subsections 1 through 4 above, the continued sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the Alex Theatre will serve a public convenience purpose for the area., It will promote the economic viability of the Theatre, allowing it to remain as an important entertainment venue in the city and in the downtown in particular. It will help encourage a vibrant and healthy downtown.
10 of 12 216 N.. Brand Blvd. PCUP1200337 February 15, 2012
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
APPROVAL of this Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. The development shall be in substantial accord with the plans submitted with the application and presented at the hearing except for any modifications as may be required to meet specific Code standards or other conditions stipulated herein to the satisfaction of the Hearing Officer.
2. All licenses, permits as required or approvals from Federal, State, County or City authorities including the City Clerk shall be obtained and kept current at all times.
3. All necessary licenses, permits as required or approvals from State, (Alcoholic Beverage Control) authorities shall be obtained and kept current at all times.
4. The premises shall be operated in full accord with applicable State, County, and local laws.
5. Access to the premises shall be made available to all City of Glendale Planning Division, Neighborhood Services, Police Department, and Fire Department staff, upon request for the purpose of verifying compliance with all-laws and the conditions of approval.
6. At all times the service of any alcoholic beverages shall be made on in the areas designated with an Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) license. Consumption of alcoholic beverages will only be in those same licensed areas.
7. Sales, service or consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. each day of the week.
8. No patron will be allowed to bring any alcoholic beverage in the establishment unless that beverage was purchased at the establishment.
9. The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises is strictly prohibited.
10. All music, lighting, noise and odors shall be confined to the occupancy so as not to disturb occupants of other businesses or properties and patrons on the public right-of way. Music shall be of a volume not to be audible from nearby residential and church properties.
11. Noise shall be contained to the site and within the building, such that persons of normal sensitivity off-site are not disturbed consistent with Chapter 8.36 Glendale Municipal Code. The Hearing Officer's opinion shall prevail to arbitrate any conflicts.
12. Any exterior lighting shall be directed onto the walkways a[ld parking areas within the development and away from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Hearing Officer.
13. Police Department emergency personnel shall be provided with a minimum of three (3) phone numbers of responsible parties in case of emergency
11 of 12 216 N. Brand Blvd. PCUP1200337 February 15, 2012
14. The proprietor shall monitor the area under its control, in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons about the premises.
15. The proprietor shall not permit any public nuisance at the premise or adjacent areas outside the premise, including the front courtyard and rear alleyway. The management staff and employees are strictly responsible for security on site and for preventing criminal activity including but not limited to fights, disturbances, alcohol laws, assaults, public drunkenness, narcotic use and/or saJes of narcotics, and drunk driving by patrons who are leaving the premise.
16. The proprietor and his/her employees shall make an active and conscientious effort to keep customers and employees from trespassing on other nearby properties or otherwise make disturbances in the area.
17. The premises and the adjacent public right-of-way areas shall be maintained in a clean and orderly condition, free of weeds, trash, and graffiti, particularly after every event.
18. All signs displayed shall conform to the requirements of the Glendale Municipal Code.
19. State Accessibility Standards shall be met for all parking requirements and building entrance accessibility as required by the Building & Safety Division.
20. A new Zoning Use Certificate shall be issued following proof of the new ABC license.
21. Any expansion or modification of the facility as determined by the Planning Hearing Officer to be inconsistent with this grant and allowed use shall require a new conditional use permit application:
22. The authorization granted herein shall be valid for a period of five (5) years until March _, 2016, at which time reapplication must be made if the on-site alcohol beverage service and consumption is to continue.
12 of 12 I N
FIGURE 3-A fY:loo---J600ft C) LAND USE DISTRICTS
Alex Theatre
_ Broadway Center·
Civic Center
East Broadway
Galleria
_ Gateway
Maryland
Mid-Orange
Orange Central
Town Center
Transitional
GROUND-FLOOR USES
~ Primary Frontage Streets _ Entertainment Streets
p3";~ Secondary Frontage Streets
r::::~:::-~-:-:-:: Auto Retail Streets
~ Residential Streets
, ,
Amended 2011.03.15/2011.06,07 GLENDALE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 41 VICI NITY MAP PROPOSED PHASE - PROJECT DESCRIPTION SHEET INDEX 1. ADD ING APPRO X. 5000 SQU ARE FE ET TO THE EXIS TI NG BASEM ENT TO @ ,~ ..... CVR COVER PAG E ACCOMMOD ATE ADDITIONAL DRESSING ROOMS , STORAGE , SHOPS , AND SHE ET 01 PROJECT INFORMATI ON/SITE PLAN/SHEET IN DEX '- I RESTROOM S SHE ET 02 EX ISTI NG SITE PHOTOS & PR OPSOED PHASI NG PLAN S SHE ET 03 PROPOSED PARTIAL DEMOLITION PLANS 2. REALIG NING AND REB UI LDING EXISTING LOADING DOCK AREA FOR TRUCK ..." i ! <...... J SHE ET 04 BASEMENT PLAN LOAD ING/UNLOA DING SHEET 05 STAGE LEVE L PLAN ! ~ ~ .. " ' / "'r.'_ " ! . SHEE T 06 FIRST FLOOR/STREET LEVEL PLAN 3. ADDING A FREIGHT ELEVATO R TO PROVIDE ACC ESS TO THE STAGE, LOADI NG SHEE T 07 SECOND FLOO R/ LOWER BALCONY PLAN ARCHITECTS DOCK AND BASEME NT LEVELS 2020 AlII M~DA PADRE SER~ WITI' 220 SHEET 08 THI RD FLO OR/UPPER BALCONY PLA N S... NTA HARBAAA. ( ",9J10l SHEET 09 ROOF PLAN IR 30S96J_1955 fi\lC &05S ~ 6~'3 2 4. ADD ING A PASSENG ER ELEVATOR TO PR OVIDE ACCESS TO BASE ME NT, STAGE SHEET 10 SECTION A AND STREET LEVEL i, SHE ET 11 SEC TI ON B SHEET 12 SOUTH ELEVATIO N 5. ENCLOS ING EXI STI NG EXTERIOR STAI R TO MEET CODE REOUI REM ENTS SHEET 13 EAST ELEVATIO N SHEET 14 PERSPECTIVE VIEW 6. MAKI NG PROVISIONS FOR FU TU RE PHASE ADDI TIONS AS MENTIONED BELOW SHEET 15 PERS PECTI VE VIEW SHE ET 16 FUTU RE PHASE -FIRST FLOOR/STREET LEVE L PLAN PROJE CT SI TE SHEET 17 FUTURE PHAS E-SECOND FLOOR /LOWER BAL CON Y PLAN FUTURE PHASE - PROJECT DESCRIPTION SH EET 18 FUTUR E PHASE - ROOF PLAN PROJECT STATISTICS SHEET 19 FUTURE PHASE -SECTION B 1. ADDING APPROX . 5,009 SQUARE FEET ON FIRST AND SECO ND FLOOR LEVEL SHEET 20 FUTURE PHASE-SOUTH ELEVATION Cod e St udy (Based on 2010 C8C) and Project Information TO AC CO MMODATE OFFICES , CONFE RENC E/MEETING ROOM , COAT CHEC K ROOM, SHEET 21 FUTUR E PHASE -EAST ELEVATI ON STAIRS, PASSENGE R ELEVATO R AND RESTROOMS. SHEET 22 FU TU RE PHASE- PE RSPECTIVE VIEW Occupancy group A·land B SH EET 23 FUTUR E PHASE -PERSPECTIVE VI EW Type of construction Tvpell-A Fully Sprlnklered Yes Existing area (G SF) Basement 4011 First floor (excludes stairs) 15107 Second floor (excludes stairs) 8355 Balcony (excludes stai rs) 4602 Total Existing Area (GSF) 32075
Propose d addition (GSF ) (Phase I and Future Pha se ) Basement (Phase I) 5704 Stage level (Phas~ I) 1318 elevators) 645 First floor Future Phase (excludes stairs and elevators) 2408 Second floor Phase J (only storage room) 168 Second floor Future phase (excludes stairs and elevators) 2601 A Total Proposed Addition (GSF) 12844 EXISTING THEATRE Total Area (GSF) 44919
Allowable Area pertabl e S03 Occupancy A·1 15500 Occupan cy B 37500
Allowable area increase due to fire spri nklers Cl IEN1/OWN'~ Occupancy A·1 (15,500 + 15,500 (2) 46500 CITY OF GLENDAL E REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Occupancy B (37,500+ 37,500 (2) 112500
Proposed Total Area Occupancy A·1 42150 ALEX THEATRE Occupancy B (only second floor) 2769 EXPANSION
PROJECT W O TIONl ... OD USS Mixed Occupancy Calcu lation (Actua l/Allowable) 21(> N BRAND BLVD, Occupancy A·1- (42,150/46,500) 0.91 GLENDALE. CA 91203
Occupancy B· (2,769/112,500) 0.02 UA I [ Total ratio <1 0.93 NOVEMBER 21, 2011
Height and No. of Stories Allowable Existing Proposed SHm N UM~l ~ Occupancy A·1 65'- 3 stories EX ISTIN G SITE PLAN 60'-3 stories 30'-1 story Occupancy B 65'- 5 stories NTS 01 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS PHAS ING PLANS
ARCH [TECTS 20:0 ,\.lAMEIM MORE SERkII. sum no SAN'''' BARBARA,n 'J1QJ I El llll'! %J·!9SS fAllIlOS 5468SU
SECOND FLOOR/LOWER BALCONY PLAN
FIRST rLOOR/STREET FUTURE PHASE
ClIlNllOWNER CITY OF GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
SECOND FLOOR/LOWER BALCONY PLAN ~ ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION
PIKltlCT UXAlIONlADDIIESS 216 N BRAND BLVD, GLENDALE, G\ 91203
~" NOVEMBER 21, 2011
THIRD FLOOR/UPPER BALCONY PLAN SHttl Nl)MII<~ PROPOSED/CURRENT PHASE VIEW FROM WILSO N STREET ALLEY 1/32"=1'-0" 02 c) C) C) C) C) C) C) C)
,r-5/- ""'11-
"'."- Ir·
ARCHITECTS 2020 i\1AMEOA P.'\DRt !.UtRA, sum: no SANTA IlARMAI1A, , .... ~110) TtlllO.'i ~~1_1'I;';.~ f.\X I!O~ ~~ ~~ ~ 2 , IEjSTAGE SlOl lEVEl 5fA TlNG A _U 9' .'f - (!045.QfI')
',5-
L DEMO (E) STAIR, ~ CONCRETE WALL BASEMENT PLAN STAGE LEVEL PLAN 1116" - 1'-0" 1116",. "-0"
II ""'''°, 1
o o CliENT/owNU (ITY OF GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCV
ALEX THEATRE ;i EXPANSION
II PROJECT LOCATIONJADORlSS 216 N BRAN D BLVD, II DEMO {8 FENC" " II LIGHT FIXTURES '" GLENDALE, CA 91203 I ~, I II • UAT[ I _. :\ ~ NOVEMBER 21, 2011 L 1-- SHEET NUMBER ~ -r- I r I I I I DEMOLITION PLANS STREET LEVE L PLAN 1/16" = 1' -011 N 1/16" OR 1'-0" 03 ARCHITECTS
2020 AlAMEDA r.~DRE SERRA. sum; 110 SANTI\ BI\.~OA!tA., CA 9}10) Hl805 %3_1955 FAX sus 5~G 8582 CD (D CE) (~ (~ (i) (9
fREIGHT ElEVATOR
[ lOBBV "SiS
,.h • ,~. (!>J2.t5') -'f' ~ -0 LJ,- - ~ \j - "$. ~ A D"'S~:t:'" l ~ STAGE STORAGE It(;HTING LL BOl ----005 f- ~~ DRESSING J\ ' OOM B06 ~ ~iJ- J- , \ tD l.5 = .. -'" r, F= 1= r= ~= F= :== i- :==1= := . :=jl II CliENTIOWN~ " ,,.'-0' CIT Y OF GLENDALE I ! : """"WR i REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ":A 1'~OJLC1 ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION
PROlle'LOCATION/ADDRESS 216 N BRAND BLVD, GLENDALE, CA Yl 203
DAlE NOVEMBER 21, 2011
SHEET NUMBER 04 ARCHITECTS l 0 20 AlAM(DA PADRE 5UIV.. SUITt no SANT" B.W8AA .... CA ~J 10J rl!.10$ 961_1~53 FAX 60S 5-16 8S82
(i) ©
DIIBSING ROOM ---.0.--- i
ClIfNT/OWNER CITY OF GLENDALE 1 ,,,'-," REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY II STAGE LEVE L PLAN ALEX THEATRE 1116" .. "..0" EXPANSION
PROJECT tOCA llON/ADORESS 21b N BRA ND BLVD, GLENDALE, CA 91203
o"n NOVEMBER 21, 20"
SHEET NUMBER 05 •., ARCHITECTS ZOlO AlI !E)0RCI611tA !EJl088Y LMlSLUING t !J 0 ------Q) " ~ I ~ja "' ~"Oj l, _,,_+_"_OO_-f- -- r - -r:"~"'--' t-r.l:li~F~~~~~=F~ r---_ '" ~." I I II JJ --- I --f- -~1+--+ 1 __ _ - -- -1. __...... "'" - ----...jI+.;;'-cJ'---i,·- ! \ 0 I _~====~O~==~O~====O~==+===~======~~ ____ ~~~ ____ t1~~~~~_~~~ c mNl/OWNtW CITY OF GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION !:F!.'51R?.S T CJF:!oL,=,O,=,O~R.!:.P!o! L A!!:N'!;IS,"T~RE,",Ec!.T-",L E",V",E,,-L ---'\ N 111 6".l'.()" ,·ItOI[Cl lOCAno.~AUONtSS 216 N BRAND BLVD, GLENDALE, CA 91203 ~ NOVEMBER 21, 2011 SHEil NUM~tR 06 ARCHITECTS 1010 AlAMEOA PADRE SERI{A. SUITE 220 iANTA IlARMRA,CA!lJl01 HI..I1tI~%1_1gU fAlIln55·1r.Il'ft2 • · 1 r , (El MEZZANINE LOR Y (E) LOBBY Bnow laSTAGE 1U \ MLOW - 70'-J( : I I I I SECOND FLOORI MEZZAN INE LOBBY PLAN 1116" _ 1'-0" N •. , 0 CUlNT/OWNU CITY OF GLENDALE REDEV ELOPMENT AGENCY [[ [ ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION I'KOIECT LOCAl IONlALlLlKESS 216 N llRAND BLVD, GLENDALE, CA 91203 OAT( NOVEMBER 21, 2011 SHEET NUMSEK 07 ARCHITECTS 2020 AU\MWi\. PAUR~ S8(~", SUITE no SANTA BARB,~RA..CA 93103 T~l SOS %1·1~'i'i fAX 1105 546 8SB2 H·' ---~T\------~,-----'~"='O="=Y~8E=lO=W====~~==~~~=tfJ~\=~~~==t='t:J~~:J~~==~r=='~==~~==~~~~~====~====='===-' =4====:~;===+T======~,:~~~;~~======+hI'=--- --@ ~._,=,:=,,=l=~'~~ .:li::::==~*~~t===~-t-¢--("-'~.:::) _rr'''''1T _" 3 ~---I I I I THIRD FLOOR / UPPER BALCONY PLAN 1116" '" 1 '-0" ., CLiENTIOWNER CITY OF GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PROJECT LOCATIONJI\l)DRESS 216 N BRAND BLVD, GLENDALE, CA 91203 DATE NOVEMBER 21, 2011 SHEET NUMUER 08 ARCHITECTS 2(l2(lI\lAM(O'" P.\ORE stIlM. sum: 220 SANTA. 8AA8 AA.o\, 0.9)10) TEt!!OS '6J·l~5 5 rAX 805 5-4~ 6582 i r r r r I r I I •-, I I I I I I I I .. ,- I-- et) ROOf ABCW[ , W STAGE , (E) ROOF . IE) (QUIP~LAlfO M ------0 ~ )-- ~17 . lIr "\ [S11.07') li "-../ -{ (S8ue1 \ 7 -+'''''- - ~ T xJ'J -...... ~ I-- .------d 1/ - I -- ' r--0 0 " ___ --ri+ ~2l..!.· ,, ~ ~~ 7/ ~ ~Dn I ~ ...... - '..------t 0 0 .. I I I ~~ I I I )-; I 97'- 11 " ~ . ~ 1111 CltENTIOWNEIt CITY OF GLENDALE REDEVELO PMENT AGENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPAN SIO N r ROIl CT lOCATIONIADOR(SS 21&N BRAN D BLVD, G LEND ALE, CA 91 203 O.-.l L NOVEMBER 21, 2011 SH EO HUMB(R 09 ARCHITECTS 1tl:HI AL\M{I),\ P.\OlI;( ~ SUI1"f 120 SANTA IAltIAAA, 0.. 9)103 ? ~ r l I I I I 1 I r 1 LOADING! DOC' - I I tOWEl LP/H j ..;,;. I STORAGE ... , CINEMA tOFT SiD4 ... I I i LOBBY SIOIlAG E~ I ItlSUM~ , IE BASE \{N PU", 825 --Bl1 -.. I I I ~ . I I CUENTIOWNER SECTI ON A CITY OF GLENDALE l f l',". ,'..{1' REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION rROJICT lOCATIONI'+'ODN[SS 21bN BRAND BLVD, GLENDALE, CA 91203 DATE NOVEMBER 21, 2011 SHEET NUMBER 10 ARCHITECTS 2020 ALAMEDA P ,~ORf SEIlItA. ~UITE no SANIA BA ~BAH "" CA 9)101 HL60S%3·19SS Fo\l( 005S4& 8SB2 (~ ( Q~ @ 0 0 ( !J 0 Q~ (0 I I I I I I I r- ~ I ~ I I n I I ------I I ---, === ------======: ~ 1------1------I - ~ I I ------;.t'E£ZANINE-+-lS LOB.9W56B.04') ~~~5.!.J5_6~.~ I SECOND rLOOR I I I I DOCK WAmNG:!Ia:: ____ ----.:!:.~Q.O~5i!.p~ l":..!;.," h ------LOADING DOCK 4, p""NG " 1" f;:J=j. - - - __ __ -.!:21t ~2.: ?.9. SIDEWALK !;.;...... J '" . GG·~']2z:.l. t~ w J "l '"'~ ~ ~ " I WWE • . . "':' STAIR .1 M."-INTlN.\t>IC[ STAG{ SHOP LlCHTING WOMEN 'S MEN'S S1AR ~ BiJ 'M I""'",," DRESSING RM. -'O.4~ ~ ...".- Bo5 --.,;; D~AAt i"" ------STAGE--LEVELS--TO E .-- r ~ ,,---- -.., ~ II· • IT -.: ""nI i~ ~! f7 IT ______~IJ:..!L(512,95~ Cl I ENTlOWN~R "' "' -- -- BASEMENT LEVEL .J I.. CITY OF GLENDALE r- RED EVELOPMEN T AGENCY SECTION B P~OJE(T 1'1 (,. _ "-0" ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PRO!LeT LOCATlOI'IIAODR[SS 216N BRAND BLVD, GLENDALE, CA 91203 OM[ NOVEMBER 21 , 201 1 SHEET NUMOLR 1 1 1992 AND EXISTING SITE PHOTOS MATERIAL LEGEND ARCHITECTS 1020 MAMUM P"ORE SLUA.. sum 1:1(1 SANTA 6AMBAI!,O., CA 9Jltl.1 Ul&05 '6J·IUS fAX &05 MU!82 EXIS'fING SOARl) FORM FINISH CONCRETE r.;l EXISTING AND PROPOSED STUCCO L2.J FINISH, COLOR TO MATCH eXISTING 1992 SOUTH REVATrON EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION I---!----+----+-----+------I\--I- - - - - t,,,--""""~jf.:'-_J.¥lriiml~ ClllNliOWNER ClTV OF GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY __"1~.9! (56e.04·~ MEZZAN INE lOB6'1 +14.56' (566.6l':'" - --S(~mRI"" ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION l'ItOflCT lOCATIONlI\OlJRlS§ 216N BRAND BLVD, GLENDALE, C/\ 91203 OAlt PRO POSED SOUTH ELEVATION NOVEMBER 21, 2011 1/16"=11-0" SHEET NUM~E~ 12 ARCHITECTS to20 MAMfOA MUll! ~U~ sum. 1%(1 MNTI'! 8AAMKA. e.... mOl HL~'I63 ·1' ~ S fAXflMS163!B2 ~) ClIlNrlOWNtR CrrY OF GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PI/OIlCT LOC .... TIO.~AOOIlESS PROPOSED PHASE 1 - SOUTH EAST VIEW 216 N BRAND BLVD, GLENDALE, CA 91203 NTS DAl t NOVEMBER 21, 2011 5HEEl NUM~l ~ 14 ARCHITECTS 20roAtAMHM PADRE SlRRA. SUITI 220 SMHA ~AR6AAA. CI\9l10} If, 8M 96J·19SS fNl 80S S ~6 85112 ------ClIEN1IOWNER CITY OF GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION proJECT LOCAT ION/ADD RESS PROPOSED PHASE 1 - SOUTH WEST VIEW 216 N BRAND BLVD, GLENDALE, CA 91203 NTS [JAIl NOVEMBER 21, 2011 slim NUM~t~ 15 CITY OF GLENDALE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION Community Development Department Request for Comments Form (RFC) DATE: 1/10/12 DUE DATE: 1127112 (PLEASE submit your response by above DATE) TO: See Contact Names on Page 3 FROM: ~J~e~ff~H~a~m~i~lt~o~n=="....:C~a~s=::e~P:::la~n~n:::er~ ______Tel. # 937-8157 PROJECT ADDRESS: 216 N. Brand Blvd. ~~~~~~------Applicant: Barry McComb, CEO Property Owner: City of Glendale I PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Sales of beer and wine at the theater. I PLEASE CHECK: G. INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT. ___ A. CITY ATTORNEY (Wireless Telecommunications) B. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: H. PUBLIC WORKS (ADMINISTRATION): x • (1) Building & Safety x • (1) Engineering x • (2) Economic Development x • (2) Environmental Management • (3) Housing • (3) Facilities (city projects only) x • (4) Neighborhood Services x • (4) Integrated Waste • (5) Planning & Urban Design x • (5) Street and Field/Maintenance ElF/Historic District Services/Urban Forester x • (6 Redevelopment X • (6) Traffic & Transportation ::;o----~ D. COMMUNITY SERVICES/PARKS: c:= J. GLENDALE POLICE ~ Wireless Telecom --- ..:cx-'---_ E. FIRE ENGINEERING (PSC) K. OTHER: • (1) STATE-Alcohol Beverage F. GLENDALE WATER & POWER: Control (ABC) x • (1) Water • (2) CO Health dept. x • (2) Electric • (3) City Clerk's Office I ENTITLEMENT(S) REQUESTED Variance Case No.: Tentative Tract/Parcel Map No.: CUP Case No.: PCUP1200337 Zone Change/GPA: DRB Case No.: Lot Line Adjustment: Environment Info Form (ElF) No.: Other: Revised 30Jun2010-EMF Revised 08Feb2011fEMF Revised 31 Oct2011fEMF INTER-DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION PROJECT CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS Project Project Address: 216 N. Brand Blvd. Case No.: PCUP1200337 NOTE: Your comments should address, within your area of authority, concems and potentially significant adverse physical changes to the environment regarding the project. You may also identify code requirements specific to the project, above and beyond your normal requirements, Applicant will be informed early in the development process, You may review complete plans, maps and exhibits in our office, MSB Room 103, We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your timely comments, Please do not recommend APPROVAL or DENIAL For any questions, please contact the Case Planner ASAP, so as not to delay the case processing, I COMMENTS: [J This office DOES NOT have any comment. I&l This office HAS the following comments/conditions. [J (See attached Dept Master List) Date: __..!1,,",/2:.!7.!./1,,",2~ _____ Print Name: Tim Feeley Sig nature:,--:: ____--=:-:--:-O-:-::-:-::""""'7'7 Title: Lieutenant Dept Police TeL: (818) 548-3120 a. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: [J 1, Applicant CEO Barry McComb is in the process of obtaining a Conditional Use Pennit for the sales of beer and wine at 216 N, Brand Boulevard dba Alex Theatre, Alex Theatre is located in census tract 3020,02 which allows for 4 On·Sale establishments, There are currently 21 On Sale licenses in this tract Alex Theatre will bring the total to 22 licenses, Based on Part 1 crime statistics for census tract 3020.02 in 20 I 0, there were 224 crimes-I 87% above the city wide average of 78, c. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: (mayor may not be adopted by the Hearing Officer) 1. At all times the service of any alcoholic beverage shall be made only in the areas designated with an ABC license, Consumption of alcoholic beverages wiIl only be on those same licensed areas. The appropriate ABC license for on-sale beer and wine. 2. Sales, service or consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of Ilam to 2:00 am each day of the week (hours can be amended by the Planning / Hearing officer or designee - week night and weekend restrictions may be conSidered). 3. No patron to any of the business establishments will be allowed to bring into any establishment or maintain in the establishments, any alcoholic beverage unless that alcoholic beverage was purchased within that same establishment, unless the facility has an established corkage policy allowing and regulating such. 4. Dancing is only allowed on the premises in designated dance floor areas, 5, The business shall comply with all state and local laws and ordinances conceming excessive noise and disturbing the peace. Revised 30Jun2010-EMF 2 Revised 08Feb2011/EMF Revised 310ct2011/EMF 7. The sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises is strictly prohibited. 8. The business establishment will be responsible to maintain the cleanliness and prevent loitering of patrons in the areas where patrons park. INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMMENTS (PLEASE SEND OUT THIS FORM ONLY WHEN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT COMMENTS ARE NEEDED.) Location: 216 N. Brand Blvd. PCUP1200337 _x_ The project would not have adverse environmental effects on areas regulated by this Division/Section. __ The project would have potential environmental impacts on areas regulated by this Division/Section identified below. Date: 1/27112 Case No:, ______ Print Name: Tim Feeley _____....,Signature:-,:- ______Title: Lieutenant Dept. Police Tel.: (818) 548-3120 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(S): PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE(S): The following mitigation measures are required to reduce adverse environmental effects to less than significant. (Please do not include code requirements listed in comment below): ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Revised 30Jun2010-EMF 3 Revised 08Feb2011/EMF Revised 31 Oct2011/EMF ...... CITYOF GLENDALE.· ...... "MASTER LIST".OF··STANDARDCC:>NDI"nPNSOFAPPROVAL. . RESIDENTIAL.-.C()MMERCIA[~INDLi$TRIALZbNES . . (VarfanceslCUPslPPUPs lPPRsYEtc.} . GENERAL: Permits • That the development shall be in substantial accord with the plans submitted with the application and presented at the hearing except for any modifications as may be required to meet specific Code standards or other conditions stipulated herein to the satisfaction of the Hearing Officer. • That all licenses, permits as required or approvals from Federal, State, County or City authorities including the City Clerk shall be obtained and kept current at all times. • That all necessary permits (i.e., building, fire, engineering, etc.) shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Division, Permit Services Center and all construction shall be in compliance with the Glendale Building Code, Fire Code and all other applicable regulations. Revised 3 OJun20 I O/EMF Revised 08Feb2011/EMF Revised 31 Ocl20 II/EMF .COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT:BUILDINGANDSAFETYDIVISION - SARKIS HAIRAPETIAN< . I COMMENTS: [J This office DOES NOT have any comment. [E] This office HAS the following comments/conditions. Project Project Address: 216 N. Brand Blvd. Case No.: PCUP1200337 Date: 12/22/2011 Print Name: Sarkis Hairapetian, P.E. Signature Title: B.C.S. II Dept. Bld'g. & Safety Tel. (Ext.): (818) 548-3209 Conditions: [8] 1. That all necessary permits (i.e., building, fire, engineering, etc.) shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Division and all construction shall be in compliance with the Glendale Building Code and all other applicable regulations. [8] 2. That the premises shall be made available and accessible to any authorized City personnel (Building, Fire, Police, Neighborhood Services, Planning, etc.), for inspection to ascertain that all conditions of approval of this conditional use permit are complied with. [8] 3. That State Accessibility Standards be met for all parking requirements and building entrance accessibility as required by the Building and Safety Division. o 4. That additional or other building code requirements or specific code requirements (i.e. CA Green Building Code, etc.) may be required upon submittal of plans for building plans check and permit. Case-specific Code Requirements: (not standard code requirements) Suggested conditions: (mayor may not be adopted by Hearing Officer) Revised 30Jun20 I O/EMF Revised 08Feb20 II/EMF Revised 31 Oel20 II/EMF Glendale Register of Historic Resources: Project Design Review RECOMMENbATION TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Date: December 12, 2011 GR Property: Alex Theater (GR No. 20) Project: Alex Theater Expansion - new construction at south fa9ade Phase I: Loading dock and basement addition Phase Ii: Two-story above-grade addition Applicant: City of Glendale Prepared by: Jay Platt, Planner, Historic Preservation and Urban Design Background Operational deficiencies at the Alex Theatre have prevented its optimal use for many years now. Inadequate dressing rooms, reception areas, storage space, and loading capability reduce the venue's competitiveness among the region's performing arts facilities. To remedy this, Glendale Arts and the Glendale Redevelopment Agency are proposing the construction of an addition at the south fa9ade that will be built in two phases. All new construction will be visible primarily from Maryland Avenue in the context of the Alex's south (side) and east (rear) facades and will have no visual impact on the theater as seen from Brand Boulevard or within the forecourt. The project will remedy a number of deficiencies and will allow the Alex to move toward its goal of budgetary self sufficiency. This is a critical goal because management fees paid by the Agency are set to expire in August 2015, when the Central Glendale Redevelopment Project Area terminates. The programmatic goals of the Alex Theatre expansion project include: • Expanded backstage, office and additional meeting space; • Additional dressing rooms, storage and shop space; • New freight elevator to access street and subterranean levels; • New passenger elevator, connecting all levels and providing ADA access to balcony; • Enclosure of the existing emergency exit stairway; • A dedicated VIP reception area; and • Multi-purpose office space. Addressing these deficiencies as part of the facility expansion effort will help enhance the Alex's marketability and future financial viability as it,will allow the Theatre to attract a higher level of performers and shows with specific needs, such as dedicated dressing rooms and a VIP reception space to host key donor patrons before and after events. Furthermore, these improvements can begin to address some of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) deficiencies associated with the historic building, primarily access to the balcony level. In August 2011, the Redevelopment Agency voted to give priority to the Alex expansion to allow the project to proceed on a schedule that will be tied to the adjacent Laemmle Cinema Lofts project at the northwest corner of Wilson and Maryland. Because both projects will require excavation at adjacent areas, it will be much more efficient to perform the work at the same time. In addition, the project will improve current loading conditions for the Alex. The current configuration trucks must use poses severe operation conflicts with the Laemmle project, and both sites would suffer if this was not remedied at this time. Phase I of the proposal will address many of the operational deficiencies, including all of those associated with the Laemmle project. Phase II will provide a VIP reception area and office space for Glendale Arts. The work as depicted in the drawing set prepared by PMSM Architects (Drawings 01 to 23, dated November 21, 2011) is described and analyzed below. Phase I is expected to break ground during 2012/13; Phase II construction is dependent on the outcome of ongoing fund raising efforts and no startup date has been established at this time. Project Description Phase I The Alex stage has always been below street level, making loading difficult and requiring the use of a scissor lift to move scenery and props. Dressing rooms and other back-of-house functions are located in cramped quarters below the stage. The new basement addition will connect directly to these two subterranean levels to increase their functionality and create greater comfort for performers and stagehands (see section drawing, Sheet 10). The basement level will be occupied by dressing rooms, a break room, rest rooms, and spaces for equipment and storage (Sheet 04). The intermed;ate floor at stage level will allow access between a large storage room and the stage (Sheet 05). Both of these levels will be linked by a passenger elevator and a freight elevator that rise to the level of the new loading dock. In the 1990s, an above-grade addition, clad with stucco painted to match the concrete walls of the theater, was made to the south fa9ade and is still in place today. It provided a loading door at the south side of the stage (requiring trucks to park parallel to the street) that accessed the scissor lift, a platform above the door for HVAC equipment, and an emergency stairway. The above-grade work associated with Phase I is rather limited. An addition will be built to extend the 1990s addition approximately twelve feet to the south. This will house the freight and passenger elevators and extend to the west to incorporate an egress hallway at street level (Sheet 06) and a storage room at the second level (Sheet 07). The new structure will also enclose the HVAC equipment above the freight elevator and the existing egress stairs added in the 1990s. Together, this work will create a more cohesive wall treatment than is found at the 1990s addition and improve the overall appearance of the south fa9ade (see elevation, Sheet 12). An L-shaped loading dock will be built adjacent to the new work, with the long part of the "L" running along the new south wall and the short part extending perpendicularly (Sheet 06). Trucks will be able to back into the new loading dock so they do not block the street or sidewalk. Additionally, they will not block the public drive lane that will separate the Alex and the Laemmle Cinema Lofts, as would be the case if the proposed work were not undertaken. The back wall of the loading dock will be of board-formed concrete, providing durability in a high-traffic area and recalling the construction of the historic sidewalls of the Alex. (See perspective renderings, Sheets 14 and 15). Phase II The second phase of work will occur after fund raising goals are met. It will consist of the construction of a two-story frame structure that will abut the south wall of the Alex and will incorporate the concrete loading dock wall at the first floor of its east fac;:ade. The structure will house a reception area/conference room at the ground floor that opens off of the Alex lobby. The second floor will contain administrative office for the theater and Glendale Arts (Sheets 16 and 17).The ground floor will be clad with stucco (except for the concrete wall), while the second floor will feature anod;zed bronze metal panels, set proud from the wall, to provide the structure with its own architectural character. A portion of the west end of the new structure will be set back and not be visible from Maryland, though it will be somewhat visible down the drive lane that wraps around the Laemmle project toward Wilson (see perspective renderings, Sheets 22 and 23). Simple window and door designs will complement the Modern style of the addition. This style was chosen because it works well with both the simple, monolithic sidewall of the historic theater as well as the design proposed for the Laemmle project. Alex Theater Expansion Project HPC Review of Phase I and II DeSigns December 12,2011 Project Analysis Staff's analysis for proposed work on Glendale Register properties uses the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as a baseline for determining whether the work is appropriate. Staff also considers the work in relation to the architectural style of the property and the potential for impacts on character-defining features. Finally, the work is assessed using the City's design review frame work to ensure compatibility with the project site and adjacent buildings. Staff believes that the proposal meets the Standards for Rehabilitation, that there will be no effect on the style or character-defining features of the Alex, and that it is compatible to the historic theater, the proposed Laemmle project and the rear facades of the adjacent buildings to the south of the Alex. The discussion will be broken down by project phase. Phase I The proposed above-grade work that will be visible from the street meets Standards 2, 9, and 10, which are most pertinent to proposals calling for additions to historic structures. No character-defining will be damaged or destroyed (meets Standard 2); the new construction is clearly differentiated from, but compatible with, the side fa9ade of the historic theater (Standard 9); and if the addition and loading dock were removed in the future, a minimal amount of work would be require to bring the adjacent facades back to their original appearance (meets Standard 10).' The design of Phase I is largely driven by the project budget. The excavation and below-grade construction, as well as the pouring of the new cap slab, will be the most costly items. The elevators, stairwell enclosure, and mechanical screen are designed to blend with the 1990s addition, which successfully added functionality while receding visually through its simple design and material palette. The new work will be larger than the earlier addition, but will bring the virtue of regularizing the volumes and providing a more coherent design through the enclosure of the exit stair and incorporation of the mechanical screen into the overall design. The mass and scale of the main body of the theater will continue to be dominant and the addition will clearly read as a later appendage to the historic structure. The design and detailing of the new walls will match those of the 1990s addition, though an added visual refinement will result from the new design. None of this work will be visible in .the context of the primary Brand Boulevard fa9ade or from within the forecourt. Phase I will also be compatible with the Laemmle project, primarily in terms of potential impacts on residential units. The new loading configuration will allow trucks to park without crossing over property lines. The new mechanical screening and overall regularization of the 1990 addition will also create a more neutral visual backdrop for units facing north while retaining the visibility and overall form of the historic theater. Phase II The existing side fa9ade provides a blank slate in terms of architectural style and design. The board-formed concrete has an interesting texture - and large surface areas ofthis will be retained - but is utilitarian in nature and not a major contributor to the theater's ebullient architectural character. This allows the project's designer a bit more latitude in developing an appropriate design. This is important at this location because of the prominence of the Laemmle project that will directly overlook the Alex and is itself designed in a simple Modern style that emphasizes modular panels. The designers' goal of giving the Alex addition a character of its own is appropriate for these reasons. It will be a focal' point for those doing business with the Alex as well as an appealing structure when viewed from the Laemmle building. It retains the plain, volumetric quality of the Alex side wall, while adding color and texture through the interplay of the stucco base and the metal-clad upper floor. Staff believes that the two-story addition will meet the same Standards as noted above, for the same reasons. Its scale and mass are appropriate in the context of all surrounding structures, including the Alex to which it defers: The design and details are simple but well thought out. This structure is not utilitarian like the loading dock and freight elevator. It requires greater architectural emphasis and this is accomplished through the proposed material and color palettes and, especially, through the incorporation of the metal cladding at the second level. Alex Theater Expansion Project HPC Review of Phase I and II Designs December 12, 2011 Because Phase \I is currently unfunded and wilt rely on future fundraising, it is possible the design may deviate from the current proposal at the time of construction. Staff will monitor any changes and return the project for Commission review if the proposal ultimately deviates from any Commission approvals. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Commission approve the Phase I and Phase \I of the Alex Expansion Project, finding that the proposed work meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, the City's goals for the treatment of properties listed on the Glendale Register, and that it will be compatible with the Alex Theater, the proposed Laemmle Cinema Lofts, and the adjacent structures to the south of the theater. Exhibits Exhibit A: Alex Theater Expansion Drawing Set (01 to 23), prepared by PMSM Architects, dated 11/21/11 Alex Theater Expansion Project HPC Review of Phase 1 and 11 Designs December 12, 2011 ARCHITECTS "'",""""0'''0"''"''''"NT.""'''''' ''''10) ....'''''' '''-'''''" "" ""'"'''''''' PROPOSED PHASE 1 - SOUTH EAST VIEW FUTURE PHASE - SOUTH EAST VIEW NTS NTS ~ CITY OF GLtND,~lE REDEVELOPMENT ,~G£NCY ffiQ1!S! ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION ",OI.er"oOMIO"'")U!!,,, 21" N BRAND BLVD. GLEND,~Ll', CA ~120.l u,,' NOV Proposed addition (GSF) (Phase I and Futule Pha,e) ~~~ement (Ph~,_e_IL ,5704 Stage Level (Phas~ I) ;1318 elevators) First floor Future Pha,e (exdude ••t.irs and elevatols) 2408 ~~_~~_n~ floor Pha~~! (-,-,nly_~!,,~~~ ,o_"m.! 168 Second flool Future Phase (exdudes ,lairs and elevatols) 2601 """ 44919 Allowable Area pert;oble 503 Oe'o':'Rancy ~-~__ 1_5.500. OaupancyS 37500 Atlowable area increa,e due to fire sprinklers ~ OC~panCY A:l-(1S:S00;i5,soo f2jj 46500 CITY OF GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AG,NCY (}c"u~~,,-c:y I!jr!,~QQ.~~?,?_OO (211 mSOO Proposed Total Area ALEX THEATRE Occup"n,cyA-l EXPANS10N ,?~_~up~n~ B (~n!y s"c!,nd_fl~~I)__ ~i"~.o:! 9~~u!",n!'V IC,~!~~,I~!!IJ~ (",~~~I!~I~~I>I~! 1 ,b N ~I~"NI) a'_VEl, Gl£ND,~lE. c.~ .1203 Occupancy A-I- (42..l50/46,SOOj 0.91 Q,,~p_._ncy B: l2.769B'y,~09) 0.02 ~ Talal ratio.:l 0.93 NOVEMB,R 2l. 2011 Hel hland No. of Stories Allowable Existing Ocrupan"yA.l 55' 'stories 6O'-3,tories O(ru aney B 55'- 5 ,toIle, 01 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS PHASING PLANS ARCHITECTS :O""",",OA"O'"''''.,'UI''''' ",-"",,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,"",,,,,,,,,""T"""tU,"'.e,.,,,,OJ o ~ CITY Of GLENDAlE REDEVEl.OPMENT AGENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION ,"Ol1G,-OCAT,O",''''"W 110 N ~RANO BLVD. GLEND~lE.CA~'2Dl PROPOSED/CURRENT PHASE 1132"",1 '-0" 02 C:J (SJ (0 0 CFT (0 (0) (~ (0 C) rr , " "i ".,. -'" ,.' , w.,· ".,J' "'j' r= ~ II~, rr~~' =" "~"'~ , , i ~i5'l~ , , i=" " VI I /~ '--- R . ~ ,"OItCH''''''' .. ~ l~~G = " 1\\ ~~ \ --:;/ 1\\ ':,. <~ f0 ~\ b\ .. -- ~F- ! , n: ii'[ I ~Jit;i,j;; If lL~n'~ > . :[:1, -+fL{ li'- , J! "'"" ~"r''''>- -(?I .__ I'!'; I II "w,' 1'l"1"'~' ,~ , j-}, i ...Y I I cr ." ''''~''~~ lil/~ ~ (b~~~O~ .-L , b~ {0 -~ 'T j".ILING5 I 0 0 :;;:,~i~ I ~ CITY Of GLoNDALE I REDEVELQPMENY ACoNey dO~o,,± Ii'1 ~ I I I !:!\9.!!f! l I -0 ALEX THEATRE I I EXPANSION I I I ,"0"", ,Q('TlO"'AQD~"" I DEMO lEI FENCE S, , ,I" N S!(ANO 61 VI;>, LtGHT FIXTURES I I GlEND_'-iE, CA 91203 , ",., . I , ~ I : I ~~ I f-cl NOVOMBER 11, 2Q" " r T . r I I I I DEMOLITION PLANS '""'Nu."" STREET LEVEL PLA: L_ 1/16" - 1 '"0" iiW'O,.~. ~ 03 """"".1-\"""'''-<,,'UI1'''' ""OS")_,",,"N"''''''''~C,,,,", ,"'""""", ~~l'< CiTY OF Gl,NOAl-, RW,V,lOPMENT ~G'NCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION '>IIOJ"110"""O"'JA""," 116 N BR,~ND BLVD, GLENDALE, CA 91203 =I' I I I I o ~ corv OF GLENDALE ~oIXVELOPMoNT AGENCY STAGE LEVEL PLAN 1110"_"·0" ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION ,"OJECT lOC."="" IH'" 21" N BRAND BLVD, G,LNj),\,~, C~ ~J ,OJ 0'" NOVEMBtR 1\, 101' 05 CD CD ® ® i rI Gl II , """'1\ ,,~,~ ",J ____ c~_II'I ~~'r~Il1;;;;:__+=-=-==_=t~=i::;::_:;:_9 iL---W®LI ~ o !o\ """fI"""'''CiTY OF Gl ALEX TH EA TRE EXPANSION lloNfi!(ANDaLVO, GLENDALE. C~'12OJ ~ NOVEMBER :11, 2011 06 ARCHITECTS ""_<1.',,"O'"O"'''''"'.'U''''''' '" ,~"';~~;_~~:";'~ ';.~;r',::~"" CD (5l © ® CD ! f I I Ii! : , T'Hfi!!IR~D;,;'FLCO"O""R"',U"P"P,ER"-,B~A",LCcO",,Nuy-,P"L"ACN,- __-,,\:, N Vlli·.l'- CITYOP C"NIlA,c ~EDEVELOf."[NT .,GENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION 21i. N ~RANI) ~,Vl), GI Qlli NOV,MSERll, :!Oll 08 """""''''''''''""""""",,,,,""",,,.,, ... 0,,,,,, ltc,,,,,,,,.,,,, '''''''''''''''' CD CD @J I f I I rll'Nl""'''" CITiOfGLENDAlE RS)oVoWPM,NT AGWCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION "OIKT cou,HO",'" '"'' 210'" BRANO ~1.Vf). ClWDALE, CA 91201 NOVWUER.ll,:!Oll 09 """",,,,,,,,,o"',,",,'ul1"'" TO."""·l'"'''-''''''''''''''"-'''''' ,,,,,,,,,,,,., © I © ® i ! I r o SECOND FLOOR I MEZZANINE LOBBY PLAN 111"'.1'_0' N "'-"NT.OW,,' CITY Of GLENDALE liD RWEVEcOPMENT AGENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION ,"o"e'"OCIT""'t.DnkFSI 2H'NB~ANDBlVD, Gll'ND.'olE, CA 91203 ~ NOV,MUER II, 2011 07 ARCHITECTS ",,,,,,,,,,",",",,,,,,,,,,,",",,,," TEL"'".,.,,,,,,,,",,,,,,,,,,,,,mo,,,,,,,,,"',,,,, I £l'fr.m.~ SECTION A CITY OF GI.ENPAi,[ llli>'_I'..o" REDeVELOPMENT ~GENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION ~~.:!ill. 116 N B~,~ND BLVD, GLeNDALe,!;A ~l.IOJ ~ NOYEM~ER 11, 201 I 10 ARCHITECTS """ @ ©® @ ® o I I ! ---~------ ------~~~~'~~ tllE.'TiOWN," CITY OF GLENDAlE R,O,V(lOPMENT AGeNCY SECTION B l/16" 0 1'.0" ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION 1'",,,,erIO,",O-""I),,,,, 216 N B~AND BLVD, GlcNI)A,E, CA~' ,OJ ~ NOVEMBER 21,2011 11 ARCHITECTS ", EXISTING ,~NO PWPOSW STUCCO ~ FINISH, COLOR TOMATCH ,XISTING EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION ~ CITY 0; GLENDALE REDEVELOPMeNT ACENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION --'~~~ol~ "0 N ORAND BLVD, --+ "'i,k,\UV'\~' GcENO"!.E, CA ~nOl NOV,MSER 21,2011 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1/16" 1 '-0" 12 MATERIAL LEGEND ARCHITECTS Cllf""O","," C'TY 01' GLeNDALE REDEVElOPMENT AGENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION o!loNa~ANf)BI.VD, GLEND,~LE.C.~ 9'203 ~ NOVCMa,~ 2', lOll PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1116"_1 '-0" 13 ,"",,, .. ,O",,,"''''IIA'um,,, ,,,-;;i~~~.~;~~'\~~ ~i~:,J"., ~ CITY OF GLENDALE RWEVEWPM,NT ACENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION ~~ ,'I"N~RAND~IVD, PROPQSED PHASE 1 - SOUTH EAST VIEW G"END,'"E, C\ 91Z0l NT' NOVEMI~ER 21, ZOll 14 ARCHITECTS C",,7I ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PROPOSED PHASE 1 - SOUTH WEST VIEW 2E"N"~ANDB'-VO, GLENO,~LE. CA 91203 NTS !l1!J; NOVlOMB,R 21, 1011 15 © CD CD © @ 0 I I I I I" I I I I ! I I , I I I I , I i ,,,,,,,,,",,UA'''',,,,,",,,-,,,,,,,, ltl :~",':l.~;:i":,~ ;;;~;:~)"ol I~ = " --cD ----0 II JJ ~ CITY OF GltND,~LE R'O"W.WPMENl' "GfNCY ~1£! ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION 216 N BI(AND BLVD, G,(NI)Alt c.~ ~1:.lO) = NOVEMBtR 21, 2011 16 ARCHITECTS "''''''-~,,"O''''D",'''''','U'''= "'0'"''''.'''''"~-"''''''''A.C''n''' ""'",,''''' (i) I 'f, I i: ~~~~.----(i) (i) --+_. --f-· ----0 I i I -----0 ---- .1--- ?1!91 ~ NOVEM61R21,2011 17 "'"'''M'"'"'''<''''"",UH,''' T"-""",,.m,""""".... ",0"'10)'AX"»"",,, CD © CD © ® ® I i I I i ( I I I I I , '======~~====1======pi- ---+----.-----.------,----0 I 0"&",10\"',, CITY OF GLENDALE FUTURE PHASE ~ ROOF PLAN R(OEV£WPM("r AGeNCY 1110'·,'·0" ~ ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION ''')''''loc""",,oll·m 216N 8RAND BLVD, Cl,NDAl(, CA 9"0) NOVEMUER'2),20)) 18 """'MU,"""'"",S","'",, """"oJ_,""""" ..... ""'C,"''',,,,.,,,,,,,,, CD ~ © CD ® , f I f I f I, I I o "'T1-11':j=="'-t:=j",-:c::-=:j='-l'-=-==-tf=:C::"'-=fr;1-~-Ff-;;;rc-i ------iE'fi::N~~~~':3f IF~~~~~~F444 I I ~~~~Ol~~~ DO e----'-f----.-J-t------lj--"--'--"--"L---jl------:~~N~~66~t~ F~~~==="-":.::-·~;k~~·'··~ FUTURE PHASE - SECTION B 1116"_1'.0' ~ CITY OF C,ENOAl, WJEVEWPMENT ,IGENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION "01", COCA"O",'" "," lloN~RANDBlV{), GlENlJAlE, CA 91203 !!.ill NOVEMB,R <1, lOll 19 t41 PROPOSED SOARD fORM [I] STUCCO HNISH w ~~e~~g ~~I~~,~06~~~D l2J CONCRETE fiNISH P~O?OSW TO MATO< EXISTING CL"NTiOWN", CITY 0" GleNDA," REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION '"011'" COCA"ONJA"O,,,' 11" oJ B~ANP ~1.V1), GlEND'.lE, CA 91201 !!1!! NOV,MB,R 2', 201' FUTU RE PHASE - SOUTH ELEVATION 1/16"_1'_0" 20 MATERIAL LEGEND PHASE 1 - EAST ELEVATION "" ';~~",:?;!,~~:~~~,?,~~;" '" ,,,-,,,, ",",.,,,,, 'M"" ",... " Gl EXiSTiNG AND PROPOSED f4l PROPOSED SOARP 'OR.'1 ~ STUCCO fIN'SH, COLO~ L.:J CONCRETE FiN'SH TO MATCH ex'STiNG ~ CiTY Of GltND,\lE ~EDEVElOPMENT AG"NCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION ,I" N ~RAM) BI,VD, Gl'NI).'d.o, C.\ ~1 ~Ol NOVEMB.~ 21, 1011 PROPOSED EASTELEVATION 1116"~1'-O" 21 ~ CITY OF GLENDA!., ReDEVELOPMeNT AGENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION ~ 11oNBRAND6lYD. FUTURE PHASE 1 SOUTH EAST VIEW C;W'H),~LE, c.~ 91l0l NTS =NOVEMBEM 11, ~Dll 22 ARCHITECTS FUTURE PHASE - SOUTH WEST VIEW NTS ~ CITY OF GLENDALe RWEVEWPMfNT AGENCY ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION '1bNB~ANDBLVD, GLENDALE, CA 91203 ~ NOVEMfiE~ 11, 2011 FUTURE PHASE - SOUTH WEST STREET VIEW NTS 23 PROPOSED CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA NEGATIVE DECLARATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Alex Theatre 216 N. Brand Blvd. The following Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended, the State Guidelines, and the Environmental Guidelines and Procedures of the City of Glendale. , . Project Title/Common Name: Alex Theatre Expansion Project Location: 216 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, Los Angeles County The proposed project is an addition to the existing structure. In Phase Project Description: 1,7,835 square feet of floor area will be added with approximately 5,000 sq. ft. in a basement level and the remainder at the street and 2nd story levels. In a future Phase II, an additional 5,009 sq. ft. of floor area would be added at the street and 2nd story levels. Project Type: D Private Project [g] Public Project Project Applicant: City of Glendale Findings: The Director of the Community Development, on , after considering an Initial Study prepared by the Planning Division, found that the above referenced project would not have a significant effect on the environment and instructed that a Negative Declaration be prepared. Mitigation Measures: None . Attachments: Initial Study Checklist Contact Person: Hassan Haghani, Director of Community Development City of Glendale Community Development Department 633 East Broadway Room 103 Glendale, CA 91206-4386 Tel: (818) 548-2140; Fax: (818)240-0392 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Alex Theatre Expansion DEPARTMENT 216 N. Brand Blvd. , 1. Project Title.: Alex Theatre Expansion 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Glendale Community Development DeP'lrtment Planning Division 633 East Broadway, Room 103 Glendale, CA 91206 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jeff Hamilton, Senior Planner Tel: (818) 937-8157 Fax: (818) 240-0392 4. Project Location: 216 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, Los Angeles County 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Barry McComb, CEO Glendale Arts 116 W. California Ave. Glendale, CA 91203 6. General Plan Designation: Downtown Specific Plan 7. Zoning: DSP (Downtown Specific) Zone 8. Description of the Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to, later phases of the project, and any secondary support or off-site features necessary for its implementation.) The proposed project is an addition to the south side of the existing structure into an adjacent parking area. In Phase I, 7,835 square feet of floor area will be added with approximately 5,000 sq. ft. in a basement level and the remainder at the street and 2nd story levels. The loading dock will be re-aligned and a passenger elevator, freight elevator and stairs will be either built or altered to provide access from the loading area to the basement and stage and from the seating area of the theater to an exterior exit route. In a future Phase II, an additional 5,009 sq. ft. of office and conference room floor area would be added at the street and 2nd story levels. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North: Commercial/Retail South: Commercial/Retail/Future Residential East: . Commercial/Office West: Commercial/Retail 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement). None DECEMBER 2011 11. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Aesthetics D Agricultural and Forest Resources D Air Quality o Biologicai'-Resources 0 Cultural Resources D Geology f Soils o Greenhouse Gas Emissions· D Hazards & Hazardous Materials D Hydrology I Water Quality o Land Use I Planning 0 Mineral f{esources D Noise o Population J Housing D Public Services D Recreation D Transportation I Traffic 0 Utilities! Service Systems D Mandatory Findings of Significance LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [Zl I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. L I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. /2:it~ ",.#2- Reviewed by: '" his or her designee authorizing the release of Date: ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE4 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 Project Description The project site is approximately 21,500 square feet located within the Alex Theatre District of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) mid-block on Brand Boulevard between Wilson Avenue to the south and California Avenue to the north. The site is a through-lot with frontage on Brand Boulevard and Maryland Avenue. The site is bounded on the north by a commercial building, Wilson .Avenue on the south with retail and office uses, Maryland Avenue on the east with office uses and parking facilities and Brand Boulevard to the west with retail development. The existing building sits on or near the easterly property line. The Alex Theatre is a three-story building totaling approximately 32,000 square feet with seating for 1,431 patrons. There is a large forecourt on the Theatre site outside the west entrance to the theater faces onto Brand Boulevard. A small ticket booth and the theater marquee are located at the extreme west side of the site. The forecourt, the ticket booth and the marquee will not be altered as part of the theater expansion. The proposed project is an'addition to the south side of the existing structure into an adjacent parking area. In Phase I, 518 square feet of the existing structure, consisting of the freight elevator and portions of the building nearby, will be demolished. A total of 7,835 square feet of floor area will be added with approximately 5,000 sq. ft. in a basement level and the remainder at the street and 2nd story levels. The loading dock will be re-aligned" and a passenger elevator, freight elevator and stairs will be either built or altered to provide access from the loading area to the basement and stage and from the seating area of the theater to an exterior exit route. In a future phase (Phase II), an additional 5,009 sq. ft. of office and conference room floor area would be added at the street and 2nd story levels. Parking There are currently 15 on-site parking spaces. There is one off-site space adjacent to the project that traditionally has been used by the tenant of 214 N. Brand Boulevardthat will be acquired for use by the project. All the spaces will be removed by the proposed expansion of the Theatre in Phase I for two reasons: • the expansion and reorientation of the loading dock area will block at least 8 spaces; • the remaining on-site area currently used for parking will be the roof of the new basement space and will not be designed to accommodate the weight of vehicles. This area will become the floor of the future conference and office space proposed in Phase II; There are three public garages and several surface parking lots with a total of over 2,000 parking spaces within 1,000 feet of the project site. ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 5 216N. BRANOBLVD. DECEMBER 2011 12. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The following section provides an evaluation oflhe impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable. A. AESTHETICS .. , ...... ' ...... Less Than .' I· •. ·Polenti~lIy .'. - Significant "Less-Than, Signifi.qant. 'ImpaclWilh - Signfficarif . No Woulc! t~e project: . 'Impacl Imea.ct Mitigation _ Impacl . Inc'orporated .. '.' . '...... ' .... . '. . 1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X 2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock Dutcroppings, and X historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 3. Substantially degrade the existi'ng visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X 4. Create a new source of sUbstantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views X in the area? 1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. Existing scenic vistas from and through downtown Glendale are limited to the long range views of the Verdugo and San Gabriel Mountains. Long distance views of these mountains to the north and west of downtown Glendale are limited to the views available through major street corridors from within the DSP area, as existing buildings block or obstruct the views from other locations within and around the downtown area. No significant impacts to scenic vistas are anticipated since the proposed project is not within view corridors described above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The project site is developed with a commercial building and parking lot and does not contain any natural scenic resources, such as native trees or rock outcroppings. In addition, the project site is not located within the view corridor of any state scenic highway, as there are no state designated scenic highways within the City of Glendale. Therefore, the proposed project would not significantly'damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and no impact will result. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. Chapter 4 of the DSP is devoted to Urban Design policies, and is designated to guide new development that enhances the overall image of the downtown Glendale area as an exciting destination for visitors and residents. Pedestrian activity would be encouraged, and new development would include public open spaces as well as increased or improved landscaping. New development is expected to be sensitive to existing places and character in downtowh Glendale. The DSP specifically emphasizes protection and enhancement of significant public views of the Verdugo Mountains, public streets, spaces, and significant architecture. In ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 6 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 addition, the proposed DSP includes a gateway and entries concept to further define entries to and definition of downtown. The DSP contains provisions for building massing and design that would ensure maximum consistency with the scale and placement of design features (e.g., cornice lines, colonnades, fenestration, and materials) of existing adjacent buildings. The bulk of buildings would be reduced through the articulation of building massing and fa<;ade, and view opportunities would be encouraged in building design. Rooftop design would be required to prevent unsightly views through screening, creating a significant top or landmark, or designing the roof for public or private use. The proposed addition to the Alex Theatre will alter the south and east sides and will generally not be visible from Brand Boulevard. The alterations will be seen from Maryland and Wilson Avenues. The additions will not be above the 2nd story so the overall height of the building will be unaltered. The south and east sides of the Theatre are simple and unadorned geometric forms. This pattern will continue with the proposed additions. The style is intended to be compatible with both the Alex Theatre and the recently approved Laemmle Lofts mixed use 'project to the south. Other design guidelines and requirements in the DSP will help ensure maximum compatibility of design, minimization of light and glare, promote pedestrian-friendly entries and uses, and promote the use of compatible exterior materials. In general, the new development projects that would be introduced would serve to improve the aesthetic character of the DSParea given the architectural design guidelines required for the new developments, the use of design elements, such as landscaped view corridors, and walkways; and the new landscape features to be implemented. Additionally, supporting infrastructure, such as telecommunications equipment and utility lines, will be appropriately screened from view or placed underground. As proposed the project appears to meet the design criteria of the DSP. Therefore, no significant impacts to degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surrounding would occur as a result of the project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. The addition of new sources of permanent light and glare as a result of proposed project would increase ambient lighting in downtown and at the periphery. However, due to the highly developed urban nature of City and particularly the dow(ltown area, there is a significant existing amount of ambient light both in the DSP area and in the immediately surrounding vicinity. Therefore, an increase in ambient nighttime lighting in the project area would be anticipated to have a minimal effect on existing conditions. As such, impacts associated with increased ambient lighting affecting nighttime views in the project area are considered less than significant. Given the small surface area of the proposed addition, the close proximity of the mixed-use project to the south, and the narrow Maryland Avenue right-of-way, there is minimal opportunity for glare to be created from sun or from motor vehicles. Therefore, a significant increase in glare is not anticipated. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE? 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011· B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES In determllling whether; impact~' t6-:agricultu~aJ , -- ',:' -"esources_a;e_sigl1l~cant_ envirc}nmelltC}f effects;. lead , :;igehc/es,_m-ay,_(efer tp';Huj qali~9!ni~o_Ag,-iciJltural Land .. 1··· EvaJu 1) Converl Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Imparlance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. There is no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance within or adjacent to the proposed project site and no agricultural activities take place on the project site. No agricultural use zones currently exist within the city, nor are any agricultural zones proposed. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized area. No portion of the project site is proposed to include agricultural zoning designations or uses, nor do any such uses exist within the city under the current General Plan and zoning. There are no Williamson Act contracts in effect for the project site or surrounding vicinity. No conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract would result. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 8 216 N. BRANO BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? No Impact. There is no existing zoning of forest land or timberland in the City of Glendale. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Result in the loss afforest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. There is no forest land within the City of Glendale. No forest land would be converted to non-forest use under the proposed project. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. There is no farmland or forest land in the vicinity of or on the proposed project site. No farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use .and no forest land would be converted to non forest use under the proposed project. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. C. AIR QUALITY ...... : ' ...... •.. '.' ...... '. Less Than - Wh-ere _availab/e,:the significance:-c,-lteria esta'bUs'heef_ '. Potent!ally_ -Significant" - by the applicable itir-quaUfy_tlJanagemenf. 6r air. _ ' _ Le_~sThan I: - No- Significant ImpacnrJith Sigri.ificant I-- -pollution c_ontrpJ _diftrict,_maY_b_e reUild upon-to make Impact MitigaUon Impact. '" Impact the,:following d_eterminations; - Wo_uld-the project: Incorporated . ' '...... '...... 1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the, applicable air quality plan? x 2. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality x violation? 3. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing x emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 4. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? x 5. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? x 1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicabfe air quality pJan? Less Than Significant Impact. The 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is designed to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), to achieve the federal 8-hour ozone standard by 2024 and to minimize the impact on the economy. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP do not interfere with attainment and do not contribute to the exce.edance ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 9 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 of an existing air quality violation because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AOMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AOMP would not jeopardize attainment of. the air quality levels identified in the AOMP, even if they exceed the SCAOMD's recommended thresholds. The project would not increase population figures over those that have been planned for the area and would be consistent with the AOMP forecasts for this area. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the air quality-related regional plans, and should not jeopardize attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards in the South Coast Air Basin. Another measurement tool in determining AQMP consistency is to determine how a project accommodates the expected increase in population and employment. Generally, if a project is planned in such a way that results in the minimization of vehicle miles traveled both within the project and in the community in which it is located, and consequently the minimization of air pollutant emissions, it would consistent with the AOMP. The project site is located in close proximity to several modes of public transportation, including bus and rail lines. Existing transit service in the project area will adequately accommodate the estimated project generated transit trips. As a result, vehicle miles traveled and, consequently, air pollutant emissions from mobile sources, would be reduced from the proximity to existing transit facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The URBEMIS2007 Environmental Management Software was used to estimate the emissions associated with construction of the proposed project. URBEMIS2007 is a land use and transportation based computer model designed to estimate regional air emissions from new land use development projects. The model accounts for certain meteorological conditions that characterize specific air basins in California. The model was developed by California Air Resources Board (CARB) and is approved for use by the SCAQMD. The URBEMIS2007 emission calculations assume the use of standard construction practices, such as compliance with SCAOMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), to minimize the generation of fugitive dust. Compliance with Rule 403 is mandatory for all construction projects. In the URBEMIS2007 model, the emission calculations take into account compliance with Rule 403 by incorporating the measures below. Rule 403 contains other best available control measures to minimize fugitive dust emissions; however, they are not accounted for in the URBEMIS2007 model. • Watering of exposed surfaces and unpaved roads three times daily, which is estimated to reduce fugitive dust emissions from this source (PM10 and PM2.5) by 61 percent, per guidance from the SCAOMD; and • Use of soil stabilization measures during equipment loading and unloading, which is estimated to reduce fugitive dust emissions from this source (PM10 and PM2.5) by 69 percent, per guidance from the SCAOMD. The project's construction information was entered into the model to estimate construction emissions. Based on the model run, construction of the project would not exceed the SCAOMD thresholds of significance for construction. Area sources emissions would be generated during the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, by natural gas fireplaces, and during the operation of gasoline-powered landscape maintenance equipment and use of consumer products (e.g., hair spray, deodorants, lighter fluid,air fresheners, automotive products, and household cleaners). Mobile source emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from and within the project site. ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 10 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 Area and mobile source emissions were estimated using URBEMIS2007. The project's land uses were entered into the model to estimate area source emissions. It was assumed that all buildings would combust natural gas. The project's area and mobile source emissions were estimated using URBEMIS2007 model. Based on the analysis, the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for operations. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emission, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated in the air quality model run described above, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. No significant impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors located within proximity to the project site include the First Baptist Church, Maryland Hotel and an apartment building located at 224 Maryland Avenue. As indicated above, the project would not result in any increase in criteria pollutant or contribute to an existing air quality violation. Additionally, the project will be required to comply with all applicable rules that govern construction-related impacts. No significant impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activity associated with the proposed project may generate detectable odors in proximity to the sensitive users southeast and east of the subject site. However, any detectable odors would be associated with initial construction and would be considered short-term. Significant long-term odor impacts associated with commercial uses are typically related with refuse from restaurant uses, which is included in the proposed project. However, compliance with GMC Section 30.30.030 (Trash Collection Areas) that requires trash areas be enclosed would ensure that no significant impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Less Than __ Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: Significant Impact With SignifIcant No Impact I_~pact rVIi.tigation "Impact Inpbrporat~~ 1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or.special status species in local or regional plans, policies, x or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 11 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 "'_ .c_,;-' ':-'_ . - c ..' ,,: -, -'-'-- -Less Than .. . --Signiffcant. Less Than :~; ~#~;I-~_"l~?pi6Nc-t.: --- Sign-,fica-nt _ No -ltnpact'VV'i_th Impact - Mitigation - - Impact fh-corpo'i-ated 2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local Of regional plans, policies, x regulations or by the California Oepartment of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,_but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct x removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory x wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 5. Conflict with any local policies' or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree x preservation policy or ordinance? 6, Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, x regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1} Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as. a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The majority of the local area has been developed or landscaped and supports largely non-native plant communities and species. Therefore, only a limited number of plant species that flourish in urban environments, none of which are considered rare or endangered, can be found on the project site. Suitable habitat for sensitive mammal, reptile, amphibian, or fish species does not exist on the project site or within the surrounding area. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2} Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area are completely developed and disturbed. No riparian habitat or sensitive natural community is located in the surrounding area or on the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3} Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited tO,marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or·. other means? No Impact. The project site is neither in proximity to, nor does it contain, wetland habitat or a blue line stream. Therefore, the proposed project implementation would not have a substantial adverse ~I ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 12 216 N. BRANO BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The local area consists of established, highly urbanized, and developed properties. The project site and the immediate area are.almost entirely paved or otherwise developed and do not contain native resident or migratory species or native nursery sites. In addition, there are no wildlife migration corridors in the vicinity of the project site. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The Glendale Municipal Code, Chapter 12.44 Indigenous Trees, contains guidelines for the protection and removal of indigenous trees. These trees are defined as any Valley oak, California live oak, Scrub Oak, Mesa Oak, California bay, and California sycamore, which measure 6 inches or more in diameter breast height (DBH). No indigenous trees are located on the project site and implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Thus, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project site and the surrounding area have been developed and heavily affected by past activities. No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Conservation Plan exists for the project site or immediate area. Consequently, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted conservation plan. Thus, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. E. CULTURAL RESOURCES . . Less-Than Potentially Significant Less Than Would the project: No Significant Impact-With Significant hnpact Impact Mitigation __ . Impact ...... ~lnc6rp_orated ...... ' ' .....•...... I· 1. Cause a SUbstantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in X CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource X pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 13 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 -:/-(;~~:,;;;~~~> -- -Significant- Impact With - Mitrgation, - f!icorporated 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique - paleontological resource or 51te or unique geologic feature? x 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? x 1) Cause a sUbstantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. The Alex Theatre was built in 1925 as both a movie house and a venue for live performances. The marquee and signature tower were added in 1940. In 1992, the Glendale Redevelopment Agency purchased the Theatre and began rehabilitation in 1993. The Theatre reopened in 1994. It was designated as a local landmark on the Glendale Register in 1977 and was designated on the National Register of Historic Places in 1995. The proposed expansion of the building will be confined to the south and east fa9ades. It is intended to complement the existing structure by continuing the unadorned style'of those walls while being a clearly new addition. It is not designed to look like it is an original part of the building. The existing interior of the Theatre will not be altered. The addition consists of office and back-stage areas. Section 4.2.2 of the Downtown Specific Plan addresses the reuse of historically significant buildings. The standard is that "reuse shall be distinguished from new construction and shall be defined as the reuse of the structure's most distinguishing architectural features and at least 50% of the exterior walls and roof of the existing structure." The proposed expansion of the Alex Theatre will only alter the easternmost 130 feet of the building that has a total perimeter of approximately 600 feet. Therefore, less than 50% of the exterior walls and roof of the existing structure will be altered. In addition, none of the distinguishing architectural features, the western fa9ade, the marquee, and the interior, will be altered. The Guidelines given in Section 4.2.2 are as follows: • High quality materials should be used in the reuse of existing building exteriors in such a way that the exterior of the building is physically improved and that the building complements surrounding structures. All elevations of the building should be treated in a consistent manner. • Visual access to the interiors of buildings will be encouraged. • Un-articulated building walls should be visually enhanced to mitigate their undesirable appearance and to create visual interest. Windows, lighting, artwork, building materials, and other fa9ade improvements should be considered in achieving appropriate architecture. • The existing ground floor should be redesigned to attract and encourage pedestrian traffic and/or accommodate pedestrian uses. The architect proposes to use high quality materials on the proposed expansion. Most of the theater will not be altered by this project, just a portion of the south and east elevations. As such, not all elevations of the building can be treated in a consistent manner. It would be arbitrary and result in greater alteration to attempt to make all the elevations consistent with the small addition at the rear of the building. ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 14 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 The proposed addition will not alter the dominant western fagade nor alter the ability to see the interior of the building. The south and east elevations of the theater currently are plain with very little articulation. The proposed addition will create a more articulated elevation. The south and east elevations currently are not intended to attract and encourage pedestrian traffic. The proposed addition will make no change to this situation. , Finally, the Guidelines go on to state that "preservation of a building on the local Glendale Register of Historic Resources in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation can qualify the owner for other significant incentives .... " The project was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Glendale on December 12, 2011. The Commission found that the project was consistent with the Guidelines of the Downtown Specific Plan and that the proposed alterations were consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Tiierefore, a substantial adverse change to the status of this historic resource will not occur. 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5? No Impact. Prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are not known to exist within the local area. In addition, the project site has already been subject to extensive disruption and contains fill materials. Any archaeological resources which may have existed at one time on or beneath the site have likely been previously disturbed. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with project implementation would have the potential to unearth undocumented resources and result in a significant impact. In the event that archaeological resources are unearthed during project subsurface activities, all earth-disturbing work within a 1OO-meter radius (328 feet) must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. With implementation of this standard requirement, which is incorporated as a project design feature, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No Impact. Plant and animal fossils are typically found within sedimentary rock deposits. Most of the City of Glendale consists of igneous and metamorphic rock, and the local area is not known to contain paleontological resources. In addition, the project site has already been subject to extensive disruption and development. Any superficial paleontological resources which may have existed at one time on the project site have likely been previously unearthed by past development activities. Nonetheless, there is a possibility that paleontological resources may exist at deep levels and could be unearthed with implementation of the proposed project. In the event that paleontological resources are unearthed during the proposed project-related subsurface activities, all earth disturbing work within a 100-meter radius (328 feet) must be temporarily suspended or redirected until a paleontologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. With implementation of this standard requirement, which is incorporated as a project design feature, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries? ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 15 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 No Impact. The project site and surrounding area are characterized by features typical of the urban landscape and include commercial, industrial, and residential uses. No known burial sites exist within the vicinity of the project site or surrounding area. Nonetheless, if human remains are encountered during excavation and grading activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who will then serve as a consultant on how to proceed with the remains (i.e., avoid removal or rebury). With implementation of this standard requirement, which is incorporated as a project design feature, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... I ...... "- Less :r~an-,--' '. Potentially i. Significant Less Than Would the p~oject: No .. Significant: _' Impact With . Significant Impact Im~aC\ __:-_,::_: ,- :,Mitig.ition_-~,- 'rtlpact ... - Ihcoxporat,ec:t I ...... •...... •.. • ,< ...... •...... ' .. 1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area X or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X Iv) Landslides? X 2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? . X 3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, X subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? X . S. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not X available for the disposal of waste water? 1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 16 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within an established Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or designated Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. The, Hollywood Fault and the York Boulevard Fault are the closest active fault; the nearest Fault- Rupture Hazard Zone for active faults with evidence of surface rupture is for the York Boulevard Fault, which is located approximately 1.25 miles southeast of the project site. Based on the available geologic data, active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are not. known to be located directly beneath or projecting toward the project site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture as a result of fault plane displacement during the design life of the proposed project is less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. The project site could be subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake originating along one of the faults listed as active or potentially active in the Southern California area. This hazard exists throughout Southern California and could pose a risk to public safety and property by exposing people, property, or infrastructure to potentially adverse effects, including strong seismic ground shaking. Compliance with applicable building codes including the International Building Code (IBC) and California Building Code (CBC) would minimize structural damage to buildings and ensure safety in the event of a moderate or major earthquake. Therefore, impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a mapped liquefaction hazard zone. Compliance with applicable building codes including the International Building Code (IBC) and California Building Code (CBC) would minimize the exposure of people and the proposed building from the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. ivY Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed and the topography of the project site and its immediate built environment is relatively flat and, thus, devoid of any distinctive landforms. There are neither known landslides near the project site nor is the project site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Therefore, impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Result in SUbstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activity associated with the proposed project development may result in wind and water driven erosion of soils due to grading activities if soil is stockpiled or exposed during construction. However, this impact is considered short-term in nature since the site would be covered with pavement and landscaping upon completion of construction activity. Further, as part of the proposed project, the applicant would be required to adhere to ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 17 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 conditions under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and prepare and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be administered throughout proposed project construction. The SWPPP would incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that potential water quality impacts from water driven erosion during construction would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an onsite or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a liquefaction zone. The relatively flat topography of the project site precludes both stability problems and the potential for lurching, which is earth movement at right angles to a cliff or steep slope during ground shaking. As previously discussed, the potential for hazards such as landslides and liquefaction is considered low. Liquefaction may also cause lateral spreading. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable zone must be continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along gently sloping ground toward an unconfined area. However, if lateral containment is present for those zones, then no significant risk· of lateral spreading will be present. Since the liquefaction potential at the project site is low, earthquake-induced lateral spreading is not considered to be a significant seismic hazard at the site. Ground surface subsidence generally results from the extraction of fluids or gas from the subsurface that can result in a gradual lowering of the ground level. No regional subsidence as a result of groundwater pumping has been reported in Glendale area. Therefore, the potential for ground collapse and other adverse effects due to subsidence to occur on the Project site is considered low. In order to minimize damage due to geologic hazards, design and construction of the proposed project would comply with applicable building codes including the IBC and CBC. Therefore, impacts related to exposure to hazards including landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction and collapse would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. The soils underlying the project site and surrounding area are considered to have a low expansion potential. Additionally, in order to minimize damage due to geologic hazards, design and construction of the proposed project would comply with applicable building codes including the IBC and CBC. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soil would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. Septic tanks will not be used in the proposed project. The proposed project would connect to and use the existing sewage conveyance system. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. G. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 18 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 . .. - '-:l~~s-.Tlian"' ---- . Potentially , ~Significant - Less Than .. _ vYoulc/ihe_-p;~fectt Significant Impact With Significant,. - Impact - Mitigation . Impact Incorporated 1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that rilay have a significant x impact on the environment? 2. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose x of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions are said to result in an increase in the earth's average surface temperature commonly referred to as global warming. This rise in global temperature is associated with long-term changes in precipitation, temperature, wind patterns, and other elements of the earth's climate system, known as climate change. These changes are now broadly attributed to GHG emissions, particularly those emissions that result from the human production and use of fossil fuels. Climate changes resulting from GHG emissions could produce an array of adverse environmental impacts including water supply shortages, severe drought, increased flooding, sea level rise, air pollution from increased formation of ground level ozone and particulate matter, ecosystem changes, increased wildfire risk, agricultural impacts, ocean and terrestrial species impacts, among other adverse effects . . In 2006, the State passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly referred to as AB 32, which set the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal for the State 6f California into law. The law requires that by 2020, State emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from significant sources via regulation, market mechanisms, and other actions. Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), passed in 2008, links transportation and land use planning with global warming. It requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to set regional targets for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles. Under this law, if regions develop integrated land use, housing and transportation plans that meet SB 375 targets, new projects in these regions can be relieved of certain review requirements under CEQA Development of regional targets is underway and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is in the process of preparing the region's Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) which will likely be a new element of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The strategy will identify how regional greenhouse gas reduction targets, as established by the ARB, will be achieved through land use development patterns, transportation infrastructure investments, and/or transportation measures or pOlicies that are determined to be feasible. In addressing the potential for a project to generate GHG emissions that would have a potentially significant cumulative effect on the environment, a 900 metric ton threshold was selected to identify those projects that would be required to calculate emissions and implement mitigation measures to reduce a potentially significant impact. The 900 metric ton screening threshold is based on a threshold included in the CAPCOA white paper' that covers methods for addressing greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA .. 1 See CAPCOA White Paper: "CEQA &Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject fo the California Environmental Quality Act" January 2008 (http://www.capcoa.org/rokdownloads/CEQAlCAPCOA%20White%20Paper.pdf). ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 19 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 The CAPCOA white paper references the 900 metric ton guideline as a conservative threshold for requiring further analysis and mitigation. The 900 metric ton threshold was based on a review of data from four diverse cities (Los Angeles in southern California and Pleasanton, Dublin, and Livermore in northern California) to identify the threshold that would capture at least 90% of the residential units or office space on the pending applications list. This threshold will require a substantial portion of future development to minimize GHG emissions tO'ensure implementation of AB 32 targets is not impeded. By ensuring that projects that generate more than 900 metric tons of GHG implement mitigation measures to reduce emissions, it is expected that a majority of future development will contribute to emission reduction goals that will assist the region in meeting its GHG reduction targets. It should be noted that ,an individual project's GHG emissions will generally not result in direct impacts under CEQA, as the climate change issue is global in nature, however an individual project could be found to contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact. In Phase I, 7,835 square feet of floor area will be added with approximately 5,000 sq. ft. in a basement level and the remainder at the street and 2nd story levels. The loading dock will be re aligned and a passenger elevator, freight elevator and stairs will be either built or altered to provide access from the loading area to the basement and stage and from the seating area of the theater to an exterior exit route, In a future Phase II, an additional 5,009 sq. ft. of office and conference room floor area would be added at the street and 2nd story levels. Based on these characteristics, the project is expected to generate much less than 900 metric tons of GHG emissions based on estimates of GHG emissions for various project types included in the CAPCOA white paper2. Emissions from the project will be generated from vehicular traffic and residential uses. The project's GHG emissions are found to have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG emissions because the project will generate less than 900 metric tons of GHGs. Furthermore, projects that generate less than 900 metric tons of GHG, will also participate in emission reductions because air emissions including GHGs are under the purview of CARB (or other regulatory agencies) and will be "regulated" either by CARB, the Federal Government, or other entities. For example, new vehicles will be subject to increased fuel economy standards and 3 emission reductions , large and small appliances will be subject to more strict emissions standards, and energy delivered to consumers will increasingly come from renewable sources" As a result, even the emissions that result from projects that produce less than 900 metric tons of GHG will be subject to emission reductions, Likewise, the project would also participate in the mandated emissions reductions through energy and resource use that is subject to emission reduction mandates beyond "business-as-usual" and will be constructed with a LEED rating of silver. Therefore, it is determined that the project would result in less than cumulatively considerable impacts associated with GHG emissions and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required, 2) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 2. 900 metric tons of GHG emissions are estimated to be generated by 50 Single Family Residential units, 70 apartments/condos, 35,000 sf of general commercial/office, 11,000 sf of retail, or 6,300 sf of supermarkeVgrocery space. 3 On September 15, 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation's National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposed a national program to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy for new cars and trucks sold in the United States. The proposed standards would cut C02 emissions by an estimated 950 million metric tons and i,8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program. 4 California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires electric corporations to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources by at least 1% of their retail sales annually, until they reach 20% by 2010. In 2008, the governor signed Executive Order S-14- 08 (EO) to streamline California's renewable energy project approval process and increase the state's Renewable Energy Standard to 33% renewable power by 2020. The Air Resources Board is in the process of developing regulations to implement the 33% standard known as the California Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 20 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 Less Than Significant Impact. In an effort to implement State mandates under AB32 and SB375 that address climate change ifl local land use planning, local land use jurisdictions are generally preparing GHG emission inventories and reduction plans and incorporating climate change policies into local General Plans to ensure development is guided by a land use plan that reduces GHG emissions. The City of Glendale is currently in the process of preparing GHG emission inventories for community activities and will begin updating its General Plan in the coming years to incorporate associated climate change policies. These policies will provide direction for individual development projects to reduce GHG emissions and help the City meet its GHG emission reduction targets. Until local plans are developed to address greenhouse gas emissions, such as a local Sustainable Communities Strategy and updated General Plan Policies, the project is evaluated to determine whether it would impede the implementation of AB 32 GHG reduction targets. For the reasons discussed in the Response G-1 above, the project would not impede the implementation of AB 32 reduction targets. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS' ...... ' .' . ' ' .. I. Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Wouli::J th~'firoject:-_ No L- Significant Impact:With SiQnifi<;ant _ Impact -. .'. Impac;f- _ -__ ~ lI!Iitigation~:-: Impact . .' .' Incorporated . . ' " ...•... . ' ...... •...... •...... 'i ..... • . ... "";.' ...... 1. Create -a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or X disposal of hazardous materials? 2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset X and accident conditions involving the release of . hazardous materials into the environment? 3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste X within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schoo!? 4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materia!s sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a X result, would it create a 'significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan Of, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project site? 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for X people residing Of working in the project site? 7. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 21 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 :Le~~--r-h~ri::"------Wouid-ihe pro/eet: - -Pqte_ntially __, Signj'fj(:~nt -, -- Less" Th~lI1'-- N'; :'-. -:Sigriificaiii Irnp_a~t With-- - Significant' - Impact Imp-act Mitigation - ~Impact Incorporate~ _ x 8. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to x urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, . use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is the addition of office, conference and backstage space to an existing theater. The project does not involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials; however, on-site support service, such as janitorial services, may involve the use of small amounts of hazardous materials. These materials would be stored on project site in small quantities. A variety of state and federal laws govern the generation, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes. The City of Glendale Fire Department and Los Angeles County have the authority to inspect on-site uses and to enforce state and federal laws governing the storage, use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. In addition, Los Angeles County requires that an annual inventory of hazardous materials in use on site, as well as a business emergency plan, be submitted for an annual review, as required by Emergency Planning and Right-to-Know Act (SARA Title III) and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. These requirernents would be mandated according to state and federal law and are incorporated as proposed project design features. As such, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with a 32,000 square foot, 3- story theater with seating for 1,431 patrons. The building was constructed in 1925 and renovated in 1993. Structures constructed or remodeled between 1930 and 1981, such as the existing on-site structure, may contain Asbestos Containing Building Materials. Because a 518 square foot portion of the existing building would be demolished as a part of the proposed project, the project could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As such, the existing structure is required to be tested in accordance with applicable rules and regulations and remediated accordingly prior to demolition. Compliance with the applicable rules and regulations would ensure that significant impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. The nearest schools are Columbus Elementary School (425 W. Milford Street) located approximately 0.8 miles to the northwest, Allan F. Daily High School (220 Kenwood Street) located approximately 0.2 mile to the northeast, and the Zion Lutheran School (301 ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 22 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 N. Isabel Street) approximately 0.4 mile to the northeast. Daily High School is located within one quarter mile of the project site; however, per Response H-2 above, the applicant will be required to test for asbestos-containing materials and lead based paint prior to demolition. Should any hazardous substance be found, the applicant will be responsible to remediate in accordance with applicable rules prior to demolition. In addition, as indicated in Response H-1 above, the proposed uses do not involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of significant amounts of hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact, The project site has no known history of being listed on a hazardous material site and is not currently listed on a list of hazardous materials sites. As such the proposed project would result in a less than,.significant impact with regard to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public Use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project site? No Impact. The project site is neither located within an airport land use plan nor is it located within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest public airport or public use airport to the project site is the Bob Hope Airport located approximately 7.25 miles to the norttlwest. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project site? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 7) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. According to the City of Glendale General Plan' Safety Element, San Fernando Road, which is approximately one mile west of the project site, is a County evacuation route, and Brand Boulevard, which is adjacent to the project site, is a City disaster response route. These routes are the main thoroughfares to be used by emergency response services during an emergency and, if the situation warrants, the evacuation of an area. Implementation of the proposed project would neither result in a reduction of the number of lanes along these roadways in the Project area nor result in the placement of an impediment to the flow of traffic such as medians. In the event of an emergency, all lanes would be opened to allow for traffic flow to move in one direction and traffic would be controlled .by the appropriate agencies, such as the City of Glendale Police Department. During the construction of !fie proposed project, the construction contractor shall notify the City of Glendale Police and Fire Department of any construction activities (such as movement of equipment and ternporary lane closures) that could impede movement along San Fernando Road or Brand Boulevard to allow for these first emergency response teams to reroute traffic to an alternative route, ALEX THEATRE ExPANSION PAGE 23 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 if needed. Implementation of this requirement would be incorporated as a project design feature. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 8) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site. and surrounding area are characterized by features typical of the urban landscape. The project site is not contained within a fire hazard area as identified in the City of Glendale General Plan Safety Element. No new landscaping is proposed as part of the site improvement. Consequently, implementation of the propose project would not result in the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with wildland fires, and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ... '. . '. . Less Than- ' . -Potehtially Significant Less-Than .. w.ould -the prqject: No Significant I __ Impact With- .. ' .. Significant .. ' Impact hiipact Mitigati_()n rrnpa~t. Inco-rp9ra_~e-d - ' '. .•...... ". > ....•....•....••••• ./ '. ' ...' .' '.. •••••• •• .. 1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X 2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be- a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing X nearby wells would -drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 3. Substantially atter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of , the course of stream or river, in a manner which X would result in sUbstantial erosion or siltation on~ or off-site? 4. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a X manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site? 5. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide X substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 6. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X 7. Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 24 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 ,.'; \- '-',,' ,------: :' ,--_~- -- ,_ _,_-- ~- - : 'c,--' __ -(;' ____ ~:,:-' ,,'-:-:~ :-,': i~~:/:-o_~-~,-:-_ ,:~' Wd~~'dthe});6j~-dt: - ...... ~~~_.~:~~~~ii~,:,,~i:_:::;; -:--:~~:;ifr::~t:, :--:Signili_c~nf Impa'cfwJth-_ - - -Impact - Mitigation 1l"!-co-rpoJ~ted-: 8. Place within a 1 OO~year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? • x 9. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or x dam? 10. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? x 1) Via/ate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. Grading activities associated with construction will temporarily increase the amount of suspended solids from surface flows derived from the project site during a concurrent storm event due to sheet erosion of exposed soil. In addition, during excavation and grading, contaminated soils may be exposed and/or disturbed; this could impact surface water quality through contact during storm events. The applicant is required to satisfy all applicable requirements of the NPDES Program and Chapter 13.29, Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) of the Glendale Municipal Code, at the time of construction of the proposed project to the satisfaction of the. City of Glendale Public Works Department. These requirements include preparation of a SWPPP containing structural treatment and source control measures appropriate and applicable to the proposed project. The SWPPP would incorporate BMPs by requiring controls of pollutant discharges that utilize best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT) to reduce pollutants. Examples of BAT/BCT that may be implemented during site grading and construction of the proposed project could include straw hay bales, straw bale inlet filters, filter barriers, and silt fences. Preparation of the SWPPP is incorporated as a project design feature. Implementation of BMPs would ensure that Los Angeles RWQCB water quality standards are met during construction activities of the proposed project. Therefore, no impact during construction would occur. Construction and operation of the proposed project would increase the intensity of activities on the site and would likely result in an increase in pollutant sources. Common concerns include the potential deposition of pollutants generated by motor vehicle use on roadways and parking areas adjacent to the project site. Stormwater quality is generally affected by the length of time since the last rainfall, rainfall intensity, urban uses of the area, and quantity of transported sediment. Typical urban water quality pollutants usually result from motor vehicle operations, oil and grease residues, fertilizer/pesticide uses, human/animal littering, careless material storage and handling, and poor property management The majority of pollutant loads are usually washed away during the first flush of the storm occurring after the dry-season period. These pollutants have the potential to degrade water quality. However, the quality of runoff from the project site would be subject to Section 402(p) of the CWA under the NPDES program. Under the NPDES Municipal Permit No. CAS004001, development projects have responsibilities to ensure that their pollutant loads do not exceed total maximum daily loads for downstream receiving waters. Development projects are required by the Glendale Municipal Code to submit and then implement a SUSMP containing design features and BMPs appropriate and applicable to the proposed project. The purpose of the SUSMP is to reduce post-construction pollutants in stormwater discharges. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the County must approve the SUSMP. Preparation of the SUSMP is incorporated as a project design feature. Potential water quality impacts of the ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 25 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 proposed project would be less than significant through the preparation of the SUSMP and implementation of the BMPs as specified in the NPDES Permit. Therefore, impacts related to water quality and stormwater discharge would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. Currently, the City utilizes water from Glendale Water and Power (GWP), which relies on some local groundwater supplies. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would result in additional development that could indirectly require an increased use of groundwater through the provision of potable water by GWP; however, as discussed in Response Q-4 below, the proposed project's water demand is within water projections. Groundwater to be consumed within Glendale would be utilized according to current plans and projections for GWP groundwater supplies. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. In addition, the groundwater basins are governed by City of Los Angeles v. City of San Fernando, et a/., and the Basin Watermaster is vested with the responsibility to monitor and account for any groundwater extraction within the vicinity of the project site with sustainability as a goal. Further, the proposed project would not extract groundwater on an operational basis. The project site is currently developed with 100 percent impervious surfaces and, therefore, does not serve as a primary area of groundwater recharge within the San Fernando or Verdugo Basins, which are both located within the City of Glendale. In addition, impervious surfaces would remain with implementation of the proposed project. Consequently, impacts related to groundwater extraction and recharge will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner, which would result in SUbstantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is served by an existing storm water collection and conveyance system. Since the project site is currently developed with 100 percent impervious surfaces, the quantity of runoff would not change substantially with implementation of the proposed project. All runoff would continue to be conveyed via streets and gutters to storm drain locations around the project site. As a result, the proposed project would not require any SUbstantial changes to the existing drainage pattern of the site or the area, nor would it affect the capacity of the existing storm drain system. Furthermore, as discussed above, the SWPPP would incorporate BMPs by requiring controls of pollutant discharges that utilize BAT and BCT to reduce pollutants. In addition, in accordance with Chapter 13.42, Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan of the Glendale Municipal Code, a SUSMP containing design features and BMPs to reduce post-construction pollutants in storm water discharges would be submitted and implemented as part of the proposed project. Consequently, impacts are considered to be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-.or off-site? ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 26 216N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to Response 1-3 above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to Response 1-3 above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Please refer to Response 1-3 above. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 7) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency flood h.azard maps, the project site is not located within a 1DO-year flood zone; therefore, the proposed project would not place housing within a 1DO-year flood hazard area or result in structures being constructed that would impede or redirect flood flows. The proposed project would not be subject to flooding, and, therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? NoJmpact. As indicated in Response 1-7 above, the project site is not located within a 1DO-year floodplain or other flood hazard area, as shown on the latest FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact. There are seven dams located within the City of Glendale. The nearest dam to the project site is the Diederich Reservoir, located approximately 1.9 miles north of the project site. According to the City of Glend'lle General Plan Safety Element, the proposed project is not located within the inundation zone of this dam or other dams located within the City or elsewhere. Accordingly, the ri.sk associated with flooding resulting from dam failure is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 10) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The project site is not within a coastal area. Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a significant hazard at the site. In addition, the project site is not located downslope of any largE;) bodies of water that could adversely affect the site in the event of earthquake-induced seiches, which are wave oscillations in an enclosed or semi-enclosed body of water. Therefore, no impact related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would result from implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 27 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 J. LAND USE AND PLANNING _'Less Than 'S"igniflc.ant o 'Less .Than Poterttlalii:"' . No Significant ":Im-pact With .- -Sfgriificant Impact 'ImR3.ct -Mitigation_ I_mpac~ Irlco~pqrated 1. Physically divide an established community? x 2. Conflict with any applicable land use ptan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or x zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? x 1) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The proposed project would be constructed on an infill site within the DSP and Central Glendale Redevelopment Plan area. The proposed project is a permitted use in the zone in which is it located. No established community would be divided as a result of the project. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within the Alex Theatre District of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP). The Alex Theatre District is located within the Downtown core and west of the East Broadway mixed-use district to the east It includes a mixture of retail and office uses in low-rise structures. Uses within the District include a combination of entertainment, restaurant, retail and service uses. The project is consistent with DSP land use policy 3.1.1 which promotes "many land use options to encourage healthy urban districts .... " The proposed expansion of the Alex Theatre will enhance its economic viability, helping it to remain a vibrant focal point in Glendale. The expansion also is consistent with policy 3.1.2 which promotes a "24-Hour Downtown" with "appropriate land uses that extend the life of Downtown into the evenings and weekends .... " The Alex Theatre will continue to playa key role in the night-life of downtown Glendale. The DSP requires a minimum average setback at the ground floor of 12 feet from the curb to the building on Maryland. The building is currently located between 10 feet 2 inches and 10 feet 6 inches from the curb. The proposed addition to the theater will follow the existing building setback for structural and mechanical reasons. Because the addition will not conform to the 12 foot setback, a Variance has been requested. The Theatre is proposing to sell alcoholic beverages to its patrons and allow onsite consumption. Sales and'onsite consumption of alcoholic beverages in commercial zones is conditionally permitted, so an application has been made for a conditional use permit. ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 28 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 The proposed alteration to the Theatre will not increase the overall height of the building. The draft plans are consistent with the development standards found in Chapter 4 of the DSP, "Urban Design." Although the additions will alter the Theatre, the additions are consistent with the guidelines in the DSP. With the approval of the Variance to allow for a reduced setback and a Conditional Use Permit for the sale and onsite consumption of alcoholic beverages, impacts to land use plans, policies and regulations are less than significant. Parking Parking for the project is set at the ratio of 1 space for every 5 fixed seats (GMC Section 30.32.050(6)). There are 1,431 seats in the Theatre, which gives a parking requirement of 287 spaces. The addition to the building will not alter the total number of seats and therefore will not change the parking requirement. There are 15 onsite spaces now that will be lost as a result of the expansion of the Theatre. This number is already far below the required number of spaces. Most customers and staff of the Theatre park in the various city parking lots and structures that are nearby. There are three public garages and several surface parking lois with a total of over 2,000 parking spaces within 1,000 feet of the project site, making them readily accessible to pedestrians. Recent parking studies conducted by the City's Traffic and Transportation Section have found that the maximum utilization rates in these facilities was 71 percent, and most of the time well under that, meaning that the vast majority of the spaces are available for use by the public. 6ecause the project will not change the parking demand for the facility, and because there is substantial parking capacity in the various parking facilities nearby, the proposed additions to the Theatre would not result in significant parking impacts. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The project site and surrounding area have been developed and heavily affected by past activities. The project site and immediate area are not located in an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted conservation plan, and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. K. MINERAL RESOURCES Less'Ih'an Potentially_ Significant· - L:~ss Than Would project:- the Significant Impact-With SignifiCant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated _ 1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the x region and the residents of the state? 2. Result in the loss of availability of a locaUyM important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local gener"al plan, specific plan or x other land use plan? ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 29 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The project site and surrounding area are characterized by features typical of the urban landscape and include commercial, industrial, and residential uses. The State Geologist has mapped the Glendale area for aggregate resources. According to Map 4-28 of the City of Glendale General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, the project site is located within a Mineral Resource Zone-1 (MRZ-1). MRZ-1 is defined as anarea where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. As a result, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As indicated in Response K-1 above, there are no known mineral resources within the project site. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. L. NOISE ...... I", ...... '.' ...... •• ' . I '.' •••• ..L.s~Than.·.· ...... Pbteiiti~liy -- Signifjcant~' ~--L.~s-~~:+h-alr' Would-the_projiJcf: No S-ignificimt linpact W_it~_ S_ignificant Imp~ct IVntigation,< 'Impac:t r>:_-J_~pact . .)C ...••....• ...... Incorporated ' .. . .•.. . •• L· ... 1. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable X standards of other agencies? 2. Exposure of persons to Of generation of excessive ground borne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X 3. A substantial permanent increase in ambienrnoise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? 4. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above X levels existing without the project? 5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airp9rt, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels? 6. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working X in the project site to excessive noise levels? 1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing noise environment in the project vicinity is dominated by traffic noise from nearby roadways, as well as nearby commercial and residential activities. Long- ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 30 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 term operation of the proposed project would have a minimal effect on the noise environment in proximity to the project site. Noise generated by the proposed project would result primarily from normal operation of the loading dock, building mechanical equipment, and off-site traffic. On-site noise sources include those from the loading dock and mechanical equipment. Because no onsite parking is proposed for the project, parking-related noise would not increase the ambient noise levels at nearby noise sensitive receptors. As such, the parking related noise impacts would be less than significant. The Theatre currently has a loading dock at the southeast corner of the building. With the proposed addition, the loading dock will be reconfigured to allow trucks to be located entirely onsite. The loading dock will still be on the south side of the building with trucks unloaded further to the west than at present onto a new platform. Materials will then be wheeled eastward to the location of the reconstructed freight elevator for distribution within the Theatre. There is no expansion of the overall loading dock-it will still only accommodate one truck at a time. There may be additional deliveries than currently occurs since one of the goals of the addition is to attract more business to the Theatre, making it financially self-sustaining. No data have been provided nor is it currently possible to know how much loading operations might increase. The operation of the loading dock will need to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, which establishes maximum permitted noise levels for outdoor operations of 65 dbA at any time day or night. Project compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance would ensure that noise levels from loading dock operations would not exceed thresholds 6f significance and noise impacts from the loading dock would be less than significant. . The operation of on-site project-related mechanical equipment such as air conditioning equipment and exhaust fans may generate audible noise levels. Mechanical equipment will be located on building rooftops behind screens or within buildings. In addition, the proposed project's mechanical equipment will need to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, which establishes maximum permitted noise levels from mechanical equipment. Project compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance would ensure that noise levels from building mechanical equipment would not exceed thresholds of significance and noise impacts from mechanical equipment would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the Section 8.36.210 of the Glendale Noise Ordinance, operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of 0.01 inch-per-second RMS at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at 150 feet from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way shall be a violation. The proposed project would be constructed using typical techniques. Minimal pile driving for construction would be necessary. Piles would be drilled and cast in place. Thus, significant vibration impacts from pile installation would not occur. Heavy construction equipment (e.g. bulldozer and excavator) would generate a limited amount of ground-borne vibration during construction activities at short distances away from the source. The use of equipment would most likely be limited to a few hours spread over several days during demolition/grading activities. Post-construction on-site activities would be limited to mechanical equipment (e.g., air handling unit and exhaust fans) that would not generate excessive groundcborne vibration or ground-borne noise. As such, ground-borne vibration and noise levels associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 31 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the prOject vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated in Response L-1 above, significant noise impacts are not anticipated to result from the long-term operation of the proposed project. A less than significant impact is anticipilted as a result of the project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) A sUbstantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. A temporary periodic increase in ambient noise would occur during construction actives associated with the proposed project. Noise from the construction activities would be generated by vehicles and equipment involved during various stages of construction operations: demolition, site grading, foundation, and building construction. The noise levels created by construction equipment will vary depending on factors such as the type of equipment and the specific model, the mechanical/ operational condition of the equipment and the type of operation being performed. Construction associated with the project will be required to comply with the City of Glendale Noise Ordinance (GMC Code Chapter 8.36), which prohibits construction activities to between the hours of 7:00 p.m. on one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day or from 7:00 p.m. on Saturday to 7:00 a.m. on Monday or from 7:00 p.m. preceding a holiday. Compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance would ensure that no significant impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. -5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is neither located within an airport land use plan nor is it located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The closest public airport or public use airport to the Project site is the Bob Hope Airport located about 7.25 miles to the northwest. Consequently, no impacts associated with excessive airport noise levels would result. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Consequently, no impacts associated with noise would result for residents, employees, patrons of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. M. POPULATION AND HOUSING ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 32 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 -_::-\~~~s Th~~: , ~otentiaUy - Significant Less_Than W?Uld the. project: -Significant : _Impact With Sig-j,ificant _- Impact Mltigatio-n hnpa~t --- Incorporated 1. Induce substantia! population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ihdirectly (for example, x through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2. "Displace sUbstantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement x housing elsewhere? 3. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement x housing elsewhere? 1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is an addition to the south side of the existing structure into an adjacent parking area. In Phase I, 7,835 square feet of floor area will be added with approximately 5,000 sq. ft. in a basement level and the remainder at the street and 2nd story levels. The loading dock will be re-aligned and a passenger elevator, freight elevator and stairs will be either built or altered to provide access from the loading area to the basement and stage and from the seating area of the Theatre to an exterior exit route. In a future Phase II, an additional 5,009 sq. ft. of office and conference room floor area would be added at the street and 2nd story levels. No housing is proposed as part of the project so it will not be a direct generator of population growth. The proposed project is not expected to add new jobs. Any jobs created would likely be filled by employees already in the local labor force. Any indirect growth occurring as a result of employees relocating to the proposed project would be inconsequential such that impacts would be less than significant. The proposed project's employment increase is within regional projections for the Arroyo Verdugo Subregion and the City of Glendale. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Since the project site is located within an urban area and is currently served by existing circulation and utility infrastructure, no major extension of infrastructure is required as part of the proposed project. Additionally, no expansion to the existing service area of a public service provider is required. Therefore, development of the project site would not indirectly induce population growth and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ·construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No residential dwelling units currently exist on the project site. Therefore, no housing or residential populations would be displaced by development of the proposed project, and the construction of replacement housing elsewhere would not be necessary. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 33 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 No Impact. Please refer to Response M-2 above. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. N. PUBLIC SERVICES ...... " .' '.' ...... '.' ". '. LessTh~n - > ••...... •... '.. . •.. - Potentially Significant Less Than' - No Significant' I'mp_act-With - Significant -. Impact' I. Impact Mitigation Impact . I . Inc_orporated __ ': "- ...... ' ...... ' ...... 1. Would the project. result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? x b) Police protection? x c) Schools? x d) Parks? x e) Other public facilities? x 1) Would the project result in sUbstantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other petiormance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Glendale Fire Department (GFD) provides comprehensive emergency services for the City of Glendale, including fire, rescue, and emergency medical (paramedic) services, as well as fire prevention, code enforcement and regional fire dispatch functions. Fire Station 21, located at 421 Oak Street, approximately 0.9 mile southwest of the project site, would serve as the first-in station responder in the event of an emergency. Fire Station 21 is equipped with one engine (Engine 21) with four personnel, one fire truck (Truck 21) with four personnel, one ambulance (Basic Life Support 21) with two personnel, and an Operations Battalion Chief as well as a Battalion Chief Aide, for a total of 12 personnel. Second responder fire stations include Fire Station 26, located at 1145 N. Brand Boulevard, and Fire Station 25, located at 353 N. Chevy Chase Drive. Fire Station 26 is equipped with one engine (Engine 26) with four personnel, one fire truck (Truck 26) with four personnel, and one ambulance (Basic Life Support 26) with two personnel. Fire Station 25 is equipped with one engine (Engine 25) with four personnel and one ambulance (Basic Life Support 25) with two personnel. In the event that ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 34 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 any of the units of Fire Stations 21,26, or 25 are not available, other units would be available for dispatch from other GFD fire stations or adjacent jurisdictions. Compliance with the applicable Fire Code and the Building Code provisions determines a project's impact on fire services. The project will be required to meet all code provisions. As a result the project can be adequately served by existing public services and is not anticipated to result in substantial adverse impacts. The overall need for fire protection services is not expected to substantially increase. No significant impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Glendale Police Department (GPO) provides police protection services to the Project Site from its station at 131 North Isabel Street, approximately 0.5 miles to the southeast. The project can be adequately served by existing public services and is not anticipated to result in substantial adverse impacts. The overall need for police protection services is not expected to substantially increase as a result of the proposed project. No significant impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Schools? Less Than Significant Impact. No housing is proposed as part of the project so it will not be a direct generator of population growth. However, the project will be required to pay school impact fees to the Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) based on the current fee schedule for commercial development prior to the issuance of building permits. Payment of the school impact fees would result in a less than significant impact to school facilities. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Parks? Less Than Significant Impact. No housing is proposed as part of the project so it will not be a direct generator of population growth. In accordance with the requirements of the City of Glendale Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 5575 and Resolution No. 07-164), the project applicant may be required to pay the Development Impact Fee to the City, unless the Director of Community Development exempts the project from fees as provided by Municipal Code Section 4.10.050(H) since the project qualifies for a fee exemption based on the fact that it is a community use "which serve(s) the public .... " Because the project will not generate population growth, there will be no direct impacts to parks. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. No housing is proposed as part of the project so it will not be a direct generator of population growth. As a result, no significant increase in demand for Library and other public services is anticipated. However, the project will be subject to park and library impact fees based on the current fee schedule established by the City of Glendale. Payment of the park and library impact fees would result in a less than significant impact to public facilities. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. O. RECREATION ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 35 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 '-,- -' ;--~'~b~~:~tj_~l'ltc:,- Y~~:,iiit~.iV\ess;h~~ -No - 'Significant- SignJficant ~lm-p~u:~tWith~ - '--I~-p~ct lnip_~cl - - Mmgatio-rt:: lmJjac~-:_-- -In:c~-rp6rated 1. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that sUbstantial x physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 2. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction Of expansion of recreational facilities which might have an x adverse physical effect on the environment? 1) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks Dr other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur Dr be accelerated? Less Than Significant Impact. See response to N1 (d) above. No significant impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities. As discussed above, the project is not anticipated to create a significant demand on parks facilities that would require the construction or expansion at existing recreational facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. P. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Less. Than. PotentiaUy' -~ignificaht Signifi.c"ant -- . Imp~c~:Wit~ Impact Mitigatior( Incar-pora"teci-: 1. Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components' of the circulation system, x including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 36 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 ::;:UL:~_~:~~T_~~'h::;-:C '·--T";:-:'--/-:'. ~r:~~::i~;' '.. ', - :-'::-_:~:~i';~i_i~i,~~~--_ '.' :~_i~_l1i-fi_~ant:.; -': Lci~~::Th;h':--,' ~--:-:Y-t.hi- S-ignifi~ant '.- -impact With - ~-i_g-r,ihcanf: _impact c: ',- ,Impact·-· -~ _:_Mi_'trg~t_ion_' - 'Impa-ct :_- Inc?rporate.d: 2. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion x management agency for designated roads or highways? 3. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in x location that results in substantial safety risks? 4. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm x equipment)? 5. Result in inadequate emergency access? x 6. Conflict with adopted pOlicies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus x turnouts, bicycle racks)? 1) Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on an applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less than Significant Impact. As explained in Response J-2 above, the project will not change the parking demand for the facility, so there will be no appreciable change to amount of vehicular traffic to and from the facility. As such, impacts to the existing circulation system will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above in Response P-1, the proposed project would not result in any significant increase in traffic on the area roadway network. No significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of an airport. Consequently, the proposed project would not result in a chimge in air traffic patterns that would result in safety risks. No impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 37 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 No Impact. There are no project design features that will alter the circulation system or the hazards to users of the system. No impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The project does not involve changes to the existing street network or to existing emergency response plans. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 6) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Glendale Beeline provide bus service within the City of Glendale. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding alternative transportation since no changes to the existing transportation policies, plans, or programs would result from project implementation. No impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Q. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS '.' ...... ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ...... ' < .••...... l.es" Thai. . ," '.' Potentially·, ". less Thah-~-- -~oujd ii(e. efb)e?:~:_--! "',Si9nifican! .. '. signifi_~arit: __ Impact With . !5.ignifici:trit ;lm~1"f .- Iml?:ac~ -i -- Mftigation ::- :. -Impact . -Inc.orpo-ra~ed . '.' ...... •...... '" ...... •. " .. "...... •..... • ••••• ••••••• 1. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X 2. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expgnsion of existing facilities, the construction of which could X cause significant environmental effects? 3. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause X significant environmental effects? 4. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X 5. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 6. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste X disposal needs? 7. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 38 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 ~':,o' --' __ ,< _'_,' ~~-- :- - ,.' .. "',, '->-.'- :-,---~<-':-> , ----- ''- -L~~s'Thill" ~6uii;'l~~~~bje'c-tk~'~~- .-- _--p~o~~'niiaHy-~ ~i9flffica~t _, :', SJgnlfic~hL-, ImJ)_a~(yvifh: ''''~' Imp~ict -~ IVilligation -Ihcorpdr~ted regulations related to solid waste? 1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? No Impact. Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) , the RWQCB issues NPDES permits to regulate waste discharged to "waters of the nation," which includes reservoirs, lakes, and their tributary waters. Waste discharges include discharges of storm water and construction of the proposed project discharges. A construction project resulting in the disturbance of more than one ·acre requires a NPDES Permit. Construction projects are also required to prepare a SWPPP. In addition, the proposed project would be required to submit an SUSMP to mitigate urban storm water runoff. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant would be required to satisfy the requirements related to the payment of fees and/or the provisions of adequate wastewater facilities. The proposed project would comply with the waste discharge prohibitions and water quality objectives established by the RWCQB, and as incorporated into the proposed project as a project design feature. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. No new sources of water supply, such as groundwater, are required to meet the proposed project's water demand. Water serving the proposed project would be treated by existing extraction and treatment facilities, and no new facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, would be required. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The project site is currently developed with 100 percent impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces would remain with development of the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. Demolition, grading, and construction activities associated with the proposed project would require the use of water for dust control and clean-up purposes. The use of water for construction purposes would be short-term in nature and the amount would be much less than water consumption during the proposed project operation. Therefore, construction activities are not considered to result in a significant impact on the existing water system or available water supplies. ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 39 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 New development on the project site would result in a small increase in demand for operational uses, including maintenance and other activities on the site. As indicated in the Table 1 below, water demand would be approximately 1.4 acre-feet per year. Table 1 Projected Water Demand Daily Annual Annual " Demand Demand Demand Use Size of Use Factor1 (gpd) (gal./yr.) (acre-fUyr.) Commercial 12,844 s.f. 100 gpd/1 ,000 sf. 1,284 468,660 1.4 Source: Broadway Lofts Draft EIR August 2010; Town Center Draft EIR December 2003. Normal Weather Conditions The City of Glendale has identified an adequate supply of water to meet future City demands under normal conditions. As indicated in 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, a surplus exists that provides a reasonable buffer of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 acre-feet per year of water. Future water demand in the City is based on projected development contained in the General Plan. For purposes of this assessment, the demand of the proposed project was assumed not to have been included in this demand projection. However, even with the addition of 1.4 acre-feet per year of demand generated by the proposed project, there is ample supply to meet remaining City demand under normal conditions. Dry Weather Conditions Water supplies from the San Fernando and Verdugo Basins and recycled water would remain unaffected by drought conditions. If there is a shortage in water supply from MWb, the City of Glendale distribution system could be affected. However, MWD's completion of the Diamond Valley Reservoirnear Hemet added to the reliability of MWD's supplies. This reservoir, plus other MWD storage/banking operations would be able to meet demands reliably. MWD is also proposing contracts with its member agencies to supply water, including supply during drought conditions. These contracts would define, by agreement, the MWD's obligation to provide "firm" water supply to the City. It is anticipated that during any three-year drought, the City would have sufficient water supply to meet demand. According to the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, the City would use less MWD water supplies in the future compared to its current use. With the City's reduction of dependency on imported MWDsupplies, there would be a higher level of reliable water supplies to meet demand during drought conditions. Even with the proposed project implementation, the City would continue to have adequate supply to meet citywide demand under drought conditions. Similar to normal weather conditions, even with the addition of 1.4 acre-feet per year of demand generated by the proposed project, there is sufficient supply to meet City demand under drought conditions. As indicated. above, even with implementation of the proposed project, the City would continue to have adequate supply to meet citywide demand under normal and drought conditions. As a result, long-term impacts to water supply during operation of the proposed project under. both normal and drought conditions would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ALEX THEATRE ExPANSION PAGE 40 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 Less Than Significant. Sewage from the project site goes to the Hyperion Treatment Plant, which the City of Glendale has access to through the Amalgamated Agreement. With the Hyperion Treatment Plant currently operating 130 million gallons per day below capacity, adequate capacity exists to treat proposed project-generated effluent of 1,027 gallons per day (see Table 2, below). Therefore, the proposed project would not require the expansion or construction of sewage treatment facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. No significant impact would result with regard to impacts to the available sewage treatment capacity. Table 2 Projected Sewer Generation Use Size of Use Loading Factor Daily Generation (gpd) Commercial 12,844 s.f. 80 gpd/1 ,000 sf. 1,027 Source: Broadway Lofts Draft EIR August 2010; Town Center Draft EIR December 2003. As indicated above, the Hyperion Treatment Plant currently operating 130 million gallons per day below capacity, the addition of approximately 1,027 gallons of sewage per day generated by the proposed project would not result in the plant exceeding capacity. Therefore, adequate capacity exists to treat the sewage increase generated by the proposed project, and the impact of the proposed project on the sewage treatment system is less than significant. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in commercial development on site. The Table 3 below provides the projected amount of solid waste that would be generated at buildout. A total of approximately 43 tons of solid waste per year is projected to be disposed of into landfills at the buildout of the proposed project. Table 3 Projected Solid Waste Generation (Annual Tons) Waste Waste Waste Material Disposed Generation Generated Diverted in Landfill Use Size of Use Rate (tons/year) (tons/year) 1 (tons/year) Commercial 12,844 s.f. 0.046Ib/sf.!day' 108 57 43 Source: Calrecycle, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, http://www.calrecycle.ca.govlwastecharlwastegenratesiCommereial.htm. 2010. 1 Based on 53 percent diversion rates. 2 Commercial factor Solid waste generated on the project site could be deposited at the Scholl Canyon Landfill, which is owned by the City of Glendale, or one of the landfills located within the County of Los Angeles. The annual disposal rate at the Scholl Canyon facility is 250,000 tons per year. The proposed project is expected to increase the annual disposal amount by approximately 43 tons per year. The Scholl Canyon Landfill currently has a permitted remaining capacity of 5.0 million tons which is sufficient to meet the needs of the City and the proposed project for approximately 19.2 years. Because the proposed project would be required to implement a waste-diversion program aimed at reducing the amount of solid waste disposed in the landfill, the amount of solid waste generated would likely be less than the amount estimated. Examples of waste diversion efforts would include recycling ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 41 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 programs for cardboard boxes, paper, aluminum cans, and bottles through the provision of recycling areas within garbage disposal areas. As a result, no significant impacts area anticipated. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. As part of the proposed project, the prqject applicant would implement a waste diversion program in an effort help the City meet its waste diversion goal of 50 percent until 2015, when the proposed project would increase diversion to 60 percent as mandated by Assembly Bill 939. In addition, the proposed project would enclose trash collection areas on the ground level. No federal statutes apply to the proposed project. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on compliance with federal, state, and local statues and regulations is less than significant. . Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. R. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less-tha_" S.i.9rdfic-ant .impactWith No Impa.ct ;'-_-l\IIi~igation: _. '--':Intbi'pi?r?te~: 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal x community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 2. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable x when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects pf probable future projects)? 3. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause SUbstantial adverse effects on human x beings, either directly or indirectly? 1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within a highly urbanized area and is fully developed with a large theater. No biological species or habitat for biological species exists on-site or within the project vicinity. In addition, no Habitat Conservation Plan, Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plans apply to the project site. As such, the proposed project would not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 42 216N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Furthermore, the proposed project would not have the potential to eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory, including historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources. The Alex Theatre was designated as a local landmark on the Glendale Register in 197Tand was designated on the National Register of Historic Places in 1995. The proposed additions are consistent with local standards for preserving historic resources, and a mitigation measure has been added requiring development to be in accordance with the Secretary of , Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts that have the potential to degrade the quality of environment. No impacts would occur. 2) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant Impact. Cumulative impacts may occur when the proposed project in conjunction with one or more related projects would yield an impact that is greater than what would occur with the development of only the proposed project. With regard to cumulative effects for the issues of agricultural, biological, and mineral resources, the project site is located in an urbanized area and therefore, other developments occurring in the area of the project would largely occur on previously disturbed land and are not anticipated to have an impact. Thus, no cumulative impact to these resources would occur. Impacts related to archaeological resources, paleontological resources, and hazards and hazardous materials are generally confined to a specific site and do not affect off-site areas. The City's approved and pending projects in the vicinity combined with the proposed project may result in cumulative effects in other environmental issue areas due to the aggregate development within an already urbanized area. However, project-related impacts that require mitigation measures to reduce the level of significance would not result in cumulative impacts when combined with the City's other related projects. Therefore, the proposed project would have not cumulatively considerable effects, and as such, cumulative impacts would not occur. 3) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact. Based on the analysis presented above, implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures would reduce environmental impacts such that no substantial adverse effects on humans would occur. 13. Earlier Analyses None 14. Project References Used to Prepare Initial Study Checklist One or more of the following references were incorporated into the Initial Study by reference, and are available for review in the Planning division Office, 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103, Glendale, CA 91206- 4386. Items used are referred to by number on the Initial Study Checklist. 1. The City of Glendale's Downtown Specific Plan, as amended. 2. The City of Glendale's General Plan, as amended. ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 43 216 N. BRAND BLVD. DECEMBER 2011 3. The City of Glendale's Municipal Code, as amended. 4. "Guidelines of the City of Glendale for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended," August 19, 2003, City of Glendale Planning Division. 5. Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq and California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Section 15000 et seq. 6. "CEQA Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook," updated October 2003, South Coast Air Quality Management District. ALEX THEATRE EXPANSION PAGE 44 216 N. BRAND BLVD.