Burbank City Council
May 3, 2022

CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE ORDER B-55-18
In 2018, the California governor issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a new Statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing Statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 32.

For more information on the Senate and Assembly Bills, Executive Orders, and Scoping Plans discussed above, and to view reports and research referenced above, please refer to the following websites: www.climatechange.ca.gov and www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm.

ASSEMBLY BILL 197, STATE AIR RESOURCES BOARD GREENHOUSE GASES REGULATIONS In 2016, the California legislature approved AB 197, a bill linked to SB 32, which increases legislature oversight over the California Air Resources Board and directs the California Air Resources Board to 17 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available:
<https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm>. Accessed February 2, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-283
EXHIBIT 1
prioritize disadvantaged communities in its climate change regulations, and to evaluate the cost- effectiveness of measures it considers. AB 197 requires the CARB to “protect the State’s most impacted and disadvantaged communities [and] consider the social costs of the emissions of greenhouse gases” when developing climate change programs. The bill also adds two new legislatively appointed non-voting members to the CARB, increasing the Legislature’s role in the CARB’s decisions.

SENATE BILL 350, CLEAN ENERGY AND POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT OF 2015 In October 2015, SB 350 was signed into law, establishing new clean energy, clean air, and GHG reduction goals for 2030 and beyond. SB 350 codifies Governor Jerry Brown’s aggressive clean energy goals and establishes California’s 2030 GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. To achieve this goal, SB 350 increases California’s renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 (legislation originally enacted in 2002) to 50 percent by 2030. Renewable resources include wind, solar, geothermal, wave, and small hydroelectric power. In addition, SB 350 requires the State to double Statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end- uses (i.e., residential and commercial) by 2030 from a base year of 2015.

SENATE BILL 100, THE 100% CLEAN ENERGY ACT OF 2018
In September 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, requiring that the State’s load serving entities (including energy utilities and community choice energy programs) must procure energy generated 100 percent from Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) for eligible renewable resources by 2045.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STRATEGIC PLAN OF 2008
In September 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted California’s first Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, presenting a single roadmap to achieve maximum energy savings across all major groups and sectors in California. The Strategic Plan was subsequently updated in January 2011 to include a lighting chapter. The Strategic Plan sets goals of all new residential construction and all new commercial construction in California to be zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020 and 2030, respectively. In 2018, the California Energy Commission voted to adopt a policy requiring all new homes in California to incorporate rooftop solar. This change went into effect in January 2020 with the adoption of the 2021 Title 24 Code and is a step towards the State achieving its goal of all residential new construction being ZNE by 2020. Additionally, the Strategic Plan sets goals of 50 percent of existing commercial buildings to be retrofitted to ZNE by 2030 and all new State buildings and major renovations to be ZNE by 2025.

SENATE BILL 1275, CHARGE AHEAD INITIATIVE
In September 2014, Senate Bill 1275 was signed into law, establishing a State goal of one million zero-emissions and near-zero-emissions vehicles in service by 2020 and directing the Air Resources Board to develop a long-term funding plan to meet this goal. SB 1275 also established the Charge Ahead California Initiative requiring planning and reporting on vehicle incentive programs and increasing access to and benefits from zero-emissions vehicles for disadvantaged, low-income, and moderate-income communities and consumers.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1493, THE PAVLEY BILL
AB 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as Pavley), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of ATTACHMENT 1-284
EXHIBIT 1
GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, US EPA granted the waiver of the Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I regulates model years from 2009 to 2016, and Pavley II, which is now referred to as “Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) III GHG”, regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the LEV, Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs, and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels.

SENATE BILL 97, CEQA GUIDELINES FOR ADDRESSING GHG EMISSIONS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to review the environmental impacts of proposed projects, including General Plans, Specific Plans, and specific kinds of development projects. In February 2010, the California Office of Administrative Law approved the recommended amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions. The amendments were developed to provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis, mitigation, and effects of GHG emissions in draft CEQA documents.

5. General Plan Designation and Zoning
The GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would be implemented throughout the City and would occur in all Burbank General Plan designations and zoning designations. The plan would not alter any existing designations.

6. Description of Plan
GGRP Update
The GGRP Update builds off of and incorporates the climate protection programs noted above that the City has in place and will continue to reduce GHG emissions. Specifically, the GGPR Update builds off of the 2013 GGRP, which was the City’s first official qualified GHG reduction plan. The City has developed the GGRP Update in order to achieve a number of objectives, including a demonstration of environmental leadership, compliance with State environmental initiatives, promotion of green jobs, and increased sustainable development.

The GGRP Update addresses municipal and communitywide GHG emissions and includes a goal of reducing communitywide GHG emissions output to 771,484 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) by 2030 (consistent with California Senate Bill 32 target for 2030). To maintain consistency with the 2013 GGRP, GHG emission reduction targets were set based on the 2010 community GHG inventory, which represents the City’s baseline and was included in the 2013 GGRP.

The State of California uses 1990 as a reference year to remain consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which codified the State’s 2020 GHG emissions target by directing CARB to reduce Statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. However, cities and counties throughout California typically elect to use years later than 1990 as baseline years because of the increased reliability of recordkeeping from those years and the large amount of growth that has occurred since 1990. As mentioned, the 2013 GGRP included a baseline for 2010. The 2013 GGRP also established a 2020 emission reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 GHG emission levels and a 2035 target of 30 percent below 2010 GHG emission levels. As of 2019, the City of Burbank has reduced GHG emission by 28 percent, ATTACHMENT 1-285
EXHIBIT 1
exceeding the 2020 target and nearly meeting the 2035 target established in the original GGRP well in advance of the horizon year.18 The majority of these GHG emission reductions occurred in the transportation and energy sectors through increased efficiency and increased renewable energy procurement by BWP, as well as increased fuel efficiency in the on-road vehicle fleet. The water sector also experienced relatively significant GHG emission reductions through increased renewable energy procurement statewide.

In 2019, approximately 1,084,854 MT CO2e were emitted in Burbank from the energy, transportation, solid waste, water, and municipal sectors. The municipal sector is a subset of the community emission sectors, which consist of energy, transportation, solid waste, and water, and is developed to establish metrics that allow the City to lead by example and reduce emissions at the municipal level. The energy sector represents emissions that result from electricity and natural gas used in both private and public sector buildings and facilities. The transportation sector includes emissions from private, commercial, and fleet vehicles driven within the City as well as the emissions from transit vehicles, the City-owned fleet, and off-road equipment such as lawnmowers/ garden equipment and construction equipment. Emissions generated from water usage and wastewater generation are due to the indirect electricity use to distribute water and collect and treat wastewater. Burning fossil fuels associated with buildings/facility energy vehicle use and (transportation) use are the largest contributors of Burbank GHG emissions. Table 1 includes total Burbank (i.e., community and municipal) GHG emissions in 2019 by sector as well as percentage of total City emissions.

Project Design Features
The GGRP Update is a planning document and would not involve land use or zoning changes, but would rather promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. Projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and other applicable regulatory land use actions. Additionally, future plans or projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. Nonetheless, the City has also included Project Design Features (PDFs), which are specific design components proposed to avoid or reduce the project’s potential environment effects. Specifically, the City proposes to include the following PDFs for development projects that require ground disturbance (grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) beyond five feet below ground surface (bgs) where it was not previously excavated beyond five feet bgs:

CUL-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources ▪ A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training on archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities. The training shall be conducted by an archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. Archaeological sensitivity training will include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find. ▪ If archaeological or Native American resources are inadvertently discovered during ground disturbing activities, work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity of the find (a 60-foot buffer 18 Burbank, City of. 2021. GGRP Update.

ATTACHMENT 1-286
EXHIBIT 1
around the find) until the find can be evaluated by the Archaeological Monitor, as defined in Mitigation Measure CUL-1, and Native American Monitor. Work on areas outside of the buffered area may continue during the assessment period. ▪ If the resources are determined to be potential tribal cultural resources, the Applicant shall retain the services of a Native American Monitor to work in consultation with the Archaeological Monitor to delineate the resource. The Native American Monitor shall be a professional qualified in the identification and/or preservation of tribal cultural resources and agreed to by tribe(s) with ancestral ties to the region, in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission. Native American monitoring shall be implemented in the event a cultural resource of Native American origin is identified at any stage of ground disturbance, including, but not limited to, site clearing (such as pavement removal, grubbing, tree removals) and/or excavation to depths greater than 1.5-feet (including boring, grading, excavation, drilling, potholing or auguring, and trenching).
▪ In the event Native American monitoring is required, the Native American Monitor shall complete monitoring logs on a daily basis, providing descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when grading and excavation activities of native soil (i.e., previously undisturbed) are completed.
▪ The Applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the tribe(s) with ancestral ties to the region on the disposition and treatment of any tribal cultural resource encountered during all ground disturbing activities. If the find is considered an “archeological resource,” the Archaeological Monitor, in cooperation with Native American Monitor, shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage, and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. If a tribal cultural resource cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage, and treatment shall be required at the Project Applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation in an established accredited professional repository. If the resources are determined to be non-Native in origin, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility. If the discovery proves to be eligible for the CRHR and cannot be avoided by the Project, additional work such as data recovery, excavation, and archaeological mitigation may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts.

ATTACHMENT 1-287
EXHIBIT 1
Table 1 Burbank 2019 Communitywide GHG Emissions by Sector Sector/Emission Source GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Percentage of Total Energy 573,376 53%
Non-Residential Electricity 322,807 30%
Natural Gas 135,333 12%
Residential Electricity 109,688 10%
Electricity Transmission and Distribution Losses 5,547 1% Transportation 470,653 43%
Passenger On-road Vehicles 388,157 36%
Commercial On-road Vehicles 71,042 7%
Off-road Equipment 9,880 1%
Public Transit 1,573 <1%
Solid Waste2 35,890 %
Waste Sent to Landfill 34,372 3%
Landfilling Process Emissions 1,491 <1%
Waste Sent to Combustion Facilities 26 <1%
Water 4,936 <1%
Imported Potable Water Supply 2,576 <1%
Wastewater Treatment Process and Fugitive Emissions 2,360 <1% Local Potable Water Supply1 5,120 <1%
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Energy1 2,172 <1%
Cumulative Emissions 1,084,854 100%
Notes: MT CO2e = Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

1. GHG emissions generated by electricity consumption involved in producing local groundwater supplies and the collection and treatment of wastewater are not added to the GHG emissions total to avoid double counting. The electricity consumption involved in these processes is already encompassed in non-residential electricity consumption in the energy sector.

2. GHG emissions generated by the collection and transport of waste generated within the City are captured in the Commercial On- road Vehicle source in the Transportation sector.

As shown in Table 1, the largest sectors of GHG emissions are related to energy and transportation, followed by solid waste and water. The City is preparing the GGRP Update to include measures and actions addressing communitywide and municipal GHG emissions. Per the GGRP Update, Burbank is committed to an emissions reduction target of 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 (SB 32 target year) and reaching a longer-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Table 2 summarizes the emission reduction targets included in the GGRP Update compared to the reductions proposed in the 2013 GGRP. This 2030 GHG emissions goal is selected to be consistent with SB 32 and CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5 for a qualified GHG emissions reduction strategy as well as to be achievable by City-supported measures identified in the GGRP Update. The GGRP Update includes a business-as- usual (BAU) and adjusted forecast of GHG emissions that will enable the City to estimate the amount of emissions reductions needed to meet its goal.

ATTACHMENT 1-288
EXHIBIT 1
Table 2 GHG Emission Reduction Targets
Target Year Reductions Compared
to 1990 Levels
Reductions Compared to
2010 Baseline
Remaining Emissions Gap
(MT CO2e)
2020 Meet 1990 Levels 15% Target Exceeded
2030 40% 49% 86,555
2045 100% 100% 531,203
The GGRP Update includes measures to educate the community regarding ways to electrify buildings, reduce energy use, actively commute, and divert organics from the waste stream. It also includes measures to increase use of zero-emission vehicles; increase use of public and shared transportation; reduce water consumption and waste generation; and increase tree planting and green space. Finally, it includes measures that would continue to allow the City to lead by example and reduce emissions at the municipal level. Table 3 includes a complete list of the measures and actions included in the GGRP Update by strategy.

Table 3 Burbank GGRP Update Measures and Actions by Strategy ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Cornerstone Sector
Measure C-1 Lead by example by focusing on equity constraints associated with existing building electrification by leveraging BWP’s operations and efficiency programs to develop an Affordable Housing Electrification Program to lead Burbank’s electrification targets through retrofitting low-income and affordable housing units in Burbank to all electric, retrofitting 100 affordable housing units by 2030 and all 320 affordable housing units owned by Burbank Housing Corporation in the City by 2045.

Action
C-1.1.a
Expand upon BWP’s low-income Refrigerator Exchange Program by identifying funding to provide electric heat-pump water heaters and HVAC units to low-income households.

Action
C-1.1.b
Explore a partnership with non-profit organizations, such as GRID Alternatives, to implement a low- income solar installation program, which includes a workforce installation training program for groups not typically represented in the solar workforce.

Action
C-1.1.c
Establish a program with Burbank Housing Corporation to provide discounted electric appliances and equipment, as well as technical assistance with installation and electrical panel and circuit upgrades for retrofits and time of replacement upgrades of appliances and equipment in affordable housing units.

Action
C-1.1.d
Partner with Burbank Housing Corporation to perform an electrification needs and existing building retrofit cost assessment for all affordable housing units owned and managed by the Burbank Housing Corporation to identify an electrification retrofit pilot project that includes retrofitting of an entire building of affordable housing units.

Action
C-1.1.e
Conduct targeted outreach to low-income housing developments to engage building owners, building managers, landlords and residents to communicate benefits of electrification, discuss potential for retrofitting buildings, gain buy-in from community members, and providing education and trainings on incentives, technical requirements, and available resources.

Action
C-1.1.f
Implement a pilot project for retrofitting of an entire building of affordable housing units, as determined feasible.

Action
C-1.1.g
Perform an existing buildings analysis specifically targeted towards low-income neighborhoods to identify neighborhoods or building blocks for larger-scale electrification projects in partnership with BWP.

Action
C-1.1.h
Identify and implement a pilot project for electrification of a complete neighborhood composed of low-income and affordable housing, including energy bill protections in case energy bills exceed costs to residents prior to project implementation and pursuing opportunities for natural gas infrastructure pruning.

ATTACHMENT 1-289
EXHIBIT 1
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
C-1.1.i
Develop a tariffed on-bill financing program or other incentive program to allow for equitable electrification of buildings within BWP service area.

Action
C-1.1.j
Evaluate opportunities to provide technical and financial assistance to low-income property owners and low-income homeowners looking to electrify.

Strategy BE-1 Building Energy and Efficiency
Measure
BE-1.1
Electrify 100% of new construction in the City by 2023.

Action
BE-1.1.a
Adopt an Electrification Reach Code for all new buildings which prohibits the piping of natural gas. In doing so the City will:
▪ Engage with stakeholders, both internal stakeholders, such as City staff and officials, and external stakeholders, such as local developers regarding the purpose and impact of the reach code ▪ Conduct a cost effectiveness study
▪ Develop and draft an ordinance
▪ Conduct public hearings, public notices, and formally adopt the ordinance ▪ Submit the adopted ordinance to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Building Standards Commission (CBSC)
Action
BE-1.1.b
Provide education around cooking with electric appliances, including demonstrations from chefs and/or local restaurants.

Action
BE-1.1.c
Provide technical resources, including hosting workforce development trainings for installers and building owners/operators to discuss benefits and technical requirements of electrification.

Action
BE-1.1.d
Building and Safety Division and BWP will promote the cost and environmental benefits of electrification to builders, property owners, and contractors on the website and at the City permit counters.

Action
BE-1.1.e
Establish a partnership with the Building Decarbonization Coalition, or a similar organization, to engage with local building industry stakeholders in development of an Electrification Reach Code.

BE-1.1.f Conduct an electrification infrastructure and capacity feasibility study to identify expected increases in electricity demand due to building and vehicle electrification, ensure capacity to meet that demand, and identify any infrastructure improvements.

BE-1.1.g Work with SoCal Gas to identify opportunities for natural gas infrastructure pruning to reduce the chance of stranded assets, provide potential funding, and establish an efficient transition to carbon neutral buildings.

Measure BE-

1.2 Leverage BWPs marketing programs to convert 3,000 residential and 170 commercial natural gas- fueled HVAC and water heating units in existing private buildings to electric heat pumps by 2030, and 10,000 residential and 560 commercial units by 2045.

Action
BE-1.2.a
Build upon the success of BWP’s retrofit package and rebate and incentive programs with an All- Electric Building Initiative, or tariffed on-bill financing program that expands rebates and incentives to electric heat-pump water heating, HVAC units, and electrical panel upgrades and expands the business retrofit packages to include electric heat-pump water heaters and HVAC units.

ATTACHMENT 1-290
EXHIBIT 1
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
BE-1.2.b
Partner with BWP to develop an education campaign to promote the All-Electric Building Initiative that builds upon the success of other BWP programs. The program would include:
▪ Utility bill inserts to advertise the incentive programs and the cost and health benefits of electric appliances
▪ Targeted outreach to builders and property managers with an informational brochure describing the financial benefits of replacing natural gas appliances with all electric appliance when they apply for permits
▪ Targeted outreach to local property managers to address appliance energy use and benefits of all electric appliances in multi‐family units
▪ Provide informational webinars and an updated website to advertise and promote All-Electric Building Initiative rebates and incentives
Action
BE-1.2.c
Review incentives and rebates for procedural equity and ensure that existing and updated incentive programs are being equitably distributed to the community. Hurdles to equitable implementation could include credit checks, excessive procedural hurdles and lack of targeted outreach.

Action
BE-1.2.d
Initiate separate application process for electric conversions in the building permit system to track the number of permitted natural gas fueled water heaters and HVAC equipment replaced with electric fueled equipment, as well as if this has resulted in a building becoming all-electric, with indication of whether or not BWPs incentive and rebate programs are being utilized to pay for new equipment.

Action
BE-1.2.e
Partner with Building and Safety to perform an electrification feasibility study to identify costs, benefits, potential hurdles, and policy strategies for electrifying existing buildings in Burbank.

Strategies could include time of replacement, time of sale, and building performance policies.

Action
BE-1.2.f
Work with a non-profit organization, such as Building Decarbonization Coalition or Rocky Mountain Institute, to develop a best practices model based on the progress electrifying existing buildings to significantly increase electrification post-2030.

Measure
BE-1.3
Continue to increase building energy efficiency through BWP's rebate and incentive programs to reduce annual customer energy use by a collective 63 GWh by 2030.

Action
BE-1.3.a
Implement a retrofit package tracking system for BWP’s energy efficiency retrofit incentive program, which includes tracking of the number of pre-defined packages installed.

Action
BE-1.3.b
Continue to perform outreach for smart grid integration and promotion of smart grid-compatible technologies.

Action
BE-1.3.c
Maintain BWP’s current rebate and incentive programs, ENERGY STAR appliance program, and Energy Conservation Programs, with continued public outreach and promotion.

Action
BE-1.3.d
Continue collaboration between BWP and Burbank Unified School District to provide 6th graders with a “Resource Action Kit,” which contains energy and water saving devices for the student to install in their home, and information to complete a home audit report. Use this opportunity to teach students about the energy-water nexus as well.

Action
BE-1.3.e
Provide information to Community Development staff regarding annual energy savings from energy conservation programs for GGRP implementation tracking.

Action
BE-1.3.f
Update the BWP Home Upgrade Program to include electrification with a focus on heat pump hot water heaters and HVAC systems which can be up to 400% efficient.

Measure
EG-1.1
Goal to achieve 100% GHG-neutral electricity generation by 2040.

Action
BE-1.1.a
Implement programs, similar to BWP's Residential Green Rate Premium Program, to facilitate access for customers to adopt more renewable energy.

Action
BE-1.1.b
Conduct a feasibility study to understand potential for installation of renewable energy generation at BWP water facilities.

Action
BE-1.1.c
Conduct analysis on risks and benefits associated with relying on battery storage to achieve carbon neutral electricity and grid resiliency goals and set a MW capacity goal for installed battery storage by 2030 and 2040 consistent with BWP rules and regulations.

ATTACHMENT 1-291
EXHIBIT 1
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
BE-1.1.d
Conduct a feasibility study to identify locations in the City for installation of local renewable energy generation and energy storage projects.

Action
BE-1.1.e
Direct BWP to continue to work with businesses (especially the studios) on partnerships designed to maximize the use of renewable energy including solar/ storage, appropriate tariff changes and microgrid opportunities
Action
BE-1.1.f
Develop a battery storage program in which BWP provides battery storage incentives in return for a commitment to operate (CTO) distributed battery storage projects for a set amount of time (i.e., 5-10 years), consistent with BWP rules and regulations.

Action
EG-1.1.g
Identify grant funding opportunities to increase landfill gas capture rate at Burbank Landfill Site No. 3 to the maximum extent practicable.

Action
EG-1.1.h
Install 5 MW of local solar capacity, utilizing parking structure roofs and buildings around City as means to increase load capacity, including in areas where high loads from electric vehicle charging is likely.

Action
EG-1.1.i
Expand renewable energy generation at BWP facilities, with a goal of installing renewable energy generation at all feasible locations by 2040.

Strategy T-1 Reduce Passenger Car Vehicle Miles Traveled Measure
T-1.1
Implement the Complete Our Streets Plan, increasing active transportation mode share 2% by 2030 and 3% by 2045.

Action
T-1.1.a
Implement all policy recommendations included in the Complete Our Streets Plan to improve pedestrian and bicycle networks and increase transit ridership based on the established timeframes.

Action
T-1.1.b
Integrate the Complete Our Streets “Checklist for New Projects” into the City’s Development Review process and Capital Improvement Program to ensure new projects include Complete Our Streets measures.

Action
T-1.1.c
Continually work to identify grant funding opportunities to implement Complete Our Streets projects included in the Complete Our Streets Plan.

Action
T-1.1.d
Complete and implement the Citywide Safe Routes to School Plan consistent with the Complete Our Streets Plan upon identification of funding.

Action
T-1.1.e
Develop and implement a bicycle safety program as part of the Citywide Safe Routes to School Plan focused on educating bicycle riders of all ages and skill levels to encourage ridership by offering bicycle safety resources and classes.

Action
T-1.1.f
Evaluate and update the City’s existing Zoning Code, Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, and California Green Building Code to ensure the City requires installation of bicycle parking areas in instances where off-street parking is required. Also, providing technical assistance to developers seeking to comply with the ordinance
Action
T-1.1.g
Utilize performance measures included in Complete Our Streets Plan to monitor and track realized mode shift from plan implementation.

Measure
T-1.2
Provide clean, abundant, affordable, and accessible public transit, with a zero-emissions bus fleet by 2040.

Action
T-1.2.a
Work with Metro to expand use of Metro’s LIFE low-income EZ Pass transit subsidy by Burbank low- income households who ride BurbankBus and expand Burbank Pass program transit subsidy program to BurbankBus fixed-route service to cover gaps in the Metro LIFE program.

Action
T-1.2.b
Adopt an ordinance to allow and manage shared-use mobility devices, including but not limited to e- scooters and bikes.

Action
T-1.2.c
Apply for California Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, or other Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants, to facilitate electrification of bus fleet.

Action
T-1.2.d
Use electric bus fleet to generate revenue through programs, such as the California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standards, to pay for increased bus service frequencies and/or other supportive infrastructure.

Action
T-1.2.e
Electrify the Burbank Bus fleet in accordance with California Air Resources Board mandates and the City’s Transit Fleet Electrification Study.

ATTACHMENT 1-292
EXHIBIT 1
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Strategy T-2 Transportation Demand Management
Measure
T.2-1
Continue Transportation Management Organization (TMO) Expansion, reaching 60% of employers by 2030 and 90% by 2045.

Action
T-2.1.a
Work with the Burbank TMO to update the TMO website annually to provide program information to current and potential members.

Action
T-2.1.b
Work with the Burbank TMO to continue to implement TMO outreach strategy to increase membership and active participation in TMO programs
Action
T-2.1.c
Update the Burbank Center Plan and the Media District Specific Plan, adopt the Golden State Specific Plan, and update the Plan Transportation Management Organization requirements to reflect TDM best practices. Collectively, these updates should evaluate which businesses are subject to TMO requirements, membership requirements and fees, TDM strategies offered by the TMO, reporting requirements and performance measures, and funding requirements. Utilize lessons learned from COVID-19 on transportation habits, impacts on transit, and potential hurdles and opportunities connected to these changes.

Action
T-2.1.d
Expand geographic boundary of TMO to Golden State /Airport areas by 2025 as part of the Golden State Specific Plan, and citywide by 2035.

Measure
T-2.2
Strengthen the TMO program and ordinance to increase compliance with the City’s 1.61 Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) Goal to reduce employees commuting to Burbank via single occupancy vehicle. Ensure that 30% of TMO businesses achieve the 1.61 AVR target by 2030, and 60% by 2045.

Action
T-2.2.a
To enhance the Burbank community’s ability to telecommute, partner with telecom companies to perform a Broadband Access Study to identify areas of the City have limited access to broadband service due to infrastructure and financial limitations.

Action
T-2.2.b
Identify grant funding opportunities to help bridge the broadband access gap in the City by helping to fund installation of infrastructure or subsidize broadband service for low-income households.

Action
T-2.2.c
Update the Burbank Municipal Code to require businesses to pay TMO fees directly to the City rather than by the TMO. Impose a tiered fee that decreases fees for businesses who achieve 1.61 AVR and increases fees for businesses who do not achieve 1.61 AVR. Raise and lower TMO fees based on the number of employers who achieve 1.61 AVR.

Action
T-2.2.d
Direct TMO fees towards expanded BurbankBus transit services, employee rideshare subsidies, and active transportation infrastructure.

Strategy T-3 Zero-Emission Vehicles
Measure
T-3.1
Increase zero-emission vehicle adoption to 23% of all passenger vehicles by 2030 and 100% by 2045.

Action
T-3.1.a
Adopt an EV Charging Retrofits in Existing Commercial and Multifamily Buildings Reach Code requiring major retrofits, with either a building permit with square footage larger than 10,000 square feet or including modification of electric service panels, to meet CalGreen requirements for “EV Ready” charging spaces and infrastructure.

Action
T-3.1b
Coordinate with BWP to enhance promotion of public and private conversion to zero-emission vehicles; including use of City events, social media, and the City website to educate on benefits of zero-emission vehicles and available incentives.

Action
T-3.1.c
Conduct a City Municipal Fleet Optimization Study to understand the potential to replace fossil-fuel powered vehicles with zero-emission vehicles as they are replaced, with a goal of replacing 25% of light-duty fleet vehicles by 2030.

Action
T-3.1.d
Evaluate alternative options to gas powered landscape and forestry maintenance equipment when replacing city-owned equipment.

Action
T-3.1.e
Implement the BWP Transportation Electrification Plan to facilitate installation of EV chargers through customer rebates and direct installation of charging stations.

ATTACHMENT 1-293
EXHIBIT 1
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
T-3.1.f
Investigate opportunities to help fund additional EV charging infrastructure by leveraging public/private partnerships and ensuring the City is charging for EV infrastructure use at City owned facilities.

Action
T-3.1.g
Adopt an electric and alternative fueled vehicles and equipment purchasing policy for light-duty vehicles for all City departments, including BWP, allowing for exceptions for heavy-duty and emergency response vehicles.

Action
T-3.1.h
Adopt an EV Reach Code requiring new commercial and multifamily construction to install the minimum number of EV chargers based on Tier 2 CalGreen requirements (20% of total).

Action
T-3.1.i
Update the BWP Transportation Electrification plan by 2026 to reflect changes in state goals, consumer behavior, technology and lessons learned.

Strategy T-4 Parking
Measure
T-4.1
Implement Parking Management as identified in the Burbank2035 General Plan Mobility Element and the City Council’s Six Parking Management Principles.

Action
T-4.1.a
Implement managed parking at the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station, the Burbank Airport North Metrolink Station, and the Burbank Airport South Metrolink Station through parking pricing so that at least 20 percent of station parking supply is available for transit users at any time of the day.

Action
T-4.1.b
By 2025, implement the City’s 6 Parking Management Principles in the Burbank Center Plan area. This would include:
1) Pricing all public parking (streets and structures) so that at least 20 percent of parking supply (one or two spaces per block) is available at any time of day 2) Updating BMC Zoning rules to improve flexibility of off-street parking requirements for new development
Action
T-4.1.c
By 2030, implement the City’s 6 Parking Management Principles in the Golden State Specific Plan area and Media District Specific Plan area. This would include:
1) Pricing all public parking (streets and structures) so that at least 20 percent of parking supply (one or two spaces per block) is available at any time of day 2) Updating BMC Zoning rules to improve flexibility of off-street parking requirements for new development

Action
T-4.1.d
By 2040, implement the City’s 6 Parking Management Principles citywide. This would include:
1) Pricing all public parking (streets and structures) so that at least 20 percent of parking supply (one or two spaces per block) is available at any time of day 2) Updating BMC Zoning rules to improve flexibility of off-street parking requirements for new development
Strategy W-1 Water Energy Nexus
Measure
W-1.1
Reduce per capita water consumption from current levels of 132 gpcd to 124 gpcd by 2030 (6.8 percent reduction) and to 120.5 gpcd by 2045 (9.4 percent reduction).

Action
W-1.1.a
Continue to implement UWMP water conservation programs.

Action
W-1.1.b
Continue to enforce MWELO requirements.

Action
W-1.1.c
Continue enforcement of large irrigation customers required to use recycled water.

Action
W-1.1.d
Coordinate with BWP to implement a public education campaign that highlights water conservation practices and promotes and provides demonstrations of graywater and rainwater systems, with focus on low-income households with high utility bill burdens.

Action
W-1.1.e
Install a new Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system in the next four years that will include easy-to-use web-based tools that allow customers to track and monitor water use. Promote the availability of Home Water Reports and provide materials on how to utilize the available information.

ATTACHMENT 1-294
EXHIBIT 1
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
W-1.1.f
Update BWP’s 2010 Recycled Water Master Plan to identify success since 2010 and feasible opportunities for expanding recycled water use. Work with developers to expand recycled water system and develop a recycled water expansion program.

Action
W-1.1.g
Modernize at least three irrigation controllers city-wide each year, as needed, to reduce water usage and maximize watering efficiencies, upgrading systems throughout the entire City by 2030.

Strategy SW-1 Organic Waste Diversion
Measure
SW.1-1
Meet SB 1383 organics and recycling requirements, reducing organic waste disposal 75% by 2025 Action
SW-1.1.a
Engage with all waste haulers operating within the City to discuss SB 1383 requirements for waste haulers (i.e., organics receptacles and labeling requirements).

Action
SW-1.1.b
Adopt procurement policies to comply with SB 1383 requirements for jurisdictions to purchase recovered organic waste products.

Action
SW-1.1.c
Adopt an Edible Food Recovery Ordinance for edible food generators, food recovery services, or organization that are required to comply with SB 1383.

Action
SW-1.1.d
Partner with all City waste haulers, to provide organic waste collection and recycling services to all commercial and residential generators of organic waste.

Action
SW-1.1.e
Adopt an ordinance requiring all residential and commercial customers to subscribe to an organic waste collection program and/or report self-hauling or backhauling of organics.

Action
SW-1.1.f
Conduct a Feasibility Study and prepare an action plan to provide for edible food reuse infrastructure is sufficient to accept capacity needed to recover 20% of edible food disposed or identify proposed new or expanded food recovery capacity.

Action
SW-1.1.g
Establish an education and outreach program for school children and adults around food waste prevention, nutrition education, and the importance of edible food recovery.

Action
SW-1.1.h
Establish an edible food recovery program to minimize food waste.

Action
SW-1.1.i
Adopt an ordinance or enforceable mechanism to regulate haulers collecting organic waste, including collection program requirements and identification of organic waste receiving facilities.

Action
SW-1.1.j Partner with all waste haulers within the City to:
▪ Provide organic waste collection from mixed waste containers are transported to a high diversion organic waste processing facility
▪ Provide quarterly route reviews to identify prohibited contaminants potentially found in containers that are collected along route.
▪ Clearly label all new containers indicating which materials are accepted in each container, and by January 1, 2025, place or replace labels on all containers.

Strategy CS-1 Carbon Sequestration
Measure
CS-1.1
Plant 2,000 net new trees by 2030 and 5,000 net new trees by 2045 to sequestrator carbon and create urban shade to reduce the urban heat island effect.

Action
CS-1.1.a
Implement a tree removal in-lieu fee which provides funding for the City to plant a new tree equivalent to every tree removed from private property.

Action
CS-1.1.b
Identify funding to expand BWP’s Free Shade Tree Program to include targeted outreach to multi- family and low-income housing.

Action
CS-1.1.c
Adopt a Greenscaping Ordinance that has a street tree requirement for all zoning districts; has a shade tree requirement for new development; requires greening of parking lots; and increases permeable surfaces in new development.

Action
CS-1.1.d
Develop an Urban Forest Plan to identify City's potential capacity for new tree planting, identify a timeframe for implementation and provide a management plan for existing trees.

ATTACHMENT 1-295
EXHIBIT 1
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
CS-1.1.e
Adopt a standard policy and set of practices for expanding the urban tree canopy and placing vegetative barriers between busy roadways and developments to reduce exposure to air pollutants from traffic.

Action
CS-1.1.f
Conduct an urban canopy study and identify low income and/or disadvantaged communities with lower-than-average tree canopy coverage in order to prioritize planting in these areas to provide equitable access to the health and resiliency benefits of trees.

Strategy CG-1 City Government Actions
CG-1.1 Complete a triennial GGRP review and update.

Action
CG-1.1.a
Update community wide GHG emissions inventory annually in the monitoring tool.

Action
CG-1.1.b
Obtain annual progress updates from BWP on energy efficiency program implementation and city- wide energy consumption.

Action
CG-1.1.c
Establish reporting of annual volumes of landfill gas captured and methane fraction of landfill gas at Burbank Landfill Site No. 3 for better understanding of future landfill emissions.

Action
CG-1.1.d
Update progress on GHG Reduction Measures annually in reporting tool.

Action
CG-1.1.e
Regularly update the GGRP webpage to include updates on ordinances, programs, and policies implemented as part of the GGRP.

Action
CG-1.1.f
Earmark funding for triennial GGRP updates.

CG-1.2 Retrofit all City Streetlights and Outdoor Lighting at City facilities to Light-Emitting Diode (LED) by 2030.

Action
CG-1.2.a
Continue to implement the 2019 Streetlighting Master Plan for conversion of existing High-Pressure Sodium streetlights to Light-emitting Diode (LED).

Action
CG-1.2.b
Continue with annual reporting of BWP’s streetlight replacements, with the number of replacements and estimated annual energy savings associated with replacements.

Action
CG-1.2.c
Establish a plan for converting outdoor lighting at City facilities, City parking areas, and parks to LED.

Action
CG-1.2.d
Implement plan for converting all outdoor lighting at City facilities, City parking areas, and parks to LED by 2030.

CG-1.3 Electrify 25% of existing City facilities by 2030 and 100% of existing City facilities by 2045, as well as all newly constructed City buildings.

Action
CG-1.3.a
Partner with Building and Safety to conduct an electrification opportunity assessment for all City buildings and facilities and establish a replacement plan for replacing natural gas fueled equipment with electric where practical and technologically feasible.

Action
CG-1.3.b
Establish a City owned building equipment policy to replace natural gas fueled equipment at the end of useful life with electric or other alternative equipment when practical and technology is feasible and the same consideration for all newly constructed City facilities and buildings.

Action
CG-1.3.c
In partnership with BWP, install photovoltaic at all City buildings where feasible to offset at least 80% of energy consumption and use excess generation to contribute to City-wide renewable energy sources.

Action
CG-1.3.d
Identify and install battery energy storage systems at appropriate City facilities, and leverage projects to further promote benefits of distributed energy storage, which are directly connected to a renewable resource.

CG-1.4 Implement a flexible employee commute program, with a target of having 25% of City employee staff time utilizing telecommuting by 2030.

Action
CG-1.4.a
Establish a subsidized transit commute program and expand the employee carpool program to reduce employee commute miles in single occupancy vehicles.

ATTACHMENT 1-296
EXHIBIT 1
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
CG-1.4.b
Expand employee use of carbon-free and low carbon transportation by providing education programs on the benefits of commute options including public transportation, EV/ZEV options, and vanpools.

Action
CG-1.4.c
Allow 25% of employees located at the City of Burbank to telecommute or utilize flexible schedules through 2030 to reduce travel time, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and GHG emissions.

Strategy A-1.1 Adaptation
A-1.1 Partner with Ready LA County to educate the community about the dangers of heat exposure and identify low-cost mechanisms to reduce impacts of extreme heat on the community.

Action
A-1.1.a
Review and update the City’s Emergency Preparedness website to reflect ways to prepare for events that may be likely to increase due to climate change.

Action
A-1.1.b
Work with Ready LA County to continue public education regarding the symptoms of extreme heat exposure in English, Spanish, and Armenian.

Action
A-1.1.c
Identify low-cost mechanisms to reduce the impact of extreme heat on the community, especially on the most vulnerable members of society (i.e., children, the elderly, economically disadvantaged groups, and those with chronic health conditions made worse by heat exposure), and review grant opportunities to fund and implement.

Action
A-1.1.d
Identify three new community locations that are either owned by the City or a trusted private entity that can serve as shelter, evacuation, and/or clean air centers for future climate emergency events in centralized areas throughout the City.

Action
A-1.1.e
Investigate opportunities to integrate Internet of Things (IoT) monitoring of real time environmental data such as utility information, air composition, direct emissions or temperature tracking.

A-1.2 Complete and implement a robust city-wide Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan.

Action
A-1.2.a
Work with the Burbank Fire Department to review and update the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to confirm that it aligns with the Federal requirements, including identification of hazards and a climate risk assessment.

Action
A-1.2.b
Identify grant funding opportunities and/or earmark additional funding opportunities to complete and implement a robust city-wide Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan.

Action
A-1.2.c
Provide information on the City’s website about updated climate vulnerability information and information on how the community can increase the City’s adaptive capacity.

Action
A-1.2.d
Upon acquisition of funding, complete a Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan that focuses on the City’s most vulnerable communities and establishes specific goals to reduce the vulnerability of those most susceptible to the impacts of climate change.

A-1.3 Develop a mechanism to evaluate biodiversity in the City as well as policies/programs to maintain or increase native species.

Action
A-1.3.a
Consider investigating a partnership with researchers and/or students at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) to utilize the Biodiversity Atlas of Los Angeles to understand best practices on how to track, interpret, update, and maintain data associated with biodiversity throughout the City.

Action
A-1.3.b
Provide a direct link on the City’s website to the Biodiversity Atlas of Los Angeles in addition to any updated biodiversity inventories, which should be completed regularly. In addition, provide an avenue for citizen scientists to participate in reporting and tracking of species, when possible.

Action
A-1.3.c
Work with Trails LA County and/or the Stough Canyon Nature Center to design and implement a program that invites all residents to visit the local natural ecosystems and utilize the local hiking trails, that also provides a multi-lingual educational component, with an emphasis on low-income and disadvantaged community members.

Action
A-1.3.d
Review and identify funding opportunities to update and maintain a tracking mechanism to regularly evaluate biodiversity in the City.

Source: Burbank, City of. 2021. GGRP Update.

The measures included in the GGRP Update combined with statewide legislation and initiatives and regional transportation programs will enable the City to meet its emissions reduction target of 40 ATTACHMENT 1-297
EXHIBIT 1
percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Table 4 shows the contribution of the statewide initiatives along with the measures included in the GGRP Update. The City needs to achieve a reduction of 382,451 MT CO2e by 2030 to meet its goal. The estimated GHG reductions accounted for in the GGRP Update total 386,243 MT CO2e by 2030.

Table 4 Burbank 2030 GHG Reduction Target by Sector
State Initiative Sector
2030 Reduction in
City Emissions (MTCO2e)
Advanced Clean Cars Program, Pavley Standards, Zero
Emissions Vehicles Program, Clean Transit) On-road Transportation 126,187 SB 100 and Renewable Portfolio Standard Electricity 150,731 Title 24 Residential/Non-residential
Electricity and Natural Gas 16,183
A. Total State Initiative Emissions Reductions 295,896
B. Total City GGRP Update Emissions Reductions 90,347
C. Total Expected Emissions Reductions (A+B) 386,243
D Burbank Emissions Reduction Requirement 382,451
E. Meets/exceeds State Goals? (C > D) Yes
Source: Burbank, City of. 2021. GGRP Update.

Table 4 and Figure 3 illustrate how the BAU emissions are estimated to increase, thus widening the emissions reductions needed by 2030. Figure 3 also shows emissions reductions expected from State level actions as well as the reductions needed to reach the Burbank emissions target.

Figure 3 Burbank Future GHG Emissions Projection and Reduction Target

Source: Burbank, City of. 2021. Burbank GGRP.

ATTACHMENT 1-298
EXHIBIT 1
Table 5 Burbank Future GHG Emissions Projection and Reduction Target Description Emissions (MTCO2e)
2010 Baseline Year Emissions 1,512,713
2019 Emissions 1,084,854

2030 BAU Emissions 1,153,935
2030 Adjusted Forecast 858,039
2030 Target Emissions (49% below 1990 levels) 771,484
2030 Required Reduction from Measures 86,555
Source: Burbank, City of. 2020. Draft GGRP Update
Implementation of the measures (listed in Table 3) could result in physical changes to the environment that could potentially have a significant impact on the environment. While individual projects resulting from these measures have not been identified for the purposes of this document, the types of actions that could result from realization of the measures are taken into account in considering potential environmental impacts that could occur through implementation of the GGRP Update. For example, projects or actions requiring ministerial approval, such as installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure, new bicycle or pedestrian facilities, and solar photovoltaic (PV), may introduce physical changes related to the temporary presence and operation of construction vehicles and equipment during installation of required facilities and the long-term presence of new facilities such as bike and pedestrian facilities, solar arrays, and electric vehicle charging stations, which could alter pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns.

Additionally, electrification retrofits may change the physical environment through the need for upgraded service and electrical panels, branch circuit upgrades, and installation of condensate drains to facilitate the installation of electric heat pumps for water and space heating. The associated construction impacts and the physical changes these upgrades and additions would entail are dependent on the year of building construction and location of electrical and service panels and plumbing for connection of condensate drains, which in some cases may include modifications to the interior and/or exterior of buildings for wiring and panel replacement, and minor excavation for connection of drainage to sewer systems. Projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan, other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any project. Future plans or projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. Cumulative Projects Scenario CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds
In 2007, SB 97 acknowledged that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in CEQA documents, and in 2010 the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions.

The adopted guidelines gave lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. Specifically, Section 15183.5(b)(1)A-G of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations was amended to state that a qualified GHG Reduction Plan may be used for tiering and streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions in subsequent CEQA project evaluation, provided that the GHG Reduction Plan does the following:

ATTACHMENT 1-299
EXHIBIT 1
▪ Quantifies GHG emissions both existing and projected over a specific period of time, resulting from activities within a defined geographical area ▪ Establishes a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable
▪ Identifies and analyzes the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area
▪ Specifies measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level
▪ Establishes a mechanism to monitor the plan's progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels ▪ Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.

Therefore, the City proposes to also adopt a quantitative efficiency threshold for use in evaluating whether a plan or project’s GHG emissions would result in a potentially significant environmental impact under CEQA for plans or projects with pre-2030 buildout or initial operation years. The CEQA GHG emissions threshold would be applied to plans or projects that cannot tier from the environmental analysis for the City’s GGRP Update (as contained in this IS/ND) because the plan or project would not be consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site and would result in greater GHG emissions than existing on-site development, or the plan or project would not be consistent with the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist.

The threshold is set at the level of GHG emissions that new development would need to achieve to be consistent with the GGRP Update’s communitywide emissions reduction target of 49 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2030. The efficiency threshold, listed below, is expressed in terms of MT CO2e per service person19 and is applicable to plans or projects with pre-2030 buildout or initial operational years:
▪ 3.12 per service person20
Efficiency thresholds for beyond 2030 would be established later in conjunction with subsequent GGRP Updates. Plans or projects that do not tier from the City GGRP Update IS/ND that would generate GHG emissions in excess of these thresholds would result in a potentially significant impact on the environment related to GHG emissions and climate change. Mitigation measures would be required to be identified to reduce potentially significant impacts resulting from such plans or projects. Plans or projects that are unable to reduce GHG emissions below these thresholds through implementation of identified mitigation measures would result in a significant and unavoidable environmental impact. The GHG Emissions Threshold provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have direct construction or operational impacts. 19 The service population is equal to the residential population plus the number of jobs. 20 Burbank, City of. 2021. GGRP Update.

ATTACHMENT 1-300
EXHIBIT 1

7. Cumulative Projects Scenario
For purposes of CEQA cumulative impacts analysis of the Burbank GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold, the cumulative projects scenario is the total projected population growth, and the anticipated cumulative development to accommodate that growth, for Burbank in 2030. Population and employment-based growth factors use the most recent SCAG Connect SoCal 2020 - Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) demographic forecasts.21 Household based growth factors similarly use SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS forecast; however, these are adjusted to account for the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of housing needs for the City of Burbank between 2021 and 2030. As such, the number of households in Burbank is expected to grow by 8,752 units between 2020 and 2030, with steady growth after 2030 at a rate of 151 households per year, consistent with SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS projected growth rates for Burbank.22 As outlined in the GGRP, the population included in the GGRP is different from the population included in the Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR) because the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)23 recommends that each jurisdiction create a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required to ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the housing element to accommodate the Regional Housing Need Allocation throughout the planning period. Including a buffer in the GGRP could result in an overly conservative emissions reduction forecast and target because these scenarios are in part, calculated based on future population scenarios.

8. Required Approvals
City of Burbank
Required approvals include:
▪ Adoption of the GGRP Update and CEQA GHG Emissions Threshold Initial Study-Negative Declaration
▪ Adoption of the GGRP Update
▪ Adoption of the GHG Emissions Threshold
Although individual plans or projects may be implemented later under the umbrella of the GGRP Update, each individual plan or project would be subject to separate environmental review under CEQA.

Other Public Agencies
The City of Burbank has sole approval authority over the GGRP Update. There are no other public agencies whose approval is required.
21 Southern California Association of Governments. May 2020. Connect SoCal. Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Draft/dConnectSoCal_Demographics-And-Growth-Forecast.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2020.
22 SCAG. 2020. SCAG 6th Cycle Draft RHNA Allocation Based on Final RHNA Methodology & Final Connect SoCal. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/rhna-draft-allocations-090320-updated.pdf?1602188695. 23 HCD. June 10, 2020. Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook Government Code Section 65583.2. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf ATTACHMENT 1-301
EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
■ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ 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 to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” 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.

ATTACHMENT 1-302
EXHIBIT 1
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential 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.

Signature Date

Printed Name Title

ATTACHMENT 1-303
EXHIBIT 1
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? □ □ ■ □
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? or
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? According to the City of Burbank 2035 General Plan and California Scenic Highway System,24 there are no scenic roadways or highways in the City of Burbank. However, the General Plan notes that the City has several important scenic vistas and scenic resources.25 As stated in the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, scenic vistas within Burbank include views of the Verdugo Mountains to the northeast and views of the eastern Santa Monica Mountains to the south. 24 California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways Accessed February 1, 2021 25 Burbank, City of. 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan.:
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 Accessed: February 1, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1-304
EXHIBIT 1
Downslope views from hillside development in the Verdugo Mountains toward the City and the Santa Monica Mountains beyond are also considered to be a valued resource. The Open Space and Conservation Element also defines scenic resources in Burbank as public parks and open space, such as Wildwood Canyon Park, Stough Park, Johnny Carson Park, and Brace Canyon Park. Likewise, the architecture of historic structures, such as Burbank City Hall and the Portal of the Folded Wings Shrine to Aviation in Valhalla Memorial Park, are also considered scenic resources that represent aspects of the City’s history.

General Plan Open Space and Conservation Goal 7, Policies 7.1 – 7.4 and Land Use Element Goal 8, Policy 8.10, aim to protect prominent ridgelines and slopes as visual resources and consider and address the preservation of scenic views in the hillside area, respectively. Additionally, General Plan Open Space and Conservation Goal 6, Policy 6.4, promotes the acquisition, conservation, and preservation of land in the Verdugo Mountains. The Burbank Municipal Code Chapter 4 (Trees and Vegetation) as well as General Plan Open Space and Conservation Goals 4, 6, and 7 require preservation and protection of trees and other natural constraints, including ridgelines geologic features, and open space, from unnecessary encroachment or destruction.26 Furthermore, General Plan Land Use Policy 3 as well as Open Space and Conservation Goals 1 and 6, require the preservation of the natural landscape and historic character of districts, neighborhoods, and landmarks. The GGRP Update would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that is complimentary to existing development, natural features, and land uses.

The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during environmental review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to scenic vistas or scenic highways. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not result in impacts related to scenic vistas and scenic highways. However, implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment through policies and programs. Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Planting new street trees and private trees may slightly change the visual character of the City. The physical changes these installations and enhancements would entail are dependent on the location of construction for the solar panels, electric vehicle charging connections, active transportation pathways, and trees/green spaces.

Projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be required to adhere to City development regulations and General Plan policies to retain character of the City and minimize environmental impacts. In addition, Projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan, other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any project. As such, the GGRP Update would not result in adverse impacts related to scenic vistas, viewing corridors, or scenic roadways within the City. Furthermore, due to intervening 26 Burbank, City of. 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan.
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 Accessed: February 1, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1-305
EXHIBIT 1
development typical of an urban setting, proposed projects included in the GGRP Update would not likely be visible from the scenic vistas or resources. Thus, scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings would not be damaged within a scenic highway. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Thresholds would result in a less than significant impact related to scenic vistas and related to scenic resources within scenic highways.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The City of Burbank is an urbanized area with visual character/quality goals and policies included in the City General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element to preserve and protect the scenic and visual quality of the community. The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to visual character and scenic quality. Likewise, the GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote infrastructure development and redevelopment through policies and programs. Implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that may impact visual character Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian/infrastructure facilities and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and requires planting and maintaining 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Installation of solar panels and electric vehicle charging stations, introduction of active transportation infrastructure, and planting trees may slightly change visual character in the City.

However, any projects would be located and designed to be complimentary to existing development and land uses in a manner consistent with applicable zoning and other regulations governing visual character and quality within the City of Burbank. In addition, projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan, and other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any project. Future plans or projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Thresholds would result in a less than significant impact related to regulations of visual character and quality.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions ATTACHMENT 1-306
EXHIBIT 1
Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to light and glare. Likewise, the GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes. Rather the GGRP Update would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that is complimentary to existing development and land uses. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not directly result in impacts related to light and glare. However, implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. Measure EG-1.1 promotes installation of solar panels to facilitate fuel switching. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, which would include installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure; Measure T-1.2 intends to provide clean, abundant, affordable, and accessible public transit, with a zero-emissions bus fleet by 2030; Measure T-3.1 facilitates the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the City Municipal Code to minimize environmental impacts related to light and glare through limitations of materials and shielding light structures. Presumably design and location of proposed solar infrastructure would be complimentary to existing development in the City. In addition, projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan, and other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any project.

Future plans or projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. Thus, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to light and glare.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Cumulative impacts related to scenic resources, visual character, and increased light and glare would generally be site-specific, and cumulative projects are not anticipated to contribute to cumulative aesthetic impacts with adherence to General Plan policies and the Municipal Code. Because of the developed nature of Burbank, future infrastructure projects under the GGRP Update, in combination with other cumulative projects, would not adversely impact the visual character of the City. In addition, future development in the City would be required to comply with the City’s Development Review process and be reviewed against applicable General Plan policies and City’s design standards for design quality and compatibility with adjacent land uses.

Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Thresholds would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 1-307
EXHIBIT 1
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. 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? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? or
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract The City of Burbank does not contain farmland or lands used for agricultural purposes.27 Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in no impact related to degradation of 27 Burbank, City of. 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan.
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431. Accessed January 1, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-308
EXHIBIT 1
agricultural resources or conversion of agricultural land to non-agriculture uses, nor would there be a conflict with existing zoning or general plan land use designations.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
or
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The City does not contain forest or timberland resources. Additionally, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in no impact related to degradation of forestry resources or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, nor would there be a conflict with existing zoning or General Plan land use designations.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project 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?
See impact discussions above under Topics 2a through 2d. The GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would not result in other changes to the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, would result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. The City does not contain farmland or lands used for agricultural purposes.

Additionally, the City does not contain forest or timberland resources. Cumulative projects are not anticipated to contribute to cumulative forestry impacts with adherence to General Plan policies. In addition, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would not involve land use or zoning changes that could result in cumulative impacts related to conversion or loss of farmland or forest land.

Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in no cumulative impact related to agricultural and forestry resources.

NO IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-309
EXHIBIT 1
3 Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ □ ■
b. 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? □ □ ■ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Burbank is located within the South Coast Air Basin (the Air Basin), which includes all of Orange County and the non-desert regions of Los Angeles County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County. The Air Basin is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded, the South Coast Air Basin is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” Under State law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-attainment. SCAQMD is in non- attainment for the State and federal ozone standards, the State and federal PM2.5 (particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in size) standards, and the State PM10 (particulate matter up to 10 microns in size) standards, and the federal lead standards and is required to prepare a plan for improvement.28
The SCAQMD Clean Air Plan (Air Quality Management Plan [AQMP]) provides a plan to improve South Coast Air Basin air quality and protect public health as well as the climate. The most recent (2016) AQMP complies with State air quality planning requirements as codified in the California Health and Safety Code. The 2016 AQMP seeks to achieve multiple goals promoting reductions in criteria pollutant, greenhouse gases, and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement. The most effective way to reduce air pollution impacts on the 28 South Coast Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2018. National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs- caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=14. Accessed February 22, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1-310
EXHIBIT 1
health of the approximately 17 million residents in the Air Basin, including those in disproportionally impacted communities that are concentrated along our transportation corridors and goods movement facilities, is to reduce emissions from mobile sources, the principal contributor to our air quality challenges. Thus, the SCAQMD works closely with CARB and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) who have primary responsibility for these sources. The 2016 AQMP also includes transportation control measures developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) from the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).29
The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) mandate that states submit and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for areas not meeting air quality standards. The SIP includes pollution control measures to demonstrate how the standards will be met through those measures. The SIP is established by incorporating measures established during the preparation of AQMP and adopted rules and regulations by each local Air Pollution Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts, which are submitted for approval to CARB and the U.S. EPA.30 The goal of an AQMP is to reduce pollutant concentrations below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) through the implementation of air pollutant emissions controls.

The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts. Additionally, the GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would rather promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

Implementation of proposed measures would be beneficial by helping Burbank meet applicable air quality plan goals and generally reducing sensitive receptor exposure to pollutant concentrations.

Although the purpose and intended effect of the GGRP Update is to reduce GHG emissions generated in the City to help reduce the effects of climate change, many of its measures and supporting actions would also reduce criteria pollutant (i.e., air quality) emissions.

Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure BE-1.3 aims to reduce per-service population energy demand. Measure EG-1.1 promotes installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aims also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure; Measure T-1.2 intends to provide clean, abundant, affordable, and accessible public transit, with a zero-emissions bus fleet by 2030; and T-2.1 and T-2.2 require the continuation of Transportation Management Organization (TMO) Expansion, reaching 60 percent of employees by 2030 and 90 percent by 2045 and the strengthening of the TMO program and ordinance to increase compliance with the City’s 1.61 Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR), respectively.

The GGRP Update also includes Measure T-3.1 that encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure and Measure T-4.1, which aims to implement Parking Management as identified in the Burbank2035 General Plan Mobility Element and the City Council’s Six Parking Management Principles. Additionally, the GGRP Update includes Measure W-

1.1, which intends to continue to reduce per service population potable water, and therefore, energy, consumption.
29 SCAQMD. 2016. Final SCAQMC Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt- plan/final-2016-aqmp
Accessed September 28, 2020.
30 CARB. 2016. State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan for Federal Ozone and PM2.5 Standards. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016sip.htm Accessed September 28, 2020.

ATTACHMENT 1-311
EXHIBIT 1
In addition to the measures aimed at the community, the GGRP Update also includes measures that are specific to City government operations, including Measures CG-1.2 through CG-1.4, which require retrofitting all City streetlights and outdoor lighting to LED by 2030; electrification of City facilities; and implementation of a flexible employee commute program. These measures would decrease the use of non-renewable fuel sources for residential and non-residential land use operations. These energy- and transportation-related measures would reduce air quality emissions as well as GHG emissions. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold are consistent with the 2016 AQMP and would have no impact related to a conflict with or obstruction of the applicable air quality plan.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project 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?
The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to an increase of criteria pollutants. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not result in impacts related to criteria pollutants. However, implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, which would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities and infrastructure, as well as Measure T-3.1, which encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and requires planting and maintaining 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030. Construction-related air quality impacts are generally associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction vehicles and soil-hauling trucks, in addition to Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) that would be released during architectural coatings drying. However, future projects or plans would be reviewed for consistency with SCAQMD air quality regulations and other applicable local, State, and Federal regulations once project details and locations are known because future plans or projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. Thus, construction associated with implementation of the GGRP Update would result in a less than significant impact related to net increase of criteria pollutants.

With respect to operational emissions, many measures would have the secondary benefit of reducing criteria pollutant emissions. Measures included in the GGRP Update aim to increase citywide renewable energy use, promote electric vehicles, reduce building natural gas use, reduce on-road gasoline fuel use, and reduce vehicle miles traveled. Implementation of such measures would be beneficial by helping Burbank meet applicable air quality plan goals. In addition, projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan, and other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any project. Therefore, the ATTACHMENT 1-312
EXHIBIT 1
GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to criteria pollutant emissions.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Construction-related air quality impacts are generally associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction vehicles and soil hauling trucks, in addition to ROG that would be released during the drying phase upon application of architectural coatings. While the GGRP Update could result in construction-related impacts from toxic air contaminants and exposure to sensitive receptors, projects included in the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency to comply with SCAQMD air quality regulations and other applicable local, State, and federal regulations once project details and locations are known because future plans or projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. Thus, the construction associated with implementation of the GGRP Update would not result in substantial emissions of toxic air contaminants and exposure to sensitive receptors. No operational toxic air contaminant emissions are anticipated with implementation of the GGRP Update. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Thresholds would have a less than significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The CARB 2005 Air Quality Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective identifies land uses associated with odor complaints, which include: sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, waste transfer stations, petroleum refineries, biomass operations, auto body shops, coating operations, fiberglass manufacturing, foundries, rendering plants, and livestock operations.31 The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to odors. Measure 31 California Air Resources Control Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1-313
EXHIBIT 1
SW-1.1 and promotes participation in recycling and organic waste programs and reducing such waste going to landfills to achieve 75 percent reduction in waste-related GHG emissions by 2025. As such, the GGRP Update could result in minor odors related to compost. However, green waste collection bins and compost application are not identified on the list of “Sources of Odor Complaints” (Table 1-4) as provided in the CARB Air Quality Land Use Handbook and would not be anticipated to result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would not facilitate development that could create adverse odors, and there would be a less than significant impact related to odors exposure.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. The cumulative projects could exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds or be inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan. However, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would have a less than significant contribution related to potential cumulative air quality impacts within the air basin and on sensitive receptors within the City of Burbank, given that the GGRP Update would result in Citywide reduction of GHG emissions, energy use, single-occupancy vehicle travel, water use, and waste generation. As such, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would not result in adverse impacts related to contribution of criteria pollutants to the air basin, exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants, or odors. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to air quality.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-314
EXHIBIT 1
4 Biological Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. 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
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ ■ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ ■ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ ■ □
d. 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? □ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ □ ■
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■

ATTACHMENT 1-315
EXHIBIT 1
a. Would the project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Burbank is a primarily urbanized community with parks and recreational and open spaces incorporated throughout the City. The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 4 (Trees and Vegetation), as well as the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element incorporate goals and policies to protect biological resources, such as trees and other plant habitats, as well as wildlife.

The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to habitat modification. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not directly result in impacts related to wildlife species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status. However, implementation of the following GGRP Update measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment and may result in impacts to species through habitat modification for purposes of infrastructure installation.

Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Future related projects would be required to undergo environmental review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation once project details and locations are known. The measures included in the GGRP Update would not conflict with the Municipal Code or goals/policies of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element but would rather be consistent with and promote those plans. As such, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold itself would not have a substantial adverse effect on special-status wildlife species either directly through individual take or indirectly through species habitat modification. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to special-status wildlife species.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-316
EXHIBIT 1
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? or
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to riparian or other special habitats. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the GGRP Update could result in impacts related to habitat whether riparian, wetland, or other sensitive natural community. According to the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, opportunities for wildlife (e.g., birds and mammals) habitat protection in Burbank include undeveloped or primarily undisturbed opens space areas, including Wildwood Canyon Park and Stough Canyon Park, which are the two largest parks in the City and are located in the Verdugo Mountains.32 Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Future related projects would be required to undergo environmental review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation once project details and locations are known. Projects would be reviewed for consistency with applicable local, regional, and State regulations once project details and locations are known. These measures and actions would not conflict with the Municipal Code or objectives and policies of the General Plan but would rather be consistent with and promote those plans. As such, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or sensitive natural community, such as wetlands. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would have a less than significant impact related to sensitive natural plant communities.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project 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? The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to interference with species 32 Burbank, City of. 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. Available:
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431. Accessed January 5, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1-317
EXHIBIT 1
movement. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes, but would instead promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not result in impacts related to interference with species movement. However, implementation of the following GGRP Update measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Future related projects would be required to undergo environmental review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation once project details and locations are known. These GGRP Update measures and supporting actions do not conflict with the Municipal Code or objectives and policies of the General Plan and instead are consistent with and promote those plans. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to interference with species movement.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Burbank is a primarily urbanized community with neighborhood parks, community parks, and recreational spaces throughout the City.33 The Burbank General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element incorporate goals and policies related to natural resources protection in the City. However, the City is not located within the jurisdiction of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to biological resources. The GGRP Update does not involve land use or zoning changes but would rather promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. The purpose and intended effect of the GGRP Update is to reduce GHG emissions generated within the Burbank community, including related to City municipal operations, to help reduce the effects of climate change. Implementation of proposed measures and actions would be beneficial by helping Burbank meet applicable local policies and ordinances for protecting natural and biological resources. The GGRP Update would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable policies for preserving biological resources and would not affect the City’s ability to attain goals and policies that protect biological resources. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in no impact related to consistency with local biological resources protection policies.

NO IMPACT
33 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. <vhttps://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431>. Accessed February 5, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-318
EXHIBIT 1
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The Burbank General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element includes an inventory of open space resources as well as goals and policies to preserve natural resources, such as plant and wildlife habitats in the City. However, the City is not located within the jurisdiction of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. As such, the GGRP Update would not facilitate specific development projects, nor would it add or enable new development that would conflict with the adopted Municipal Code, General Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would have no impact related to consistency with an adopted habitat or natural community conservation plan.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Implementation of cumulative projects could result in impacts to biological resources during infrastructure and building construction. The GGRP Update would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. However, infrastructure development or redevelopment resulting from implementation of the GGRP Update would be required to comply with applicable General Plan policies and State and federal regulatory requirements regarding avoidance of special wildlife species and habitat. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Thresholds would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to biological resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-319
EXHIBIT 1
5 Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ ■ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ ■ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The City has put forth preservation regulations through the Historic Resources Management Ordinance outlining designation and maintenance of historic properties and duties of the Heritage Commission.34 Additionally, Burbank has three properties listed under the National Register of Historic Places, including the Burbank City Hall and Burbank Post Office.35 The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to historical resources.

The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes. Rather the GGRP Update would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would promote building energy retrofits as well as infrastructure development and redevelopment that would be complimentary to existing development. Projects in Burbank would be required to comply with the Historic Resources Management Ordinance and General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, which requires the identification acquisition, and management of sites and structures of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance.36 This includes sites, structures, and areas that are associated with a historic event, activity, or persons that contribute to the historic character of districts, neighborhoods, landmarks, historic structures, and artifacts.

Implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and 34 Burbank, City of. Historic Preservation in Burbank. https://www.burbankca.gov/web/community-development/historic-preservation- program Accessed August 12, 2021.
35 National Parks Service. National Register Database and Research. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database- research.htm Accessed February 5, 2021.
36 Burbank, City of. 2013. General Plan. <https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0- 80e9-3b11-dc6d-751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed February 5, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-320
EXHIBIT 1
existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030. The physical changes these upgrades and additions would entail are dependent on the year of building construction and location of electrical and service panels and plumbing for connection of condensate drains, which in some cases may include modifications to the interior and/or exterior of buildings for wiring and panel replacement and minor excavation for connection of drainage to sewer systems. However, it is anticipated that retrofit activities would avoid alterations to the historic materials and distinguishing character (e.g., overall shape of the building, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features, and aspects of its site and environment) of identified historic resources and, if warranted, be reviewed by the Heritage Commission. As such, implementation of the GGRP Update would not conflict with or obstruct the City’s ability to comply with applicable historical resources preservation policies.

Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to historical resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The City of Burbank has not identified known archeological sites within its City limits.37,38 However, as-yet to be discovered or unknown sites or resources may exist. The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to archaeological resources.

The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would promote building energy retrofits as well as infrastructure development and redevelopment. For example, Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

The physical changes these installations and enhancements would entail are dependent on the location of construction for the electric vehicle charging connections, active transportation.

As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not directly result in impacts related to archaeological resources. Implementation of the GGRP Update measures and supporting actions may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that could result in an impact on these resources during construction. Future related projects would be required to undergo environmental review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation once project details and locations are known. The GGRP Update would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable policies

ATTACHMENT 1-321
EXHIBIT 1
for preserving archeological resources and would not affect the City’s ability to attain goals and policies that protect archeological resources. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to archaeological resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
There are no known burial points or burial sensitivity areas within the City.39, However, there is the possibility of encountering unknown buried archaeological deposits and human remains throughout Burbank. Impacts to historic and archaeological resources are generally site-specific. The GHG Emissions Threshold provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to human remains. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes. Rather the GGRP Update would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment
As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not directly result in impacts related to human remains. Implementation of the GGRP Update measures and supporting actions may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that could have an impact on these resources during construction. However, consistent with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if human remains are encountered, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. The remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission must then immediately identify the “most likely descendant(s)” of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains. With adherence to these State requirements, impacts related to burial findings if encountered during construction of future related projects would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to human remains.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030.There is the possibility of encountering buried archaeological deposits and human remains throughout Burbank. Implementation of the cumulative projects would include infrastructure and building development that could have an impact on cultural resources during construction. Impacts to historic and archaeological resources are generally site-specific.

Accordingly, as required under applicable laws and regulations, potential impacts associated with cumulative developments would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No known cultural resources would be removed, modified, or otherwise affected by the implementation of the GGRP Update. In addition, future projects in Burbank, including those associated with implementation of the GGRP 39 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2021. Burbank 2035: General Plan. <https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 >. Accessed February 4, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-322
EXHIBIT 1
Update, would be required to comply with Historic Resources Management Ordinance, with the main purpose of recognizing, preserving, and protecting historic resources in the interest of the health, prosperity, social and cultural enrichment, and general welfare of the people. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in cumulative impacts.

Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to cultural resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-323
EXHIBIT 1
6 Energy

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
California is one of the lowest per-capita energy users in the United States, ranked 48th in the nation, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate.40 California consumed 285,488 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity and 2,137,920 cubic feet of natural gas in 2018.41,42,43 The single largest end-use sector for energy consumption in California is transportation (39.1 percent), followed by industry (23.5 percent), commercial (18.3 percent), and residential (18.3 percent).44 Adopted in 2018, SB 100 accelerates the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standards Program, codified in the Public Utilities Act, by requiring electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

The City of Burbank has demonstrated its commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy, as described in the Sustainability and GHG Reduction Efforts Setting section above. Additionally, the City Municipal Code Chapter 1 (Building and Fire) specifies electrical code details by land use type within the City.45 As part of Measure BE-1.1 and per the California Green Building Standards Code, the City will adopt an Electrification reach code for all new buildings and accessory dwelling units that bans the piping of natural gas to support fuel -switching and ultimate decarbonization 40 United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2018. California Profile Overview. <https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA.> Accessed February 2, 2021.
41 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. 2018 Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy- almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation/2018. Accessed January 5, 2021 42 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. Environmental Health and Equity Impacts from Climate Change and Mitigation Policies in California: A Review of the Literature. Accessed February 2, 2021. 43 USEIA. 2018. Natural Gas Consumption by End Use. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_SCA_a.htm . Accessed February 2, 2021.
44 USEIA. 2018. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA . Accessed January 5, 2021. 45 Burbank, City of. 2020. Municipal Code Chapter 1 (Building and Fire). Available: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/.

Accessed February 2, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1-324
EXHIBIT 1
purposes.46 The City has also completed a total (i.e., community and municipal) GHG emissions inventory for 2019, which is summarized in Table 1. The largest sectors of GHG emissions are related to energy and transportation, followed by solid waste and water. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), Los Angeles County consumed approximately 66,118.67 GWh in 2019.47 The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to wasteful consumption of energy resources. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing climate action measures and supporting actions to reduce Burbank GHG emissions. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes, but would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

Furthermore, the purpose and intended effect of the GGRP Update is to reduce GHG emissions generated in the City to help reduce the effects of climate change, including those emissions generated by energy demand and supply. The GGRP Update encourages electrification, use of renewable energy, and energy efficiency in existing residential and commercial building stock as well as proposed new residential and commercial buildings.

Measure BE-1.1 through E-1.3 and EG-1.1 propose revisions to and new City ordinances requiring electrification of 100 percent new buildings and incremental portion of existing buildings as well as maximum usage of renewable energy and installation of solar systems, battery storage, and potential microgrids within the City to help meet community energy demand. In addition, Measure C-1.1 focuses on overcoming the equity constraints of existing building electrification by leveraging BWP’s operations and efficiency programs to develop an Affordable Housing Electrification Program to lead Burbank’s electrification targets through retrofitting low-income and affordable housing units in Burbank to all electric. As such, the GGRP Update would not result in the use of non- renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Therefore, the GGRP Update would result in a less than significant impact related to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Rather, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would assist in reducing use of non-renewable energy resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The City of Burbank has adopted the California Green Building Standards Code per Municipal Code Chapter 9-1-10. Therefore, construction and operation associated with infrastructure projects stemming from the GGRP Update would be designed to comply with the energy source standards of the California Green Building Standard Code. Likewise, development projects would be reviewed for consistency with the energy efficiency standards in the 2019 California Energy Code, Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24). Thus, the GGRP Update would not conflict with adopted renewable energy or energy conservation plans. The GHG Emissions Threshold is a CEQA guidance document that does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. As such, the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to consistency with a State or local renewable energy plan. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to consistency with State 46 A reach code is a local building energy code that “reaches” beyond State minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction, creating opportunities for local governments to lead the way on clean air, climate solutions, and the renewable energy economy.
47 California Energy Commission. 2016. Electricity Consumption by County. <http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx>. Accessed February 8, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1-325
EXHIBIT 1
and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans. Rather, the GGRP Update would be consistent with State and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Thus, the GGRP Update would revise but would not conflict with adopted renewable energy or energy conservation plans. Therefore, the GGRP Update would result in a less than significant impact related to consistency with State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.

Rather, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would be consistent with State and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Implementation of the GGRP Update would result in reducing use of non- renewable energy resources across the community and in particular with remodels and new construction. And implementation of solar infrastructure and implementation of active transportation infrastructure would require construction. As such, construction of the cumulative projects within the City could result in temporary energy consumption impacts. However, the energy used would not be wasteful and would comply with all applicable requirements.

Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Thresholds and GHG Emission Thresholds would result a less than significant cumulative impact related to energy.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 1-326
EXHIBIT 1
7 Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
▪ 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? □ □ □ ■
▪ Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ □ ■
▪ Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ □ ■
▪ Landslides? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □
c. 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, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse? □ □ ■ ■
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property? □ □ ■ □
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? □ □ ■ □
ATTACHMENT 1-327
EXHIBIT 1
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
▪ 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;
▪ strong seismic ground shaking;
▪ seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or ▪ landslides?
Burbank is located in a seismically active region in an area of potential fault rupture, strong ground shaking, and slope instability. These geologic and seismic hazards can affect the structural integrity of structures and utilities, and in turn can cause severe property damage and potential loss of life.

Burbank contains one active fault, the Verdugo Fault, located just south of the Verdugo Mountains.

As stated in the General Plan Safety Element, in addition to the Verdugo Fault, several other active faults have the potential to cause ground shaking that would affect Burbank, including the San Fernando Fault (northwest of Burbank), Sierra Madre Fault (at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains east of Burbank), Hollywood Fault (south of Burbank), Newport‐Inglewood Fault (12.5 miles southwest of Burbank), and the Raymond Fault (six miles southeast of Burbank).48 Additionally, the San Andreas Fault, a large fault that runs nearly the entire length of California, is located approximately 27 miles to the northwest. An earthquake anywhere along these faults could trigger secondary seismic hazard impacts within Burbank.

Much of Burbank is located atop soils susceptible to liquefaction, particularly in areas west of I 5; however, as long as groundwater continues to be extracted in the upper Los Angeles River area and annual rainfall remains at normal levels, groundwater levels in Burbank can be expected to remain deeper than 50 feet, resulting in a low risk of liquefaction for most of the City.49 As stated in the General Plan Safety Element, hazards from landslides and mudslides in the City are limited to properties at the base of undeveloped or unimproved slopes in the Verdugo Mountains, north of Sunset Canyon Drive. The City General Plan Safety establishes goals and policies (see Goal 5) related to minimizing personal and property damage resulting from seismic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides.50 Projects are required to conform to applicable provisions of the current California Building Code.

The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction, or landslides. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing climate measures and supporting actions to reduce GHG emissions and is consistent with the Burbank General Plan and other regional regulations. The GGRP Update does not propose habitable development that could result in exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk 48 Burbank, City of. January 29, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. Available:
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 Accessed January 5, 2021
49 Burbank, City of. January 29, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. Available:
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 Accessed January 5, 2021
50 Burbank, City of. January 29, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. Available:
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 Accessed January 5, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1-328
EXHIBIT 1
of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in no impact related to seismic- and landslide-related hazards.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to substantial loss of topsoil. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes, but it would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not directly require ground- disturbing activities. However, implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, which would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-

3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure.

Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

The physical changes these installations and enhancements would entail are dependent on the location of construction for the electric vehicle charging connections, active transportation pathways, and trees/green spaces, which in some cases may include minor temporary excavation.

As such, the GGRP Update could result in construction-related soil erosion and topsoil loss impacts associated with such installations and plantings. However, projects would be reviewed for consistency with Burbank General Plan policies and other local and State geology and soils regulations prior to final siting and construction. Further, compliance with existing regulations, including California Building Code requirements, City-issued permit requirements, and construction general permit requirements, would minimize potential cumulative seismic and geologic impacts.

Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to soil erosion, loss of topsoil, and the presence of unstable soils.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project 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, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
or
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to project location on expansive soil.

Additionally, the GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures that are consistent with the General Plan. Some of the proposed measures of GGRP Update would support construction ATTACHMENT 1-329
EXHIBIT 1
projects, such as electric vehicle charging station construction. However, the City’s Building and Safety Division would determine which projects would be required to conduct geotechnical studies based on the scope of the development and adhere to related recommendations prior to final siting and construction that would reduce impacts. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to risks associated with location 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, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse as well as expansive soils.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would not involve the development of habitable structures and, thus, no use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur related to soil capability support of alternative wastewater disposal systems.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to paleontological resources. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes. Rather the GGRP Update would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not directly result in impacts related to paleontological resources or unique geologic features. However, implementation of the following GGRP Update measures and supporting actions may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, which would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030. However, geotechnical and design guideline studies would be required for future projects, in addition to adherence with related recommendations prior to final siting and construction. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to paleontological resources or unique geologic features.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Cumulative projects could expose additional people and property to seismic and geologic hazards that are present in the region. The magnitude of geologic hazards for individual ATTACHMENT 1-330
EXHIBIT 1
projects, including those associated with implementation of the GGRP Update, would depend upon the location, type, and size of development and the specific hazards associated with individual sites.

Specific geologic hazards associated with individual project sites would be limited to those sites without affecting other areas. Similarly, potential impacts to paleontological resources associated with each individual site would be limited to that site without affecting other areas, and impacts related to these resources would be minimized on a case-by-case basis. Compliance with existing regulations, including California Building Code requirements, City-issued permit requirements, and construction general permit requirements, would minimize potential cumulative seismic and geologic impacts. Seismic and geologic hazards would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and would not result in cumulative impacts. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Emission Threshold would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 1-331
EXHIBIT 1
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The greenhouse effect is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the Earth. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to support life on Earth, because it warms the planet by approximately 60°F. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 270 years ago) have been adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat and contribute to an average increase in Earth’s temperature. Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s surface, and climate change is the resultant change in wind patterns, precipitation, and storms over an extended period.

GHGs produced by human activities include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydroflourocarcons (HFCs), perfluorinated compound (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (see Appendix B for more details related to these GHG gases).51 Combustion of fossil fuels (gasoline, natural gas, and coal), deforestation, and decomposition of waste release carbon into the atmosphere that had been locked underground and stored in oil, gas, and other hydrocarbon deposits or in the biomass of surface vegetation. Since 1750, estimated concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have increased by over 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent respectively, primarily due to human activity. Emissions of GHGs affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition.

Changes to the land surface also indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way in which Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. Potential impacts in California due to climate change 51 The proposed GGRP only considers emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O because these are the GHGs most relevant to local government policymaking. These gases comprise a large majority of GHG emissions at the community level. The remaining gases (HFCs, PFC, and SF6) are emitted primarily in private sector manufacturing and electricity transmission and are the subject of regulation at the state level.

Therefore, these gases were omitted from the GGRP Update.

ATTACHMENT 1-332
EXHIBIT 1
include sea level rise, more extreme-heat days and high-ozone days, larger and more frequent forest fires, and more drought years.52 Although GHG emissions do not typically cause direct health impacts at a local level, GHG emissions can result in indirect health impacts by contributing to climate change, which can have public health implications. The primary public health impacts of climate change include the following:53
▪ Increased incidences of hospitalization and deaths due to increased incidences of extreme heat events
▪ Increased incidences of health impacts related to ground-level ozone pollution due to increased average temperatures that facilitate ozone formation
▪ Increased incidences of respiratory illnesses from wildfire smoke due to increased incidences of wildfires
▪ Increased vector-borne diseases due to the growing extent of warm climates ▪ Increased stress and mental trauma due to extreme events and disasters, economic disruptions, and residential displacement
The City of Burbank has completed a total Burbank (i.e., community and municipal) GHG emissions inventory for the year 2019, which is summarized in Table 1. The largest sectors of GHG emissions are related to energy and transportation, followed by solid waste and water. The measures and actions address municipal and communitywide GHG emissions. As part of the GGRP Update, Burbank is committed to an emissions reduction target of 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 (SB 32 target year), 66 percent below 2010 levels by 2035 (General Plan horizon year) and reaching carbon neutrality by 2045 (EO B-55-18 target year). This 2030 GHG emissions goal is selected to be consistent with SB 32 State emissions targets and CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5 for a qualified GHG emissions reduction strategy as well as to be achievable by City-supported measures identified in the GGRP Update. The GGRP Update includes a BAU and adjusted forecast of GHG emissions that will enable the City to estimate the amount of emissions reductions needed to meet its goal.

The GGRP Update includes measures to increase use of zero-emission vehicles; increase use of public, active, and shared transportation; reduce water consumption and waste generation; increase recycling and composting; and increase tree planting. It also includes Measures CG-1.1 through CG-1.4 related to completing an annual progress report, retrofitting all City streetlights and outdoor lighting to LEDs, electrification of existing City facilities, and implementation of a flexible employee commute program that will continue to allow the City to lead by example. Table 3 includes a complete list of measures and descriptions of respective supporting actions included in this GGRP Update. The measures included in the GGRP Update combined with Statewide legislation and initiatives and regional transportation programs will enable the City to meet its emissions reduction target of 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 (SB 32 target year). Table 5 shows the contribution of the Statewide initiatives along with the measures and actions. The City needs to achieve 86,555 MT CO2e of GHG emissions reductions by 2030 to meet its goal. The total estimated GHG reductions accounted for in the GGRP Update total 90,347 MT CO2e by 2030.

Figure 3 and Table 5 illustrate how the BAU emissions are estimated to increase, thus widening the emissions reductions needed by 2030. Figure 3Error! Reference source not found. also shows emissions reductions expected from State level actions as well as the reductions needed to reach the Burbank emissions target. The measures and supporting action combined with Statewide 52 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2009. Environmental Health and Equity Impacts from Climate Change and Mitigation Policies in California: A Review of the Literature. Accessed January 2, 2021. 53 California Natural Resources Energy. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. <http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/>. Accessed January 2, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-333
EXHIBIT 1
legislation and initiatives and Countywide transportation programs will enable the City of Burbank to meet its 2030 emissions reduction target.

The GGRP Update includes a list of 19 measures intended to reduce Burbank GHG emissions.

Implementation of the GGRP Update would result in the reduction of community and municipal operational GHG emissions, while only generating temporary GHG emissions during construction of infrastructure development and redevelopment such as electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle paths, et cetera. Additionally, the GGRP Update would serve as a pathway to reduce GHG emissions and introduce other beneficial environmental and sustainability effects. These benefits include reduction in building energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled (and thus air pollution), water consumption, and solid waste generation. The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning and, thus, would not result in construction or operational impacts related to GHG emissions. The GHG Emissions Threshold would establish GHG emissions targets and analysis methodologies that are enforced during CEQA review with the intention of reducing GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of future projects and plans in the City. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to generation of GHG emissions.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold are policy-level documents that set strategies to reduce GHG emissions within the City in an effort to also comply with State regulations. As discussed under Topic 8a above, the GGRP Update includes measures and actions to reduce City GHG emissions from forecasted levels by approximately 90,347 MT CO2e by 2030. The purpose of the GGRP Update is to meet Burbank’s proportionate fair share of the Statewide GHG emissions reduction target set by AB 32 and SB 32 and work toward the State’s longer-term target of carbon neutrality identified in Executive Order B-55-18. The GGRP Update would not conflict with any applicable GHG reduction plans, including the California Climate Change Scoping Plan and the California Climate Change Scoping Plan Updates. For example, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold specifically include policies and a locally appropriate quantitative threshold consistent with Statewide per-capita goals, as recommended by the 2017 Scoping Plan. The GGRP Update identifies how the City would achieve consistency with the Statewide GHG emissions limit.

The GHG Emissions Threshold would establish GHG emissions targets and analysis methodologies that are enforced during CEQA review with the intention of reducing GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of future projects and plans in the City. The GGRP Update would serve as a pathway to reduce GHG emissions and introduce other beneficial environmental and sustainability effects. These benefits include reduction in building energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled (and thus air pollution), water consumption, and solid waste generation. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emission Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to consistency with applicable GHG emissions reduction plans, policies, and regulations.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Analyses of GHG emissions and climate change are cumulative in nature, as they ATTACHMENT 1-334
EXHIBIT 1
affect the accumulation of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. Cumulative projects that exceed the thresholds discussed above would have a significant impact related to GHG emissions and climate change, both individually and cumulatively. The GGRP Update creates a GHG emissions reduction strategy (consistent with Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines) for the City of Burbank. The GGRP Update includes a series of strategies, measures, and actions that are intended to reduce communitywide GHG emissions by approximately 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2030, which provides substantial progress toward meeting the City carbon neutrality goal by 2045, while meeting State goals. The GGRP Update acknowledges that additional actions beyond those identified in the plan will be necessary to achieve carbon neutrality and, therefore, provides a mechanism for updating and adopting a new plan triennially in order to incorporate new measures and technologies that will further the City toward meeting its goal of carbon neutrality. As such, the GGRP Update would result in the reduction of GHG emissions rather than generating GHG emissions. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in cumulative impacts. Rather, the GHG Emissions Threshold would establish GHG emissions targets and analysis methodologies that are enforced during CEQA review with the intention of reducing GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of cumulative buildout.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 1-335
EXHIBIT 1
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ ■ □
b. 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? □ □ ■ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material 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? □ □ ■ □
e. For a project located in 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 or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ □ ■
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ □ ■
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires? □ □ □ ■
ATTACHMENT 1-336
EXHIBIT 1
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project 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?
The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to creating a significant hazard. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing actions and supporting measures to reduce GHG emissions.

The proposed GGRP Update does not involve identified site-specific development, nor would it facilitate new development. Implementation of the GGRP Update measures and supporting actions would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and would not create reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Implementation of some of the GGRP Update measures and actions, such as the installation of bicycle facilities, energy retrofits, and electric vehicle charging stations, may involve the use and transport of fuels, lubricating fluids, and solvents, among other activities. These types of materials are not considered acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, and disposal of these materials are regulated by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC), United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health - Environmental Health Division. Additionally, future development would be subject to review by the City for compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code and would also be required to comply with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to creating a significant hazard.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to handling hazardous materials. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and actions to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed GGRP Update does not include site-specific proposals and development, nor would it emit or handle hazardous materials. Implementing some measures and actions may require future development or improvements, such as bike paths, solar panels, electric vehicle charging stations, battery storage, or building improvements related to electrification. However, projects would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and Municipal Code and applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to handling of hazardous materials in proximity to an existing or proposed school.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-337
EXHIBIT 1
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material 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?
The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to project site location on a site listed on a hazardous material site. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and supporting actions to reduce GHG emissions. The GGRP Update does not include site-specific proposals and development, but implementation of the measures and actions could result in projects that may be located on listed hazardous materials site. However, future projects would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and Municipal Code and would be required to comply with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to location on a listed hazardous materials site.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The Hollywood Burbank Airport is located in the City. The airport is located in the northwestern portion of the City, at 2627 N Hollywood Way. The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold are policy documents and implementation of which would not increase airport activity or otherwise increase potential exposure to aircraft-related hazards. Additionally, projects associated with the GGRP Update would undergo project-level CEQA review. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to risks associated with location proximate to a public airport.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold are policy documents intended to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold do not involve site-specific development, nor would it facilitate new development that would interfere with adopted emergency plans. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to impairment or interference with implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan.

NO IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Two Mountain Fire Zones are designated by the Burbank Fire Department.54 One zone is located along the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains in northeast Burbank, and the other is located in 54 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. < https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed December 26, 2020.

ATTACHMENT 1-338
EXHIBIT 1
southwestern portion of the City adjacent to the Warner Bros. Studios. According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE), Burbank is located in a designated California Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.55 Per the Burbank General Plan Safety Element, the City is susceptible to loss from fire in the urban-wildland interface due to its proximity to the Verdugo Mountains and the Hollywood Hills.56 Furthermore, City Municipal Code Chapter 1 (Building and Fire) provides regulations related to the safety of life and property from fire within the City.57 The GGRP Update is a policy-level document that does not propose specific or other physical changes such as habitable development that could be put at risk in the case of a wildfire, nor does it grant entitlements for development that would have the potential to directly cause wildfire. Rather, the GGRP Update would aim to reduce natural gas infrastructure that poses wildfire risk if damaged during seismic events and to underground new or restructured electric power lines that pose wildfire risk if damaged during high-wind events. Thus, the GGRP Update and Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to wildfire.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Hazards and hazardous materials impacts are typically site specific in nature.

Cumulative projects, including the GGRP Update, are not anticipated to contribute to cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts with adherence to applicable General Plan policies, applicable regional and County regulations (e.g., Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan), and applicable State and Federal regulatory requirements. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

55 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE). 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ . Accessed March 3, 2021.
56 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. < https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed December 26, 2020. 57 Burbank, City of. 2021. Municipal Code Chapter 1 (Building and Fire). < https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/>. Accessed March 3, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-339
EXHIBIT 1
10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality? □ □ □ ■
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan? □ □ □ ■
ATTACHMENT 1-340
EXHIBIT 1
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document as does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to water quality standards. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and actions intended to reduce GHG emissions in the City.

Future projects would be reviewed for consistency with local and State regulations, including the implementation of stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs). As such, the GGRP Update’s related infrastructure changes would not utilize or alter water supply or result in new or different wastewater discharge. Additionally, projects would be small in scale and not result in substantial, adverse impacts related to surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to surface or groundwater water quality in Burbank.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to groundwater supplies. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and supporting actions that are consistent with the City’s General Plan. In addition, implementation of the GGRP Update actions related to infrastructure development and redevelopment would not substantially degrade groundwater quality or groundwater recharge. As a result, no adverse impacts related to groundwater supplies or resources would occur.

Measure CS-1.1 facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030. Encouragement of tree planting and thus provision of pervious areas in the City would increase groundwater recharge. As such, implementing the GGRP Update would have a beneficial effect related to local groundwater recharge as well as support groundwater management in Burbank. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to impedance of sustainable groundwater management in the San Fernando Groundwater Basin.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
ATTACHMENT 1-341
EXHIBIT 1
The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to alterations in polluted runoff.

Implementation of the following GGRP Update measures and supporting actions may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, which would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-

3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure.

Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Projects would be required to undergo environmental review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation, including the implementation of a SWPPP and compliance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations once project details and locations are known. Further, GGRP Update- related infrastructure changes would be designed to not result in substantial additional erosion or runoff. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less than significant impact related to drainage flows and polluted runoff.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The City is not located within designated seiche or tsunami zones.58 Portions of the City are within the 100- and 500-year flood zones defined by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).59 Additionally, three reservoirs upstream from Burbank, Reservoirs #1, #4, and #5, are classified as dams by the California Department of Water Resources. Though small, these reservoirs impound more than 50 acre‐feet of water. However, these reservoirs are not large enough to result in considerable risk of inundation in Burbank that would result from failure of any of the facilities.

In Burbank, new construction, including infrastructure projects associated with implementation of the GGRP Update, in flood-prone areas must comply with Chapter 1 (Building and Fire) of the Burbank Municipal Code. In Burbank, construction, including infrastructure projects associated with implementation of the GGRP Update, must comply with City General Plan Safety Element goals/policies related to hazards, including flooding hazards. In addition, Burbank works with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to maintain, to identify, and fund flood control improvements regularly, and to update the Burbank All‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan on a regular basis. 60 Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less than significant impact related to flooding and inundation resulting in release of pollutants. 58 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. < https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed December 26, 2020. 59 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. < https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed December 26, 2020.

60 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. < https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed December 26, 2020.

ATTACHMENT 1-342
EXHIBIT 1

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to obstruction of a water quality control plan.

The GGRP Update measures would not include direct extraction of groundwater and rather encourages water savings through conservation. The GGRP Update would not interfere with or obstruct implementation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in no impact related to consistency with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Cumulative projects, including the GGRP Update, are not anticipated to contribute to cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts with adherence to applicable General Plan policies and other applicable City policies, as well as applicable State and federal regulatory requirements. Implementation of the GGRP Update would not contribute to an increase in growth and development in Burbank but could result in infrastructure development or redevelopment projects, including renewable energy facilities and alternative transportation thoroughfares. As such, implementation of the GGRP Update and other cumulative projects could have incremental impacts related to hydrology and water quality, with potential minor alterations to existing drainage patterns in the City. However, cumulative projects would comply with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations related to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 1-343
EXHIBIT 1
11 Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to division of an established community. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and actions that are consistent with the Burbank General Plan and does not include specific development projects that would divide an established community. Measure T-1.1 involves the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities, Measure T-1.2 includes providing clean, abundant, affordable, and accessible public transit, and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. These measures are aimed at decreasing vehicle miles traveled and increasing active transportation within the City. Such measures and supporting actions would help to increase connectivity within the Burbank community. Therefore, the GGRP Update would result in no impact related to division of an established community.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in impacts related to conflict with a land use plan. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and actions that are consistent with the Burbank General Plan and that are designed to reduce adverse environmental impacts associated with climate change. Nonetheless, implementing the GGRP Update would require some modification of existing policies, including developing and implementing new programs, and projects, or modifying existing ones. For example, Measures BE-1.1, BE-1.2, T-1.1, T-1.2, T-2.1, T-2.2, T-3.1, T-4.1 SW-1.1, and CS-1.1 call for the adoption of new codes/ordinances related to building electrification, solar and electric vehicle charging infrastructure installation, natural gas ban, organic waste collection and recovery, and ATTACHMENT 1-344
EXHIBIT 1
shade trees. In addition, Measure T-1.1 calls for the amendment of the zoning code to require installation of bike parking in instances where off-street parking is required.

Implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. The physical changes these upgrades and additions would entail are dependent on the year of building construction and location of electrical and service panels and plumbing for connection of condensate drains, which in some cases may include modifications to the interior and/or exterior of buildings for wiring and panel replacement and minor excavation for connection of drainage to sewer systems.

Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, which would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030. The physical changes these installations and enhancements would entail are dependent on the location of construction for the electric vehicle charging connections, active transportation pathways, and trees/green spaces, which in some cases may include minor temporary excavation. In order to implement these measures and the supporting actions, the City Municipal Code, General Plan, and other applicable documents may need to be amended to reflect new or modified requirements.

However, where modifications of existing policies are needed, such as updates to policies related to energy and active transportation, the measures would result in greater avoidance or reduction of environmental effects. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emission Thresholds would result in no impact related to consistency with current land use plans or policies.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and actions that are consistent with the City’s General Plan. Nonetheless, implementing the GGRP Update would require some modification of existing policies and ordinances, including developing and implementing new programs, and projects, or modifying existing ones. The proposed policy changes are consistent with the intent of the goals and policies established within the City General Plan and Zoning Regulations and would not cumulatively contribute to population growth or the loss of housing. Cumulative projects, including the GGRP Update, would be required to adhere to City development regulations and General Plan policies to retain land use character and minimize environmental impacts. And GGRP Update projects would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and other applicable regulatory land use actions prior to approval. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to land use.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-345
EXHIBIT 1
12 Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. 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? □ ■ □ ■
b. 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? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project 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?
b. Would the project 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? The City of Burbank General Plan states approximately half of the City is located on an area that is classified by the State Mining and Geology Board as MRZ-2, which is a mineral classification that indicates that mineral resources may be present. The remainder of the City is located on an area that is classified as MRZ-3, which indicates that the significance of mineral resources could not be evaluated based on available data. Likewise, because the City is urbanized, further classification of the MRZ-2 area cannot be done to determine if there really are significant mineral resources in the area. Because future mining activities could not occur without impacting large areas of the City, the General Plan notes that mining is infeasible and the City therefore is not considered to be a potential future source of mineral resources. The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would not facilitate infrastructure development projects within the City that could result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. Therefore, the GGRP Update would result in no impact related to mineral resource.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. While the City of Burbank General Plan states approximately half of the City is located on an area that is classified by the State Mining and Geology Board as MRZ-2, the General Plan also notes that mining is infeasible and the City therefore is not considered to be a potential future source of mineral resources. As such, no cumulative impact related to mineral resources could occur.

ATTACHMENT 1-346
EXHIBIT 1
Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no cumulative impact related to mineral resources.

NO IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-347
EXHIBIT 1
13 Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? □ □ ■ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □
c. For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Noise is unwanted sound that disturbs human activity. Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time, and different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. Noise level measurements include intensity, frequency, and duration, as well as time of occurrence. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). Because of the way the human ear works, a sound must be about 10 dBA greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dBA change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dBA changes generally are not perceived. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40-50 dBA, while arterial streets are in the 50-60+ dBA range.

Normal conversational levels are in the 60-65 dBA range, and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations.

Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from point sources (such as construction equipment). Noise from lightly traveled roads typically attenuates at a rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily traveled roads typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance; while noise from a point source typically attenuates at about 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by the introduction of intervening structures. For example, a single row of buildings between the receptor ATTACHMENT 1-348
EXHIBIT 1
and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm that breaks the line-of-sight reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA.

The Noise Element of the Burbank General Plan aims to ensure appropriate noise levels considered compatible for community noise environments. Noise in Burbank is primarily generated by vehicular traffic on major arterials and the freeway network, with noise from railroads and aircraft operations representing a major secondary source of noise in certain parts of the City. Land uses adjacent to these roadways, railroads, and the airport, are affected by machinery, industrial activity, and vehicle generated noise. Secondary sources of noise in the City are generated by construction and maintenance activities associated with both public and private works and development projects as well as noise generated by movie and television studios, including explosions, vehicle operations, loudspeakers, and mechanical equipment.61 The “ambient environment” includes noise emanating from the Burbank Airport, Traffic on Route 5 and Route 134, and the local roadway network.

Existing ambient noise levels range from 76 dBA to 100 dBA. Noise levels exceed 65 dBA, a typical standard for “sensitive locations,” in some locations throughout the City. The City’s normally acceptable exterior noise exposure standard is 65 dBA community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or less for residential and other sensitive land uses.

The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to excessive noise levels. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing programs that are consistent with the General Plan. Some of the measures and actions included in the GGRP Update would support construction projects, such as electric vehicle charging station construction that may result in a temporary increase in noise levels.

However, future projects identified as measures/actions in the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan Noise Element and Municipal Code Chapter 3 Article 2 (Noise Control) and would be required to comply with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations.62 The Burbank General Plan identifies noise-sensitive land uses and noise sources and policies to provide for the protection of the community from the adverse effects of excessive noise. The GGRP Update encompasses a suite of GHG-reduction opportunities that affect the transportation sector.

For example, Measures T-1.1 and T-1.2 aim to implement the Complete Our Streets Plan and increase transit use. These measures would not only reduce vehicle miles traveled but also reduce traffic-related noise in Burbank. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would not generate excessive noise levels and, therefore, would result in a less than significant impact related to noise exposure.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as 61 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. < https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed December 26, 2020. 62 Burbank, City of. 2020. Municipal Code Chapter 3 Article 2 (Noise Control). https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/. Accessed February 2, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1-349
EXHIBIT 1
groundborne noise.63 Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses.

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or Root Mean Square (RMS) vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings.64 Vibration significance ranges from approximately 50 vibration decibels (VdB), which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings.65 The general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels is described in Table 6.

Table 6 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration Vibration Velocity Level Human Reaction
65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception for many people 75 VdB Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find that transportation-related vibration at this level is unacceptable. 85 VdB Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day VdB = vibration decibels
Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 2018.66 The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to groundborne vibration. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures that are consistent with the General Plan. Some of the measures and actions would support construction projects, such as electric vehicle charging station construction that may result in a temporary increase in groundborne vibration. However, future projects would be subject to review by the City for compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code and would be required to comply with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations.

Therefore, the GGRP would result in a less than significant impact related to groundbourne vibration.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use 63 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (CT-HWANP- RT-13-069.25.3). <http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_FINAL.pdf>. Accessed February 16, 2021. 64 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook. (FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02). <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/construction_noise/handbook>. Accessed February 16, 2021. 65 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. <https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment- manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf>. Accessed February 16, 2021. 66 Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. <https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment- manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf>. Accessed February 16, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-350
EXHIBIT 1
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
The Hollywood Burbank Airport is the only public airport or airstrip located in the City. The airport is located in the northwestern portion of the City, at 2627 N Hollywood Way. The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in noise exposure impacts related to airports, airstrips, or helicopters. The GGRP Update does not propose land use or zoning changes related to airports, airstrips, or heliports, nor does it include development that would increase exposure to excessive noise levels associated with operation of airports, airstrips, or heliports. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in no impact related to aviation-related noise exposure.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and actions that are consistent with the City of Burbank General Plan. Some of the measures would support construction projects, such as electric vehicle charging station construction, which may result in a temporary increase in groundborne vibration or noise levels. However, cumulative projects, including the GGRP Update, would be subject to review by the City for compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code and would be required to comply with applicable State and federal regulations. Additionally, the GGRP Update encompasses a suite of GHG-reduction opportunities that would decrease traffic and traffic-related noise. As such, implementation of the GGRP Update would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels. Therefore, the GGRP Update would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to noise.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-351
EXHIBIT 1
14 Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ □ ■
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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)?
or
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to substantial unplanned population growth.

Likewise, the GGRP Update does not include measures or actions that would increase the population or induce additional population growth that would displace people or housing.

Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to population and housing.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Cumulative projects, including the GGRP Update, are not anticipated to displace people or housing nor induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City. Specifically, the GGRP Update would not contribute to person or housing displacement in the City of Burbank nor result in population growth beyond that already assumed and planned for in the General Plan.

Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no cumulative impact related to population and housing.

NO IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-352
EXHIBIT 1
15 Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the 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:
▪ Fire protection? □ □ □ ■
▪ Police protection? □ □ □ ■
▪ Schools? □ □ □ ■
▪ Parks? □ □ □ ■
▪ Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered facilities, or the need for new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for:
▪ Fire protection;
▪ Police protection;
▪ Schools;
▪ Parks; or
▪ Other public facilities?
The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to public services. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and actions that are consistent with the Burbank General Plan.

Implementation of the GGRP Update would not result in increases in population or induce additional population growth. As such, the GGRP Update would not require the construction of new or physically altered governmental facilities to serve additional population, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, future projects identified as ATTACHMENT 1-353
EXHIBIT 1
measures/actions in the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the Burbank General Plan and other applicable local and State regulations.

Nonetheless, implementing the GGRP Update would require some modification of existing policies, including developing and implementing new programs and projects, or modifying existing ones. The GGRP Update is designed to reduce adverse environmental impacts associated with climate change.

While modifications of existing policies are needed, the measures and actions included in the GGRP Update would not result in increases in population or induce additional population growth that would result in the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to public services in terms of need for the construction of new or altered governmental facilities.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Implementation of cumulative projects, including the GGRP Update, would not result in increases in population or induce additional population growth beyond that assumed under the Burbank General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update would not result in substantial cumulative need to expand public services facilities. Therefore, the GGRP Update would result in a less-than significant cumulative impact related to public services.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-354
EXHIBIT 1
16 Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ □ ■
b. 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? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
or
b. 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? Burbank is a primarily urbanized community with approximately 2,700 total acres of designated open space throughout the City, including approximately 700 acres of improved parkland.67 The General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element incorporate goals and policies to protect open space and recreational resources in the City.68 Additionally, the City Municipal Code Chapter 1 Zoning outlines regulation of park accessibility, services, and maintenance within the City.

The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to neighborhood or regional parks. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing programs that are consistent with the Burbank General Plan. Additionally, the GGRP Update would not result in substantial population growth or direct land use changes. As such, implementation of the GGRP Update would not result in a substantial physical deterioration of parks or other recreational facilities or result in the need to expand recreational facilities. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to the need for construction of new or altered recreational facilities.

NO IMPACT
67 Burbank, City of. 2013. General Plan. <https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0- 80e9-3b11-dc6d-751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed February 5, 2021. 68 Burbank, City of. 2013. General Plan. <https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0- 80e9-3b11-dc6d-751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed February 5, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-355
EXHIBIT 1
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Implementation of cumulative projects, including the GGRP Update, would not result in increases in population or induce additional population growth beyond that assumed under the General Plan. In addition, the GGRP Update would not result in population growth or direct land use change. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update would not result in substantial cumulative physical deterioration of parks or other recreational facilities or result in the cumulative need to expand recreational facilities. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no cumulative impact related to recreation.

NO IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-356
EXHIBIT 1
17 Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? or
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
The City embraces a policy direction to make Burbank a place where bicycling and walking are encouraged and fostered, and where safety, education and facilities are provided as an ongoing part of transportation and recreational planning and programs. While allowing people to circulate without cars is an emphasis of the Mobility Element, another emphasis is getting people to share rides and reduce the number of vehicular trips. In order to accomplish this, the City aims to take specific actions that will assist people in finding ways to share a ride, give priority to vehicles with more than a single occupant, or even eliminate the need for the trip totally.69 The City of Burbank General Plan Mobility Element includes the following applicable active transportation and transit with goal of reducing vehicle miles traveled policies:
▪ Policy 1.1 Consider economic growth, transportation demands, and neighborhood character in developing a comprehensive transportation system that meets Burbank’s needs. ▪ Policy 2.1 Improve Burbank’s alternative transportation access to local and regional destinations through land use decisions that support multimodal transportation. ▪ Policy 2.3 Prioritize investments in transportation projects and programs that support viable 69 Burbank, City of. 2013. General Plan. <https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0- 80e9-3b11-dc6d-751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed February 5, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-357
EXHIBIT 1
alternatives to automobile use.
▪ Policy 2.4 Require new projects to contribute to the city’s transit and/or non‐motorized transportation network in proportion to its expected traffic generation. ▪ Policy 2.5 Consult with local, regional, and state agencies to improve air quality and limit greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and goods movement. ▪ Policy 3.1 Use multi‐modal transportation standards to assess the performance of the City street system.
▪ Policy 3.2 Complete city streets by providing facilities for all transportation modes. ▪ Policy 3.3 Provide attractive, safe street designs that improve transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian connections between homes and other destinations. ▪ Policy 3.5 Design street improvements so they preserve opportunities to maintain or expand bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems.

Policy 4.1 Ensure that local transit service is reliable, safe, and provides high‐quality service to ▪ major employment centers, shopping districts, regional transit centers, and residential ▪ areas.
▪ Policy 4.2 Use best‐available transit technology to better link local destinations and improve rider convenience and safety, including specialized services for youth and the elderly. ▪ Policy 4.3 Improve and expand transit centers; create a new transit center in the Media District. ▪ Policy 4.4 Advocate for improved regional bus transit, bus rapid transit, light rail, or heavy rail services linking Burbank’s employment and residential centers to the rest of the region. ▪ Policy 4.5 Improve transit connections with nearby communities and connections to Downtown Los Angeles, West San Fernando Valley, Hollywood, and the Westside. ▪ Policy 4.6 Proactively plan for transit deficiencies should Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) make cutbacks to local service. ▪ Policy 4.7 Integrate transit nodes and connection points with adjacent land uses and public pedestrian spaces to make them more convenient to transit users. ▪ Policy 4.8 Promote multimodal transit centers and stops to encourage seamless connections between local and regional transit systems, pedestrian and bicycle networks, and commercial and employment centers.
▪ Policy 4.9 Support efforts to create a seamless fare‐transfer system among different transportation modes and operators.
▪ Policy 4.10 Actively promote public‐private partnerships for transit‐oriented development opportunities.
▪ Policy 5.1 Maximize pedestrian and bicycle safety, accessibility, connectivity, and education throughout Burbank to create neighborhoods where people choose to walk or ride between nearby destinations.
▪ Policy 5.2 Implement the Bicycle Master Plan by maintaining and expanding the bicycle network, providing end‐of‐trip facilities, improving bicycle/transit integration, encouraging bicycle use, and making bicycling safer.
▪ Policy 5.3 Provide bicycle connections to major employment centers, shopping districts, residential areas, and transit connections.
▪ Policy 5.4 Ensure that new commercial and residential developments integrate with Burbank’s bicycle and pedestrian networks.
▪ Policy 5.5 Require new development to provide land necessary to accommodate pedestrian infrastructure, including sidewalks at the standard widths specified in Table M‐2. ▪ Policy 7.2 Design commercial and residential parking standards to limit new vehicle trips, incentivize transit use, and promote non‐motorized transportation.

ATTACHMENT 1-358
EXHIBIT 1
▪ Policy 7.3 Reconfigure or remove underutilized street parking when needed to accommodate safer bicycle travel, increase walkability, improve transit operation, or improve vehicle safety.
▪ Policy 8.1 Update and expand the citywide transportation demand management requirements to improve individual economic incentives and change traveler choice. ▪ Policy 8.2 Strengthen partnerships with transit management organizations to develop citywide demand management programs and incentives to encourage alternative transportation options. ▪ Policy 8.3 Require multi‐family and commercial development standards that strengthen connections to transit and promote walking to neighborhood services. ▪ Policy 9.1 Ensure safe interaction between all modes of travel that use the street network, specifically the interaction of bicyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians with motor vehicles. ▪ Policy 9.2 Address the needs of people with disabilities and comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act during the planning and implementation of transportation improvement projects.
▪ Policy 9.3 Provide access to transportation alternatives for all users, including senior, disabled, youth, and other transit‐dependent residents.
▪ Policy 9.4 Preserve and promote safe riding for equestrians to access public riding trails.

In addition, the City‘s Complete Our Streets Plan regulates the development and implementation of a bicycle and pedestrian network in order to provide a viable transportation alternative to the automobile, improves safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, maintenance of bicycle network, facility design, community involvement, safety, and education70 Furthermore, the SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) identifies how the southern California region would meet its GHG emission reduction targets.71 The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve State GHG emission reduction goals and Federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support the vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently.

The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the transportation circulation system. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and actions that are consistent with the City General Plan Mobility Element, Complete Our Streets Plan, and the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS with many that are aimed at facilitating the implementation of the local transportation programs and improvements. For example, Measure T-

1.1 aims to implement the Complete Our Streets Plan, increasing active transportation mode share; Measure T-1.2 intends to provide clean, abundant, affordable and accessible public transit; and Measure T-1.3 will continue TMO expansion.

The measures and supporting actions would be consistent with and promote the General Plan Mobility Element and the Complete Our Streets Plan. Implementation of some of the measures and actions included in the GGRP Update may require future infrastructure development or improvements, such as bike paths and lockers. However, projects would be subject to review by the City for compliance with the General Plan and be required to comply with applicable local, State, 70 Burbank, City of. June 16, 2020. Complete Our Streets Plan. https://www.burbankca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=54111 Accessed February 2, 2021.
71 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Available: <http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx#toc>. Accessed February 16, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-359
EXHIBIT 1
and Federal regulations. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to consistency with plans addressing the transportation circulation system.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? or
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to risk associated with transportation design or features. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and supporting actions that are consistent with the City General Plan and would not facilitate development beyond that allowed under the General Plan. As such, it would not create transportation hazards or result in inadequate emergency access. For example, Measure T-1.1 aims to implement the Complete Our Streets Plan to increase active transportation and decrease vehicle miles traveled within the City. Additionally, Measure T-1.2 intends to provide clean, abundant, affordable and accessible public transit and Measure T-1.3 will continue TMO expansion. These GGRP measures and supporting actions would promote active transportation, ridership, and sustainable transportation practices within the community to enhance bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connectivity, which in turn would reduce potential transportation hazards and would provide adequate emergency access.

The GGRP Update does not include measures and actions that would substantially increase transportation hazards due to a design feature or incompatible land uses. Furthermore, projects would be reviewed for consistency with the Burbank General Plan and other applicable local and State regulations. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less- than significant impact related to transportation hazards and emergency access.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and actions that are consistent with the City’s General Plan, and, similar to the other cumulative projects, the GGRP Update does not propose development beyond that anticipated under the General Plan that would require transportation facilities. The measures and actions included in the GGRP Update promote alternative modes of transportation and reduction of the amount of vehicle miles traveled throughout the City. In addition, the GGRP Update measures and actions would not conflict with the objectives and policies of the General Plan or Complete Our Streets Plan but would rather be consistent with and promote those plans. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to transportation.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-360
EXHIBIT 1
18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or □ □ ■ □
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe. □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
or
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? On September 15, 2021, the eight following Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)- identified local Native American tribal groups were formally notified that the City initiated environmental review of the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold and were invited to provide consultation:
▪ Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
▪ Gabrieleño/Tongva Nation
▪ Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
ATTACHMENT 1-361
EXHIBIT 1
▪ Gabrieleño Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council ▪ San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
▪ Gabrieleño-Tongva Tribe
▪ Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
▪ Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
On September 15, 2021, the NAHC was also notified that the City initiated environmental review of the GGRP Update/GHG Emissions Thresholds and were invited to provide comments. During the consultation period, one response was received from Jairo Avila of the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians. The City met with Mr. Avila on January 26, 2022. During the meeting, the proposed project was discussed. Additionally, the specific conditions, measures, or protocols that are being considered to address concerns of local tribes as part of the proposed project were discussed. No mitigation measures were requested, and no tribal cultural resources were identified that could be impacted by the plan. Therefore AB 52 compliance requirements have been met.

The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to tribal cultural resources. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the GGPR Update would also not directly entail ground disturbing activities. Implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, which would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-

3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure.

Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030. The physical changes these upgrades and additions would entail are dependent on the year of building construction and location of electrical and service panels and plumbing connection of condensate drains, which sometimes may include modifications to the interior and/or exterior of buildings for wiring and panel replacement and minor excavation for connection of drainage to sewer systems.

Implementation of these measures could impact unknown tribal cultural resources during construction that involves below-grade activities. However, projects would be required to comply with Historic Resources Management Ordinance and General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element purpose that require the identification and preservation of sites and structures of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance. This includes sites, structures, and areas that are associated with tribal cultural activities or persons that contribute to the cultural character of artifacts. As such, tribal cultural resources would be protected upon discovery and, thus, impacts would be reduced to a minimal level. Additionally, future related projects would be required to undergo environmental review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation once project details and locations are known. Further, the City proposes to implement PDF CUL-1, which establishes specific requirements for development projects that are implemented as part of the GGRP Update that require ground disturbance (grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) beyond five feet bgs where it was not previously excavated beyond five feet bgs.

Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to tribal cultural resources.

ATTACHMENT 1-362
EXHIBIT 1

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686persons) in 2030. Cumulative projects could increase the potential for adverse effects to unknown tribal cultural resources in the City. Impacts to tribal cultural resources are site-specific; accordingly, as required under applicable laws and regulations, potential impacts associated with cumulative developments would be addressed on a case-by-case basis as cumulative project details and locations become known. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to tribal cultural resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 1-363
EXHIBIT 1
19 Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ □ ■
c. 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? □ □ □ ■
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? □ □ □ ■
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not have direct construction or operational impacts related to utilities and service systems. The GGRP Update is a policy document aimed at reducing water and energy consumption and related GHG emissions throughout the City of Burbank and does not include site-specific infrastructure designs or project proposals. Implementing the GGRP Update would not result in an increase in population and ATTACHMENT 1-364
EXHIBIT 1
housing nor would it facilitate growth beyond that anticipated by the General Plan. As such, implementing the GGRP Update would not create new demand related to water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas power, or telecommunications utilities.

However, projects resulting from implementation of the GGRP Update could include redevelopment and/or restructuring of electricity and natural gas power facilities and infrastructure. Measure BE-

1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-

1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Water Supply Facilities/Infrastructure
Burbank does not have ownership rights to naturally occurring water underneath the City and is dependent on imported water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District. However, Burbank receives groundwater credits based on the amount of water BWP imports to Burbank that eventually makes it way down to underground aquifers. Burbank’s water supply is made up of 47 percent stored groundwater, 33 percent State Water Project water, and 20 percent water from groundwater credits. Groundwater credits are received based on the extent of water imported by BWP to Burbank and arrives to underground aquifers, total recycled water, and untreated water stored as groundwater. Burbank utilizes these credits to pump from wells located in Burbank and distributes as drinking water after being treated. BWP supplies a greater part of its drinking water through purchased water from MWD with the State Water Project. 72 The City of Burbank addresses issues of water supply in its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).73 The 2020 UWMP is a long-range planning document used to assess current and projected water usage, water supply planning and conservation and recycling efforts. Burbank minimizes the need for importing water by utilizing recycling water, spreading and storing imported water, and promoting water conservation. MWD water supply reliability is dependent on their ability to meet 100 percent of retail demands and they are working on a “diverse water portfolio” to do that. BWP’s groundwater supply reliability is dependent on drought years which could limit Burbank from accessing enough groundwater and gaining enough groundwater credits but has the option of purchasing water through LADWP. BWP’s two treatment plants allows for a steady flow of potable water. Recycled water supply is derived from the Burbank Water Reclamation Plant and is highly reliable; it is connected to the LA-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant as backup or supplemental water supply. It is expected by normal and dry-year estimates that future demands through 2040 will have 100 percent reliability. In addition, the 2020 UWMP includes a Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

Measure W-1.1 promotes water consumption reduction through continued implementation of the 2020 UWMP water conservation programs, enforce MWELO requirements, enforce large irrigation customers required use of recycled water, work with BWP to implement public education on water 72 Burbank Water and Power. Water Supply. https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/water/water-supply/water-sources> Accessed February 2021.
73 Burbank Water and Power>. 2015. Urban Water Management Plan. < https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/images/administrative/downloads/2015_UWMP_Final_06-24-2016.pdf>. Accessed February 4, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-365
EXHIBIT 1
conservation efforts, update BWP’s 2010 Recycled Water Master Plan, and modernize irrigation controllers of at least three parks per year, upgrading systems at all parks by 2025 in Burbank.

The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in new land uses that would contribute to an increase in water use compared to existing conditions or require relocation or construction of new water infrastructure. Therefore, no impact related to need for construction or expansion of water supply facilities and infrastructure would occur.

Wastewater Treatment Facilities/Infrastructure
The City of Burbank operates the Burbank Water Reclamation Plant (BWRP). It is a tertiary treatment plant built in 1966 to meeting the communities residential and commercial wastewater and sewer demands. It treats 9 million gallons (MG) of sewage per day. The BWRP performs a multi- step treatment process where it eventually ends up the reclaimed water pump station that delivers reclaimed water to the City.74 The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in new land uses that would generate sanitary wastewater or otherwise contribute to an increase in wastewater treatment requirements. The amount or characteristics of wastewater treated at the BWRP would not change compared to existing conditions with implementation of the proposed plan. The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would not require relocation or construction of new wastewater collection or treatment infrastructure. Therefore, no impact related to need for construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities and infrastructure would occur.

Stormwater Drainage Facilities/Infrastructure
As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the GHG Emissions Thresholds provide guidance during CEQA review, and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not have direct construction or operational impacts related to alterations in polluted runoff. However, implementation of the following GGRP Update measures and supporting actions may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, which would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Construction of infrastructure development and redevelopment could result in erosion and potential redirect of flood flows or drainage patterns. However, implementation of proposed actions would not include infrastructure changes that would result in additional sources of polluted runoff. Additionally, future related projects would be required to undergo environmental review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation once project details and locations are known. As a result, no negative impacts related to polluted runoff would occur. Therefore, implementing the GGRP Update would have no effect on polluted runoff. As such, implementation of the GGRP Update would not require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Therefore, no impact 74 Burbank, City of. Burbank Water Reclamation Plan. https://www.burbankca.gov/web/public-works/burbank-water-reclamation-plant Accessed February 4, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-366
EXHIBIT 1
related to need for construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities and infrastructure would occur.

Electric Power Facilities/Infrastructure
Measures BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 propose revisions to existing ordinances and adoption of new ordinances to incorporate electrification of all new buildings and 10 percent of existing buildings within the City by 2030. In addition, new electric vehicle charging station installation would involve the construction of new electric power facilities and infrastructure and could also involve the relocation of existing electric power infrastructure and transmission lines. The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would serve as a pathway to reduce GHG emissions and other beneficial environmental and sustainability effects. These benefits include reduction in energy consumption.

Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to construction, expansion, or relocation of electric power facilities and infrastructure.

Natural Gas Power Facilities/Infrastructure
The GGRP Update would not involve new land uses that require new or additional natural gas service. However, implementation of the GGRP Update could involve the relocation or removal of existing natural gas facilities and infrastructure. The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would serve as a pathway to reduce GHG emissions and other beneficial environmental and sustainability effects. These benefits include reduction in energy consumption. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to removal of natural gas power facilities and infrastructure.

Telecommunications Facilities/Infrastructure
The proposal plan would not involve new land uses that would require telecommunications infrastructure and is not anticipated to involve the relocation of existing telecommunications facilities. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to need for construction or expansion of telecommunication facilities and infrastructure.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? or
c. Would the project 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?
The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to water supplies. The GGRP Update is a policy- level document that does not include site-specific infrastructure designs or project proposals, nor does it grant entitlements for development that would have the potential to increase demand for water supply or other utility services. Implementing the GGRP Update would include no new residential construction and would have no effect on water demand and wastewater treatment ATTACHMENT 1-367
EXHIBIT 1
demand. Thus, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in no impact related to water supply and wastewater treatment.

NO IMPACT
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
or
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The City of Burbank has a multiple licensed waste haulers that collect solid waste, green waste, recyclables, and bulky items. Burbank's solid waste is transferred to a variety of landfills, including:

Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Antelope Valley Public Landfill, Azusa Land Reclamation Co.

Landfill, Burbank Landfill, Clean Harbors Landfill, Covanta Stanislaus, El Sobrante Landfill, Frank R.

Bowerman Sanitary LF, Kirby Canyon Recycle and Disposal Facility, Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center, McKittrick Waste Treatment Site, Mid Valley Sanitary Landfill, Monterey Peninsula Landfill, Newby Island, Olinda Alpha Landfill, San Timoteo Sanitary Landfill, Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center, Southeast Resource Recovery Facility, Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill. Although the City waste haulers could use multiple landfills, the majority of the waste is transferred to Burbank Landfill and Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill. CalRecycle reports that in 2019 a total of 90,932 tons of solid waste from Burbank was disposed at 19 different landfills. Additionally, the City of Burbank has a landfill within City jurisdictional boundaries, the Burbank Landfill is operational and has a remaining capacity of 5,174,362 cubic yards.

The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to solid waste. The GGRP Update would not involve new land uses that require new or additional solid waste collection service. Rather Measure SW-1.1 promotes waste reduction via participation in recycling and organic waste programs and reducing such waste going to landfills to achieve 75 percent reduction in waste-related GHG emissions by 2025. The GGRP Update would not facilitate development and, thus, would not affect solid waste collection and disposal demand. Additionally, because the GGRP is a policy document that would not facilitate growth beyond that anticipated by the General Plan, it would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to solid waste.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Cumulative projects within the City could result in increases in population and additional use of or need for utilities and service systems. While implementation of the GGRP Update and related infrastructure projects would not result in increases in population or induce additional population growth that would require additional use of existing City utilities or service systems, implementation of new or replacement energy or transportation infrastructure under the GGRP Update could result in less than significant cumulative utility construction impacts. Therefore, implementation of the ATTACHMENT 1-368
EXHIBIT 1
GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to utilities and service systems.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-369
EXHIBIT 1
20 Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ □ ■
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ □ ■
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment? □ □ □ ■
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
or
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
or
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? ATTACHMENT 1-370
EXHIBIT 1
or
d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Two Mountain Fire Zones are designated by the Burbank Fire Department.75 One zone is located along the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains in northeast Burbank, and the other is located in southwestern portion of the City adjacent to the Warner Bros. Studios. According to CalFIRE, Burbank is located in a designated California Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.76 Per the Burbank General Plan Safety Element, the City is susceptible to loss from fire in the urban-wildland interface due to its proximity to the Verdugo Mountains and the Hollywood Hills.77 Furthermore, City Municipal Code Chapter 1 (Building and Fire) provides regulations related to the safety of life and property from fire within the City.78 The GGRP Update is a policy-level document that does not propose specific or other physical changes such as habitable development that could be put at risk in the case of a wildfire, nor does it grant entitlements for development that would have the potential to directly cause wildfire. Rather, the GGRP aims to reduce natural gas infrastructure that poses wildfire risk if damaged during seismic events and to underground new or restructured electric power lines that pose wildfire risk if damaged during high-wind events. Thus, the GGRP Update and Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to wildfire.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold do not include new habitable development that could be at risk from wildfire, nor does it grant entitlements for development that would have the potential to cause wildfire. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in cumulative impacts. Thus, the GGRP Update and the GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no cumulative impact related to wildfire.

NO IMPACT
75 Burbank, City of. 2013. General Plan. <https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0- 80e9-3b11-dc6d-751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed February 5, 2021. 76 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE). 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ . Accessed March 3, 2021.
77 Burbank, City of. 1998. General Plan Safety and Noise Element. < https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431>. Accessed March 3, 2021.
78 Burbank, City of. 2021. Municipal Code Chapter 1 (Building and Fire). < https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/>. Accessed March 3, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-371
EXHIBIT 1
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
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, substantially 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? □ □ ■ □
b. 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)? □ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? □ □ ■ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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? The intent of the GGRP Update is to reduce GHG emissions from Burbank community and municipal operations through implementation of measures and corresponding actions. The measures and supporting actions are consistent with the Burbank 2035 General Plan and encourage residents, businesses, and the City to reduce energy, fuel use, water use, VMT, and solid waste generation and the associated GHG emissions. The GGRP Update would not facilitate development that would eliminate or threaten wildlife habitats or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions ATTACHMENT 1-372
EXHIBIT 1
Thresholds would not result in significant biological and cultural resources impacts. Therefore, as discussed in more detail in Sections 4, Biological Resources, and 5, Cultural Resources, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less than significant impact related to biological and cultural resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. 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)? Implementation of the GGRP Update would result in a cumulatively beneficial reduction of GHG emissions across the City. In addition, as discussed throughout the respective cumulative impacts discussions within this document, the GGRP Update would not result in significant cumulative impacts. Rather, implementation of the GGRP Update would be consistent with General Plan policies aimed at reducing emissions of GHGs and air pollutants, reducing VMT, reducing energy and water supply demands on utilities, and decreasing solid waste generation. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in cumulative impacts.

Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in an overall less than significant cumulative impact related to all CEQA topics addressed within this document.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The GGRP Update would not result in adverse effects on human beings. Rather, as discussed throughout this document, the GGRP Update would serve as a pathway to reduce GHG emissions and other positive environmental and sustainability effects. These benefits include reduction in non- renewable building energy consumption and VMT (and thus air pollution), in transportation- related GHG emissions, energy and water consumption, and solid waste generation. However, as discussed in more detail in Sections 3, Air Quality, 13, Noise, and 17, Transportation, the GGRP Update could cause temporary construction impacts related to transportation, air quality, and noise that could, in turn, affect human beings but would not result in a substantial adverse environmental effect.

Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, the GGRP Update would result in a less than significant impact related to potential for adverse effects on human beings.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 1-373
EXHIBIT 1
References
List of Citations
Best Places. 2021. Climate in Burbank, California.:
https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/california/burbank Accessed December 28, 2020.

Burbank, City of. 1997. Burbank Center Plan.
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank+Center+Plan.pdf/5bb74fe2- 250b-7b21-7b8e-d9174668ca53?t=1612453815040 Accessed December 28, 2020. _____. Bicycle Master Plan. December 15, 2009.
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/240347/20210204-Bicycle-Master-Plan- 001.pdf/53be8720-2d59-19ad-bd4a-168ac74d7d22?t=1612567201263 Accessed December 28, 2020.
_____. September 25, 2012. North San Fernando Boulevard Master Plan. https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/North+San+Fernando+Blvd+Master+Pla n.pdf/4f76eeb0-670a-9a71-d92e-8ef380e23ad5?t=1612453877511 Accessed December 28, 2020.
_____. June 16, 2020. Complete Our Streets Plan. https://www.burbankca.gov/web/community- development/complete-streets-plan Accessed February 2, 2021. _____. 2021. A Guide to Burbank.
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/211716/486324/Guide+to+Burbank.pdf/7a110575 -f6e2-f5e5-5cc4-9d01ae604b9c?version=2.0&t=1613580393317&imagePreview=1 Accessed August 12, 2021.
_____. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan.
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656 b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d-751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 Accessed December 26, 2020. _____. Zero Waste Policy. Available online at:
http://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=181&meta_id=18226.

Accessed December 28, 2020.
_____. 2021. GGRP Update.
_____. Historic Preservation in Burbank. https://www.burbankca.gov/web/community- development/historic-preservation-program Accessed February 5, 2021. _____. 2020. Municipal Code Chapter 1 (Building and Fire). Available:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/. Accessed February 2, 2021 _____. Municipal Code Chapter 3 Article 2 (Noise Control). https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/. Accessed February 2, 2021 _____. 1998. General Plan Safety and Noise Element.
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656 b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d-751642c85b38?t=1612301807431. Accessed March 3, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-374
EXHIBIT 1
Burbank Water and Power. 2019 Integrated Resource Plan. December 11, 2018. https://burbankwaterandpower.com/images/administrative/downloads/CityCouncilApprov ed_2019_Integrated_Resource_Plan_DIGITAL.pdf Accessed February 2, 2021. _____. Water Supply. https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/water/water-supply/water- sources> Accessed February 2021.
_____. Burbank Water Reclamation Plan. <https://www.burbankca.gov/departments/public- works/water-reclamation-and-sewer/burbank-water-reclamation-plant?> Accessed February 4, 2021.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

Available: <https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm>. Accessed February 2, 2021.
______. 2016. State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan for Federal Ozone and PM2.5 Standards. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016sip.htm Accessed September 28, 2020.
_____. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2021 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE). 2020. California State Responsibility Areas. Available:
<https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?layers=5ac1dae3cb2544629a845d9 a19e83991>. Accessed March 3, 2021.
______. 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available: <https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/>.

Accessed March 3, 2021.

California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap- landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways Accessed February 1, 2021
______. 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (CT-HWANP-RT-13- 069.25.3). Available:
<http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_FINAL.pdf>. Accessed February 16, 2021.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. 2018 Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019- total-system-electric-generation/2018. Accessed January 5, 2021 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. Environmental Health and Equity Impacts from Climate Change and Mitigation Policies in California: A Review of the Literature. Accessed February 2, 2021.
_____. 2016. Electricity Consumption by County. <http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx>.

Accessed February 8, 2021
_____. 2009. Environmental Health and Equity Impacts from Climate Change and Mitigation Policies in California: A Review of the Literature. Accessed January 2, 2021.

California Natural Resources Energy. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. Available: <http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/>.

Accessed January 2, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-375
EXHIBIT 1
County of Los Angeles. Revised December 2011. Unincorporated Areas. http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/lac/1043452_BasicColorMap.pdf Accessed December 28, 2020.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. Highway Construction Noise Handbook. (FHWAHEP- 06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-02). Available:
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/construction_noise/handbook>. Accessed February 16, 2021.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Available: <https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf>. Accessed February 16, 2021.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro). 2020. Draft 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan. Available: <https://media.metro.net/2020/LRTP-Draft-Doc-Web.pdf>.

Accessed February 2, 2021.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.
<http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx#toc>. Accessed February 2, 2021. ______. 2016. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Available: < https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan> Accessed February 2, 2021. ______. 2014. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

Demographics and Growth Forecast Appendix.
<http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/final/f2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForecast. pdf>. Accessed February 2, 2021.

South Coast Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2018. National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. Available:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=14. Accessed February 22, 2021 _____. 2016. Final SCAQMC Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air- quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2016-aqmp. Accessed September 28, 2020.

United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2018. California Profile Overview. <https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA.> Accessed February 2, 2021. ______. 2018. Natural Gas Consumption by End Use.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_SCA_a.htm . Accessed February 2, 2021. _____. 2018. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA . Accessed January 5, 2021.

List of Preparers
Rincon prepared this GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold Initial Study-Negative Declaration under contract to the City of Burbank. Persons involved in data gathering, environmental impact analysis, quality review, graphics preparation, and document formatting include the following.

ATTACHMENT 1-376
EXHIBIT 1
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Hannah Mize, Sustainability Program Manager
Andrew Beecher, Sustainability Planner
Anna Henning, Sustainability Planner
Allysen Valencia, Graphics/GIS Specialist
Matthew Maddox, Environmental/Sustainability Principal

ATTACHMENT 1-377
EXHIBIT 1
Appendix A
Sources, Health Effects, and Typical Controls Associated with Criteria Pollutants

ATTACHMENT 1-378
EXHIBIT 1
Sources, Health Effects, and Typical Controls Associated with Criteria Pollutants Pollutant Sources Health Effects Typical Controls
Ozone (O3) Formed when reactive organic
gases (ROG) and nitrogen
oxides react in the presence of
sunlight. ROG sources include
any source that burns fuels
(e.g., gasoline, natural gas,
wood, oil); solvents;
petroleum processing and
storage.

Breathing difficulties, lung
tissue damage, vegetation
damage, damage to rubber
and some plastics.

Reduce motor vehicle reactive
organic gas (ROG) and
nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions
through emission standards,
reformulated fuels,
inspections programs, and
reduced vehicle use. Limit
ROG emissions from
commercial operations,
gasoline refueling facilities,
and consumer products. Limit
ROG and NOX emissions from
industrial sources such as
power plants and
manufacturing facilities.

Carbon monoxide
(CO)
Any source that burns fuel
such as automobiles, trucks,
heavy construction and
farming equipment, residential
heating.

Chest pain in heart patients,
headaches, reduced mental
alertness.

Control motor vehicle and
industrial emissions. Use
oxygenated gasoline during
winter months. Conserve
energy.

Nitrogen dioxide
(NO2)
See Carbon Monoxide. Lung irritation and damage.

Reacts in the atmosphere to
form ozone and acid rain.

Control motor vehicle and
industrial combustion
emissions. Conserve energy.

Sulfur dioxide
(SO2)
Coal or oil burning power
plants and industries,
refineries, diesel engines.

Increases lung disease and
breathing problems for
asthmatics. Reacts in the
atmosphere to form acid rain.

Reduce use of high sulfur fuels
(e.g., use low sulfur
reformulated diesel or natural
gas). Conserve energy.

Respirable
particulate matter
(PM10)
Road dust, windblown dust,
agriculture and construction,
fireplaces. Also formed from
other pollutants (NOX, SOX,
organics).

Increased respiratory disease,
lung damage, cancer,
premature death, reduced
visibility, surface soiling.

Control dust sources,
industrial particulate
emissions, woodburning
stoves and fireplaces. Reduce
secondary pollutants which
react to form PM10. Conserve
energy.

Fine particulate
matter (PM2.5)
Fuel combustion in motor
vehicles, equipment, and
industrial sources; residential
and agricultural burning. Also
formed from reaction of other
pollutants (NOX, SOX, organics,
and NH3).

Increases respiratory disease,
lung damage, cancer, and
premature death, reduced
visibility, surface soiling.

Particles can aggravate heart
diseases such as congestive
heart failure and coronary
artery disease.

Reduce combustion emissions
from motor vehicles,
equipment, industries, and
agricultural and residential
burning. Precursor controls,
like those for ozone, reduce
fine particle formation in the
atmosphere.

Lead Metal smelters, resource
recovery, leaded gasoline,
deterioration of lead paint.

Learning disabilities, brain and
kidney damage. Control metal
smelters.

No lead in gasoline or paint.

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Coal or oil burning power
plants and industries,
refineries, diesel engines.

Increases lung disease and
breathing problems for
asthmatics. Reacts in the
atmosphere to form acid rain.

Reduce use of high sulfur fuels
(e.g., use low sulfur
reformulated diesel or natural
gas). Conserve energy.

Sulfates Produced by reaction in the air
of SO2, (see SO2 sources), a
component of acid rain.

Breathing difficulties,
aggravates asthma, reduced
visibility.

See SO2
ATTACHMENT 1-379
EXHIBIT 1
Pollutant Sources Health Effects Typical Controls
Hydrogen Sulfide Geothermal power plants,
petroleum production and
refining, sewer gas.

Nuisance odor (rotten egg
smell), headache and
breathing difficulties (higher
concentrations).

Control emissions from
geothermal power plants,
petroleum production and
refining, sewers, and sewage
treatment plants.

Visibility Reducing
Particulates
See PM2.5 Reduced visibility (e.g.,
obscures mountains and other
scenery), reduced airport
safety.

See PM2.5
Vinyl Chloride Exhaust gases from factories
that manufacture or process
vinyl chloride (construction,
packaging, and transportation
industries).

Central nervous system effects
(e.g., dizziness, drowsiness,
headaches), kidney irritation,
liver damage, liver cancer.

Control emissions from plants
that manufacture or process
vinyl chloride, installation of
monitoring systems.

Toxic Air
Contaminant
(TAC)
Combustion engines
(stationary and mobile), diesel
combustion, storage and use
of TAC-containing substances
(i.e., gasoline, lead smelting,
etc.)
Depends on TAC, but may
include cancer, mutagenic
and/or teratogenic effects,
other acute or chronic health
effects.

Toxic Best Available Control
Technologies (T-BACT), limit
emissions from known
sources.

Source: Compiled by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in September 2020 ATTACHMENT 1-380
EXHIBIT 1
Appendix B
Description of Greenhouse Gases of California Concern

ATTACHMENT 1-381
EXHIBIT 1
Description of Greenhouse Gases of California Concern
Greenhouse Gas
Physical Description and
Properties
Global Warming
Potential
(100 years)
Atmospheric
Residence
Lifetime
(years) Sources
Carbon dioxide
(CO2)
Odorless, colorless, natural gas. 1 50–200 Burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood; decomposition of
dead organic matter;
respiration of bacteria, plants,
animals, and fungus; oceanic
evaporation; volcanic
outgassing; cement
production; land use changes
Methane
(CH4)
Flammable gas and is the main
component of natural gas.
2879 12 Geological deposits (natural
gas fields) extraction; landfills;
fermentation of manure; and
decay of organic matter
Nitrous oxide
(N2O)
Nitrous oxide (laughing gas) is a
colorless GHG.
298 114 Microbial processes in soil and
water; fuel combustion;
industrial processes
Chloro-fluoro-
carbons
(CFCs)
Nontoxic, nonflammable,
insoluble, and chemically
unreactive in the troposphere
(level of air at the Earth’s
surface); formed synthetically by
replacing all hydrogen atoms in
methane or ethane with
chlorine and/or fluorine atoms.
3,800–8,100 45–640 Refrigerants aerosol
propellants; cleaning solvents
Hydro-fluoro-
carbons
(HFCs)
Synthetic human‐made
chemicals used as a substitute
for CFCs and contain carbon,
chlorine, and at least one
hydrogen atom.
140 to 11,700 1–50,000 Automobile air conditioners;
refrigerants
Per-fluoro-
carbons (PFCs)
Stable molecular structures and
only break down by ultraviolet
rays about 60 kilometers above
Earth’s surface.
6,500 to 9,200 10,000–50,000 Primary aluminum production; semiconductor manufacturing
Sulfur
hexafluoride
(SF6)
Human‐made, inorganic,
odorless, colorless, and
nontoxic, nonflammable gas.
22,800 3,200 Electrical power transmission
equipment insulation;
magnesium industry,
semiconductor manufacturing;
a tracer gas
79 The City of Burbank used a 20-year Global Warning Potential for methane.

ATTACHMENT 1-382
EXHIBIT 1
Greenhouse Gas
Physical Description and
Properties
Global Warming
Potential
(100 years)
Atmospheric
Residence
Lifetime
(years) Sources
Nitrogen
trifluoride
(NF3)
Inorganic, is used as a
replacement for PFCs, and is a
powerful oxidizing agent.
17,200 740 Electronics manufacture for
semiconductors and liquid
crystal displays
Source: Compiled by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in September 2020 ATTACHMENT 1-383
EXHIBIT 1
Appendix G: CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
ATTACHMENT 1-384
EXHIBIT 1

City of Burbank California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Thresholds
and Guidance
Draft
prepared for
City of Burbank
150 N. Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Contact: Fred Ramirez, Assistant Community Development Director in Planning prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
706 South Hill Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90014
March 4, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1-385
EXHIBIT 1
This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 1-386
EXHIBIT 1
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4 2 GGRP Update Summary .................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Communitywide GHG Emissions Inventories ..................................................................... 6

2.2 GHG Emission Reduction Strategy ...................................................................................... 6

2.3 GHG Emissions Forecast...................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Plan .........................................................................11 3 Regulatory and Legal Setting ........................................................................................................14

3.1 Relevant CEQA Guidelines Sections ..................................................................................14

3.2 Relevant State and Regional GHG Reduction Targets ......................................................18

3.3 Relevant GHG Emissions Analysis Case Law .....................................................................20 4 Determining Consistency with the City’s GGRP Update ...............................................................22 5 Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG Thresholds ...............................................................................26

5.1 GHG Emissions Calculation Methodology .........................................................................26

5.2 GHG Thresholds and Use ..................................................................................................28

5.3 Justification for Thresholds ...............................................................................................29 6 Quantifying GHG Emissions ..........................................................................................................32

6.1 Construction GHG Emissions ............................................................................................32

6.2 Operational GHG Emissions ..............................................................................................33

6.3 Modeling GHG Emissions from Existing Land Use ............................................................36 7 Moving into the Future .................................................................................................................37 Tables
Table 1 Effective GHG Emission Reduction Target Calculation ........ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 2 City of Burbank 2010 and 2019 Communitywide GHG Emissions Levels ........................... 6 Table 3 City of Burbank Communitywide GHG Emissions Reductions by 2030 .............................. 8 Table 4 City of Burbank GHG Emissions Forecast Through 2045 ..................................................10 Table 5 GGRP Update Consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(1) for Year 2030 ......12 Table 6 GHG Emissions Forecast for Year 2030 by Type of Development (MT of CO2e) ..............27 Table 7 City of Burbank Demographic Projections ........................................................................28 Table 8 City of Burbank Locally Applicable Plan- or Project-Specific CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds ....................................................................................................................................29 ATTACHMENT 1-387
EXHIBIT 1
Figures
Figure 1 City of Burbank GHG Emissions Forecast, 2010 to 2045 ..............................................9 Figure 2 Determining Consistency with the City’s GGRP Update ............................................ 23 Figure 3 Allowable GHG Emissions from Existing and New Development in Year 2030 ......... 27 Appendices
Appendix A Overview of GHG Emissions and Climate Change Appendix B GGRP Update Project Review Checklist
Appendix C GHG Threshold Calculations
Appendix D United States Green Building Council Building Area per Employee by Business Type Rates

ATTACHMENT 1-388
EXHIBIT 1
1 Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires discretionary plans and projects to undergo an environmental review process, which includes an evaluation of plan- or project-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.1 This GHG thresholds and guidance document is intended to provide methodological guidance and quantitative thresholds of significance for use by City planners, applicants, consultants, agencies, and members of the public in the preparation of GHG emissions analyses under CEQA for plans and projects located within the City of Burbank.

The City of Burbank (City) prepared a Draft Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update (GGRP Update) with the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.2 While the City Council, City staff, and community will continue to develop an approach to the long-term goal of carbon neutrality, the GGRP Update includes specific actions to achieve the short-term communitywide emissions reduction targets of 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2030, which is consistent with California’s goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (Senate Bill 32) and represents substantial progress toward the State’s carbon neutrality goal for 2045.

The City’s 2030 target was developed to provide substantial progress towards the City’s long-term goal of carbon neutrality target and contribute substantial progress toward meeting the State’s GHG reduction goals identified in SB 32 and Executive Order (EO) B-55-18. Consistent with this process, the City’s GGRP Update includes procedures to evaluate the City’s emissions in light of the trajectory of the GGRP Update’s targets to assess its “substantial progress” toward achieving long‐term reduction targets identified in the GGRP Update and State legislation or EOs. The GGRP Update also includes commitments and mechanisms to adopt additional policies to achieve further GHG emissions reductions necessary to avoid interference with, and make substantial progress toward, the long-term GGRP Update and State targets. This is important because these targets have been set at levels that achieve California’s fair share of international emissions reduction targets that will stabilize global climate change effects and avoid the adverse environmental consequences of climate change.

To support progress toward the City’s 2030 emission reduction goal as well as the longer-term carbon neutrality goal, plans and projects within the City that undergo CEQA review will need to demonstrate consistency with targets in the GGRP Update, which will be a Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Plan, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, upon adoption of its CEQA review document, specifically the GGRP Update Initial Study-Negative Declaration (IS-ND), and approval of the GGRP Update by City Council. Section 2, GGRP Update Summary, provides an overview of this plan and the associated GHG emissions inventories, reduction measures, and forecasts included therein. In addition, Section 3, Regulatory and Legal Setting, offers an overview of relevant regulations and case law pertaining to the analysis of GHG emissions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

Plans and projects that are consistent with the GGRP Update’s demographic (i.e., residents and employees) projections and land use assumptions will be able to tier from the adopted GGRP 1 Refer to Appendix A for an overview of GHG emissions and climate change. 2 Carbon neutrality is defined as net zero carbon emissions, which is achieved either by balancing carbon emissions with carbon removal or by completely eliminating carbon emissions.

ATTACHMENT 1-389
EXHIBIT 1
Update IS-ND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. To streamline this CEQA GHG emissions analysis process, the City has prepared a GGRP Update Project Review Checklist that can be utilized in plan‐ and project‐level CEQA review documents to ensure that such proposed plans and projects are consistent with the GGRP Update GHG emissions reduction strategy. Chapter 4, Determining Consistency with the City’s GGRP Update, includes guidance on how to navigate this consistency determination process.

For plans or projects that are not consistent with the GGRP Update’s demographic projections and land use assumptions, a different methodology and assessment utilizing quantitative thresholds of significance would be necessary to evaluate GHG emissions impacts. Section 5, Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG Thresholds, includes guidance on how to use the specific quantitative thresholds that were developed for purposes of evaluating the level of significance of GHG emissions impacts.3 Furthermore, Section 6, Quantifying GHG Emissions, provides direction regarding how to quantify a plan or project’s GHG emissions for comparison to the applicable threshold of significance.

The City’s GGRP Update acknowledges that additional actions beyond those identified in the plan will be required to achieve its long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. As a result, the plan provides a mechanism for updating and adopting a new GGRP Update every three years in order to incorporate new measures and technologies that will further move the City toward meeting its long- term aspirational carbon neutrality goal. Section 7, Moving into the Future, offers further explanation of how CEQA review of plans and projects could be affected by future updates and/or iterations of the GGRP Update.
3 In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b), this guidance document and the quantitative thresholds contained herein will be presented to the City Council for formal adoption via resolution through a public review process, which will include an opportunity for public input.

ATTACHMENT 1-390
EXHIBIT 1
2 GGRP Update Summary
The following sections provide an overview of the City’s GGRP Update, including the 2010 and 2019 communitywide GHG emissions inventories, proposed GHG emission reduction strategy, and the communitywide GHG emissions forecast for years 2030 and 2045.

2.1 Communitywide GHG Emissions Inventories
The City completed communitywide GHG emissions inventories for years 2010 and 2019, which are summarized in Table 1. Specifically, a recalculation of the 2010 GHG inventory developed as part of the 2035 GGRP was performed as part of the GGRP Update to ensure that methodologies followed for both inventory years are consistent, progress since the 2035 GGRP is accurately represented, and the reduction targets are based on an equivalent comparison of past and future GHG emissions.

The reassessment of the 2010 GHG inventory includes updated global warming potentials and updated methodologies associated with the Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.4 As shown therein, communitywide GHG emissions declined by approximately 28 percent between 2010 and 2019, which exceeds the City’s target of reducing emissions by approximately 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and the State’s target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels (i.e., an approximately 15 percent reduction below baseline 2010 levels) by 2020. The most significant changes occurred in the transportation and energy sectors through increased efficiency and increased renewable energy procurement by BWP, as well as increased fuel efficiency in the on-road vehicle fleet. The water sector also experienced relatively significant GHG emission reductions through increased renewable energy procurement statewide.

Table 1 City of Burbank 2010 and 2019 Communitywide GHG Emissions Levels Sector
2010
(MT of CO2e)
2019
(MT of CO2e)
Percent Change from
2010 to 2019
Energy 728,939 573,376 -21%
Transportation 727,072 470,653 -35%
Solid Waste 33,638 35,890 7%
Water 23,064 4,936 -79%
Total 1,512,713 1,084,854 -28%
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number
1 AB 32 sets a target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which is considered equivalent to a 15 percent reduction in baseline 2010 levels according to the CARB (2008) Climate Change Scoping Plan.

Source: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2020. City of Burbank 2019 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, Forecast, and Reduction Targets Memorandum.

2.2 GHG Emission Reduction Strategy
To achieve the City’s GHG emission reduction targets, the City’s GGRP Update includes a series of measures, strategies, and supportive actions that are intended to reduce communitywide GHG emissions by approximately 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 and provide substantial progress 4 ICLEI. July 2019. U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emission.

ATTACHMENT 1-391
EXHIBIT 1
toward meeting the City’s and State’s long-term GHG emission reduction targets. The GGRP Update acknowledges that additional actions beyond those identified in the plan will be necessary to achieve the deep decarbonization needed to reach the State’s long-term goal of carbon neutrality and therefore provides a mechanism for updating the GGRP every three years in order to incorporate new measures and technologies that will further the City toward meeting the State’s long-term goal of carbon neutrality.

The City’s GGRP Update includes GHG emission reduction measures under the following six categories:
▪ Energy. These measures include electrifying new construction, electrifying existing buildings, and reducing per-service person energy demand.
▪ Transportation. These measures include implementing the Complete Streets plan; providing clean, abundant, affordable, and accessible public transit; continuing expansion of the Burbank Transportation Management Organization; and increasing zero-emission vehicle adoption. ▪ Water. This measure focuses on reducing potable water consumption and associated electricity usage.
▪ Waste. This measure aims to increase organic waste disposal. ▪ Carbon Sequestration. This measure strives to increase tree planting throughout the city. ▪ City Government. These measures include reviewing and updating the GGRP, retrofitting City streetlights with light-emitting diode (LED) technology, electrifying existing and new City facilities, and implementing a sustainable employee commute program.

In addition, the GGRP update includes several adapatation measures directed toward reducing the impacts of extreme heat, implementing a city-wide Vulnreability Assessment and Adaptation Plan, and evaluating biodiversity in the city as well as maintaing or increasing native species.

Table 2 summarizes the GHG emissions reductions included in the GGRP Update that are anticipated to be achieved by the six categories of GHG emission reduction measures in addition to State laws and programs by 2030. As shown therein, implementation of State laws and programs as well as these measures would reduce communitywide emissions by approximately 386,243 MT of CO2e per year, or approximately 40 percent, below 1990 levels (which equates to 49 percent below 2010 levels) to approximately 767,692 MT of CO2e per year. These emission reductions would equate to an approximately 33 percent reduction below business-as-usual GHG emissions forecast for year 2030.

ATTACHMENT 1-392
EXHIBIT 1
Table 2 City of Burbank Communitywide GHG Emissions Reductions by 2030 Source
2030 Annual Emissions
(MT of CO2e)
2010 Baseline Emissions1 1,512,713
Business-as-Usual Emissions2 1,153,935
State Laws/Programs3 (295,896)
Energy Measures (30,117)
Transportation Measures (47,490)
Water Measures (405)
Waste Measures (11,040)
Carbon Sequestration Measures (71)
Municipal Measures (1,222)
Total Emissions Reductions (386,243)
Remaining Emissions 767,692
Percent Reduction below 2010 Levels (49%)
Percent Reduction below Business-as-Usual Levels (33%)

2.3 GHG Emissions Forecast
Figure 1 and Table 3 summarize the communitywide GHG emissions forecast under three scenarios:
1) business-as-usual, 2) implementation of State laws and programs, and 3) implementation of State laws and programs and the GGRP Update. While State legislation compares emissions reduction targets to a 1990 baseline, the targets provided here for the City are compared to a 2010 baseline.

Consistent with the methodology used for setting targets in the 2013 GGRP, 1990 GHG emission levels are assumed to be 15 percent below 2010 levels.5 As shown, under the business-as-usual scenario, communitywide GHG emissions are forecasted to decrease by approximately 24 percent between 2010 and 2030. With implementation of State laws and programs, communitywide GHG emissions would decline by approximately 43 percent between 2010 and 2030. Furthermore, full implementation of the GGRP Update alongside State laws and programs would reduce communitywide GHG emissions by approximately 49 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, which equates to 40 percent below 1990 levels, consistent with SB 32. 5 The 15% reduction below Baseline establishes an estimate of 1990 emission levels for the City. This is based on the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines. See Appendix D, Reduction Measure Substantial Evidence and GHG Reduction Quantification, of the GGRP Update.

ATTACHMENT 1-393
EXHIBIT 1
Figure 1 City of Burbank GHG Emissions Forecast, 2010 to 2045

ATTACHMENT 1-394
EXHIBIT 1
Table 3 City of Burbank GHG Emissions Forecast Through 2045 Sector
2010
(MT of
CO2e)
2019
(MT of CO2e)
2030
(MT of CO2e)
Percent
Change
(2010-2030)
2045
(MT of CO2e)
Percent
Change
(2010-2045)
Business-as-Usual
Energy 728,939 573,376 624,269 (14%) 650,859 (11%)
Transportation 727,072 470,653 487,384 (33%) 510,104 (30%) Solid Waste 33,638 35,890 37,169 10% 38,914 16%
Water 23,064 4,936 5,112 (78%) 5,352 (77%)
Total 1,512,713 1,084,854 1,153,935 (24%) 1,205,229 (20%) Implementation of State Laws and Programs1
Energy 728,939 573,376 455,123 (38%) 158,286 (78%)
Transportation 727,072 470,653 361,197 (50%) 331,444 (54%) Solid Waste 33,638 35,890 37,169 10% 38,914 16%
Water 23,064 4,936 4,549 (80%) 2,559 (89%)
Total 1,512,713 1,084,854 858,039 (43%) 531,203 (65%)
Implementation of State Laws and Programs and City’s GGRP Update Energy2 728,939 573,376 423,965 (42%) 93,018 (87%)
Transportation3 727,072 470,653 313,526 (57%) 74,639 (90%) Solid Waste4 33,638 35,890 26,129 (22%) 27,222 (19%)
Water5 23,064 4,936 4,144 (82%) 2,559 (89%)
Carbon Sequestration6 0 0 (71) N/A (177) N/A
Total 1,512,713 1,084,854 767,692 (49%) 197,261 (87%)
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents; ( ) denotes a negative number Note: Numbers are rounded to the nearest whole number.
1 State laws and programs include State vehicle fuel efficiency standards, the Renewables Portfolio Standard, and triennial updates of Title 24.
2 Includes implementation of the energy measures outlined in the GGRP Update. 3 Includes implementation of the transportation measures outlined in the GGRP Update. 4 Includes implementation of the solid waste measures outlined in the GGRP Update. 5 Includes implementation of the water measures outlined in the GGRP Update. 6 Includes implementation of the carbon sequestration measures outlined in the GGRP Update.

Sources: Appendix C; Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2021. City of Burbank 2019 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, Forecast, and Reduction Targets Memorandum.

At this time, the State has codified a target of reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2030 (SB 32) and has developed the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan to demonstrate how the State will achieve the 2030 target and make substantial progress toward the 2050 goal of an 80 percent reduction in 1990 GHG emission levels set by EO S-3-05. However, EO B- 55-18 identifies a new goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

While State and regional regulations related to energy and transportation systems, along with the State’s GGRP Update and Trade program, are designed to be set at limits to achieve most of the ATTACHMENT 1-395
EXHIBIT 1
GHG emissions reductions needed to achieve the State’s long-term targets, local governments can do their fair share toward meeting the State’s targets by siting and approving projects that accommodate planned population growth and projects that are GHG-efficient. The Association of Environmental Professional (AEP) Climate Change Committee recommends that CEQA GHG analyses evaluate project emissions in light of the trajectory of State climate change legislation and assess their “substantial progress” toward achieving long‐term reduction targets identified in available plans, legislation, or EOs.

The City has adopted a goal of achieving reducing emissions by 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 (SB 32 target year) and by 66 percent below 2010 levels by 2035 (the General Plan horizon year) and reaching carbon neutrality by 2045. The City has proposed the GGRP Update as a pathway to make progress toward these targets. As shown in Table 3, implementation of the GGRP Update would achieve an approximately 49 percent reduction in communitywide GHG emissions below 2010 by 2030, which equates to 40 percent reduction in communitywide GHG emissions below 1990 levels by 2030. 6 Therefore, the City’s long-term aspirational goal of carbon neutrality and the associated GGRP Update establish a trajectory that provides GHG emissions reductions in line with those required by SB 32 for 2030. Because SB 32 is considered an interim target toward meeting the 2045 State goal of carbon neutrality, implementation of the GGRP Update would make substantial progress toward meeting the State’s long-term 2045 goal. Avoiding interference with, and making substantial progress toward, these long-term State targets is important because these targets have been set at levels that achieve California’s fair share of international emissions reduction targets that will stabilize global climate change effects and avoid the adverse environmental consequences described in Appendix A (Executive Order B-55-18).

2.4 Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Plan
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, project-specific environmental documents can tier from, or incorporate by reference, the existing programmatic review in a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan, which allows for project-level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the project’s consistency with the GHG emissions reduction strategy included in the qualified GHG emissions reduction plan. To meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan must include the following:

Quantify existing and projected GHG emissions within the plan area; Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; Identify and analyze sector specific GHG emissions within the plan’s geographic area; Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that if implemented, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; Establish a tool or mechanism to monitor progress and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; and
Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.

Development projects can demonstrate consistency with a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan if they are consistent with the plan’s assumptions regarding future growth projections and consistent 6 (1,285,806 MT of CO2e – 767,692 MT of CO2e)/1,285,806 MT of CO2e = 40% reduction; (1,512,713 MT of CO2e – 767,692 MT of CO2e)/1,512,713MT of CO2e = 49% reduction
ATTACHMENT 1-396
EXHIBIT 1
with the plan’s GHG emissions reduction measures.7 Projects consistent with the qualified GHG reduction plan, including conformance with performance measures applicable to the project, would not require additional GHG emissions analysis or mitigation under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h) and 1513.5(b)(2). The City of Burbank has developed the GGRP Update Project Review Checklist to assist with determining project consistency with the GGRP Update. The checklist is intended to provide individual projects the opportunity to demonstrate that they are minimizing GHG emissions while ensuring that new development achieves its proportion of emissions reductions consistent with the assumptions of the GGRP Update. Project consistency with a GHG emissions reduction plan can also be demonstrated through quantitative analysis that demostrates the project will not impede (or will facilitate) the City’s ability to meet its GHG emissions reduction targets or by incorporating the reduction measures included in the GHG emissions reduction plan.

Table 4 summarizes the consistency of the GGRP Update with these requirements for year 2030 (the next State milestone target year for GHG emission reductions). As shown in Table 4, upon adoption of the IS-ND and approval of the plan by City Council, the City’s GGRP Update will meet the requirements of a qualified GHG emission reduction plan per CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(1) for projects with buildout years through 2030.

Table 4 GGRP Update Consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(1) for Year 2030
CEQA Guidelines Section
15183.5(1) Requirement1 GGRP Update Consistency
Quantify GHG emissions, both
existing and projected over a
specified time period, resulting
from activities within a defined
geographic area.

Consistent. The GGRP Update includes communitywide GHG emissions inventories for years 2010 and 2019 and forecasts GHG emissions for years 2030, 2035, and 2040. See Section 2, Inventory, Forecast, and Targets, and Appendix C of the GGRP Update. The reassessment of the 2010 GHG inventory includes updated global warming potentials and updated methodologies associated with the Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.8 Establish a level, based on
substantial evidence, below
which the contribution to GHG
emissions from activities
covered by the plan would not
be cumulatively considerable.

Consistent. A key aspect of a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan is substantial evidence that the identified GHG emissions reduction target establishes a threshold where GHG emissions are not cumulatively considerable. See Section 2, Inventory, Forecast, and Targets, and Appendix C of the GGRP Update. The Association of Environmental Professionals (2016) Beyond Newhall and 2020 white paper identifies this threshold as being a local target that aligns with the State legislative targets. The GGRP Update establishes targets that align with State goals. Specifically, the GGRP Update includes targets to reduce GHG emissions to 49% below 2010 levels by 2030 (SB 32 target year); 66% below 2010 levels by 2035 (General Plan horizon year), and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 (EO B-55-18 target year). As discussed in Section

2.3, GHG Emissions Forecast, implementation of the plan will achieve a 40 percent reduction in 1990 emissions levels by 2030. Therefore, this local target is consistent with the State targets of a 40 percent emission reduction in 1990 levels by 2030.

Identify and analyze the GHG
emissions resulting from
specific actions or categories of
actions anticipated within the
geographic area.

Consistent. The GGRP Update breaks down its inventories into four sectors (energy, transportation, solid waste, and water). See Section 2, Inventory, Forecast, and Targets, and Appendix C of the GGRP Update. The plan also identifies six categories of GHG emission reduction measures and quantifies the emission reductions that would be achieved by implementation of each measure.

Specify measures or a group of
measures, including
performance standards, that
Consistent. The GGRP Update specifies strategies, measures, and foundational actions that the City will enact and implement between 2020 and 2030 to reduce GHG emissions to 49% below 2010 levels by 2030 (SB 32 target year). As discussed in 7 GGRP Updates or GGRPs typically utilize growth projections from the local jurisdiction’s General Plan or applicable Metropolitan Planning Organization’s regional demographic forecast.
8 ICLEI. July 2019. U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emission.

ATTACHMENT 1-397
EXHIBIT 1
CEQA Guidelines Section
15183.5(1) Requirement1 GGRP Update Consistency
substantial evidence
demonstrates, if implemented
on a project-by-project basis,
would collectively achieve the
specified emissions level.

Section 2.3, GHG Emissions Forecast, implementation of the plan will achieve a 40 percent reduction in 1990 emissions levels by 2030, which is consistent with the State target of a 40 percent emission reduction in 1990 levels by 2030 and demonstrates substantial progress by 2030 toward achieving the City’s long-term aspirational goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. See Section 3, GHG Emission Reduction Measures, and Appendix D of the GGRP Update.

Establish a mechanism to
monitor the plan’s progress
toward achieving the level and
to require amendment if the
plan is not achieving specified
levels.

Consistent. The GGRP Update includes a process to complete an updated community-wide GHG emissions inventory annually through CAPDash. Additionally, the GGRP Update includes a process to update and adopt a new GGRP Update every three years order to incorporate new measures and technologies that will further the City toward meeting its long-term aspirational goal of carbon neutrality. See Section 5, Implementation.

Be adopted in a public process
following environmental
review.

Consistent. The City has prepared an IS-ND for the GGRP Update that will be circulated for public review and comment and adopted prior to approval of the GGRP Update and CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance by City Council. See Appendix F of the GGRP Update.
1 Source: 2019 CEQA Guidelines
ATTACHMENT 1-398
EXHIBIT 1
3 Regulatory and Legal Setting
The following regulations, executive orders, and case law pertain to the analysis of GHG emissions consistent with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

3.1 Relevant CEQA Guidelines Sections
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the California Natural Resources Agency has adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions. The adopted CEQA Guidelines, which were last updated in December 2018, provide general regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHG emissions and climate change impacts.

Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, impacts related to GHG emissions generated by a proposed plan/project would be significant if the plan/project would:
▪ Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and/or
▪ Conflict with an appl icable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a plan/project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a plan/project are limited. As discussed in Appendix A, the adverse environmental impacts of cumulative GHG emissions, including sea level rise, increased average temperatures, more drought years, and more large forest fires, are already occurring. As a result, cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change are significant. Therefore, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b), the analysis of GHG emissions under CEQA typically involves an analysis of whether a plan or project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]).

The following sections of the CEQA Guidelines (last updated on December 28, 2018) pertain to the creation of significance thresholds and the analysis of a plan/project’s GHG emissions.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)
The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area.

Thresholds of significance, as defined in Section 15064.7(a), may assist lead agencies in determining whether a project may cause a significant impact. When using a threshold, the ATTACHMENT 1-399
EXHIBIT 1
lead agency should briefly explain how compliance with the threshold means that the project’s impacts are less than significant. Compliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project’s environmental effects may still be significant.9
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4
(a) The determination of the significance of GHG emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in section 15064. A lead agency shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of GHG emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to Quantify GHG emissions resulting from a project; and/or Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. (b) In determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions, the lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change. A project’s incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively small compared to Statewide, national or global emissions. The agency’s analysis should consider a timeframe that is appropriate for the project. The agency’s analysis also must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and State regulatory schemes. A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment:

The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.

Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.

The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (see, e.g., section 15183.5[b]). Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long-term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.
(c) A lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change. The lead agency must support its selection of a 9 2019 CEQA Guidelines.

ATTACHMENT 1-400
EXHIBIT 1
model or methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use.10 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7
(a) A threshold of significance is an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. (b) Each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects. Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency’s environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence. Lead agencies may also use thresholds on a case-by-case basis as provided in Section 15064(b)(2). (c) When adopting or using thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.
(d) Using environmental standards as thresholds of significance promotes consistency in significance determinations and integrates environmental review with other environmental program planning and regulation. Any public agency may adopt or use an environmental standard as a threshold of significance. In adopting or using an environmental standard as a threshold of significance, a public agency shall explain how the particular requirements of that environmental standard reduce project impacts, including cumulative impacts, to a level that is less than significant, and why the environmental standard is relevant to the analysis of the project under consideration. For the purposes of this subdivision, an “environmental standard” is a rule of general application that is adopted by a public agency through a public review process and that is all the following:
a quantitative, qualitative or performance requirement found in an ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, plan or other environmental requirement; adopted for the purpose of environmental protection;
addresses the environmental effect caused by the project; and, applies to the project under review.11
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5
(a) Lead agencies may analyze and mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions at a programmatic level, such as in a general plan, a long-range development plan, or a separate plan to reduce GHG emissions. Later project-specific environmental documents may tier from and/or incorporate by reference that existing programmatic review. Project-specific environmental documents may rely on an EIR containing a programmatic analysis of GHG emissions as provided in section 15152 (tiering), 15167 (staged EIRs) 15168 (program EIRs), 10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.

ATTACHMENT 1-401
EXHIBIT 1
15175–15179.5 (Master EIRs), 15182 (EIRs Prepared for Specific Plans), and 15183 (EIRs Prepared for General Plans, Community Plans, or Zoning). (b) Plans for the Reduction of GHG Emissions. Public agencies may choose to analyze and mitigate significant GHG emissions in a plan for the reduction of GHG emissions or similar document. A plan to reduce GHG emissions may be used in a cumulative impacts analysis as set forth below. Pursuant to sections 15064(h)(3) and 15130(d), a lead agency may determine that a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project complies with the requirements in a previously adopted plan or mitigation program under specified circumstances.

Plan Elements. A plan for the reduction of GHG emissions should:
(A) Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; (B) Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable;
(C) Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area;
(D) Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; (E) Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; (F) Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.

Use with Later Activities. A plan for the reduction of GHG emissions, once adopted following certification of an EIR or adoption of an environmental document, may be used in the cumulative impacts analysis of later projects. An environmental document that relies on a GHG reduction plan for a cumulative impacts analysis must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project, and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project. If there is substantial evidence that the effects of a particular project may be cumulatively considerable, notwithstanding the project’s compliance with the specified requirements in the plan for the reduction of GHG emissions, an EIR must be prepared for the project. (c) Special Situations. As provided in Public Resources Code sections 21155.2 and 21159.28, environmental documents for certain residential and mixed use projects, and transit priority projects, as defined in section 21155, that are consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in an applicable sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy need not analyze global warming impacts resulting from cars and light duty trucks. A lead agency should consider whether such projects may result in GHG emissions resulting from other sources, however, consistent with these Guidelines.12
12 Ibid.

ATTACHMENT 1-402
EXHIBIT 1
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c)
Consistent with section 15126.4(a), lead agencies shall consider feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring or reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of GHG emissions. Measures to mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions may include, among others:

Measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of emissions that are required as part of the lead agency’s decision;
Reductions in emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project features, project design, or other measures, such as those described in Appendix F; Off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required, to mitigate a project’s emissions;
Measures that sequester GHGs;
In the case of the adoption of a plan, such as a general plan, long range development plan, or plans for the reduction of GHG emissions, mitigation may include the identification of specific measures that may be implemented on a project-by-project basis. Mitigation may also include the incorporation of specific measures or policies found in an adopted ordinance or regulation that reduces the cumulative effect of emissions.13

3.2 Relevant State and Regional GHG Reduction
Targets
Executive Order S-03-05
On June 1, 2005, the governor issued EO S-03-05, which established a statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and created the Climate Action Team. The 2020 GHG reduction target contained in EO S-03-05 was later codified by Assembly Bill (AB) 32.

Assembly Bill 32
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” which was signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the Statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHG emissions to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of Statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 Statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).14 The Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008 and included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures 13 Ibid.
14 Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas, CO2, is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions, referred to as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 25, meaning its global warming effect is 25 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007).

ATTACHMENT 1-403
EXHIBIT 1
included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and GGRP Update-and-Trade) have been adopted since approval of the Scoping Plan.15 In May 2014, CARB approved the first update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The 2013 Scoping Plan update defined CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years and set the groundwork to reach post-2020 Statewide goals. The update highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the State’s longer-term GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, including those for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. 16
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, the governor issued EO B-30-15, which established state GHG emission reduction targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 2030 GHG emissions reduction target contained in EO B-30-15 was later codified by SB 32. The next scoping plan development process has been initiated for carbon neutrality and is scheduled for adoption in 2022.

Senate Bill 32
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed SB 32 into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the GGRP Update-and-Trade Program, as well as implementation of recently adopted programs and policies, such as SB 350 and SB 1383. The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development.

Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with Statewide per GGRP Update goals of six metric tons (MT) of CO2e by 2030 and two MT of CO2e by 2050. As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State.17 Senate Bill 375
SB 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and affordable housing allocations. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning 15 CARB. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 2008. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf (accessed January 2020). 16 CARB. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. May 15, 2014. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf (accessed January 2020). 17 CARB. 2017. 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed January 2020).

ATTACHMENT 1-404
EXHIBIT 1
Strategy categorized as “transit priority projects” would receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing
On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. SCAG was assigned targets of an 8 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles related to 2005 levels by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles related to 2005 levels by 2035. SCAG adopted the 2020 RTP/SCS titled Connect SoCal in September 2020, which meets the requirements of SB 375.18 Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, the governor issued EO B-55-18, which established a new Statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing Statewide GHG emission reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100. EO B-55-18 also tasks CARB with including a pathway toward the EO B-55-18 carbon neutrality goal in the next Scoping Plan update.

3.3 Relevant GHG Emissions Analysis Case Law
Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (Case No. 070448) The Third District Court of Appeal decision in the Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville case was published on August 19, 2013. This decision evaluated the methodology used to analyze GHG emissions in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for a Wal-Mart Supercenter development project that included replacing an existing Wal-Mart store with a Wal-Mart Supercenter in Oroville in Butte County. The EIR used consistency with the AB 32 emissions reduction target as its significance threshold for evaluating the project’s GHG emissions and compared the magnitude of the proposed project’s emissions to statewide 2004 emission levels as part of the analysis. The Court found that EIR applied “a meaningless, relative number to determine insignificant impact” rather than evaluating the project’s emissions in light of the AB 32 emissions reduction target. The Court also found that the EIR “misapplied the [AB] 32 threshold-of-significance standard by [1] failing to calculate the GHG emissions for the existing Wal-Mart and [2] failing to quantitatively or qualitatively ascertain or estimate the effect of the Project’s mitigation measures on GHG emissions.” The Court determined that the EIR could and should have performed these quantifications to adequately evaluate the project’s GHG emissions using the AB 32 emissions reduction target.

Sierra Club v. County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2018-00043084-CU-TT-CTL) The Fourth District Court of Appeal decision in the Sierra Club v. County of San case was published on October 29, 2014. This decision evaluated the adequacy of the GGRP Update prepared by the County of San Diego to satisfy Mitigation Measure CC-1.2 of the program EIR prepared for its 2011 General Plan. To reduce GHG emissions impacts of the 2011 General Plan to a less-than-significant level, Mitigation Measure CC-1.2 required the preparation of a GGRP Update that would include “more detailed GHG emissions reduction targets and deadlines” and that would “achieve comprehensive and enforceable GHG emissions reduction of 17 percent (totaling 23,572 MT of 18 Southern California Association of Governments. 2020. Connect SoCal: The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments. September 3, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/read- plan-adopted-final-plan (accessed March 2021).

ATTACHMENT 1-405
EXHIBIT 1
CO2e) from County operations from 2006 by 2020 and 9 percent reduction (totaling 479,717 MT of CO2e) in community emissions from 2006 by 2020.” The Court found the GGRP Update did not include enforceable and feasible GHG emission reduction measures that would achieve the necessary emissions reductions; therefore, the GGRP Update did not meet the requirements of Mitigation Measure CC-1.2 and would not ensure that the mitigation measure would reduce GHG emissions to a less-than-significant impact. In addition, the Court found that the County failed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the GGRP Update and its associated thresholds of significance under CEQA.

Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Case No. 217763)
The California Supreme Court’s decision in the Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife case was published on November 30, 2015. This decision evaluated the methodology used to analyze GHG emissions in an EIR prepared for the Newhall Ranch development project that included approximately 20,885 dwelling units with 58,000 residents on 12,000 acres of undeveloped land in Los Angeles County. The EIR used a business-as-usual (BAU) approach to evaluate whether the project would be consistent with the AB 32 Scoping Plan. The Court found there was insufficient evidence in the record of that project to explain how a project that reduces its GHG emissions by the same percentage as the BAU reduction identified for the State to meet its Statewide targets supported a conclusion that project-level impacts were below the level of significance.

The California Supreme Court suggested regulatory consistency as a pathway to compliance by stating that a lead agency might assess consistency with the State’s GHG reduction goals by evaluating for compliance with regulations designed to reduce GHG emissions. This approach is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b), which provides that a determination of an impact is not cumulatively considerable to the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements implementing a Statewide, regional, or local plan to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions. The Court also found that a lead agency may rely on numerical and efficiency-based thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, if supported by substantial evidence.

Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego/Sierra Club, LLC v.

County of San Diego (Case No. 072406)
The Fourth District Court of Appeal decision in the Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego case (published on September 28, 2018) evaluated the County of San Diego’s 2016 Guidance Document’s GHG efficiency metric, which establishes a generally applicable threshold of significance for proposed projects. The Court held that the County of San Diego is barred from using its 2016 Guidance Document’s threshold of significance of 4.9 MT of CO2e per service person per year for GHG analysis. The Court stated that the document violated CEQA because it was not adopted formally by ordinance, rule, resolution, or regulation through a public review process per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b). The Court also found that the threshold was not supported by substantial evidence that adequately explained how a service population threshold derived from Statewide data could constitute an appropriate GHG metric to be used for all projects in unincorporated San Diego County. Nevertheless, lead agencies may make plan- or project-specific GHG emissions threshold determinations.

ATTACHMENT 1-406
EXHIBIT 1
4 Determining Consistency with the City’s
GGRP Update
As discussed in Chapter 2, GGRP Update Summary, upon public adoption of the GGRP Update IS-ND and approval of the GGRP Update by City Council, the City’s GGRP Update will be a qualified GHG emission reduction plan per the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 for year 2030 and can, therefore, be utilized to streamline the GHG emissions analysis for plans and projects with buildout years through 2030.19 Projects that are consistent with the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions used in the GGRP Update can utilize the checklist to demonstrate consistency with the GGRP Update’s emissions reduction strategy, and if consistent, can tier from the existing programmatic environmental review contained in the adopted IS-ND for the GGRP Update. In doing so, these projects would result in less-than-significant GHG emissions and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions and climate change. The following process, illustrated in Figure 2, explains how to demonstrate a plan/project’s consistency with the GGRP Update GHG emissions reduction strategy and, thereby, tier from the adopted IS-ND for the GGRP Update. This approach is consistent with the recommendations of the AEP Climate Change Committee (2016) for tiering from qualified GHG reduction plans that demonstrate substantial progress toward meeting the next milestone Statewide planning reduction target (i.e., a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 as set forth by SB 32). 19 Projects that are statutorily or categorically exempt from CEQA compliance would not need to perform an analysis of GHG emissions or tier from the City’s GGRP Update.

ATTACHMENT 1-407
EXHIBIT 1
Figure 2 Determining Consistency with the City’s GGRP Update

Step 1: Consistency with the Demographic Forecasts and Land Use Assumptions
The demographic forecasts and land use assumptions of the GGRP Update are based on the population and employment data and sixth cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) from SCAG, which are in turn based on the existing land use and General Plans of local jurisdictions as of ATTACHMENT 1-408
EXHIBIT 1
2015.20 If a plan/project is consistent with the existing (2013) General Plan land use and zoning designation(s) of the plan area/project site as identified in the Burbank2035 General Plan adopted in 2014, then the plan/project is consistent with the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions of the GGRP Update and can move on to Step 2. In this case, the plan/project’s associated GHG emissions were accounted for in the GHG emissions forecasts included in the GGRP Update and are within the scope of this plan’s analysis of communitywide GHG emissions. Accordingly, the analysis of the plan/project’s GHG emissions in its CEQA document should include a reference to the plan/project’s consistency with the existing (2013) General Plan land use and zoning designation(s) of the plan area/project site and should explain the aforementioned connection between the existing (2013) General Plan land use and zoning designation(s) and the GHG emissions forecasts in the GGRP Update. Then, proceed to Step 2.

If a plan/project is not consistent with the existing (2013) General Plan land use and zoning designation(s) of the plan area/project site but would result in equivalent or fewer GHG emissions as compared to existing on-site development, then the plan/project would still be within the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions of the GGRP Update and can move on to Step 2.

To provide substantial evidence for this determination, GHG emissions generated under existing conditions and the proposed project need to be quantified and included in the CEQA analysis. See Chapter 6, Quantifying GHG Emissions, for guidance on quantifying GHG emissions for existing conditions and the proposed plan/project. In this case, the analysis of the plan/project’s GHG emissions in its CEQA document should include a quantitative comparison of the proposed plan/project’s GHG emissions and GHG emissions generated by existing on-site development. The analysis should clearly explain how the plan/project’s emissions are equivalent or less than those generated by existing on-site development. Then, proceed to Step 2.

If a plan/project is not consistent with the existing (2013) General Plan land use and zoning designation(s) of the plan area/project site and would result in either new development of undeveloped land or redevelopment with higher GHG emissions than existing on-site development, the plan/project cannot use the checklist to tier from the adopted IS-ND for the GGRP Update.

Instead, the plan/project’s GHG emissions can be evaluated using the quantitative GHG thresholds described in Chapter 5, Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG Thresholds, to evaluate the significance of the plan/project’s GHG emissions. This method can also be utilized for projects with a post-2030 buildout year.

Step 2: Consistency with the GGRP Update Project Review Checklist The City has prepared the GGRP Update Project Review Checklist for plans and projects to ensure that they are consistent with the measures of the GGRP Update (Appendix B). A project applicant can utilize the checklist to show that the plan/project includes all applicable measures of the GGRP Update. Projects that use the GGRP Update Project Review Checklist are not required to quantify reductions from the measures included on the checklist because the reductions from applicable measures have already been quantified at a programmatic level in the GGRP Update. If a plan/project is consistent with the applicable measures on the GGRP Update Project Review Checklist, then the plan/project can tier from the programmatic environmental review included in the adopted IS‐ND for the GGRP Update pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). A plan/project that is consistent with all applicable measures of the GGRP Update Project Review 20 Southern California Association of Governments. 2020. Connect SoCal Technical Report – Demographics and Growth Forecast.

September 3, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth- forecast.pdf?1606001579 (accessed March 2021).

ATTACHMENT 1-409
EXHIBIT 1
Checklist would result in less‐than‐significant GHG emissions and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions and climate change. In this case, the analysis of a plan or project’s GHG emissions in its respective CEQA review document should include a summary of the plan/project’s consistency with applicable measures of the GGRP Update Project Review Checklist and an explanation with substantial evidence of why any measures in the checklist are not applicable to the plan/project.

ATTACHMENT 1-410
EXHIBIT 1
5 Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG
Thresholds
As discussed in Chapter 4, Determining Consistency with the City’s GGRP Update, if a plan/project is not consistent with the existing (2013) General Plan land use and zoning designation(s) of the plan area/project site or the SCAG RHNA allocation or has a post-2030 buildout year, then the plan/project cannot use the GGRP Update Project Review Checklist. Instead, the significance of the plan/project’s GHG emissions can be evaluated using quantitative GHG thresholds derived from the assumptions of the GGRP Update. If the plan/project’s emissions are at or below the applicable threshold, the plan/project can tier from the existing programmatic environmental review contained in the adopted IS-ND for the GGRP Update if it has a pre-2030 buildout year. In doing so, these plans/projects would result in less-than-significant GHG emissions and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions and climate change. The following sections provide an explanation of the methodology used to calculate the thresholds, guidance on how to utilize the thresholds, and justification for use of these thresholds.

5.1 GHG Emissions Calculation Methodology
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 does not establish a specific quantitative threshold of significance for evaluating GHG emissions associated with a proposed plan or project. Lead agencies have the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, and in establishing those thresholds, a lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public agencies, or suggested by other experts, as long as the threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]). The following methodology is consistent with guidance provided by the AEP Climate Change Committee in 2016 for establishing GHG emissions efficiency thresholds using the local jurisdictional GHG inventory and demographic forecasts.21 An efficiency threshold is a threshold expressed as a per-person metric (e.g., per resident, per employee, or per service person). Efficiency thresholds are calculated by dividing the allowable GHG emissions inventory in a selected calendar year by the resident, employee, or service population in that year. The efficiency threshold identifies the quantity of GHG emissions that can be generated on a per-person basis without significantly impacting the environment.

Locally appropriate, plan- and project-specific GHG emissions efficiency thresholds were derived from the GHG emissions forecasts calculated for the GGRP Update. These thresholds were created to comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and interpretive GHG emissions analysis case law, which are summarized in Chapter 3, Regulatory and Legal Setting. The City of Burbank GHG emissions efficiency thresholds were calculated using the emissions forecasts with all emissions sectors included, because plans and projects would generate vehicle trips, consume energy, and produce solid waste, thereby generating emissions in all categories. Efficiency thresholds were calculated for year 2030 to provide GHG emissions thresholds for new development in line with the State’s next milestone target for year 2030.
21 AEP. 2016. Final White Paper Beyond 2020 and Newhall: A Field Guide to New CEQA Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Climate Action Plan Targets for California. https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf (accessed January 2020).

ATTACHMENT 1-411
EXHIBIT 1
GHG emissions efficiency thresholds would be used during the CEQA review process for new residential, non-residential, and mixed-use plans and projects. Therefore, forecasted GHG emissions in the GGRP Update were disaggregated into existing development and new development for each threshold year. Furthermore, forecasted GHG emissions for new development were further disaggregated into residential and non-residential development for each threshold year for the purpose of calculating thresholds specific to residential, non-residential, and mixed-use projects.

The results of the disaggregation of the GHG emissions forecast are presented in Figure 3 and Table 5, which summarizes the total amount of GHG emissions expected to be generated by existing, new residential, and new non-residential development for threshold year 2030.

Figure 3 Allowable GHG Emissions from Existing and New Development in Year 2030

Table 5 GHG Emissions Forecast for Year 2030 (MT of CO2e) Source
2030
Existing Development New Construction Total
Baseline GHG Emissions 1,084,854 69,080 1,153,935
State Laws/Programs 270,087 25,809 295,896
GGRP Update Energy Measures 29,081 1,037 30,117
GGRP Update Transportation
Measures
45,856 1,634 47,490
GGRP Update Water Measures 391 14 405
GGRP Update Waste Measures 10,660 380 11,040
GGRP Update Sequestration
Measures
68 2 71
Municipal Measures1 1,222 N/A 1,222
Remaining Total GHG Emissions 727,488 40,204 767,692
( ) denotes a negative number; N/A = not applicable
Note: GHG emissions reductions achieved by City Government measures are not included because implementation of the actions associated with these measures would serve only to reduce municipal, rather than communitywide, emissions.

See Appendix C for calculations.

Table 6 summarizes the demographic projections for the City Burbank that were used in calculating GHG efficiency thresholds for year 2030. As shown in Table 6, the numbers of residents, employees, and service persons are all anticipated to increase between 2019 and 2030.

ATTACHMENT 1-412
EXHIBIT 1
Table 6 City of Burbank Demographic Projections
Metric 2019 Estimate 2030 Forecast
Net Increase from New
Development
(2019-2030)
Residents 105,496 109,686 4,190
Employees 132,000 136,275 4,275
Service Population1 237,496 245,961 8,465
1 The service population is equal to the residential population plus the number of employees.

Source: Burbank, City of. 2020. City of Burbank 2019 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, Forecast, and Reduction Targets Memorandum.

5.2 GHG Thresholds and Use
The GHG efficiency thresholds for residential, non-residential, and mixed-use projects built prior to December 31, 2030 are presented in Table 7. If a plan or project’s emissions do not exceed the applicable threshold, then it is consistent with the City’s GGRP Update and its GHG emissions impacts (both project- and cumulative-level) would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to GHG emissions and climate change and would, therefore, be less than significant. If a plan or project’s emissions exceed the applicable threshold, then mitigation measures must be identified and respective GHG emissions reduction calculations included within the respective CEQA review document in order to reduce plan or project GHG emissions to at or below the applicable threshold level. These thresholds are applicable to the following plan and project types as identified in Title 10 (Zoning Regulations) Section 10-1-502, Table 10-1-602, and Table 10-1-627 and defined in Burbank Municipal Code Section 10-1-203:
▪ Residential. Single-family dwellings (including mobile homes and manufactured homes), multi- family dwellings, caretaker quarters, residential care home-retirement home, community care facilities, convalescent homes, sober living facilities, supportive housing, and transitional housing or any combination of these uses.
▪ Non-residential. All Retail Sales and Dining uses; all Recreation, Assembly, and Entertainment uses; all Public and Semi-Public Facilities uses, all Professional Offices and Services uses; all Media Services uses; all Medical and Care uses; all Industrial and Manufacturing uses that are not subject to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) stationary source permitting or the State cap-and-trade program; all Vehicle Related uses; all Cannabis uses; hotels; motels; single room occupancy hotels; family day care homes; or any combination of these uses.
▪ Mixed-use. A combination of at least one residential and at least one non-residential land use specified above.

ATTACHMENT 1-413
EXHIBIT 1
Table 7 City of Burbank Locally Applicable Plan- or Project-Specific CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds
2030 New Development Projects
GHG Emissions after Reductions from Measures
(MT of CO2e per year)1
767,692
Demographic Metric2 245,961 service persons
GHG Efficiency Threshold
(MT of CO2e per year)

3.12 per service person
MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
1 See
Table 5.
2 Demographic estimates are for new plans or projects only and were calculated using the forecasts in Table 6.

5.3 Justification for Thresholds
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)(1), “the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b)(2) states, “When using a threshold, the lead agency should briefly explain how compliance with the threshold means that the project’s impacts are less than significant.” Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b) states “Thresholds of significance to be adopted for general use as part of the lead agency’s environmental review process must be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence.” Therefore, the key considerations when developing thresholds of significance are 1) the thresholds’ basis on scientific and factual data; 2) demonstration of how compliance with the thresholds reduces project impacts to a less-than-significant level; 3) support of the thresholds by substantial evidence; and 4) adoption of the thresholds by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, and developed through a public review process. The following subsections address these four key considerations.

Basis on Scientific and Factual Data
As discussed in Section 5.1, Calculation Methodology, the quantitative thresholds were developed using data from the City’s 2010 and 2019 communitywide GHG inventories and the GHG emissions forecasts for year 2030. These inventories and forecasts were developed by the City in compliance with all relevant protocols and guidance documents, including the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Local Government Operations Protocol, the Global Protocol for Community Scale GHG Emissions, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National GHG Inventories. Furthermore, the inventories and forecasts are based on locally appropriate data for the City of Burbank provided by Burbank Water and Power (BWP), Southern California Gas Company, the City of Burbank’s Public Works Department, , the SCAG traffic demand model data, CARB’s OFFROAD2007 off-road transportation emissions model, and CalRecycle. Therefore, the emission inventory and forecast data underlying the thresholds is both scientific and factual.

As discussed in Section 2.3, GHG Emissions Forecast, implementation of the City’s GGRP Update will achieve a 40 percent reduction in 1990 emissions levels by 2030 (49% reduction below 2010).

ATTACHMENT 1-414
EXHIBIT 1
Therefore, this local target is consistent with the State targets of a 40 percent emission reduction in 1990 levels by 2030 and makes substantial progress toward achieving the State’s long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. The quantitative thresholds are tied directly to the level of GHG emissions anticipated for new development in the GGRP Update for year 2030. As a result, because the GGRP Update is consistent with the State’s 2030 GHG emission target, the quantitative thresholds are also consistent with the State’s long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. The State’s GHG emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2045 are set at the levels scientists say are necessary to meet the Paris Agreement goals to reduce GHG emissions and limit global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius by 2100 in order to avoid dangerous climate change (CARB 2017; EO B-55-18). Therefore, the City’s emission reduction targets that inform the GGRP Update and the associated quantitative thresholds are based on scientific and factual data on the level of emissions reductions necessary to ensure the City does not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact of climate change.

Reduction of Plan or Project Impacts to a Less-than-Significant Level As shown in
Table 5 in Section 5.1, Calculation Methodology, implementation of the City’s GGRP Update would reduce communitywide emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The quantitative thresholds are tied directly to the level of GHG emissions anticipated for new development in the GGRP Update for year 2030. Therefore, the thresholds are consistent with the City’s local emission reduction target, which is consistent with the State’s GHG emission reduction targets. As mentioned in the preceding subsection, the State’s GHG emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2045 are set at the levels scientists say are necessary to meet the Paris Agreement goals to reduce GHG emissions and limit global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius by 2100 in order to avoid dangerous climate change (CARB 2017; EO B-55-18). Therefore, the quantitative thresholds are set at the level necessary to ensure the City does not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact of climate change. As a result, projects with GHG emissions at or below the quantitative thresholds would also not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impacts of climate change, and project impacts would be less than significant.

Support of Substantial Evidence
Substantial evidence regarding the calculation of the quantitative GHG emissions thresholds is provided in Section 5.1, Calculation Methodology. The following subsections provide additional evidence of how the GHG emissions thresholds are locally appropriate and plan- or project-specific; how the thresholds distinguish between existing and new development; and why interim year thresholds were developed.

Use of Local Data
The quantitative thresholds were developed using the City’s communitywide GHG emissions forecasts for year 2030 and are therefore specific to the City of Burbank. The thresholds are directly tied to the population and employment growth anticipated by the City’s (2013) General Plan and SCAG’s RHNA allocation for Burbank as well as to the City-specific GHG emission reduction measures that the City has proposed to reduce communitywide emissions. In addition, the magnitude of local GHG emission reductions achieved by State legislation/policies (i.e., vehicle fuel efficiency standards, the Renewable Portfolio Standard, and Title 24) was estimated based on City-specific growth and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) forecasts. As a result, these locally appropriate thresholds ATTACHMENT 1-415
EXHIBIT 1
directly address the concerns raised in the Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego/Sierra Club, LLC v. County of San Diego (2018) case because they are based on local GHG emissions data rather than statewide GHG emissions data.

Disaggregation of Existing versus New Development
The quantitative thresholds were developed by disaggregating the City’s business-as-usual GHG emissions forecasts for year 2030 into emissions forecasts for existing and new development, which are shown in
Table 5 in Section 5.1, Calculation Methodology. The emissions reductions specific to new development achieved by State legislation/policies and the GGRP Update were then subtracted from the business-as-usual forecast to determine emissions “caps” of emissions from new residential and new non-residential development for year 2030. These “caps” were then divided by the numbers of residents, employees, and service persons forecasts for new development to determine efficiency thresholds for residential, non-residential, and mixed-use development, respectively. Therefore, these thresholds directly address the concerns raised in the Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) case regarding the different rates of GHG emissions reductions anticipated for new development as compared to existing development in order to meet the specified GHG reduction target.

Selection of Sector-Specific Thresholds
The quantitative thresholds are separated into three categories – residential, non-residential, and mixed-use – which are intended to apply to the three main types of development projects in Burbank. These thresholds were calculated by disaggregating the City’s business-as-usual GHG emissions forecasts for new development in year 2030 into emissions forecasts for new residential and new non-residential development, which are shown in Table 5 in Section 5.1, Calculation Methodology. The emissions reductions specific to new residential and new non-residential development achieved by State legislation/policies and the GGRP Update were then subtracted from the business-as-usual forecast to determine “caps” of emissions for new residential and new non-residential development for year 2030. These emissions “caps” were then divided by the numbers of residents and employees forecast for new development in year 2030 to determine efficiency thresholds for residential and non-residential projects, respectively. For mixed-use development, the residential and non-residential emissions “caps” were summed, then divided by the service population forecast for new development in year 2030 to determine an efficiency threshold for mixed-use projects. As a result, these project-specific thresholds directly address the concerns raised in the Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2015) case because they are specific to each development project type.

Adoption via Public Review Process
In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b), this guidance document and the quantitative thresholds contained herein will be presented to the City Council for formal adoption via resolution through a public review process, which will include an opportunity for public input.

The public review process for these City of Burbank CEQA GHG Thresholds and Guidance will specifically occur via public review of and comment on a joint GGRP Update and CEQA GHG Thresholds and Guidance Draft IS-ND. The opportunity for public comment will also be available at a public hearing (i.e., City Council meeting) considering adoption of the GGRP Update and CEQA GHG ATTACHMENT 1-416
EXHIBIT 1
Thresholds and Guidance. This process directly addresses the concerns raised in the Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego/Sierra Club, LLC v. County of San Diego (2018) case regarding formal adoption of new CEQA thresholds and how lead agencies should afford the opportunity for public review and input prior to adoption and use.

ATTACHMENT 1-417
EXHIBIT 1
6 Quantifying GHG Emissions
There are a variety of analytical tools available to estimate project-level GHG emissions, including the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod),22 which is a free, publicly available computer model developed for the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with various air quality districts throughout the State. Alternative tools may be used to quantify emissions if they can be substantiated. In general, the most current version of CalEEMod should be used to calculate total emissions for discretionary development projects. The analysis should focus on carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) because these are the GHGs that most development projects would generate in the largest quantities. Fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluorides, should also considered for the analysis. Emissions of all GHGs should be converted into their equivalent global warming potential in terms of CO2 (CO2e). Calculations should be based on the methodologies recommended by the CAPCOA and the SCAQMD and include the use of guidance published by CARB.23, 24, 25

6.1 Construction GHG Emissions
Construction activities emit GHGs primarily though combustion of fuels (mostly diesel) in the engines of off-road construction equipment and in on-road construction vehicles and in the commute vehicles of the construction workers. Smaller amounts of GHGs are emitted indirectly through the energy required for water used for fugitive dust control and lighting for the construction activity. Every phase of the construction process, including demolition, grading, paving, and building, emits GHG emissions in volumes proportional to the quantity and type of construction equipment used. Heavier equipment typically emits more GHGs per hour of than lighter equipment because of its engine design and greater fuel consumption.

The SCAQMD recommends amortizing construction-related GHG emissions over the life of the plan/project and adding amortized construction emissions to annual operational emissions for the purpose of providing a mechanism for the plan/project to mitigate these impacts alongside operational impacts. The SCQAMD recommends an amortization period of 30 years for all projects.26
CalEEMod generates a default construction schedule and equipment list based on the plan-/project- specific information, including land use, project size, location, and construction timeline.27 In 22 The most current available version of CalEEMod should be used. As of January 2020, CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 is the most current version and should be used to quantify project-level emissions. 23 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). January 2008.
24 SCAQMD. 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold .October 2008. https://www.google.com/search?q=scaqmd+interim+ghg+guidance&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS820US820&oq=scaqmd+interim+ghg+guidan ce&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.2752j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (accessed March 2021). 25 CARB. 2018. EMFAC2017 Volume III – Technical Documentation v.1.0.2. July 20, 2018. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017-volume-iii-technical-documentation.pdf (accessed January 2020). 26 SCAQMD. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November 1993. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality- analysis-handbook/ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993) (accessed January 2021). 27CAPCOA. 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide: Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide (accessed January 2020).

ATTACHMENT 1-418
EXHIBIT 1
general, if specific applicant-provided information is unknown, the default construction equipment list and phase lengths are the most appropriate inputs. However, if more detailed site-specific equipment and phase information (i.e., data from the project applicant) is available, the model’s default values can (and should) be overridden.28

6.2 Operational GHG Emissions
CalEEMod estimates operational emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 generated by area sources, energy use, waste generation, and water use and conveyance as well as CO2 and CH4 generated by project- generated vehicle trips (i.e., mobile sources). Operational emissions should be calculated for year 2030, rather than the plan/project buildout year, in order to provide an appropriate comparison of project emissions to the year 2030 threshold.

Area Source Emissions
Area sources include GHG emissions that would occur from the use of landscaping equipment, hearths, and woodstoves, which emit GHGs associated with the equipment’s fuel combustion. The landscaping equipment emission values in CalEEMod are derived from the 2011 Off-Road Equipment Inventory Model.29 Emission rates for combustion of wood and natural gas for wood stoves and fireplaces are based on those published by the U.S. EPA in Chapter 1.9 of AP-42.

Typically, no adjustments to landscaping equipment inputs are necessary. The number of hearths and woodstoves should be adjusted to reflect the project design and compliance with SCAQMD Rule 445.

Energy Use Emissions
GHGs are emitted on-site during the combustion of natural gas for cooking, space and water heating, and decorative uses and off-site during the generation of electricity from fossil fuels in power plants. CalEEMod estimates GHG emissions from energy use by multiplying average rates of residential and non-residential energy consumption by the quantities of residential units and non- residential square footage entered in the land use module to obtain total projected energy use. This value is then multiplied by electricity and natural gas GHG emission factors applicable to the plan/project location and utility provider. Building energy use is typically divided into energy consumed by the built environment and energy consumed by uses that are independent of the building, such as plug-in appliances. Non-building energy use, or “plug-in energy use,” can be further subdivided by specific end-use (refrigeration, cooking, office equipment, etc.). In California, Title 24 governs energy consumed by the built environment, mechanical systems, and some types of fixed lighting.

Electricity emissions are calculated by multiplying the energy use by the carbon intensity of the utility district per kilowatt hour.30 The specific energy intensity factors (i.e., the amount of CO2, CH4, and N2O per kilowatt-hour) for BWP should be used in the calculations of GHG emissions. However, the energy intensity factors included in CalEEMod are based on 2007 data by default at which time BWP had only achieved a one percent procurement of renewable energy.31 Per SB 100, the 28Ibid.
29Ibid.
30Ibid.
31 Burbank Water and Power. 2008. Currents – June 2008. https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/images/administrative/downloads/2007WaterQualityReport.pdf (accessed March 2021).

ATTACHMENT 1-419
EXHIBIT 1
Statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy sources to 33 percent by 2020 and 60 percent by 2030.

Users should visit Burbank Water and Power’s website for the most recent energy intensity factors for BWP.

Energy emissions should also be adjusted to account for the effects of new iterations of Title 24. For examples, CalEEMod version 2016.3.2 does not account for the requirements of the 2019 Title 24 standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2020. According to the California Energy Commission, single-family homes and nonresidential buildings built to the 2019 Title 24 standards will use approximately 7 percent and 30 percent less energy, respectively, due to more stringent energy efficiency measures and lighting upgrades. Therefore, energy usage from single-family residential usage should be reduced by 7 percent, and non-residential energy usage should be reduced by 30 percent to account for the requirements of 2019 Title 24 standards.32 In accordance with Section 150.1(b)14 of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, all new residential uses three stories or less must install photovoltaic (PV) solar panels that generate an amount of electricity equal to expected electricity usage. The calculation method contained in Section 150.1(b)14 of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards should be utilized to estimate the number of kilowatts of PV solar panels that would be required for a residential project three stories or less. In addition, modeling should account for local regulations pertaining to mandatory solar provisions.33 Online resources can be used to determine the amount of kilowatt-hours that would be generated per year by the required solar PV system.34 The energy reduction achieved by on-site PV solar panels should be included in CalEEMod.

Mobile Source Emissions
CalEEMod quantifies mobile source emissions of CO2, and CH4. If available, project-specific trip generation rates or VMT data should be input in CalEEMod. To calculate mobile source emissions, CalEEMod uses CO2 emission factors from the EMFAC2014 Emissions Inventory based on the aggregated model year and aggregated speed and CH4 emission factors provided by CARB for the plan/project’s first year of full operations.35 Because CalEEMod does not calculate N2O emissions from mobile sources, N2O emissions should be quantified using guidance from CARB and the EMFAC2017 Emissions Inventory. 36, 37
Water and Wastewater Emissions
The amount of water used, and the amount of wastewater generated by a plan/project generate indirect GHG emissions. These emissions are a result of the energy used to supply, convey, and treat 32 California Energy Commission. 2019. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” March 2018. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf (accessed January 2020).
33 In 2020, the City Council will consider adoption of the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, which may include solar requirements for other types of land uses.
34 Zientara, Ben. 2019. ”How much electricity odes a solar panel produce?” Last updated: November 6, 2019. https://www.solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basics/how-much-electricity-does-a-solar-panel-produce/ (accessed March 2020). 35CAPCOA. 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide: Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide (accessed January 2020). 36 CARB. 2018. EMFAC2017 Volume III – Technical Documentation v.1.0.2. July 20, 2018. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017-volume-iii-technical-documentation.pdf (accessed January 2020). 37 CARB. 2019. EMFAC2017 Web Database. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017 (accessed January 2020).

ATTACHMENT 1-420
EXHIBIT 1
water and wastewater. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions associated with energy use, the wastewater treatment process itself can directly emit both CH4 and N2O.

The indoor and outdoor water use consumption data for each land use subtype comes from the Pacific Institute’s (2003) Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California.38 Based on that report, a percentage of total water consumption is dedicated to landscape irrigation, which is used to determine outdoor water use. Wastewater generation is similarly based on a reported percentage of total indoor water use.

New development will be subject to CalGreen, which requires a 20 percent increase in indoor water use efficiency. Thus, in order to account for compliance with CalGreen, a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use should be included in the water consumption calculations for new residential, non- residential, and mixed-use development. In addition to water reductions associated with building code compliance and project design features, the GHG emissions from the energy used to transport the water for development should also account for compliance with the RPS using the guidance provided under “Energy Use Emissions.”
Solid Waste Emissions
The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from the transportation of waste, anaerobic decomposition in landfills, and incineration. To calculate the GHG emissions generated by solid waste disposal, the total volume of solid waste is calculated using waste disposal rates identified by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). The methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste are based on the IPCC method, using the degradable organic content of waste. Users should contact the City's Public Works Department to obtain the most recent solid rate diversion rate to be included in the calculation of solid waste GHG emissions.

Plan or Project Design Features
Users should use the “Mitigation” tabs to include project design features applicable to the plan/project.39 These features often include increased density, improved destination accessibility, proximity to transit, integration of below market rate housing, unbundling of parking costs, provision of transit subsidies, implementation of alternative work schedules, use of energy- and/or water-efficient appliances, use of reclaimed and/or grey water, and installation of water-efficient irrigation system. Users should consider the applicability of these features to the plan/project and review the CAPCOA Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (2010) publication to ensure that the chosen features are relevant and feasible in light of the plan/project.40 Residents, Employees, and Service Populations
The quantitative thresholds presented in Section 5, Utilizing Quantitative CEQA GHG Thresholds, are expressed in terms of per resident for residential projects, per employee for non-residential projects, and per service person for mixed-use projects. Estimates of the resident, employee, or service population for a plan/project should be based on substantial evidence. The City of Burbank 38CAPCOA. 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model User Guide: Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/user's-guide (accessed January 2020). 39 “Mitigation” is a term of art for the modeling input and is not equivalent to mitigation measures that may apply to the CEQA impact analysis.
40 CAPCOA. 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. August 2010. http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf (accessed January 2020).

ATTACHMENT 1-421
EXHIBIT 1
defines service population as defined as the number of residents plus the number of employees for a given project. Data provided by the applicant as well as the following resources may be utilized in estimating resident and employee populations:
▪ California Department of Finance. For plans/projects with a residential component, household size data for the city of Burbank provided by the California Department of Finance (available at:
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/) can used to estimate the number of residents a plan/project would accommodate.
▪ Proposed Number of Beds. For plans/projects such as group homes, assisted living facilities, nursing homes, or similar uses, the number of beds can be used to determine the resident population.
▪ United States Green Building Council. The United States Green Building Council has published a summary of building area per employee by business type. These rates, which are expressed in terms of square feet per employee, can be utilized to estimate the number of employees a plan/project would require. This document is included as Appendix D.

6.3 Modeling GHG Emissions from Existing Land Use
For a plan/project that would result in a change in the plan area/project’s site General Plan land use designation, emissions anticipated for the existing (2013) General Plan land use designation must be calculated in conjunction with emissions for the proposed plan/project to demonstrate whether the plan/project would be more or less GHG-intensive than development anticipated for the existing (2013) General Plan land use designation for the site. In this case, GHG emissions should be reported for both the existing and proposed scenarios. Emissions anticipated for the existing land use should be quantified using the methods described in Section 6.1, Construction Emissions, and Section 6.2, Operational Emissions with consistent assumptions between the two scenarios as applicable. Any emission reduction credits applied to the proposed plan/project scenario that are related to State legislation/policies (e.g., the RPS, vehicle standards, Title 24) or the plan area/project site location (e.g., proximity to transit, destination accessibility, etc.) should also be applied to the existing scenario. Emission reduction credits that are specific to the proposed plan/project (e.g., use of recycled water, increased density, installation of energy and/or water- efficient appliances, integration of below market rate housing, etc.) should only be included for the proposed plan/project scenario. In addition, care should be taken to identify any emission reduction credits that might be unique to the existing land use designation that would not apply to the proposed plan/project. For example, if the existing land use designation allows for single-family residences and the proposed land use designation would allow for only commercial uses, then the existing scenario should include the emission reduction credit associated with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards requirements for PV solar panels on residential uses that are three stories or less whereas the proposed plan/project scenario should not include this credit unless PV solar panels are included as a plan/project design feature.

ATTACHMENT 1-422
EXHIBIT 1
7 Moving into the Future
Full implementation of the City’s GGRP Update will reduce communitywide GHG emissions by approximately 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, which would leave a gap of approximately 767,692 MT of CO2e per year that will need to be addressed to achieve carbon neutrality. This gap represents emissions that could be addressed by laws, regulations, policies, programs, and ordinances set forth by the federal and State governments, regional agencies, and local partners.

The gap also represents the uncertainty that the City faces in taking a leadership role in addressing a challenge that has not been solved before. The City is committed to embracing that uncertainty, committing to constant learning, engaging in systemic change using the tools and actions that local governments are uniquely suited to carry out, and positioning itself to take full advantage of future innovations, technologies, and policies and legislation that may be undertaken at the State and federal level. Technological innovation, clean-tech innovation, and changes to climate related policy and regulation occur rapidly. Several of the State’s most successful environmental policy initiatives, including the RPS, also had a gap between what was known at the time of adoption and eventual successful implementation. By committing to the target of carbon neutrality by 2045, the City intends to catalyze innovation, invite resources from funding sources and partners, and provide climate leadership.

The GGRP Update acknowledges that additional actions beyond those identified in the plan will be necessary to achieve carbon neutrality and therefore provides a mechanism for updating the GGRP every three years in order to incorporate new measures and innovative technologies that will further the City toward meeting its goal of carbon neutrality. As the GGRP Update is updated, the associated GGRP Update Project Review Checklist will also be updated as needed to incorporate new strategies, measures, and/or foundational actions that discretionary development projects will need to incorporate, as applicable, to demonstrate consistency with the GGRP Update. At the time at which the City identifies measures to achieve its 2045 targets in totality, the City will adopt those measures in a public process following CEQA review, at which time the GGRP Update will become a qualified GHG emission reduction plan for projects with post-2030 buildout years. At that time, the quantitative thresholds included in this guidance document would also need to be updated for residential, non-residential, and mixed-use projects with post-2030 buildout years.

In addition, if future amendments or updates of the City’s General Plan occur, then these amendments or updates will be incorporated into future updates of the GGRP to ensure that project applicants can continue to utilize the streamlining process, which is partly dependent on a plan/project’s consistency with the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions based on the General Plan, to the greatest extent practicable.

ATTACHMENT 1-423
EXHIBIT 1

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 1-424
EXHIBIT 1

City of Burbank GGRP Update and
CEQA GHG Emissions Threshold
Public Review Initial Study – Negative Declaration

prepared for
City of Burbank
150 N. Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Contact: Fred Ramirez, Assistant Community Development Director - Planning prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
706 South Hill Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90014
March 4, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1-425
EXHIBIT 2
City of Burbank GGRP Update and
CEQA GHG Emissions Threshold
Draft Initial Study – Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of Burbank
150 N. Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Contact: Fred Ramirez, Assistant Director Community Development prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
706 South Hill Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90014
March 4, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1-426
EXHIBIT 2
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

ATTACHMENT 1-427
EXHIBIT 2
Table of Contents
Initial Study ............................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Proposed Plan Title ............................................................................................................. 1

2. Lead Agency/Plan Sponsor Contact .................................................................................... 1

3. Plan Location and Physical Setting ...................................................................................... 1

4. Existing Setting .................................................................................................................... 5

5. General Plan Designation and Zoning ...............................................................................11

6. Description of Plan ............................................................................................................11

7. Cumulative Projects Scenario ...........................................................................................25

8. Required Approvals ...........................................................................................................27 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .........................................................................................28 Determination ......................................................................................................................................28 Environmental Checklist .......................................................................................................................30 1 Aesthetics ..........................................................................................................................30 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................................34 3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................36 4 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................................41 5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................46 6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................50 7 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................53 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...............................................................................................58 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................62 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................66 11 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................70 12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................72 13 Noise .................................................................................................................................74 14 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................78 15 Public Services ...................................................................................................................79 16 Recreation .........................................................................................................................81 17 Transportation ..................................................................................................................83 18 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................87 19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................90 20 Wildfire..............................................................................................................................96 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................98 References ..........................................................................................................................................100 List of Citations ...........................................................................................................................100 List of Preparers ..........................................................................................................................102 ATTACHMENT 1-428
EXHIBIT 2
Tables
Table 1 Burbank 2019 Communitywide GHG Emissions by Sector ..............................................12 Table 2 GHG Emission Reduction Targets .....................................................................................15 Table 3 Burbank GGRP Update Measures and Actions by Strategy .............................................15 Table 4 Burbank 2030 GHG Reduction Target by Sector ...............................................................24 Table 5 Burbank Future GHG Emissions Projection and Reduction Target ...................................25 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 Plan Location ....................................................................................................................... 4 Appendices
Appendix A Sources, Health Effects, and Typical Controls Associated with Criteria Pollutants Appendix B Description of Greenhouse Gases of California Concern ATTACHMENT 1-429
EXHIBIT 2
Initial Study

1. Proposed Plan Title
Burbank Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Update (GGRP Update) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Thresholds

2. Lead Agency/Plan Sponsor Contact
Lead Agency/Plan Sponsor
City of Burbank
150 N Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Contact Person
Fred Ramirez, Assistant Community Development Director - Planning (818) 238-5250
[email protected]

3. Plan Location and Physical Setting
The City of Burbank GGRP Update and CEQA Emissions Thresholds applies to all areas within the City of Burbank limits. Figure 1 shows the regional location, and Figure 2 shows the plan location. The plan location includes all of Burbank’s incorporated lands.

Regional Location and Setting
The City of Burbank is located within Los Angeles County in the eastern part of the San Fernando Valley, 12 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. Burbank is part of the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area (see Figure 2) and occupies 17.16 square miles of central Los Angeles County (see Figure 2).1 The City is bordered by the City of Los Angeles to the south, west, and north, and Glendale to the east.2
Principal regional transportation facilities serving Burbank are State Route (SR) 134, Interstate (I) 5, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority (Metro), and the Hollywood Burbank Airport. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) and Burbank Bus provide bus services in Burbank via six bus lines, and rail service in Burbank via express and local routes. The 1 Burbank, City of. 2021. A Guide to Burbank.
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/211716/486324/Guide+to+Burbank.pdf/7a110575-f6e2-f5e5-5cc4- 9d01ae604b9c?version=2.0&t=1613580393317&imagePreview=1 Accessed August 12, 2021. 2 County of Los Angeles. Revised December 2011. Unincorporated Areas. http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/lac/1043452_BasicColorMap.pdf Accessed December 28, 2020.

ATTACHMENT 1-430
EXHIBIT 2
Hollywood Burbank Airport is in the City of Burbank, increasing the amount of people coming in and out of the City.3
3 While the vehicle miles traveled to and from the airport are included in the GHG emission inventory, emissions generated directly by the Hollywood Burbank Airport are not included in the GGRP Update because the City does not have direct control over the airport’s operations.

ATTACHMENT 1-431
EXHIBIT 2
Figure 1 Regional Location
ATTACHMENT 1-432
EXHIBIT 2
Figure 2 Plan Location
ATTACHMENT 1-433
EXHIBIT 2
Local Setting
Burbank has two general areas: the foothills along the Verdugo Mountains and the flatlands.4 The City has a mix of uses with suburbs, a downtown area, many large media studios, and the airport.

The downtown area is located along I-5, toward the eastern portion of the City. The Hollywood Burbank Airport is located in the northwestern portion of the City and brings many people to the City.

The City receives approximately 17 inches of rain annually, 286 sunny days per year, with a July high temperature of 86°F and a January low temperature of 45°F.5 Similar to the rest of the Los Angeles Air Basin, a temperature inversion, where warm dry air overrides cool marine air and traps air pollutants close to the ground, often occurs during late summer and autumn.

4. Existing Setting
City of Burbank Sustainability and GHG Reduction Efforts The City of Burbank has established actions related to increasing sustainability and reducing GHG emissions and the potential impacts of climate change. These actions are outlined in the City’s various plans discussed below.
1997 BURBANK CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
The Burbank Center Specific Plan was adopted in 1997 and is an economic revitalization plan addressing transportation planning and long-range use of the downtown area. It encourages mixed- use projects to minimize vehicular traffic and encourage compatible uses within close proximity of existing modes of transportation.6 The plan encourages reduction of vehicle traffic which could lead to a decrease in GHG emissions.

CITY OF BURBANK SUSTAINABILITY ACTION PLAN AND ZERO WASTE POLICY In January 2008, the City Council adopted the Sustainability Action Plan to support the United Nations Urban Environmental Accords. The Sustainability Action Plan addresses the City’s efforts toward providing a clean, healthy, and safe environment. As part of the Sustainability Action Plan, the City adopted the Zero Waste Strategic Plan that includes a goal to achieve zero waste by 2040.

The Zero Waste Plan includes four basic strategies, with a priority placed on “upstream” solutions to eliminate waste before it is created. The plan also includes actions to build on the City’s traditional “downstream” recycling programs to fully utilize the existing waste diversion infrastructure.7 The four basic strategies include:
a. Advocate for Manufacturer Responsibility for Product Waste and Support Elimination of Problem Materials
b. Adopt New Rules and Incentives to Reduce Waste
4 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. < https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed December 26, 2020. 5 Best Places. 2021. Climate in Burbank, California. Available at: https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/california/burbank Accessed December 28, 2020.
6 Burbank, City of. 1997. Burbank Center Plan. <https://www.burbankca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=2627> Accessed December 28, 2020.
7 Burbank, City of. 2008. Zero Waste Policy. Available online at:
http://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=181&meta_id=18226. Accessed December 28, 2020.

ATTACHMENT 1-434
EXHIBIT 2
c. Expand and Improve Local and Regional Recycling and Composting d. Educate, Promote, and Advocate a Zero Waste Sustainability Agenda

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
The City of Burbank’s Bicycle Master Plan8 was adopted on December 15, 2009, and serves as a policy document to guide the development and maintenance of a bicycle network, support facilities, and other programs for the City. Policies in the Bicycle Master Plan address issues related to bikeways, such as planning, community involvement, utilization of existing resources, facility design, multi-modal integration, safety education, and support facilities, as well as specific programs, implementation, maintenance, and funding.

NORTH SAN FERNANDO BOULEVARD MASTER PLAN
The North San Fernando Boulevard Master Plan9 is a policy document that provides a strategy to guide future development and streetscape improvements along the segment of North San Fernando Boulevard between Interstate 5 and Burbank Boulevard. Additionally, it includes recommendations to improve the surrounding residential and commercial streets. Specific policies included in the North San Fernando Boulevard Master Plan aim to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist comfort and safety, expand the tree canopy, and allow mixed-use developments. In general, these policies encourage people to actively commute instead of driving single-occupancy vehicles.

BURBANK 2035: GENERAL PLAN
The City’s General Plan is focused on balanced development, community image and character, complete streets, economic vitality, environmental equality, housing variety, open space and conservation, proactive and responsive government, quality neighborhoods and schools, and safety for the City of Burbank’s community. The Plan has set policies to address the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for effects due to climate change. The implementation of the GGRP and Climate Change Adaption strategies are how the General Plan addresses the previously mentioned goals.10
2013 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLAN
The City of Burbank adopted the Burbank 2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) in 2013.

Guided by the framework set forth in the Burbank 2035 General Plan, the GGRP implements Goal 3 and associated Policies 3.1 and 3.2. Policy 3.1 establishes the target for Burbank to reduce communitywide greenhouse gas emissions by at least 15 percent from 2013 levels by 2020, and Policy 3.2 establishes the goal to reduce emissions by at least 30 percent from 2013 levels by 2035. 8 Burbank, City of. Bicycle Master Plan. December 15, 2009. https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/240347/20210204-Bicycle- Master-Plan-001.pdf/53be8720-2d59-19ad-bd4a-168ac74d7d22?t=1612567201263 Accessed December 28, 2020. 9 Burbank, City of. North San Fernando Boulevard Master Plan. https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/North+San+Fernando+Blvd+Master+Plan.pdf/4f76eeb0-670a-9a71-d92e- 8ef380e23ad5?t=1612453877511 Accessed December 28, 2020. 10 Burbank, City of. Burbank 2035: General Plan.
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 Accessed December 26, 2020.

ATTACHMENT 1-435
EXHIBIT 2
This target and goal are consistent with statewide efforts established in the Scoping Plan to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.11

BURBANK WATER AND POWER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN
The 2019 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)12 is a long-term planning document designed to provide policy guidance for Burbank Water and Power (BWP) electric supply to its customers over the next twenty years, from 2019 through 2038. The IRP, like all long-term planning, is directional rather than determinative. In other words, the IRP helps Burbank see the broad contours of its energy future and the general direction Burbank should head to reach that future; it is not a roadmap for decision- making beyond the near-term.

COMPLETE OUR STREETS PLAN
The Citywide Complete Our Streets Plan13 aims to transform the Burbank 2035 General Plan’s goals and policies into an actionable plan for implementation. As outlined in the Citywide Complete Our Streets Plan, it aims to:
▪ Analyze and catalog existing street conditions
▪ Establish new policies, guidelines, and performance measures for street improvements Citywide
▪ Identify priority projects within Focus Areas
▪ Build better neighborhoods
▪ Create an ongoing mechanism for evaluating street improvements The plan is ultimately a guidebook for use by the City to ensure that improvements in the public right-of-way are consistent with good urban design, multi-modal mobility, and place making. The Citywide Complete Our Streets Plan is a 20-year long-range transportation plan that will need to be updated regularly between every five to ten years.

Regional Sustainability and GHG Reduction Efforts
In coordination with Los Angeles County, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the State of California, and the Federal government, the City of Burbank has committed to implementing regional and State policies related to GHG emissions reduction. As follows is a summary of the regional GHG emissions reduction efforts, which the City of Burbank GGRP Update is intended to be consistent with or exceed.

SCAG 2020-2045 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY SCAG adopted the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), which identifies how the southern California region would meet its GHG emission reduction targets.14 The SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS is supported by a combination of transportation and 11 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. 2013 GGRP.
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/240353/02192013_Burbank_Greenhouse_Gas_Reduction_Plan.pdf/39624e2e-ef46- b6a5-81fc-45b3f4c4c819?t=1616021724684 Accessed February 2, 2021. 12 Burbank Water and Power. 2019 Integrated Resource Plan. December 11, 2018. https://burbankwaterandpower.com/images/administrative/downloads/CityCouncilApproved_2019_Integrated_Resource_Plan_DIGITAL. pdf Accessed February 2, 2021.
13 Burbank, City of. June 16, 2020. Complete Our Streets Plan. https://www.burbankca.gov/web/community-development/complete- streets-plan Accessed February 2, 2021.
14 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Available: < https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan> Accessed February 2, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-436
EXHIBIT 2
land use strategies that help the region achieve State greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and Federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry and utilize resources more efficiently.15 OUR NEXT LA: DRAFT 2020 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has prepared the Draft 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan to provide Los Angeles County (88 cities and unincorporated County) with a long-range, comprehensive transportation plan for identifying and resolving transportation issues.16 Transportation planning objectives and policies include improving mobility options through an equitable and sustainable approach and reducing Los Angeles County roadway congestion.

State Sustainability and GHG Reduction Efforts
As follows is a summary of the State GHG emissions reduction efforts, which the City of Burbank GGRP Update is intended to be consistent with or exceed.

CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 375
In 2008, Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) enhanced the State’s ability to reach Assembly Bill (AB) 32 targets by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emissions reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of the State’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to prepare a sustainable community’s strategy (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet such regional GHG emissions reduction targets for inclusion in the respective regional transportation plan (RTP).

CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE ORDER S-3-05
In 2005, the California governor issued Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, which identifies Statewide GHG emissions reduction targets to achieve long-term climate stabilization as follows:
▪ Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020
▪ Reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 32
In 2006, the California legislature signed AB 32 – the Global Warming Solutions Act – into law, requiring a reduction in Statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and California Air Resources Board (CARB) preparation of a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 required CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of Statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 Statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e).

CALIFORNIA CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN
In 2008, CARB approved the original California Climate Change Scoping Plan, which included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and 15 SCAG. 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. What is the 2016 RTP/SCS? <http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/2016RTPSCS.aspx>. Accessed February 2, 2021. 16 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro). 2020. Draft 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan. Available:
<https://media.metro.net/2020/LRTP-Draft-Doc-Web.pdf>. Accessed February 2, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-437
EXHIBIT 2
recycling and solid waste, among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and- Trade) have been adopted and implemented since approval of the Scoping Plan.

CALIFORNIA CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN UPDATE (2013)
In 2013, CARB approved the first update to the California Climate Change Scoping Plan. The 2013 Scoping Plan Update defined CARB climate change priorities for the next five years and set the groundwork to reach post-2020 Statewide GHG emissions reduction goals. The 2013 Scoping Plan Update highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the State’s longer-term GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities, including those for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use.

CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 32
In 2016, the California legislature signed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) into law, extending AB 32 by requiring further reduction in Statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as implementation of recently adopted policies, such as SB 350 and SB 1383 (see below).

CALIFORNIA CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN UPDATE (2017)
In 2017, CARB approved the second update to the California Climate Change Scoping Plan. The 2017 Scoping Plan put an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with Statewide per-capita goals of 6 MT CO2e by 2030 and 2 MT CO2e by 2050.17 As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects, because they include all GHG emissions sectors in the State.

CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE ORDER B-55-18
In 2018, the California governor issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a new Statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing Statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 32.

For more information on the Senate and Assembly Bills, Executive Orders, and Scoping Plans discussed above, and to view reports and research referenced above, please refer to the following websites: www.climatechange.ca.gov and www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm.

ASSEMBLY BILL 197, STATE AIR RESOURCES BOARD GREENHOUSE GASES REGULATIONS In 2016, the California legislature approved AB 197, a bill linked to SB 32, which increases legislature oversight over the California Air Resources Board and directs the California Air Resources Board to 17 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available:
<https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm>. Accessed February 2, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-438
EXHIBIT 2
prioritize disadvantaged communities in its climate change regulations, and to evaluate the cost- effectiveness of measures it considers. AB 197 requires the CARB to “protect the State’s most impacted and disadvantaged communities [and] consider the social costs of the emissions of greenhouse gases” when developing climate change programs. The bill also adds two new legislatively appointed non-voting members to the CARB, increasing the Legislature’s role in the CARB’s decisions.

SENATE BILL 350, CLEAN ENERGY AND POLLUTION REDUCTION ACT OF 2015 In October 2015, SB 350 was signed into law, establishing new clean energy, clean air, and GHG reduction goals for 2030 and beyond. SB 350 codifies Governor Jerry Brown’s aggressive clean energy goals and establishes California’s 2030 GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. To achieve this goal, SB 350 increases California’s renewable electricity procurement goal from 33 percent by 2020 (legislation originally enacted in 2002) to 50 percent by 2030. Renewable resources include wind, solar, geothermal, wave, and small hydroelectric power. In addition, SB 350 requires the State to double Statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end- uses (i.e., residential and commercial) by 2030 from a base year of 2015.

SENATE BILL 100, THE 100% CLEAN ENERGY ACT OF 2018
In September 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100, requiring that the State’s load serving entities (including energy utilities and community choice energy programs) must procure energy generated 100 percent from Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) for eligible renewable resources by 2045.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STRATEGIC PLAN OF 2008
In September 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) adopted California’s first Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, presenting a single roadmap to achieve maximum energy savings across all major groups and sectors in California. The Strategic Plan was subsequently updated in January 2011 to include a lighting chapter. The Strategic Plan sets goals of all new residential construction and all new commercial construction in California to be zero net energy (ZNE) by 2020 and 2030, respectively. In 2018, the California Energy Commission voted to adopt a policy requiring all new homes in California to incorporate rooftop solar. This change went into effect in January 2020 with the adoption of the 2021 Title 24 Code and is a step towards the State achieving its goal of all residential new construction being ZNE by 2020. Additionally, the Strategic Plan sets goals of 50 percent of existing commercial buildings to be retrofitted to ZNE by 2030 and all new State buildings and major renovations to be ZNE by 2025.

SENATE BILL 1275, CHARGE AHEAD INITIATIVE
In September 2014, Senate Bill 1275 was signed into law, establishing a State goal of one million zero-emissions and near-zero-emissions vehicles in service by 2020 and directing the Air Resources Board to develop a long-term funding plan to meet this goal. SB 1275 also established the Charge Ahead California Initiative requiring planning and reporting on vehicle incentive programs and increasing access to and benefits from zero-emissions vehicles for disadvantaged, low-income, and moderate-income communities and consumers.

ASSEMBLY BILL 1493, THE PAVLEY BILL
AB 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as Pavley), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of ATTACHMENT 1-439
EXHIBIT 2
GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, US EPA granted the waiver of the Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with the 2009 model year. Pavley I regulates model years from 2009 to 2016, and Pavley II, which is now referred to as “Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) III GHG”, regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the LEV, Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs, and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels.

SENATE BILL 97, CEQA GUIDELINES FOR ADDRESSING GHG EMISSIONS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to review the environmental impacts of proposed projects, including General Plans, Specific Plans, and specific kinds of development projects. In February 2010, the California Office of Administrative Law approved the recommended amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for addressing GHG emissions. The amendments were developed to provide guidance to public agencies regarding the analysis, mitigation, and effects of GHG emissions in draft CEQA documents.

5. General Plan Designation and Zoning
The GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would be implemented throughout the City and would occur in all Burbank General Plan designations and zoning designations. The plan would not alter any existing designations.

6. Description of Plan
GGRP Update
The GGRP Update builds off of and incorporates the climate protection programs noted above that the City has in place and will continue to reduce GHG emissions. Specifically, the GGPR Update builds off of the 2013 GGRP, which was the City’s first official qualified GHG reduction plan. The City has developed the GGRP Update in order to achieve a number of objectives, including a demonstration of environmental leadership, compliance with State environmental initiatives, promotion of green jobs, and increased sustainable development.

The GGRP Update addresses municipal and communitywide GHG emissions and includes a goal of reducing communitywide GHG emissions output to 771,484 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) by 2030 (consistent with California Senate Bill 32 target for 2030). To maintain consistency with the 2013 GGRP, GHG emission reduction targets were set based on the 2010 community GHG inventory, which represents the City’s baseline and was included in the 2013 GGRP.

The State of California uses 1990 as a reference year to remain consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 32, which codified the State’s 2020 GHG emissions target by directing CARB to reduce Statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. However, cities and counties throughout California typically elect to use years later than 1990 as baseline years because of the increased reliability of recordkeeping from those years and the large amount of growth that has occurred since 1990. As mentioned, the 2013 GGRP included a baseline for 2010. The 2013 GGRP also established a 2020 emission reduction target of 15 percent below 2010 GHG emission levels and a 2035 target of 30 percent below 2010 GHG emission levels. As of 2019, the City of Burbank has reduced GHG emission by 28 percent, ATTACHMENT 1-440
EXHIBIT 2
exceeding the 2020 target and nearly meeting the 2035 target established in the original GGRP well in advance of the horizon year.18 The majority of these GHG emission reductions occurred in the transportation and energy sectors through increased efficiency and increased renewable energy procurement by BWP, as well as increased fuel efficiency in the on-road vehicle fleet. The water sector also experienced relatively significant GHG emission reductions through increased renewable energy procurement statewide.

In 2019, approximately 1,084,854 MT CO2e were emitted in Burbank from the energy, transportation, solid waste, water, and municipal sectors. The municipal sector is a subset of the community emission sectors, which consist of energy, transportation, solid waste, and water, and is developed to establish metrics that allow the City to lead by example and reduce emissions at the municipal level. The energy sector represents emissions that result from electricity and natural gas used in both private and public sector buildings and facilities. The transportation sector includes emissions from private, commercial, and fleet vehicles driven within the City as well as the emissions from transit vehicles, the City-owned fleet, and off-road equipment such as lawnmowers/ garden equipment and construction equipment. Emissions generated from water usage and wastewater generation are due to the indirect electricity use to distribute water and collect and treat wastewater. Burning fossil fuels associated with buildings/facility energy vehicle use and (transportation) use are the largest contributors of Burbank GHG emissions. Table 1 includes total Burbank (i.e., community and municipal) GHG emissions in 2019 by sector as well as percentage of total City emissions.

Project Design Features
The GGRP Update is a planning document and would not involve land use or zoning changes, but would rather promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. Projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and other applicable regulatory land use actions. Additionally, future plans or projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. Nonetheless, the City has also included Project Design Features (PDFs), which are specific design components proposed to avoid or reduce the project’s potential environment effects. Specifically, the City proposes to include the following PDFs for development projects that require ground disturbance (grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) beyond five feet below ground surface (bgs) where it was not previously excavated beyond five feet bgs:

CUL-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources ▪ A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training on archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities. The training shall be conducted by an archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. Archaeological sensitivity training will include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find. ▪ If archaeological or Native American resources are inadvertently discovered during ground disturbing activities, work shall be halted in the immediate vicinity of the find (a 60-foot buffer 18 Burbank, City of. 2021. GGRP Update.

ATTACHMENT 1-441
EXHIBIT 2
around the find) until the find can be evaluated by the Archaeological Monitor, as defined in Mitigation Measure CUL-1, and Native American Monitor. Work on areas outside of the buffered area may continue during the assessment period. ▪ If the resources are determined to be potential tribal cultural resources, the Applicant shall retain the services of a Native American Monitor to work in consultation with the Archaeological Monitor to delineate the resource. The Native American Monitor shall be a professional qualified in the identification and/or preservation of tribal cultural resources and agreed to by tribe(s) with ancestral ties to the region, in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission. Native American monitoring shall be implemented in the event a cultural resource of Native American origin is identified at any stage of ground disturbance, including, but not limited to, site clearing (such as pavement removal, grubbing, tree removals) and/or excavation to depths greater than 1.5-feet (including boring, grading, excavation, drilling, potholing or auguring, and trenching).
▪ In the event Native American monitoring is required, the Native American Monitor shall complete monitoring logs on a daily basis, providing descriptions of the daily activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when grading and excavation activities of native soil (i.e., previously undisturbed) are completed.
▪ The Applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the tribe(s) with ancestral ties to the region on the disposition and treatment of any tribal cultural resource encountered during all ground disturbing activities. If the find is considered an “archeological resource,” the Archaeological Monitor, in cooperation with Native American Monitor, shall pursue either protection in place or recovery, salvage and treatment of the deposits. Recovery, salvage, and treatment protocols shall be developed in accordance with applicable provisions of Public Resource Code Section 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 and 15126.4. If a tribal cultural resource cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, recovery, salvage, and treatment shall be required at the Project Applicant’s expense. All recovered and salvaged resources shall be prepared to the point of identification and permanent preservation in an established accredited professional repository. If the resources are determined to be non-Native in origin, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility. If the discovery proves to be eligible for the CRHR and cannot be avoided by the Project, additional work such as data recovery, excavation, and archaeological mitigation may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts.

ATTACHMENT 1-442
EXHIBIT 2
Table 1 Burbank 2019 Communitywide GHG Emissions by Sector Sector/Emission Source GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Percentage of Total Energy 573,376 53%
Non-Residential Electricity 322,807 30%
Natural Gas 135,333 12%
Residential Electricity 109,688 10%
Electricity Transmission and Distribution Losses 5,547 1% Transportation 470,653 43%
Passenger On-road Vehicles 388,157 36%
Commercial On-road Vehicles 71,042 7%
Off-road Equipment 9,880 1%
Public Transit 1,573 <1%
Solid Waste2 35,890 %
Waste Sent to Landfill 34,372 3%
Landfilling Process Emissions 1,491 <1%
Waste Sent to Combustion Facilities 26 <1%
Water 4,936 <1%
Imported Potable Water Supply 2,576 <1%
Wastewater Treatment Process and Fugitive Emissions 2,360 <1% Local Potable Water Supply1 5,120 <1%
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Energy1 2,172 <1%
Cumulative Emissions 1,084,854 100%
Notes: MT CO2e = Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

1. GHG emissions generated by electricity consumption involved in producing local groundwater supplies and the collection and treatment of wastewater are not added to the GHG emissions total to avoid double counting. The electricity consumption involved in these processes is already encompassed in non-residential electricity consumption in the energy sector.

2. GHG emissions generated by the collection and transport of waste generated within the City are captured in the Commercial On- road Vehicle source in the Transportation sector.

As shown in Table 1, the largest sectors of GHG emissions are related to energy and transportation, followed by solid waste and water. The City is preparing the GGRP Update to include measures and actions addressing communitywide and municipal GHG emissions. Per the GGRP Update, Burbank is committed to an emissions reduction target of 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 (SB 32 target year) and reaching a longer-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. Table 2 summarizes the emission reduction targets included in the GGRP Update compared to the reductions proposed in the 2013 GGRP. This 2030 GHG emissions goal is selected to be consistent with SB 32 and CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5 for a qualified GHG emissions reduction strategy as well as to be achievable by City-supported measures identified in the GGRP Update. The GGRP Update includes a business-as- usual (BAU) and adjusted forecast of GHG emissions that will enable the City to estimate the amount of emissions reductions needed to meet its goal.

ATTACHMENT 1-443
EXHIBIT 2
Table 2 GHG Emission Reduction Targets
Target Year Reductions Compared
to 1990 Levels
Reductions Compared to
2010 Baseline
Remaining Emissions Gap
(MT CO2e)
2020 Meet 1990 Levels 15% Target Exceeded
2030 40% 49% 86,555
2045 100% 100% 531,203
The GGRP Update includes measures to educate the community regarding ways to electrify buildings, reduce energy use, actively commute, and divert organics from the waste stream. It also includes measures to increase use of zero-emission vehicles; increase use of public and shared transportation; reduce water consumption and waste generation; and increase tree planting and green space. Finally, it includes measures that would continue to allow the City to lead by example and reduce emissions at the municipal level. Table 3 includes a complete list of the measures and actions included in the GGRP Update by strategy.

Table 3 Burbank GGRP Update Measures and Actions by Strategy ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Cornerstone Sector
Measure C-1 Lead by example by focusing on equity constraints associated with existing building electrification by leveraging BWP’s operations and efficiency programs to develop an Affordable Housing Electrification Program to lead Burbank’s electrification targets through retrofitting low-income and affordable housing units in Burbank to all electric, retrofitting 100 affordable housing units by 2030 and all 320 affordable housing units owned by Burbank Housing Corporation in the City by 2045.

Action
C-1.1.a
Expand upon BWP’s low-income Refrigerator Exchange Program by identifying funding to provide electric heat-pump water heaters and HVAC units to low-income households.

Action
C-1.1.b
Explore a partnership with non-profit organizations, such as GRID Alternatives, to implement a low- income solar installation program, which includes a workforce installation training program for groups not typically represented in the solar workforce.

Action
C-1.1.c
Establish a program with Burbank Housing Corporation to provide discounted electric appliances and equipment, as well as technical assistance with installation and electrical panel and circuit upgrades for retrofits and time of replacement upgrades of appliances and equipment in affordable housing units.

Action
C-1.1.d
Partner with Burbank Housing Corporation to perform an electrification needs and existing building retrofit cost assessment for all affordable housing units owned and managed by the Burbank Housing Corporation to identify an electrification retrofit pilot project that includes retrofitting of an entire building of affordable housing units.

Action
C-1.1.e
Conduct targeted outreach to low-income housing developments to engage building owners, building managers, landlords and residents to communicate benefits of electrification, discuss potential for retrofitting buildings, gain buy-in from community members, and providing education and trainings on incentives, technical requirements, and available resources.

Action
C-1.1.f
Implement a pilot project for retrofitting of an entire building of affordable housing units, as determined feasible.

Action
C-1.1.g
Perform an existing buildings analysis specifically targeted towards low-income neighborhoods to identify neighborhoods or building blocks for larger-scale electrification projects in partnership with BWP.

Action
C-1.1.h
Identify and implement a pilot project for electrification of a complete neighborhood composed of low-income and affordable housing, including energy bill protections in case energy bills exceed costs to residents prior to project implementation and pursuing opportunities for natural gas infrastructure pruning.

ATTACHMENT 1-444
EXHIBIT 2
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
C-1.1.i
Develop a tariffed on-bill financing program or other incentive program to allow for equitable electrification of buildings within BWP service area.

Action
C-1.1.j
Evaluate opportunities to provide technical and financial assistance to low-income property owners and low-income homeowners looking to electrify.

Strategy BE-1 Building Energy and Efficiency
Measure
BE-1.1
Electrify 100% of new construction in the City by 2023.

Action
BE-1.1.a
Adopt an Electrification Reach Code for all new buildings which prohibits the piping of natural gas. In doing so the City will:
▪ Engage with stakeholders, both internal stakeholders, such as City staff and officials, and external stakeholders, such as local developers regarding the purpose and impact of the reach code ▪ Conduct a cost effectiveness study
▪ Develop and draft an ordinance
▪ Conduct public hearings, public notices, and formally adopt the ordinance ▪ Submit the adopted ordinance to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Building Standards Commission (CBSC)
Action
BE-1.1.b
Provide education around cooking with electric appliances, including demonstrations from chefs and/or local restaurants.

Action
BE-1.1.c
Provide technical resources, including hosting workforce development trainings for installers and building owners/operators to discuss benefits and technical requirements of electrification.

Action
BE-1.1.d
Building and Safety Division and BWP will promote the cost and environmental benefits of electrification to builders, property owners, and contractors on the website and at the City permit counters.

Action
BE-1.1.e
Establish a partnership with the Building Decarbonization Coalition, or a similar organization, to engage with local building industry stakeholders in development of an Electrification Reach Code.

BE-1.1.f Conduct an electrification infrastructure and capacity feasibility study to identify expected increases in electricity demand due to building and vehicle electrification, ensure capacity to meet that demand, and identify any infrastructure improvements.

BE-1.1.g Work with SoCal Gas to identify opportunities for natural gas infrastructure pruning to reduce the chance of stranded assets, provide potential funding, and establish an efficient transition to carbon neutral buildings.

Measure BE-

1.2 Leverage BWPs marketing programs to convert 3,000 residential and 170 commercial natural gas- fueled HVAC and water heating units in existing private buildings to electric heat pumps by 2030, and 10,000 residential and 560 commercial units by 2045.

Action
BE-1.2.a
Build upon the success of BWP’s retrofit package and rebate and incentive programs with an All- Electric Building Initiative, or tariffed on-bill financing program that expands rebates and incentives to electric heat-pump water heating, HVAC units, and electrical panel upgrades and expands the business retrofit packages to include electric heat-pump water heaters and HVAC units.

ATTACHMENT 1-445
EXHIBIT 2
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
BE-1.2.b
Partner with BWP to develop an education campaign to promote the All-Electric Building Initiative that builds upon the success of other BWP programs. The program would include:
▪ Utility bill inserts to advertise the incentive programs and the cost and health benefits of electric appliances
▪ Targeted outreach to builders and property managers with an informational brochure describing the financial benefits of replacing natural gas appliances with all electric appliance when they apply for permits
▪ Targeted outreach to local property managers to address appliance energy use and benefits of all electric appliances in multi‐family units
▪ Provide informational webinars and an updated website to advertise and promote All-Electric Building Initiative rebates and incentives
Action
BE-1.2.c
Review incentives and rebates for procedural equity and ensure that existing and updated incentive programs are being equitably distributed to the community. Hurdles to equitable implementation could include credit checks, excessive procedural hurdles and lack of targeted outreach.

Action
BE-1.2.d
Initiate separate application process for electric conversions in the building permit system to track the number of permitted natural gas fueled water heaters and HVAC equipment replaced with electric fueled equipment, as well as if this has resulted in a building becoming all-electric, with indication of whether or not BWPs incentive and rebate programs are being utilized to pay for new equipment.

Action
BE-1.2.e
Partner with Building and Safety to perform an electrification feasibility study to identify costs, benefits, potential hurdles, and policy strategies for electrifying existing buildings in Burbank.

Strategies could include time of replacement, time of sale, and building performance policies.

Action
BE-1.2.f
Work with a non-profit organization, such as Building Decarbonization Coalition or Rocky Mountain Institute, to develop a best practices model based on the progress electrifying existing buildings to significantly increase electrification post-2030.

Measure
BE-1.3
Continue to increase building energy efficiency through BWP's rebate and incentive programs to reduce annual customer energy use by a collective 63 GWh by 2030.

Action
BE-1.3.a
Implement a retrofit package tracking system for BWP’s energy efficiency retrofit incentive program, which includes tracking of the number of pre-defined packages installed.

Action
BE-1.3.b
Continue to perform outreach for smart grid integration and promotion of smart grid-compatible technologies.

Action
BE-1.3.c
Maintain BWP’s current rebate and incentive programs, ENERGY STAR appliance program, and Energy Conservation Programs, with continued public outreach and promotion.

Action
BE-1.3.d
Continue collaboration between BWP and Burbank Unified School District to provide 6th graders with a “Resource Action Kit,” which contains energy and water saving devices for the student to install in their home, and information to complete a home audit report. Use this opportunity to teach students about the energy-water nexus as well.

Action
BE-1.3.e
Provide information to Community Development staff regarding annual energy savings from energy conservation programs for GGRP implementation tracking.

Action
BE-1.3.f
Update the BWP Home Upgrade Program to include electrification with a focus on heat pump hot water heaters and HVAC systems which can be up to 400% efficient.

Measure
EG-1.1
Goal to achieve 100% GHG-neutral electricity generation by 2040.

Action
BE-1.1.a
Implement programs, similar to BWP's Residential Green Rate Premium Program, to facilitate access for customers to adopt more renewable energy.

Action
BE-1.1.b
Conduct a feasibility study to understand potential for installation of renewable energy generation at BWP water facilities.

Action
BE-1.1.c
Conduct analysis on risks and benefits associated with relying on battery storage to achieve carbon neutral electricity and grid resiliency goals and set a MW capacity goal for installed battery storage by 2030 and 2040 consistent with BWP rules and regulations.

ATTACHMENT 1-446
EXHIBIT 2
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
BE-1.1.d
Conduct a feasibility study to identify locations in the City for installation of local renewable energy generation and energy storage projects.

Action
BE-1.1.e
Direct BWP to continue to work with businesses (especially the studios) on partnerships designed to maximize the use of renewable energy including solar/ storage, appropriate tariff changes and microgrid opportunities
Action
BE-1.1.f
Develop a battery storage program in which BWP provides battery storage incentives in return for a commitment to operate (CTO) distributed battery storage projects for a set amount of time (i.e., 5-10 years), consistent with BWP rules and regulations.

Action
EG-1.1.g
Identify grant funding opportunities to increase landfill gas capture rate at Burbank Landfill Site No. 3 to the maximum extent practicable.

Action
EG-1.1.h
Install 5 MW of local solar capacity, utilizing parking structure roofs and buildings around City as means to increase load capacity, including in areas where high loads from electric vehicle charging is likely.

Action
EG-1.1.i
Expand renewable energy generation at BWP facilities, with a goal of installing renewable energy generation at all feasible locations by 2040.

Strategy T-1 Reduce Passenger Car Vehicle Miles Traveled Measure
T-1.1
Implement the Complete Our Streets Plan, increasing active transportation mode share 2% by 2030 and 3% by 2045.

Action
T-1.1.a
Implement all policy recommendations included in the Complete Our Streets Plan to improve pedestrian and bicycle networks and increase transit ridership based on the established timeframes.

Action
T-1.1.b
Integrate the Complete Our Streets “Checklist for New Projects” into the City’s Development Review process and Capital Improvement Program to ensure new projects include Complete Our Streets measures.

Action
T-1.1.c
Continually work to identify grant funding opportunities to implement Complete Our Streets projects included in the Complete Our Streets Plan.

Action
T-1.1.d
Complete and implement the Citywide Safe Routes to School Plan consistent with the Complete Our Streets Plan upon identification of funding.

Action
T-1.1.e
Develop and implement a bicycle safety program as part of the Citywide Safe Routes to School Plan focused on educating bicycle riders of all ages and skill levels to encourage ridership by offering bicycle safety resources and classes.

Action
T-1.1.f
Evaluate and update the City’s existing Zoning Code, Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, and California Green Building Code to ensure the City requires installation of bicycle parking areas in instances where off-street parking is required. Also, providing technical assistance to developers seeking to comply with the ordinance
Action
T-1.1.g
Utilize performance measures included in Complete Our Streets Plan to monitor and track realized mode shift from plan implementation.

Measure
T-1.2
Provide clean, abundant, affordable, and accessible public transit, with a zero-emissions bus fleet by 2040.

Action
T-1.2.a
Work with Metro to expand use of Metro’s LIFE low-income EZ Pass transit subsidy by Burbank low- income households who ride BurbankBus and expand Burbank Pass program transit subsidy program to BurbankBus fixed-route service to cover gaps in the Metro LIFE program.

Action
T-1.2.b
Adopt an ordinance to allow and manage shared-use mobility devices, including but not limited to e- scooters and bikes.

Action
T-1.2.c
Apply for California Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP), Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, or other Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants, to facilitate electrification of bus fleet.

Action
T-1.2.d
Use electric bus fleet to generate revenue through programs, such as the California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standards, to pay for increased bus service frequencies and/or other supportive infrastructure.

Action
T-1.2.e
Electrify the Burbank Bus fleet in accordance with California Air Resources Board mandates and the City’s Transit Fleet Electrification Study.

ATTACHMENT 1-447
EXHIBIT 2
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Strategy T-2 Transportation Demand Management
Measure
T.2-1
Continue Transportation Management Organization (TMO) Expansion, reaching 60% of employers by 2030 and 90% by 2045.

Action
T-2.1.a
Work with the Burbank TMO to update the TMO website annually to provide program information to current and potential members.

Action
T-2.1.b
Work with the Burbank TMO to continue to implement TMO outreach strategy to increase membership and active participation in TMO programs
Action
T-2.1.c
Update the Burbank Center Plan and the Media District Specific Plan, adopt the Golden State Specific Plan, and update the Plan Transportation Management Organization requirements to reflect TDM best practices. Collectively, these updates should evaluate which businesses are subject to TMO requirements, membership requirements and fees, TDM strategies offered by the TMO, reporting requirements and performance measures, and funding requirements. Utilize lessons learned from COVID-19 on transportation habits, impacts on transit, and potential hurdles and opportunities connected to these changes.

Action
T-2.1.d
Expand geographic boundary of TMO to Golden State /Airport areas by 2025 as part of the Golden State Specific Plan, and citywide by 2035.

Measure
T-2.2
Strengthen the TMO program and ordinance to increase compliance with the City’s 1.61 Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) Goal to reduce employees commuting to Burbank via single occupancy vehicle. Ensure that 30% of TMO businesses achieve the 1.61 AVR target by 2030, and 60% by 2045.

Action
T-2.2.a
To enhance the Burbank community’s ability to telecommute, partner with telecom companies to perform a Broadband Access Study to identify areas of the City have limited access to broadband service due to infrastructure and financial limitations.

Action
T-2.2.b
Identify grant funding opportunities to help bridge the broadband access gap in the City by helping to fund installation of infrastructure or subsidize broadband service for low-income households.

Action
T-2.2.c
Update the Burbank Municipal Code to require businesses to pay TMO fees directly to the City rather than by the TMO. Impose a tiered fee that decreases fees for businesses who achieve 1.61 AVR and increases fees for businesses who do not achieve 1.61 AVR. Raise and lower TMO fees based on the number of employers who achieve 1.61 AVR.

Action
T-2.2.d
Direct TMO fees towards expanded BurbankBus transit services, employee rideshare subsidies, and active transportation infrastructure.

Strategy T-3 Zero-Emission Vehicles
Measure
T-3.1
Increase zero-emission vehicle adoption to 23% of all passenger vehicles by 2030 and 100% by 2045.

Action
T-3.1.a
Adopt an EV Charging Retrofits in Existing Commercial and Multifamily Buildings Reach Code requiring major retrofits, with either a building permit with square footage larger than 10,000 square feet or including modification of electric service panels, to meet CalGreen requirements for “EV Ready” charging spaces and infrastructure.

Action
T-3.1b
Coordinate with BWP to enhance promotion of public and private conversion to zero-emission vehicles; including use of City events, social media, and the City website to educate on benefits of zero-emission vehicles and available incentives.

Action
T-3.1.c
Conduct a City Municipal Fleet Optimization Study to understand the potential to replace fossil-fuel powered vehicles with zero-emission vehicles as they are replaced, with a goal of replacing 25% of light-duty fleet vehicles by 2030.

Action
T-3.1.d
Evaluate alternative options to gas powered landscape and forestry maintenance equipment when replacing city-owned equipment.

Action
T-3.1.e
Implement the BWP Transportation Electrification Plan to facilitate installation of EV chargers through customer rebates and direct installation of charging stations.

ATTACHMENT 1-448
EXHIBIT 2
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
T-3.1.f
Investigate opportunities to help fund additional EV charging infrastructure by leveraging public/private partnerships and ensuring the City is charging for EV infrastructure use at City owned facilities.

Action
T-3.1.g
Adopt an electric and alternative fueled vehicles and equipment purchasing policy for light-duty vehicles for all City departments, including BWP, allowing for exceptions for heavy-duty and emergency response vehicles.

Action
T-3.1.h
Adopt an EV Reach Code requiring new commercial and multifamily construction to install the minimum number of EV chargers based on Tier 2 CalGreen requirements (20% of total).

Action
T-3.1.i
Update the BWP Transportation Electrification plan by 2026 to reflect changes in state goals, consumer behavior, technology and lessons learned.

Strategy T-4 Parking
Measure
T-4.1
Implement Parking Management as identified in the Burbank2035 General Plan Mobility Element and the City Council’s Six Parking Management Principles.

Action
T-4.1.a
Implement managed parking at the Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station, the Burbank Airport North Metrolink Station, and the Burbank Airport South Metrolink Station through parking pricing so that at least 20 percent of station parking supply is available for transit users at any time of the day.

Action
T-4.1.b
By 2025, implement the City’s 6 Parking Management Principles in the Burbank Center Plan area. This would include:
1) Pricing all public parking (streets and structures) so that at least 20 percent of parking supply (one or two spaces per block) is available at any time of day 2) Updating BMC Zoning rules to improve flexibility of off-street parking requirements for new development
Action
T-4.1.c
By 2030, implement the City’s 6 Parking Management Principles in the Golden State Specific Plan area and Media District Specific Plan area. This would include:
1) Pricing all public parking (streets and structures) so that at least 20 percent of parking supply (one or two spaces per block) is available at any time of day 2) Updating BMC Zoning rules to improve flexibility of off-street parking requirements for new development

Action
T-4.1.d
By 2040, implement the City’s 6 Parking Management Principles citywide. This would include:
1) Pricing all public parking (streets and structures) so that at least 20 percent of parking supply (one or two spaces per block) is available at any time of day 2) Updating BMC Zoning rules to improve flexibility of off-street parking requirements for new development
Strategy W-1 Water Energy Nexus
Measure
W-1.1
Reduce per capita water consumption from current levels of 132 gpcd to 124 gpcd by 2030 (6.8 percent reduction) and to 120.5 gpcd by 2045 (9.4 percent reduction).

Action
W-1.1.a
Continue to implement UWMP water conservation programs.

Action
W-1.1.b
Continue to enforce MWELO requirements.

Action
W-1.1.c
Continue enforcement of large irrigation customers required to use recycled water.

Action
W-1.1.d
Coordinate with BWP to implement a public education campaign that highlights water conservation practices and promotes and provides demonstrations of graywater and rainwater systems, with focus on low-income households with high utility bill burdens.

Action
W-1.1.e
Install a new Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) system in the next four years that will include easy-to-use web-based tools that allow customers to track and monitor water use. Promote the availability of Home Water Reports and provide materials on how to utilize the available information.

ATTACHMENT 1-449
EXHIBIT 2
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
W-1.1.f
Update BWP’s 2010 Recycled Water Master Plan to identify success since 2010 and feasible opportunities for expanding recycled water use. Work with developers to expand recycled water system and develop a recycled water expansion program.

Action
W-1.1.g
Modernize at least three irrigation controllers city-wide each year, as needed, to reduce water usage and maximize watering efficiencies, upgrading systems throughout the entire City by 2030.

Strategy SW-1 Organic Waste Diversion
Measure
SW.1-1
Meet SB 1383 organics and recycling requirements, reducing organic waste disposal 75% by 2025 Action
SW-1.1.a
Engage with all waste haulers operating within the City to discuss SB 1383 requirements for waste haulers (i.e., organics receptacles and labeling requirements).

Action
SW-1.1.b
Adopt procurement policies to comply with SB 1383 requirements for jurisdictions to purchase recovered organic waste products.

Action
SW-1.1.c
Adopt an Edible Food Recovery Ordinance for edible food generators, food recovery services, or organization that are required to comply with SB 1383.

Action
SW-1.1.d
Partner with all City waste haulers, to provide organic waste collection and recycling services to all commercial and residential generators of organic waste.

Action
SW-1.1.e
Adopt an ordinance requiring all residential and commercial customers to subscribe to an organic waste collection program and/or report self-hauling or backhauling of organics.

Action
SW-1.1.f
Conduct a Feasibility Study and prepare an action plan to provide for edible food reuse infrastructure is sufficient to accept capacity needed to recover 20% of edible food disposed or identify proposed new or expanded food recovery capacity.

Action
SW-1.1.g
Establish an education and outreach program for school children and adults around food waste prevention, nutrition education, and the importance of edible food recovery.

Action
SW-1.1.h
Establish an edible food recovery program to minimize food waste.

Action
SW-1.1.i
Adopt an ordinance or enforceable mechanism to regulate haulers collecting organic waste, including collection program requirements and identification of organic waste receiving facilities.

Action
SW-1.1.j Partner with all waste haulers within the City to:
▪ Provide organic waste collection from mixed waste containers are transported to a high diversion organic waste processing facility
▪ Provide quarterly route reviews to identify prohibited contaminants potentially found in containers that are collected along route.
▪ Clearly label all new containers indicating which materials are accepted in each container, and by January 1, 2025, place or replace labels on all containers.

Strategy CS-1 Carbon Sequestration
Measure
CS-1.1
Plant 2,000 net new trees by 2030 and 5,000 net new trees by 2045 to sequestrator carbon and create urban shade to reduce the urban heat island effect.

Action
CS-1.1.a
Implement a tree removal in-lieu fee which provides funding for the City to plant a new tree equivalent to every tree removed from private property.

Action
CS-1.1.b
Identify funding to expand BWP’s Free Shade Tree Program to include targeted outreach to multi- family and low-income housing.

Action
CS-1.1.c
Adopt a Greenscaping Ordinance that has a street tree requirement for all zoning districts; has a shade tree requirement for new development; requires greening of parking lots; and increases permeable surfaces in new development.

Action
CS-1.1.d
Develop an Urban Forest Plan to identify City's potential capacity for new tree planting, identify a timeframe for implementation and provide a management plan for existing trees.

ATTACHMENT 1-450
EXHIBIT 2
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
CS-1.1.e
Adopt a standard policy and set of practices for expanding the urban tree canopy and placing vegetative barriers between busy roadways and developments to reduce exposure to air pollutants from traffic.

Action
CS-1.1.f
Conduct an urban canopy study and identify low income and/or disadvantaged communities with lower-than-average tree canopy coverage in order to prioritize planting in these areas to provide equitable access to the health and resiliency benefits of trees.

Strategy CG-1 City Government Actions
CG-1.1 Complete a triennial GGRP review and update.

Action
CG-1.1.a
Update community wide GHG emissions inventory annually in the monitoring tool.

Action
CG-1.1.b
Obtain annual progress updates from BWP on energy efficiency program implementation and city- wide energy consumption.

Action
CG-1.1.c
Establish reporting of annual volumes of landfill gas captured and methane fraction of landfill gas at Burbank Landfill Site No. 3 for better understanding of future landfill emissions.

Action
CG-1.1.d
Update progress on GHG Reduction Measures annually in reporting tool.

Action
CG-1.1.e
Regularly update the GGRP webpage to include updates on ordinances, programs, and policies implemented as part of the GGRP.

Action
CG-1.1.f
Earmark funding for triennial GGRP updates.

CG-1.2 Retrofit all City Streetlights and Outdoor Lighting at City facilities to Light-Emitting Diode (LED) by 2030.

Action
CG-1.2.a
Continue to implement the 2019 Streetlighting Master Plan for conversion of existing High-Pressure Sodium streetlights to Light-emitting Diode (LED).

Action
CG-1.2.b
Continue with annual reporting of BWP’s streetlight replacements, with the number of replacements and estimated annual energy savings associated with replacements.

Action
CG-1.2.c
Establish a plan for converting outdoor lighting at City facilities, City parking areas, and parks to LED.

Action
CG-1.2.d
Implement plan for converting all outdoor lighting at City facilities, City parking areas, and parks to LED by 2030.

CG-1.3 Electrify 25% of existing City facilities by 2030 and 100% of existing City facilities by 2045, as well as all newly constructed City buildings.

Action
CG-1.3.a
Partner with Building and Safety to conduct an electrification opportunity assessment for all City buildings and facilities and establish a replacement plan for replacing natural gas fueled equipment with electric where practical and technologically feasible.

Action
CG-1.3.b
Establish a City owned building equipment policy to replace natural gas fueled equipment at the end of useful life with electric or other alternative equipment when practical and technology is feasible and the same consideration for all newly constructed City facilities and buildings.

Action
CG-1.3.c
In partnership with BWP, install photovoltaic at all City buildings where feasible to offset at least 80% of energy consumption and use excess generation to contribute to City-wide renewable energy sources.

Action
CG-1.3.d
Identify and install battery energy storage systems at appropriate City facilities, and leverage projects to further promote benefits of distributed energy storage, which are directly connected to a renewable resource.

CG-1.4 Implement a flexible employee commute program, with a target of having 25% of City employee staff time utilizing telecommuting by 2030.

Action
CG-1.4.a
Establish a subsidized transit commute program and expand the employee carpool program to reduce employee commute miles in single occupancy vehicles.

ATTACHMENT 1-451
EXHIBIT 2
ID # Measures and Respective Supportive Actions
Action
CG-1.4.b
Expand employee use of carbon-free and low carbon transportation by providing education programs on the benefits of commute options including public transportation, EV/ZEV options, and vanpools.

Action
CG-1.4.c
Allow 25% of employees located at the City of Burbank to telecommute or utilize flexible schedules through 2030 to reduce travel time, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and GHG emissions.

Strategy A-1.1 Adaptation
A-1.1 Partner with Ready LA County to educate the community about the dangers of heat exposure and identify low-cost mechanisms to reduce impacts of extreme heat on the community.

Action
A-1.1.a
Review and update the City’s Emergency Preparedness website to reflect ways to prepare for events that may be likely to increase due to climate change.

Action
A-1.1.b
Work with Ready LA County to continue public education regarding the symptoms of extreme heat exposure in English, Spanish, and Armenian.

Action
A-1.1.c
Identify low-cost mechanisms to reduce the impact of extreme heat on the community, especially on the most vulnerable members of society (i.e., children, the elderly, economically disadvantaged groups, and those with chronic health conditions made worse by heat exposure), and review grant opportunities to fund and implement.

Action
A-1.1.d
Identify three new community locations that are either owned by the City or a trusted private entity that can serve as shelter, evacuation, and/or clean air centers for future climate emergency events in centralized areas throughout the City.

Action
A-1.1.e
Investigate opportunities to integrate Internet of Things (IoT) monitoring of real time environmental data such as utility information, air composition, direct emissions or temperature tracking.

A-1.2 Complete and implement a robust city-wide Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan.

Action
A-1.2.a
Work with the Burbank Fire Department to review and update the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to confirm that it aligns with the Federal requirements, including identification of hazards and a climate risk assessment.

Action
A-1.2.b
Identify grant funding opportunities and/or earmark additional funding opportunities to complete and implement a robust city-wide Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan.

Action
A-1.2.c
Provide information on the City’s website about updated climate vulnerability information and information on how the community can increase the City’s adaptive capacity.

Action
A-1.2.d
Upon acquisition of funding, complete a Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan that focuses on the City’s most vulnerable communities and establishes specific goals to reduce the vulnerability of those most susceptible to the impacts of climate change.

A-1.3 Develop a mechanism to evaluate biodiversity in the City as well as policies/programs to maintain or increase native species.

Action
A-1.3.a
Consider investigating a partnership with researchers and/or students at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) to utilize the Biodiversity Atlas of Los Angeles to understand best practices on how to track, interpret, update, and maintain data associated with biodiversity throughout the City.

Action
A-1.3.b
Provide a direct link on the City’s website to the Biodiversity Atlas of Los Angeles in addition to any updated biodiversity inventories, which should be completed regularly. In addition, provide an avenue for citizen scientists to participate in reporting and tracking of species, when possible.

Action
A-1.3.c
Work with Trails LA County and/or the Stough Canyon Nature Center to design and implement a program that invites all residents to visit the local natural ecosystems and utilize the local hiking trails, that also provides a multi-lingual educational component, with an emphasis on low-income and disadvantaged community members.

Action
A-1.3.d
Review and identify funding opportunities to update and maintain a tracking mechanism to regularly evaluate biodiversity in the City.

Source: Burbank, City of. 2021. GGRP Update.

The measures included in the GGRP Update combined with statewide legislation and initiatives and regional transportation programs will enable the City to meet its emissions reduction target of 40 ATTACHMENT 1-452
EXHIBIT 2
percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Table 4 shows the contribution of the statewide initiatives along with the measures included in the GGRP Update. The City needs to achieve a reduction of 382,451 MT CO2e by 2030 to meet its goal. The estimated GHG reductions accounted for in the GGRP Update total 386,243 MT CO2e by 2030.

Table 4 Burbank 2030 GHG Reduction Target by Sector
State Initiative Sector
2030 Reduction in
City Emissions (MTCO2e)
Advanced Clean Cars Program, Pavley Standards, Zero
Emissions Vehicles Program, Clean Transit) On-road Transportation 126,187 SB 100 and Renewable Portfolio Standard Electricity 150,731 Title 24 Residential/Non-residential
Electricity and Natural Gas 16,183
A. Total State Initiative Emissions Reductions 295,896
B. Total City GGRP Update Emissions Reductions 90,347
C. Total Expected Emissions Reductions (A+B) 386,243
D Burbank Emissions Reduction Requirement 382,451
E. Meets/exceeds State Goals? (C > D) Yes
Source: Burbank, City of. 2021. GGRP Update.

Table 4 and Figure 3 illustrate how the BAU emissions are estimated to increase, thus widening the emissions reductions needed by 2030. Figure 3 also shows emissions reductions expected from State level actions as well as the reductions needed to reach the Burbank emissions target.

Figure 3 Burbank Future GHG Emissions Projection and Reduction Target

Source: Burbank, City of. 2021. Burbank GGRP.

ATTACHMENT 1-453
EXHIBIT 2
Table 5 Burbank Future GHG Emissions Projection and Reduction Target Description Emissions (MTCO2e)
2010 Baseline Year Emissions 1,512,713
2019 Emissions 1,084,854

2030 BAU Emissions 1,153,935
2030 Adjusted Forecast 858,039
2030 Target Emissions (49% below 1990 levels) 771,484
2030 Required Reduction from Measures 86,555
Source: Burbank, City of. 2020. Draft GGRP Update
Implementation of the measures (listed in Table 3) could result in physical changes to the environment that could potentially have a significant impact on the environment. While individual projects resulting from these measures have not been identified for the purposes of this document, the types of actions that could result from realization of the measures are taken into account in considering potential environmental impacts that could occur through implementation of the GGRP Update. For example, projects or actions requiring ministerial approval, such as installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure, new bicycle or pedestrian facilities, and solar photovoltaic (PV), may introduce physical changes related to the temporary presence and operation of construction vehicles and equipment during installation of required facilities and the long-term presence of new facilities such as bike and pedestrian facilities, solar arrays, and electric vehicle charging stations, which could alter pedestrian and vehicular traffic patterns.

Additionally, electrification retrofits may change the physical environment through the need for upgraded service and electrical panels, branch circuit upgrades, and installation of condensate drains to facilitate the installation of electric heat pumps for water and space heating. The associated construction impacts and the physical changes these upgrades and additions would entail are dependent on the year of building construction and location of electrical and service panels and plumbing for connection of condensate drains, which in some cases may include modifications to the interior and/or exterior of buildings for wiring and panel replacement, and minor excavation for connection of drainage to sewer systems. Projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan, other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any project. Future plans or projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. Cumulative Projects Scenario CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds
In 2007, SB 97 acknowledged that climate change is an environmental issue that requires analysis in CEQA documents, and in 2010 the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions.

The adopted guidelines gave lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. Specifically, Section 15183.5(b)(1)A-G of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations was amended to state that a qualified GHG Reduction Plan may be used for tiering and streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions in subsequent CEQA project evaluation, provided that the GHG Reduction Plan does the following:

ATTACHMENT 1-454
EXHIBIT 2
▪ Quantifies GHG emissions both existing and projected over a specific period of time, resulting from activities within a defined geographical area ▪ Establishes a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable
▪ Identifies and analyzes the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area
▪ Specifies measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level
▪ Establishes a mechanism to monitor the plan's progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels ▪ Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.

Therefore, the City proposes to also adopt a quantitative efficiency threshold for use in evaluating whether a plan or project’s GHG emissions would result in a potentially significant environmental impact under CEQA for plans or projects with pre-2030 buildout or initial operation years. The CEQA GHG emissions threshold would be applied to plans or projects that cannot tier from the environmental analysis for the City’s GGRP Update (as contained in this IS/ND) because the plan or project would not be consistent with the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site and would result in greater GHG emissions than existing on-site development, or the plan or project would not be consistent with the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist.

The threshold is set at the level of GHG emissions that new development would need to achieve to be consistent with the GGRP Update’s communitywide emissions reduction target of 49 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2030. The efficiency threshold, listed below, is expressed in terms of MT CO2e per service person19 and is applicable to plans or projects with pre-2030 buildout or initial operational years:
▪ 3.12 per service person20
Efficiency thresholds for beyond 2030 would be established later in conjunction with subsequent GGRP Updates. Plans or projects that do not tier from the City GGRP Update IS/ND that would generate GHG emissions in excess of these thresholds would result in a potentially significant impact on the environment related to GHG emissions and climate change. Mitigation measures would be required to be identified to reduce potentially significant impacts resulting from such plans or projects. Plans or projects that are unable to reduce GHG emissions below these thresholds through implementation of identified mitigation measures would result in a significant and unavoidable environmental impact. The GHG Emissions Threshold provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have direct construction or operational impacts. 19 The service population is equal to the residential population plus the number of jobs. 20 Burbank, City of. 2021. GGRP Update.

ATTACHMENT 1-455
EXHIBIT 2

7. Cumulative Projects Scenario
For purposes of CEQA cumulative impacts analysis of the Burbank GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold, the cumulative projects scenario is the total projected population growth, and the anticipated cumulative development to accommodate that growth, for Burbank in 2030. Population and employment-based growth factors use the most recent SCAG Connect SoCal 2020 - Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) demographic forecasts.21 Household based growth factors similarly use SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS forecast; however, these are adjusted to account for the 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of housing needs for the City of Burbank between 2021 and 2030. As such, the number of households in Burbank is expected to grow by 8,752 units between 2020 and 2030, with steady growth after 2030 at a rate of 151 households per year, consistent with SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS projected growth rates for Burbank.22 As outlined in the GGRP, the population included in the GGRP is different from the population included in the Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR) because the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)23 recommends that each jurisdiction create a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required to ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the housing element to accommodate the Regional Housing Need Allocation throughout the planning period. Including a buffer in the GGRP could result in an overly conservative emissions reduction forecast and target because these scenarios are in part, calculated based on future population scenarios.

8. Required Approvals
City of Burbank
Required approvals include:
▪ Adoption of the GGRP Update and CEQA GHG Emissions Threshold Initial Study-Negative Declaration
▪ Adoption of the GGRP Update
▪ Adoption of the GHG Emissions Threshold
Although individual plans or projects may be implemented later under the umbrella of the GGRP Update, each individual plan or project would be subject to separate environmental review under CEQA.

Other Public Agencies
The City of Burbank has sole approval authority over the GGRP Update. There are no other public agencies whose approval is required.
21 Southern California Association of Governments. May 2020. Connect SoCal. Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/Draft/dConnectSoCal_Demographics-And-Growth-Forecast.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2020.
22 SCAG. 2020. SCAG 6th Cycle Draft RHNA Allocation Based on Final RHNA Methodology & Final Connect SoCal. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/rhna-draft-allocations-090320-updated.pdf?1602188695. 23 HCD. June 10, 2020. Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook Government Code Section 65583.2. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf ATTACHMENT 1-456
EXHIBIT 2
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
■ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ 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 to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” 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.

ATTACHMENT 1-457
EXHIBIT 2
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential 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.

Signature Date

Printed Name Title

ATTACHMENT 1-458
EXHIBIT 2
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? □ □ ■ □
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? or
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? According to the City of Burbank 2035 General Plan and California Scenic Highway System,24 there are no scenic roadways or highways in the City of Burbank. However, the General Plan notes that the City has several important scenic vistas and scenic resources.25 As stated in the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, scenic vistas within Burbank include views of the Verdugo Mountains to the northeast and views of the eastern Santa Monica Mountains to the south. 24 California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community- livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways Accessed February 1, 2021 25 Burbank, City of. 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan.:
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 Accessed: February 1, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1-459
EXHIBIT 2
Downslope views from hillside development in the Verdugo Mountains toward the City and the Santa Monica Mountains beyond are also considered to be a valued resource. The Open Space and Conservation Element also defines scenic resources in Burbank as public parks and open space, such as Wildwood Canyon Park, Stough Park, Johnny Carson Park, and Brace Canyon Park. Likewise, the architecture of historic structures, such as Burbank City Hall and the Portal of the Folded Wings Shrine to Aviation in Valhalla Memorial Park, are also considered scenic resources that represent aspects of the City’s history.

General Plan Open Space and Conservation Goal 7, Policies 7.1 – 7.4 and Land Use Element Goal 8, Policy 8.10, aim to protect prominent ridgelines and slopes as visual resources and consider and address the preservation of scenic views in the hillside area, respectively. Additionally, General Plan Open Space and Conservation Goal 6, Policy 6.4, promotes the acquisition, conservation, and preservation of land in the Verdugo Mountains. The Burbank Municipal Code Chapter 4 (Trees and Vegetation) as well as General Plan Open Space and Conservation Goals 4, 6, and 7 require preservation and protection of trees and other natural constraints, including ridgelines geologic features, and open space, from unnecessary encroachment or destruction.26 Furthermore, General Plan Land Use Policy 3 as well as Open Space and Conservation Goals 1 and 6, require the preservation of the natural landscape and historic character of districts, neighborhoods, and landmarks. The GGRP Update would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that is complimentary to existing development, natural features, and land uses.

The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during environmental review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to scenic vistas or scenic highways. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not result in impacts related to scenic vistas and scenic highways. However, implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment through policies and programs. Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Planting new street trees and private trees may slightly change the visual character of the City. The physical changes these installations and enhancements would entail are dependent on the location of construction for the solar panels, electric vehicle charging connections, active transportation pathways, and trees/green spaces.

Projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be required to adhere to City development regulations and General Plan policies to retain character of the City and minimize environmental impacts. In addition, Projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan, other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any project. As such, the GGRP Update would not result in adverse impacts related to scenic vistas, viewing corridors, or scenic roadways within the City. Furthermore, due to intervening 26 Burbank, City of. 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan.
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 Accessed: February 1, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1-460
EXHIBIT 2
development typical of an urban setting, proposed projects included in the GGRP Update would not likely be visible from the scenic vistas or resources. Thus, scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings would not be damaged within a scenic highway. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Thresholds would result in a less than significant impact related to scenic vistas and related to scenic resources within scenic highways.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The City of Burbank is an urbanized area with visual character/quality goals and policies included in the City General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element to preserve and protect the scenic and visual quality of the community. The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to visual character and scenic quality. Likewise, the GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote infrastructure development and redevelopment through policies and programs. Implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that may impact visual character Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian/infrastructure facilities and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and requires planting and maintaining 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Installation of solar panels and electric vehicle charging stations, introduction of active transportation infrastructure, and planting trees may slightly change visual character in the City.

However, any projects would be located and designed to be complimentary to existing development and land uses in a manner consistent with applicable zoning and other regulations governing visual character and quality within the City of Burbank. In addition, projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan, and other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any project. Future plans or projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Thresholds would result in a less than significant impact related to regulations of visual character and quality.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions ATTACHMENT 1-461
EXHIBIT 2
Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to light and glare. Likewise, the GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes. Rather the GGRP Update would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that is complimentary to existing development and land uses. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not directly result in impacts related to light and glare. However, implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. Measure EG-1.1 promotes installation of solar panels to facilitate fuel switching. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, which would include installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure; Measure T-1.2 intends to provide clean, abundant, affordable, and accessible public transit, with a zero-emissions bus fleet by 2030; Measure T-3.1 facilitates the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the City Municipal Code to minimize environmental impacts related to light and glare through limitations of materials and shielding light structures. Presumably design and location of proposed solar infrastructure would be complimentary to existing development in the City. In addition, projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan, and other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any project.

Future plans or projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. Thus, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to light and glare.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Cumulative impacts related to scenic resources, visual character, and increased light and glare would generally be site-specific, and cumulative projects are not anticipated to contribute to cumulative aesthetic impacts with adherence to General Plan policies and the Municipal Code. Because of the developed nature of Burbank, future infrastructure projects under the GGRP Update, in combination with other cumulative projects, would not adversely impact the visual character of the City. In addition, future development in the City would be required to comply with the City’s Development Review process and be reviewed against applicable General Plan policies and City’s design standards for design quality and compatibility with adjacent land uses.

Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Thresholds would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 1-462
EXHIBIT 2
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. 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? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? or
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract The City of Burbank does not contain farmland or lands used for agricultural purposes.27 Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in no impact related to degradation of 27 Burbank, City of. 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan.
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431. Accessed January 1, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-463
EXHIBIT 2
agricultural resources or conversion of agricultural land to non-agriculture uses, nor would there be a conflict with existing zoning or general plan land use designations.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
or
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The City does not contain forest or timberland resources. Additionally, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in no impact related to degradation of forestry resources or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, nor would there be a conflict with existing zoning or General Plan land use designations.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project 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?
See impact discussions above under Topics 2a through 2d. The GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would not result in other changes to the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, would result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. The City does not contain farmland or lands used for agricultural purposes.

Additionally, the City does not contain forest or timberland resources. Cumulative projects are not anticipated to contribute to cumulative forestry impacts with adherence to General Plan policies. In addition, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would not involve land use or zoning changes that could result in cumulative impacts related to conversion or loss of farmland or forest land.

Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in no cumulative impact related to agricultural and forestry resources.

NO IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-464
EXHIBIT 2
3 Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ □ ■
b. 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? □ □ ■ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Burbank is located within the South Coast Air Basin (the Air Basin), which includes all of Orange County and the non-desert regions of Los Angeles County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County. The Air Basin is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded, the South Coast Air Basin is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” Under State law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-attainment. SCAQMD is in non- attainment for the State and federal ozone standards, the State and federal PM2.5 (particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in size) standards, and the State PM10 (particulate matter up to 10 microns in size) standards, and the federal lead standards and is required to prepare a plan for improvement.28
The SCAQMD Clean Air Plan (Air Quality Management Plan [AQMP]) provides a plan to improve South Coast Air Basin air quality and protect public health as well as the climate. The most recent (2016) AQMP complies with State air quality planning requirements as codified in the California Health and Safety Code. The 2016 AQMP seeks to achieve multiple goals promoting reductions in criteria pollutant, greenhouse gases, and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement. The most effective way to reduce air pollution impacts on the 28 South Coast Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2018. National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/naaqs- caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=14. Accessed February 22, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1-465
EXHIBIT 2
health of the approximately 17 million residents in the Air Basin, including those in disproportionally impacted communities that are concentrated along our transportation corridors and goods movement facilities, is to reduce emissions from mobile sources, the principal contributor to our air quality challenges. Thus, the SCAQMD works closely with CARB and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) who have primary responsibility for these sources. The 2016 AQMP also includes transportation control measures developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) from the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).29
The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) mandate that states submit and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for areas not meeting air quality standards. The SIP includes pollution control measures to demonstrate how the standards will be met through those measures. The SIP is established by incorporating measures established during the preparation of AQMP and adopted rules and regulations by each local Air Pollution Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts, which are submitted for approval to CARB and the U.S. EPA.30 The goal of an AQMP is to reduce pollutant concentrations below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) through the implementation of air pollutant emissions controls.

The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts. Additionally, the GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would rather promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

Implementation of proposed measures would be beneficial by helping Burbank meet applicable air quality plan goals and generally reducing sensitive receptor exposure to pollutant concentrations.

Although the purpose and intended effect of the GGRP Update is to reduce GHG emissions generated in the City to help reduce the effects of climate change, many of its measures and supporting actions would also reduce criteria pollutant (i.e., air quality) emissions.

Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure BE-1.3 aims to reduce per-service population energy demand. Measure EG-1.1 promotes installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aims also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure; Measure T-1.2 intends to provide clean, abundant, affordable, and accessible public transit, with a zero-emissions bus fleet by 2030; and T-2.1 and T-2.2 require the continuation of Transportation Management Organization (TMO) Expansion, reaching 60 percent of employees by 2030 and 90 percent by 2045 and the strengthening of the TMO program and ordinance to increase compliance with the City’s 1.61 Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR), respectively.

The GGRP Update also includes Measure T-3.1 that encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure and Measure T-4.1, which aims to implement Parking Management as identified in the Burbank2035 General Plan Mobility Element and the City Council’s Six Parking Management Principles. Additionally, the GGRP Update includes Measure W-

1.1, which intends to continue to reduce per service population potable water, and therefore, energy, consumption.
29 SCAQMD. 2016. Final SCAQMC Air Quality Management Plan. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt- plan/final-2016-aqmp
Accessed September 28, 2020.
30 CARB. 2016. State Strategy for the State Implementation Plan for Federal Ozone and PM2.5 Standards. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2016sip/2016sip.htm Accessed September 28, 2020.

ATTACHMENT 1-466
EXHIBIT 2
In addition to the measures aimed at the community, the GGRP Update also includes measures that are specific to City government operations, including Measures CG-1.2 through CG-1.4, which require retrofitting all City streetlights and outdoor lighting to LED by 2030; electrification of City facilities; and implementation of a flexible employee commute program. These measures would decrease the use of non-renewable fuel sources for residential and non-residential land use operations. These energy- and transportation-related measures would reduce air quality emissions as well as GHG emissions. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold are consistent with the 2016 AQMP and would have no impact related to a conflict with or obstruction of the applicable air quality plan.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project 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?
The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to an increase of criteria pollutants. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not result in impacts related to criteria pollutants. However, implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, which would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities and infrastructure, as well as Measure T-3.1, which encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and requires planting and maintaining 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030. Construction-related air quality impacts are generally associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction vehicles and soil-hauling trucks, in addition to Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) that would be released during architectural coatings drying. However, future projects or plans would be reviewed for consistency with SCAQMD air quality regulations and other applicable local, State, and Federal regulations once project details and locations are known because future plans or projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. Thus, construction associated with implementation of the GGRP Update would result in a less than significant impact related to net increase of criteria pollutants.

With respect to operational emissions, many measures would have the secondary benefit of reducing criteria pollutant emissions. Measures included in the GGRP Update aim to increase citywide renewable energy use, promote electric vehicles, reduce building natural gas use, reduce on-road gasoline fuel use, and reduce vehicle miles traveled. Implementation of such measures would be beneficial by helping Burbank meet applicable air quality plan goals. In addition, projects implemented in support of the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan, and other applicable regulatory land use actions, and would be subject to any required environmental assessment that would be completed prior to approval of any project. Therefore, the ATTACHMENT 1-467
EXHIBIT 2
GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to criteria pollutant emissions.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Construction-related air quality impacts are generally associated with fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and exhaust emissions from heavy construction vehicles and soil hauling trucks, in addition to ROG that would be released during the drying phase upon application of architectural coatings. While the GGRP Update could result in construction-related impacts from toxic air contaminants and exposure to sensitive receptors, projects included in the GGRP Update would be reviewed for consistency to comply with SCAQMD air quality regulations and other applicable local, State, and federal regulations once project details and locations are known because future plans or projects would be subject to environmental review under CEQA, and individual impact analyses will identify required plan- or project-specific mitigation measures where applicable. Thus, the construction associated with implementation of the GGRP Update would not result in substantial emissions of toxic air contaminants and exposure to sensitive receptors. No operational toxic air contaminant emissions are anticipated with implementation of the GGRP Update. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Thresholds would have a less than significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The CARB 2005 Air Quality Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective identifies land uses associated with odor complaints, which include: sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, waste transfer stations, petroleum refineries, biomass operations, auto body shops, coating operations, fiberglass manufacturing, foundries, rendering plants, and livestock operations.31 The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to odors. Measure 31 California Air Resources Control Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2021 ATTACHMENT 1-468
EXHIBIT 2
SW-1.1 and promotes participation in recycling and organic waste programs and reducing such waste going to landfills to achieve 75 percent reduction in waste-related GHG emissions by 2025. As such, the GGRP Update could result in minor odors related to compost. However, green waste collection bins and compost application are not identified on the list of “Sources of Odor Complaints” (Table 1-4) as provided in the CARB Air Quality Land Use Handbook and would not be anticipated to result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would not facilitate development that could create adverse odors, and there would be a less than significant impact related to odors exposure.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. The cumulative projects could exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds or be inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan. However, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would have a less than significant contribution related to potential cumulative air quality impacts within the air basin and on sensitive receptors within the City of Burbank, given that the GGRP Update would result in Citywide reduction of GHG emissions, energy use, single-occupancy vehicle travel, water use, and waste generation. As such, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would not result in adverse impacts related to contribution of criteria pollutants to the air basin, exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants, or odors. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to air quality.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-469
EXHIBIT 2
4 Biological Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. 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
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ ■ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ ■ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ ■ □
d. 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? □ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ □ ■
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■

ATTACHMENT 1-470
EXHIBIT 2
a. Would the project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Burbank is a primarily urbanized community with parks and recreational and open spaces incorporated throughout the City. The City’s Municipal Code Chapter 4 (Trees and Vegetation), as well as the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element incorporate goals and policies to protect biological resources, such as trees and other plant habitats, as well as wildlife.

The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to habitat modification. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not directly result in impacts related to wildlife species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status. However, implementation of the following GGRP Update measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment and may result in impacts to species through habitat modification for purposes of infrastructure installation.

Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Future related projects would be required to undergo environmental review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation once project details and locations are known. The measures included in the GGRP Update would not conflict with the Municipal Code or goals/policies of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element but would rather be consistent with and promote those plans. As such, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold itself would not have a substantial adverse effect on special-status wildlife species either directly through individual take or indirectly through species habitat modification. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to special-status wildlife species.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-471
EXHIBIT 2
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? or
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to riparian or other special habitats. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would instead promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the GGRP Update could result in impacts related to habitat whether riparian, wetland, or other sensitive natural community. According to the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, opportunities for wildlife (e.g., birds and mammals) habitat protection in Burbank include undeveloped or primarily undisturbed opens space areas, including Wildwood Canyon Park and Stough Canyon Park, which are the two largest parks in the City and are located in the Verdugo Mountains.32 Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Future related projects would be required to undergo environmental review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation once project details and locations are known. Projects would be reviewed for consistency with applicable local, regional, and State regulations once project details and locations are known. These measures and actions would not conflict with the Municipal Code or objectives and policies of the General Plan but would rather be consistent with and promote those plans. As such, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or sensitive natural community, such as wetlands. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would have a less than significant impact related to sensitive natural plant communities.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project 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? The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to interference with species 32 Burbank, City of. 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. Available:
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431. Accessed January 5, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1-472
EXHIBIT 2
movement. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes, but would instead promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not result in impacts related to interference with species movement. However, implementation of the following GGRP Update measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Future related projects would be required to undergo environmental review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation once project details and locations are known. These GGRP Update measures and supporting actions do not conflict with the Municipal Code or objectives and policies of the General Plan and instead are consistent with and promote those plans. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to interference with species movement.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Burbank is a primarily urbanized community with neighborhood parks, community parks, and recreational spaces throughout the City.33 The Burbank General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element incorporate goals and policies related to natural resources protection in the City. However, the City is not located within the jurisdiction of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.

The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to biological resources. The GGRP Update does not involve land use or zoning changes but would rather promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. The purpose and intended effect of the GGRP Update is to reduce GHG emissions generated within the Burbank community, including related to City municipal operations, to help reduce the effects of climate change. Implementation of proposed measures and actions would be beneficial by helping Burbank meet applicable local policies and ordinances for protecting natural and biological resources. The GGRP Update would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable policies for preserving biological resources and would not affect the City’s ability to attain goals and policies that protect biological resources. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in no impact related to consistency with local biological resources protection policies.

NO IMPACT
33 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. <vhttps://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431>. Accessed February 5, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-473
EXHIBIT 2
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The Burbank General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element includes an inventory of open space resources as well as goals and policies to preserve natural resources, such as plant and wildlife habitats in the City. However, the City is not located within the jurisdiction of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. As such, the GGRP Update would not facilitate specific development projects, nor would it add or enable new development that would conflict with the adopted Municipal Code, General Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would have no impact related to consistency with an adopted habitat or natural community conservation plan.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Implementation of cumulative projects could result in impacts to biological resources during infrastructure and building construction. The GGRP Update would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. However, infrastructure development or redevelopment resulting from implementation of the GGRP Update would be required to comply with applicable General Plan policies and State and federal regulatory requirements regarding avoidance of special wildlife species and habitat. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Thresholds would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to biological resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-474
EXHIBIT 2
5 Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ ■ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ ■ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The City has put forth preservation regulations through the Historic Resources Management Ordinance outlining designation and maintenance of historic properties and duties of the Heritage Commission.34 Additionally, Burbank has three properties listed under the National Register of Historic Places, including the Burbank City Hall and Burbank Post Office.35 The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to historical resources.

The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes. Rather the GGRP Update would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would promote building energy retrofits as well as infrastructure development and redevelopment that would be complimentary to existing development. Projects in Burbank would be required to comply with the Historic Resources Management Ordinance and General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, which requires the identification acquisition, and management of sites and structures of architectural, historical, archaeological, and cultural significance.36 This includes sites, structures, and areas that are associated with a historic event, activity, or persons that contribute to the historic character of districts, neighborhoods, landmarks, historic structures, and artifacts.

Implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and 34 Burbank, City of. Historic Preservation in Burbank. https://www.burbankca.gov/web/community-development/historic-preservation- program Accessed August 12, 2021.
35 National Parks Service. National Register Database and Research. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database- research.htm Accessed February 5, 2021.
36 Burbank, City of. 2013. General Plan. <https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0- 80e9-3b11-dc6d-751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed February 5, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-475
EXHIBIT 2
existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030. The physical changes these upgrades and additions would entail are dependent on the year of building construction and location of electrical and service panels and plumbing for connection of condensate drains, which in some cases may include modifications to the interior and/or exterior of buildings for wiring and panel replacement and minor excavation for connection of drainage to sewer systems. However, it is anticipated that retrofit activities would avoid alterations to the historic materials and distinguishing character (e.g., overall shape of the building, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features, and aspects of its site and environment) of identified historic resources and, if warranted, be reviewed by the Heritage Commission. As such, implementation of the GGRP Update would not conflict with or obstruct the City’s ability to comply with applicable historical resources preservation policies.

Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to historical resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
The City of Burbank has not identified known archeological sites within its City limits.37,38 However, as-yet to be discovered or unknown sites or resources may exist. The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to archaeological resources.

The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes but would promote building energy retrofits as well as infrastructure development and redevelopment. For example, Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan that would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

The physical changes these installations and enhancements would entail are dependent on the location of construction for the electric vehicle charging connections, active transportation.

As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not directly result in impacts related to archaeological resources. Implementation of the GGRP Update measures and supporting actions may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that could result in an impact on these resources during construction. Future related projects would be required to undergo environmental review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation once project details and locations are known. The GGRP Update would not conflict with or obstruct the applicable policies

ATTACHMENT 1-476
EXHIBIT 2
for preserving archeological resources and would not affect the City’s ability to attain goals and policies that protect archeological resources. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to archaeological resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
There are no known burial points or burial sensitivity areas within the City.39, However, there is the possibility of encountering unknown buried archaeological deposits and human remains throughout Burbank. Impacts to historic and archaeological resources are generally site-specific. The GHG Emissions Threshold provide guidance during CEQA review and do not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not have construction or operational impacts related to human remains. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes. Rather the GGRP Update would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment
As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not directly result in impacts related to human remains. Implementation of the GGRP Update measures and supporting actions may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment that could have an impact on these resources during construction. However, consistent with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if human remains are encountered, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. The remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission must then immediately identify the “most likely descendant(s)” of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains. With adherence to these State requirements, impacts related to burial findings if encountered during construction of future related projects would be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to human remains.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030.There is the possibility of encountering buried archaeological deposits and human remains throughout Burbank. Implementation of the cumulative projects would include infrastructure and building development that could have an impact on cultural resources during construction. Impacts to historic and archaeological resources are generally site-specific.

Accordingly, as required under applicable laws and regulations, potential impacts associated with cumulative developments would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. No known cultural resources would be removed, modified, or otherwise affected by the implementation of the GGRP Update. In addition, future projects in Burbank, including those associated with implementation of the GGRP 39 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2021. Burbank 2035: General Plan. <https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 >. Accessed February 4, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-477
EXHIBIT 2
Update, would be required to comply with Historic Resources Management Ordinance, with the main purpose of recognizing, preserving, and protecting historic resources in the interest of the health, prosperity, social and cultural enrichment, and general welfare of the people. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in cumulative impacts.

Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to cultural resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-478
EXHIBIT 2
6 Energy

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
California is one of the lowest per-capita energy users in the United States, ranked 48th in the nation, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate.40 California consumed 285,488 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of electricity and 2,137,920 cubic feet of natural gas in 2018.41,42,43 The single largest end-use sector for energy consumption in California is transportation (39.1 percent), followed by industry (23.5 percent), commercial (18.3 percent), and residential (18.3 percent).44 Adopted in 2018, SB 100 accelerates the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standards Program, codified in the Public Utilities Act, by requiring electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

The City of Burbank has demonstrated its commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy, as described in the Sustainability and GHG Reduction Efforts Setting section above. Additionally, the City Municipal Code Chapter 1 (Building and Fire) specifies electrical code details by land use type within the City.45 As part of Measure BE-1.1 and per the California Green Building Standards Code, the City will adopt an Electrification reach code for all new buildings and accessory dwelling units that bans the piping of natural gas to support fuel -switching and ultimate decarbonization 40 United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2018. California Profile Overview. <https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA.> Accessed February 2, 2021.
41 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. 2018 Total System Electric Generation. https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy- almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation/2018. Accessed January 5, 2021 42 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. Environmental Health and Equity Impacts from Climate Change and Mitigation Policies in California: A Review of the Literature. Accessed February 2, 2021. 43 USEIA. 2018. Natural Gas Consumption by End Use. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_SCA_a.htm . Accessed February 2, 2021.
44 USEIA. 2018. California Profile Overview. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA . Accessed January 5, 2021. 45 Burbank, City of. 2020. Municipal Code Chapter 1 (Building and Fire). Available: https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/.

Accessed February 2, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1-479
EXHIBIT 2
purposes.46 The City has also completed a total (i.e., community and municipal) GHG emissions inventory for 2019, which is summarized in Table 1. The largest sectors of GHG emissions are related to energy and transportation, followed by solid waste and water. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), Los Angeles County consumed approximately 66,118.67 GWh in 2019.47 The GHG Emissions Threshold provides guidance during CEQA review and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to wasteful consumption of energy resources. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing climate action measures and supporting actions to reduce Burbank GHG emissions. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes, but would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

Furthermore, the purpose and intended effect of the GGRP Update is to reduce GHG emissions generated in the City to help reduce the effects of climate change, including those emissions generated by energy demand and supply. The GGRP Update encourages electrification, use of renewable energy, and energy efficiency in existing residential and commercial building stock as well as proposed new residential and commercial buildings.

Measure BE-1.1 through E-1.3 and EG-1.1 propose revisions to and new City ordinances requiring electrification of 100 percent new buildings and incremental portion of existing buildings as well as maximum usage of renewable energy and installation of solar systems, battery storage, and potential microgrids within the City to help meet community energy demand. In addition, Measure C-1.1 focuses on overcoming the equity constraints of existing building electrification by leveraging BWP’s operations and efficiency programs to develop an Affordable Housing Electrification Program to lead Burbank’s electrification targets through retrofitting low-income and affordable housing units in Burbank to all electric. As such, the GGRP Update would not result in the use of non- renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Therefore, the GGRP Update would result in a less than significant impact related to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Rather, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would assist in reducing use of non-renewable energy resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The City of Burbank has adopted the California Green Building Standards Code per Municipal Code Chapter 9-1-10. Therefore, construction and operation associated with infrastructure projects stemming from the GGRP Update would be designed to comply with the energy source standards of the California Green Building Standard Code. Likewise, development projects would be reviewed for consistency with the energy efficiency standards in the 2019 California Energy Code, Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24). Thus, the GGRP Update would not conflict with adopted renewable energy or energy conservation plans. The GHG Emissions Threshold is a CEQA guidance document that does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. As such, the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to consistency with a State or local renewable energy plan. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to consistency with State 46 A reach code is a local building energy code that “reaches” beyond State minimum requirements for energy use in building design and construction, creating opportunities for local governments to lead the way on clean air, climate solutions, and the renewable energy economy.
47 California Energy Commission. 2016. Electricity Consumption by County. <http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx>. Accessed February 8, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1-480
EXHIBIT 2
and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans. Rather, the GGRP Update would be consistent with State and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Thus, the GGRP Update would revise but would not conflict with adopted renewable energy or energy conservation plans. Therefore, the GGRP Update would result in a less than significant impact related to consistency with State and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.

Rather, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would be consistent with State and local plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Implementation of the GGRP Update would result in reducing use of non- renewable energy resources across the community and in particular with remodels and new construction. And implementation of solar infrastructure and implementation of active transportation infrastructure would require construction. As such, construction of the cumulative projects within the City could result in temporary energy consumption impacts. However, the energy used would not be wasteful and would comply with all applicable requirements.

Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Thresholds and GHG Emission Thresholds would result a less than significant cumulative impact related to energy.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 1-481
EXHIBIT 2
7 Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
▪ 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? □ □ □ ■
▪ Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ □ ■
▪ Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ □ ■
▪ Landslides? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □
c. 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, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse? □ □ ■ ■
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property? □ □ ■ □
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? □ □ ■ □
ATTACHMENT 1-482
EXHIBIT 2
a. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
▪ 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;
▪ strong seismic ground shaking;
▪ seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or ▪ landslides?
Burbank is located in a seismically active region in an area of potential fault rupture, strong ground shaking, and slope instability. These geologic and seismic hazards can affect the structural integrity of structures and utilities, and in turn can cause severe property damage and potential loss of life.

Burbank contains one active fault, the Verdugo Fault, located just south of the Verdugo Mountains.

As stated in the General Plan Safety Element, in addition to the Verdugo Fault, several other active faults have the potential to cause ground shaking that would affect Burbank, including the San Fernando Fault (northwest of Burbank), Sierra Madre Fault (at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains east of Burbank), Hollywood Fault (south of Burbank), Newport‐Inglewood Fault (12.5 miles southwest of Burbank), and the Raymond Fault (six miles southeast of Burbank).48 Additionally, the San Andreas Fault, a large fault that runs nearly the entire length of California, is located approximately 27 miles to the northwest. An earthquake anywhere along these faults could trigger secondary seismic hazard impacts within Burbank.

Much of Burbank is located atop soils susceptible to liquefaction, particularly in areas west of I 5; however, as long as groundwater continues to be extracted in the upper Los Angeles River area and annual rainfall remains at normal levels, groundwater levels in Burbank can be expected to remain deeper than 50 feet, resulting in a low risk of liquefaction for most of the City.49 As stated in the General Plan Safety Element, hazards from landslides and mudslides in the City are limited to properties at the base of undeveloped or unimproved slopes in the Verdugo Mountains, north of Sunset Canyon Drive. The City General Plan Safety establishes goals and policies (see Goal 5) related to minimizing personal and property damage resulting from seismic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides.50 Projects are required to conform to applicable provisions of the current California Building Code.

The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction, or landslides. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing climate measures and supporting actions to reduce GHG emissions and is consistent with the Burbank General Plan and other regional regulations. The GGRP Update does not propose habitable development that could result in exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk 48 Burbank, City of. January 29, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. Available:
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 Accessed January 5, 2021
49 Burbank, City of. January 29, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. Available:
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 Accessed January 5, 2021
50 Burbank, City of. January 29, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. Available:
https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431 Accessed January 5, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1-483
EXHIBIT 2
of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in no impact related to seismic- and landslide-related hazards.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to substantial loss of topsoil. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes, but it would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not directly require ground- disturbing activities. However, implementation of the following measures may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, which would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-

3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure.

Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

The physical changes these installations and enhancements would entail are dependent on the location of construction for the electric vehicle charging connections, active transportation pathways, and trees/green spaces, which in some cases may include minor temporary excavation.

As such, the GGRP Update could result in construction-related soil erosion and topsoil loss impacts associated with such installations and plantings. However, projects would be reviewed for consistency with Burbank General Plan policies and other local and State geology and soils regulations prior to final siting and construction. Further, compliance with existing regulations, including California Building Code requirements, City-issued permit requirements, and construction general permit requirements, would minimize potential cumulative seismic and geologic impacts.

Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to soil erosion, loss of topsoil, and the presence of unstable soils.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project 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, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
or
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to project location on expansive soil.

Additionally, the GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures that are consistent with the General Plan. Some of the proposed measures of GGRP Update would support construction ATTACHMENT 1-484
EXHIBIT 2
projects, such as electric vehicle charging station construction. However, the City’s Building and Safety Division would determine which projects would be required to conduct geotechnical studies based on the scope of the development and adhere to related recommendations prior to final siting and construction that would reduce impacts. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to risks associated with location 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, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse as well as expansive soils.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would not involve the development of habitable structures and, thus, no use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur related to soil capability support of alternative wastewater disposal systems.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to paleontological resources. The GGRP Update would not involve land use or zoning changes. Rather the GGRP Update would promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. As a policy document, the GGRP Update would not directly result in impacts related to paleontological resources or unique geologic features. However, implementation of the following GGRP Update measures and supporting actions may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment.

Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, which would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure. Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030. However, geotechnical and design guideline studies would be required for future projects, in addition to adherence with related recommendations prior to final siting and construction. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to paleontological resources or unique geologic features.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Cumulative projects could expose additional people and property to seismic and geologic hazards that are present in the region. The magnitude of geologic hazards for individual ATTACHMENT 1-485
EXHIBIT 2
projects, including those associated with implementation of the GGRP Update, would depend upon the location, type, and size of development and the specific hazards associated with individual sites.

Specific geologic hazards associated with individual project sites would be limited to those sites without affecting other areas. Similarly, potential impacts to paleontological resources associated with each individual site would be limited to that site without affecting other areas, and impacts related to these resources would be minimized on a case-by-case basis. Compliance with existing regulations, including California Building Code requirements, City-issued permit requirements, and construction general permit requirements, would minimize potential cumulative seismic and geologic impacts. Seismic and geologic hazards would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and would not result in cumulative impacts. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Emission Threshold would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 1-486
EXHIBIT 2
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
The greenhouse effect is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the Earth. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to support life on Earth, because it warms the planet by approximately 60°F. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 270 years ago) have been adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat and contribute to an average increase in Earth’s temperature. Global warming is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s surface, and climate change is the resultant change in wind patterns, precipitation, and storms over an extended period.

GHGs produced by human activities include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydroflourocarcons (HFCs), perfluorinated compound (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (see Appendix B for more details related to these GHG gases).51 Combustion of fossil fuels (gasoline, natural gas, and coal), deforestation, and decomposition of waste release carbon into the atmosphere that had been locked underground and stored in oil, gas, and other hydrocarbon deposits or in the biomass of surface vegetation. Since 1750, estimated concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have increased by over 36 percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent respectively, primarily due to human activity. Emissions of GHGs affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition.

Changes to the land surface also indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way in which Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. Potential impacts in California due to climate change 51 The proposed GGRP only considers emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O because these are the GHGs most relevant to local government policymaking. These gases comprise a large majority of GHG emissions at the community level. The remaining gases (HFCs, PFC, and SF6) are emitted primarily in private sector manufacturing and electricity transmission and are the subject of regulation at the state level.

Therefore, these gases were omitted from the GGRP Update.

ATTACHMENT 1-487
EXHIBIT 2
include sea level rise, more extreme-heat days and high-ozone days, larger and more frequent forest fires, and more drought years.52 Although GHG emissions do not typically cause direct health impacts at a local level, GHG emissions can result in indirect health impacts by contributing to climate change, which can have public health implications. The primary public health impacts of climate change include the following:53
▪ Increased incidences of hospitalization and deaths due to increased incidences of extreme heat events
▪ Increased incidences of health impacts related to ground-level ozone pollution due to increased average temperatures that facilitate ozone formation
▪ Increased incidences of respiratory illnesses from wildfire smoke due to increased incidences of wildfires
▪ Increased vector-borne diseases due to the growing extent of warm climates ▪ Increased stress and mental trauma due to extreme events and disasters, economic disruptions, and residential displacement
The City of Burbank has completed a total Burbank (i.e., community and municipal) GHG emissions inventory for the year 2019, which is summarized in Table 1. The largest sectors of GHG emissions are related to energy and transportation, followed by solid waste and water. The measures and actions address municipal and communitywide GHG emissions. As part of the GGRP Update, Burbank is committed to an emissions reduction target of 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 (SB 32 target year), 66 percent below 2010 levels by 2035 (General Plan horizon year) and reaching carbon neutrality by 2045 (EO B-55-18 target year). This 2030 GHG emissions goal is selected to be consistent with SB 32 State emissions targets and CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5 for a qualified GHG emissions reduction strategy as well as to be achievable by City-supported measures identified in the GGRP Update. The GGRP Update includes a BAU and adjusted forecast of GHG emissions that will enable the City to estimate the amount of emissions reductions needed to meet its goal.

The GGRP Update includes measures to increase use of zero-emission vehicles; increase use of public, active, and shared transportation; reduce water consumption and waste generation; increase recycling and composting; and increase tree planting. It also includes Measures CG-1.1 through CG-1.4 related to completing an annual progress report, retrofitting all City streetlights and outdoor lighting to LEDs, electrification of existing City facilities, and implementation of a flexible employee commute program that will continue to allow the City to lead by example. Table 3 includes a complete list of measures and descriptions of respective supporting actions included in this GGRP Update. The measures included in the GGRP Update combined with Statewide legislation and initiatives and regional transportation programs will enable the City to meet its emissions reduction target of 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 (SB 32 target year). Table 5 shows the contribution of the Statewide initiatives along with the measures and actions. The City needs to achieve 86,555 MT CO2e of GHG emissions reductions by 2030 to meet its goal. The total estimated GHG reductions accounted for in the GGRP Update total 90,347 MT CO2e by 2030.

Figure 3 and Table 5 illustrate how the BAU emissions are estimated to increase, thus widening the emissions reductions needed by 2030. Figure 3Error! Reference source not found. also shows emissions reductions expected from State level actions as well as the reductions needed to reach the Burbank emissions target. The measures and supporting action combined with Statewide 52 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2009. Environmental Health and Equity Impacts from Climate Change and Mitigation Policies in California: A Review of the Literature. Accessed January 2, 2021. 53 California Natural Resources Energy. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. <http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/>. Accessed January 2, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-488
EXHIBIT 2
legislation and initiatives and Countywide transportation programs will enable the City of Burbank to meet its 2030 emissions reduction target.

The GGRP Update includes a list of 19 measures intended to reduce Burbank GHG emissions.

Implementation of the GGRP Update would result in the reduction of community and municipal operational GHG emissions, while only generating temporary GHG emissions during construction of infrastructure development and redevelopment such as electric vehicle charging stations, bicycle paths, et cetera. Additionally, the GGRP Update would serve as a pathway to reduce GHG emissions and introduce other beneficial environmental and sustainability effects. These benefits include reduction in building energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled (and thus air pollution), water consumption, and solid waste generation. The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning and, thus, would not result in construction or operational impacts related to GHG emissions. The GHG Emissions Threshold would establish GHG emissions targets and analysis methodologies that are enforced during CEQA review with the intention of reducing GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of future projects and plans in the City. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to generation of GHG emissions.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold are policy-level documents that set strategies to reduce GHG emissions within the City in an effort to also comply with State regulations. As discussed under Topic 8a above, the GGRP Update includes measures and actions to reduce City GHG emissions from forecasted levels by approximately 90,347 MT CO2e by 2030. The purpose of the GGRP Update is to meet Burbank’s proportionate fair share of the Statewide GHG emissions reduction target set by AB 32 and SB 32 and work toward the State’s longer-term target of carbon neutrality identified in Executive Order B-55-18. The GGRP Update would not conflict with any applicable GHG reduction plans, including the California Climate Change Scoping Plan and the California Climate Change Scoping Plan Updates. For example, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold specifically include policies and a locally appropriate quantitative threshold consistent with Statewide per-capita goals, as recommended by the 2017 Scoping Plan. The GGRP Update identifies how the City would achieve consistency with the Statewide GHG emissions limit.

The GHG Emissions Threshold would establish GHG emissions targets and analysis methodologies that are enforced during CEQA review with the intention of reducing GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of future projects and plans in the City. The GGRP Update would serve as a pathway to reduce GHG emissions and introduce other beneficial environmental and sustainability effects. These benefits include reduction in building energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled (and thus air pollution), water consumption, and solid waste generation. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emission Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to consistency with applicable GHG emissions reduction plans, policies, and regulations.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Analyses of GHG emissions and climate change are cumulative in nature, as they ATTACHMENT 1-489
EXHIBIT 2
affect the accumulation of GHG emissions in the atmosphere. Cumulative projects that exceed the thresholds discussed above would have a significant impact related to GHG emissions and climate change, both individually and cumulatively. The GGRP Update creates a GHG emissions reduction strategy (consistent with Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines) for the City of Burbank. The GGRP Update includes a series of strategies, measures, and actions that are intended to reduce communitywide GHG emissions by approximately 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2030, which provides substantial progress toward meeting the City carbon neutrality goal by 2045, while meeting State goals. The GGRP Update acknowledges that additional actions beyond those identified in the plan will be necessary to achieve carbon neutrality and, therefore, provides a mechanism for updating and adopting a new plan triennially in order to incorporate new measures and technologies that will further the City toward meeting its goal of carbon neutrality. As such, the GGRP Update would result in the reduction of GHG emissions rather than generating GHG emissions. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in cumulative impacts. Rather, the GHG Emissions Threshold would establish GHG emissions targets and analysis methodologies that are enforced during CEQA review with the intention of reducing GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of cumulative buildout.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 1-490
EXHIBIT 2
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ ■ □
b. 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? □ □ ■ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material 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? □ □ ■ □
e. For a project located in 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 or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ □ ■
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ □ ■
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires? □ □ □ ■
ATTACHMENT 1-491
EXHIBIT 2
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project 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?
The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to creating a significant hazard. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing actions and supporting measures to reduce GHG emissions.

The proposed GGRP Update does not involve identified site-specific development, nor would it facilitate new development. Implementation of the GGRP Update measures and supporting actions would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials and would not create reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accidental conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Implementation of some of the GGRP Update measures and actions, such as the installation of bicycle facilities, energy retrofits, and electric vehicle charging stations, may involve the use and transport of fuels, lubricating fluids, and solvents, among other activities. These types of materials are not considered acutely hazardous, and all storage, handling, and disposal of these materials are regulated by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC), United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health - Environmental Health Division. Additionally, future development would be subject to review by the City for compliance with the General Plan and Municipal Code and would also be required to comply with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to creating a significant hazard.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to handling hazardous materials. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and actions to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed GGRP Update does not include site-specific proposals and development, nor would it emit or handle hazardous materials. Implementing some measures and actions may require future development or improvements, such as bike paths, solar panels, electric vehicle charging stations, battery storage, or building improvements related to electrification. However, projects would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and Municipal Code and applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to handling of hazardous materials in proximity to an existing or proposed school.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 1-492
EXHIBIT 2
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material 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?
The GHG Emissions Threshold is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Threshold would not result in construction or operational impacts related to project site location on a site listed on a hazardous material site. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and supporting actions to reduce GHG emissions. The GGRP Update does not include site-specific proposals and development, but implementation of the measures and actions could result in projects that may be located on listed hazardous materials site. However, future projects would be reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and Municipal Code and would be required to comply with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant impact related to location on a listed hazardous materials site.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. 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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The Hollywood Burbank Airport is located in the City. The airport is located in the northwestern portion of the City, at 2627 N Hollywood Way. The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold are policy documents and implementation of which would not increase airport activity or otherwise increase potential exposure to aircraft-related hazards. Additionally, projects associated with the GGRP Update would undergo project-level CEQA review. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to risks associated with location proximate to a public airport.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold are policy documents intended to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold do not involve site-specific development, nor would it facilitate new development that would interfere with adopted emergency plans. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to impairment or interference with implementation of an emergency response or evacuation plan.

NO IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Two Mountain Fire Zones are designated by the Burbank Fire Department.54 One zone is located along the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains in northeast Burbank, and the other is located in 54 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. < https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed December 26, 2020.

ATTACHMENT 1-493
EXHIBIT 2
southwestern portion of the City adjacent to the Warner Bros. Studios. According to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE), Burbank is located in a designated California Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.55 Per the Burbank General Plan Safety Element, the City is susceptible to loss from fire in the urban-wildland interface due to its proximity to the Verdugo Mountains and the Hollywood Hills.56 Furthermore, City Municipal Code Chapter 1 (Building and Fire) provides regulations related to the safety of life and property from fire within the City.57 The GGRP Update is a policy-level document that does not propose specific or other physical changes such as habitable development that could be put at risk in the case of a wildfire, nor does it grant entitlements for development that would have the potential to directly cause wildfire. Rather, the GGRP Update would aim to reduce natural gas infrastructure that poses wildfire risk if damaged during seismic events and to underground new or restructured electric power lines that pose wildfire risk if damaged during high-wind events. Thus, the GGRP Update and Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to wildfire.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Hazards and hazardous materials impacts are typically site specific in nature.

Cumulative projects, including the GGRP Update, are not anticipated to contribute to cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts with adherence to applicable General Plan policies, applicable regional and County regulations (e.g., Los Angeles County Hazardous Waste Management Plan), and applicable State and Federal regulatory requirements. Furthermore, as a guidance document, the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in cumulative impacts. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to hazards and hazardous materials.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

55 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFIRE). 2020. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ . Accessed March 3, 2021.
56 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. < https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed December 26, 2020. 57 Burbank, City of. 2021. Municipal Code Chapter 1 (Building and Fire). < https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/>. Accessed March 3, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 1-494
EXHIBIT 2
10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality? □ □ □ ■
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan? □ □ □ ■
ATTACHMENT 1-495
EXHIBIT 2
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document as does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to water quality standards. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and actions intended to reduce GHG emissions in the City.

Future projects would be reviewed for consistency with local and State regulations, including the implementation of stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs). As such, the GGRP Update’s related infrastructure changes would not utilize or alter water supply or result in new or different wastewater discharge. Additionally, projects would be small in scale and not result in substantial, adverse impacts related to surface or groundwater quality. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to surface or groundwater water quality in Burbank.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to groundwater supplies. The GGRP Update is a policy document containing measures and supporting actions that are consistent with the City’s General Plan. In addition, implementation of the GGRP Update actions related to infrastructure development and redevelopment would not substantially degrade groundwater quality or groundwater recharge. As a result, no adverse impacts related to groundwater supplies or resources would occur.

Measure CS-1.1 facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030. Encouragement of tree planting and thus provision of pervious areas in the City would increase groundwater recharge. As such, implementing the GGRP Update would have a beneficial effect related to local groundwater recharge as well as support groundwater management in Burbank. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Threshold would result in no impact related to impedance of sustainable groundwater management in the San Fernando Groundwater Basin.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
ATTACHMENT 1-496
EXHIBIT 2
The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to alterations in polluted runoff.

Implementation of the following GGRP Update measures and supporting actions may promote infrastructure development and redevelopment. Measure BE-1.1 and BE-1.2 promote electrification of newly constructed and existing buildings, while Measure C-1.1 and EG-1.1 promote installation of solar panels to facilitate the switching of building fuel and aim also to develop a battery storage program. Measure T-1.1 involves the implementation of the Complete Our Streets Plan, which would include the installation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities/infrastructure and Measure T-

3.1 encourages the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and supporting infrastructure.

Furthermore, Measure CS-1.1, facilitates the preparation of an Urban Forest Master Plan and seeks to plant and maintain 2,000 net new trees by the year 2030.

Projects would be required to undergo environmental review, including assessment and mitigation incorporation, including the implementation of a SWPPP and compliance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations once project details and locations are known. Further, GGRP Update- related infrastructure changes would be designed to not result in substantial additional erosion or runoff. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less than significant impact related to drainage flows and polluted runoff.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
The City is not located within designated seiche or tsunami zones.58 Portions of the City are within the 100- and 500-year flood zones defined by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).59 Additionally, three reservoirs upstream from Burbank, Reservoirs #1, #4, and #5, are classified as dams by the California Department of Water Resources. Though small, these reservoirs impound more than 50 acre‐feet of water. However, these reservoirs are not large enough to result in considerable risk of inundation in Burbank that would result from failure of any of the facilities.

In Burbank, new construction, including infrastructure projects associated with implementation of the GGRP Update, in flood-prone areas must comply with Chapter 1 (Building and Fire) of the Burbank Municipal Code. In Burbank, construction, including infrastructure projects associated with implementation of the GGRP Update, must comply with City General Plan Safety Element goals/policies related to hazards, including flooding hazards. In addition, Burbank works with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District to maintain, to identify, and fund flood control improvements regularly, and to update the Burbank All‐ Hazard Mitigation Plan on a regular basis. 60 Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in a less than significant impact related to flooding and inundation resulting in release of pollutants. 58 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. < https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed December 26, 2020. 59 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. < https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed December 26, 2020.

60 Burbank, City of. February 19, 2013. Burbank 2035: General Plan. < https://new.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/139656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d- 751642c85b38?t=1612301807431> Accessed December 26, 2020.

ATTACHMENT 1-497
EXHIBIT 2

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
The GHG Emissions Thresholds is a guidance document and does not propose development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus, implementation of the GHG Emissions Thresholds would not result in construction or operational impacts related to obstruction of a water quality control plan.

The GGRP Update measures would not include direct extraction of groundwater and rather encourages water savings through conservation. The GGRP Update would not interfere with or obstruct implementation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Therefore, the GGRP Update and GHG Emissions Thresholds would result in no impact related to consistency with a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

NO IMPACT
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative projects scenario is total projected population growth for Burbank (109,686 persons) in 2030. Cumulative projects, including the GGRP Update, are not anticipated to contribute to cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts with adherence to applicable General Plan policies and other applicable City policies, as well as applicable State and federal regulatory requirements. Implementation of the GGRP Update would not contribute to an increase in growth and development in Burbank but could result in infrastructure development or redevelopment projects, including renewable energy facilities and alternative transportation thoroughfares. As such, implementation of the GGRP Update and other cumulative projects could have incremental impacts related to hydrology and water quality, with potential minor alterations to existing drainage patterns in the City. However, cumulative projects would comply with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations related to hydrology and water quality. Therefore, implementation of the GGRP Update would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality.