Threshold 1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial 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?
Impact NOI-2 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE COULD INCLUDE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT (I.E., HVAC), DELIVERY AND TRASH TRUCKS, AND OTHER NOISE- GENERATING ACTIVITIES. HOWEVER, SUCH ACTIVITIES WOULD BE TYPICAL OF THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT. IN
ADDITION, ON-SITE ACTIVITIES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS IN THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE. FURTHERMORE, WHILE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WOULD GENERATE VEHICLE TRIPS IN THE CITY, THE INCREASE IN MOBILE NOISE WOULD NOT RESULT IN A PERCEPTIBLE 3-DBA INCREASE.
THEREFORE, PERMANENT NOISE INCREASES DUE TO OPERATION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Housing development accommodated under the Housing Element Update would include residential development at increased intensity and density throughout the city that would generate on-site operational noise from stationary sources and off-site operational noise from vehicle trips. Typical noise sources associated with residential uses include stationary HVAC equipment, on-site vehicle movement (e.g., delivery and trash hauling), outdoor activities, and off-site traffic.
On-site Operational Noise
HVAC EQUIPMENT
Based on manufacturer’s specifications, a Carrier 38HDR060 split-system with a sound power level of 72 dBA would generate a noise level of approximately 57 dBA at a distance of seven feet. As shown in Table 4.7-5, the ambient base noise level is 55 dBA during the daytime and 45 dBA during the nighttime for residential-zoned areas. Therefore, in the case where the actual ambient conditions are not known, noise from HVAC equipment could exceed the city’s presumed ambient noise conditions when compared to a reference noise level 57 dBA at a distance of seven feet from the HVAC equipment source. However, noise levels from HVAC equipment associated with housing development would be comparable to noise levels of HVAC equipment associated with the existing urban environment. Furthermore, the design and placement of new HVAC equipment would be required to comply with Section 9-3-208.A of the BMC, which prohibits noise from any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus from exceeding the ambient noise levels of adjacent noise-sensitive properties by more than 5 dBA. On-site equipment would be typically designed such that it would be shielded by sound barriers that block the line-of-sight to sensitive receivers or it would include installation of appropriate noise-muffling devices to reduce noise. The operation of HVAC equipment would have a less than significant noise impact.
V
EHICLE ACTIVITY (DELIVERY AND TRASH HAULING)
Future residential development would increase the number of delivery and trash hauling trucks traveling through the city to individual development sites. Increased delivery and trash hauling ATTACHMENT 10 -213
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-27
trucks could intermittently expose various sensitive receivers to increased truck noise. Section 23130 of the California Motor Vehicle Code establishes maximum sound levels of 86 dBA Leq at 50 feet for trucks operating at speeds less than 35 miles per hour. While individual delivery truck and/or loading or trash pick-up operations would likely be audible at properties adjacent to individual development, such operations are already a common occurrence in the urban environment. In addition, solid waste pick-up operations are typically scheduled during daytime hours when people tend to be less sensitive to noise. Furthermore, these noise events from trucks are typically transient and intermittent, and do not occur for a sustained period of time. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels from trash and delivery trucks due their prevalence in the city, resulting in a less than significant impact.
O
UTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS
Housing developments would generate noise from conversations, music, television, or other outdoor sound-generating equipment (e.g., leaf blowers), particularly in the event future residents maintain open windows or such activities take place on balconies. However, these noise-generating activities would be similar to those of the existing urban environment. Moreover, Section 9-3-208.A of the BMC prohibits the operation of leaf blowers from exceeding the ambient noise level of adjacent noise-sensitive properties by more than 20 dBA. In addition, Section 9-2-213 of the BMC prohibits the operation radios, musical instruments, television sets, and other sound-amplifying devices from exceeding the ambient noise levels of adjacent noise-sensitive properties by more than 5 dBA. Required compliance with code enforcement would reduce operational noise impacts related to conversations and sound-generating equipment to a less than significant level.
Off-site Operational Noise
The overall increase in traffic noise from the project was estimated using vehicle trip (VT) data from the Transportation Assessment prepared by F&P for existing conditions (Year 2021) and future with Project conditions (i.e., Year 2029 with the Housing Element Update). These daily VT scenarios are shown in Table 4.7-9.
Table 4.7-9 Daily Vehicle Trip Summary
Total Daily Vehicle Trips
Baseline Conditions (2021) 697,358
Future with Housing Element Update (2029) 788,283
Change in Vehicle Trips +90,925
Percent Change in Vehicle Trips (%) 13%
Source: F&P 2021
As shown in Table 4.7-9, daily VT would increase by approximately 13 percent over existing 2021 conditions by the year 2029 under the Housing Element Update. A 13 percent increase in traffic on a roadway would equate to an increase of 0.5 dBA. Therefore, the project would not double the existing mobile noise source and would not increase noise levels by even the most conservative threshold of 3 dBA, which is considered a barely perceptible noise increase. Although a 13 percent or more increase in traffic may occur at local level in areas where substantial new housing is proposed, a doubling of traffic is still not anticipated to occur based on the citywide increase of 13 percent. Therefore, off-site traffic noise impacts would be an anticipated less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 10 -214
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.7-28
Land Use Compatibility
Agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project‘s future users or residents. In California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369, the California Supreme Court explained that an agency is only required to analyze the potential impacts to future residents if the project would exacerbate those existing environmental hazards or conditions. CEQA analysis is therefore concerned with a project’s impact on the environment, rather than with the environment’s impact on a project and its users or residents. Therefore, bringing a population into an area where noise currently exists is not a significant environmental impact under CEQA unless doing so would exacerbate noise conditions. Nonetheless, the following analysis of potential exposure to excessive noise is provided for informational purposes.
Implementation of the Housing Element Update would expose future housing development to ambient noise levels that characterize the city, predominantly associated with vehicular traffic.
According to the baseline noise contour map in the Burbank2035 General Plan Noise Element, and shown in Figure
4.7-2, land uses along major arterial roadways are exposed to noise levels of approximately 70 CNEL. As shown by Figure 4.8-3, with the city’s projected transportation noise increases (e.g., an increase in traffic from future residential, commercial, and industrial uses), a few roadway segments are anticipated to experience a noise level increase between 1 to 4 dBA by the year 2035 based on citywide growth accompanied by an increase in citywide traffic volumes for the year 2035. Based on the City’s land use compatibility standards shown in Table 4.7-3, ambient noise up to 60 CNEL is normally acceptable for single-family residences whereas ambient noise up to 65 CNEL is normally acceptable for multi-family residences. Therefore, new housing development could be exposed to noise levels above the normally acceptable range for residences.
The City also has an interior noise standard of 45 CNEL for residences, which is consistent with the State’s interior noise standard. According to the 2019 CBC, Title 24, Part 2, Section 1206.4, the proposed multi-family residences must be constructed and designed such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight (e.g., a concrete block wall on a property’s boundary) will provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (FHWA 2011). Building materials can also substantially reduce occupants’ exposure to noise. The FHWA’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows (FHWA 2011).
Modern residential buildings in California are typically constructed with storm windows, single- or double-glazed, that achieve the required energy saving on heating and cooling, which also provide an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of at least 20 dBA. Based on a noise exposure level of approximately 70 CNEL and a noise attenuation of at least 20 dBA, the interior noise level within new housing development could be up to 50 CNEL. Nonetheless, housing development would be required to comply with the Burbank2035 General Plan Noise Element policies and 2019 CBC, Title 24, Part 2, Section 1206.4, which would collectively govern excessive noise exposure and require that sensitive uses achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA or less in any habitable room through appropriate sound insulation (e.g., dual-paned windows, exterior doors with solid core and perimeter weather stripping).
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
ATTACHMENT 10 -215
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-29
Threshold 2: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Impact NOI-3 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS
NOT ANTICIPATED TO INVOLVE OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL VIBRATION LEVELS (E.G., USE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT). HOWEVER, CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES UNDER THE HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE, SPECIFICALLY PILE DRIVING, COULD POTENTIALLY GENERATE VIBRATION EXCEEDING THRESHOLDS FOR BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES SUSCEPTIBLE TO DAMAGE (E.G., HISTORIC STRUCTURES).
HOWEVER, TEMPORARY-CONSTRUCTION RELATED VIBRATION IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
It is not anticipated that operation of housing development would involve activities that would result in substantial vibration levels, such as use of heavy equipment. Operational groundborne vibration in the vicinity of development associated with the Housing Element Update would be primarily generated by vehicular travel on the local roadways. According to the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2018) guidance document, rubber tires and suspension systems dampen vibration levels from trucks to a level that is rarely perceptible. Therefore, traffic vibration levels associated with the expected additional trips from the Housing Element Update would not be perceptible by sensitive receivers. Impacts related to operational groundborne vibration would be less than significant. The remainder of this analyses focuses on impacts relate to construction activities associated with future housing development.
Construction activities associated with housing development accommodated by the Housing Element Update would result in varying degrees of groundborne vibration depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes vibration that spreads through the ground and diminishes in strength with distance. Buildings with foundations in the soil in the vicinity of a construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage at the highest levels. Construction vibration is a localized event and is typically only perceptible to a receiver that is in close proximity to the vibration source.
Construction for all housing development would require heavy equipment, particularly development on sites with certain geologic conditions that may require pile driving. Such heavy equipment could potentially operate within 25 feet of nearby buildings. As shown in Table 4.7-10, construction equipment would typically generate vibration levels up to 0.21 in./sec. PPV (i.e., vibratory roller) at 25 feet, although pile driving could generate a vibration level of approximately 0.64 in./sec. PPV at 25 feet. Vibration levels shown in bolded and underlined text exceed one or more of the Caltrans criteria shown in Table 4.7-1 and Table 4.7-2.
Table 4.7-10 Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment
PPV (in./sec.)
25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 125 Feet
Pile Driver (Impact) 0.6441,2,3,5 0.3001,5 0.1921 0.1401 0.1101 Pile Driver (Sonic) 0.1701 0.079 0.051 0.037 0.029
Vibratory Roller 0.2101 0.098 0.063 0.046 0.036
Hoe Ram 0.089 0.042 0.027 0.019 0.015
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.042 0.027 0.019 0.015
Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.042 0.027 0.019 0.015
ATTACHMENT 10 -216
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.7-30
Equipment
PPV (in./sec.)
25 Feet 50 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 125 Feet
Loaded Truck 0.076 0.036 0.023 0.017 0.013
Jackhammer 0.035 0.016 0.011 0.008 0.006
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Notes: Vibration levels shown in bolded and underlined text exceed one or more of the Caltrans criteria shown in Table 4.8 -1 and Table 4.8-2. Superscripts specify the threshold exceeded by each piece of equipment. 1 Exceeds the 0.1 in./sec. Caltrans damage threshold for historic sites (and other critical locations). 2 Exceeds the 0.5 in./sec. Caltrans damage threshold for historic and other/similar old buildings. 3 Exceeds the 0.5 in./sec. Caltrans damage threshold for older residential structures. 4 Exceeds the 1.0 in./sec. Caltrans damage threshold for newer residential structures. 5 Exceeds the 0.25 in./sec. Caltrans human annoyance threshold.
Sources: FTA 2018; Caltrans 2020
According to Caltrans impact criteria shown in Table 4.7-1, the damage threshold for historic sites (which are most sensitive to impacts from groundborne vibration) is 0.12 in./sec. PPV. Groundborne vibration from hoe rams, bulldozers, caisson drilling, loaded trucks, and jackhammers would not exceed the 0.1 in./sec. PPV threshold for sensitive historic sites. While groundborne vibration from vibratory rollers would only exceed the threshold for building damage for historic sites at 25 feet from the source, vibration levels from pile driving would exceed one or more of the building damage thresholds shown in Table 4.7-1 for historic sites, general old buildings, and older and newer residential structures. Furthermore, vibration levels associated with pile driving would also exceed the threshold of 0.25 in./sec. PPV for human annoyance at various distances up to 75 feet, as shown in Table 4.7-10.
As discussed in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources, the Downtown TOD inventory possesses 36 parcels with known historic-period buildings whereas the GSSP inventory contains 32 parcels with known historic-period buildings. Although all buildings would be subject to potential impacts from construction vibration, buildings with historic significance would each have varying degrees of susceptibility to groundborne vibration damage depending on the structural integrity of said buildings. Therefore, new residential development accommodated under the Housing Element Update could result in a potentially significant impact related to construction vibration without implementation of the following mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure
NOI-3 Vibration Control Plan
For construction activities involving vibratory rollers within 50 feet of a structure or pile drivers (impact or sonic) within 140 feet of a structure, the applicant shall prepare a Vibration Control Plan prior to the commencement of construction activities. The Vibration Control Plan shall be prepared by a licensed structural engineer and shall include methods required to minimize vibration, including, but not limited to:
Alternative installation methods for pile driving (e.g., pile cushioning, drilled piles, cast-in-place systems) within 140 feet of a building to reduce impacts associated with seating the pile Vibration monitoring prior to and during pile driving operations occurring within 140 feet of a building
ATTACHMENT 10 -217
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-31
Use of rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-tracked equipment Avoiding the use of vibrating equipment when allowed by best engineering practices The Vibration Control Plan shall include a pre-construction survey letter establishing baseline conditions at potentially affected extremely fragile buildings/historical resources and/or residential structures. The survey letter shall determine conditions that exist prior to the commencement of construction activities for use in evaluating potential damages caused by construction. Fixtures and finishes susceptible to damage shall be documented photographically and in writing prior to construction. The survey letter shall provide a shoring design to protect such buildings and structures from potential damage. At the conclusion of vibration causing activities, the qualified structural engineer shall issue a follow-up letter describing damage, if any, to impacted buildings and structures. The letter shall include recommendations for any repair, as may be necessary, in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Repairs shall be undertaken and completed by the contractor and monitored by a qualified structural engineer in conformance with all applicable codes including the California Historical Building Code (Part 8 of Title 24).
A Statement of Compliance signed by the applicant and owner shall be submitted to the City’ Building and Safety Division at plan check and prior to the issuance of any permit. The Vibration Control Plan, prepared as outlined above shall be documented by a qualified structural engineer, and shall be provided to the City upon request.
Significance After Mitigation
Although most construction activities located in the city are not anticipated to have significant vibration impacts, it is possible that some development projects under the Housing Element Update could have significant vibration impacts during construction. This would most commonly occur when a development project using equipment that generates high vibration levels (e.g., pile driving or vibratory roller) would be located next to a historical resource constructed of fragile building materials, which is more sensitive to vibration damage, than structures that were built based on more recent building codes. However, Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would reduce vibration impacts associated with construction activities involving vibratory rollers within 50 feet of a structure or pile drivers (impact or sonic) within 140 feet of a structure. It is anticipated that Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would substantially reduce/control construction such that vibration levels would not exceed the Caltrans vibration criteria for building damage. Therefore, the vibration impacts from construction activities related to the Housing Element Update would be less than significant with mitigation.
ATTACHMENT 10 -218
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.7-32
Threshold 3: 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?
Impact NOI-4 HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
COULD BE EXPOSED TO INTERMITTENT NOISE LEVELS FROM OVERHEAD FLIGHT PATTERNS FROM SEVERAL AIRPORTS IN THE CITY OR ITS VICINITY. WHILE THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EMPHASIZE BUILDING HOUSING IN THE
IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE AIRPORT, ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD, NONETHELESS, BE REQUIRED TO
INCORPORATE NOISE INSULATION FEATURES PER STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDS TO REDUCE INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS TO BELOW 45 DBA. THEREFORE, THE IMPACT OF AIRPORT OR AIRSTRIP OPERATIONS ON NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Burbank2035 General Plan Safety Element outlines safety policies for the Hollywood-Burbank Airport Influence Area. Similarly, the General Plan Noise Element includes Goal 5, which emphasizes compatibility between airport- generated noise and adjacent land uses and the reduction of aircraft noise on residential areas and noise-sensitive land uses (City of Burbank 2013).
Although the Housing Element Update would not increase air traffic or associated noise from aircraft overflights, housing development accommodated by the Housing Element Update could be proposed within two miles of the Hollywood Burbank Airport. As shown in Figure 2-3, the proposed project includes rezoning within the Burbank Airport Influence Area of the city. The Airport Influence Area is consistent with the airport’s 65 CNEL contour shown in Figure 4.7-4. In particular, one of the potential GSSP sites (i.e., the 678-unit Valhalla site) falls within this area. Therefore, any development at this site, as well as with other housing development located within the Airport Influence Area/65 CNEL contour, would be required to comply with the Burbank2035 General Plan policies, the Los Angeles County ALUP, and 2019 CBC, Title 24, Part 2, Section 1206.4 which collectively govern excessive noise from airport operations and require that sensitive uses achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA or less in any habitable room. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic area to analyze cumulatively considerable noise impacts includes the city and immediately adjacent areas that could be indirectly affected by noise generated in the city.
Construction Noise
Construction of future development projects in the city would produce temporary noise impacts that would be localized to a project site and sensitive receivers within the immediate vicinity.
Therefore, only sensitive receivers located in close proximity to each construction site would be potentially affected by each activity. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with individual housing development projects accommodated under the Housing Element Update may overlap for some time with construction activities for other development projects. Typically, if a development site is 500 feet or more away from another site then noise levels would have attenuated to a point that they would not combine to produce a cumulative noise impact. Therefore, construction noise ATTACHMENT 10 -219
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-33
levels would typically become cumulative only if two development sites were to have construction occurring within 500 feet of each other. However, under a worst-case scenario, noise from construction activities for two projects within 1,000 feet of each other could contribute to a cumulative noise impact for sensitive receivers located equidistant between the two construction sites with concurrent on-site activities.
Construction activities associated with future development would comply with Section 9-1-1-105.10 of the BMC and would not occur during nighttime hours between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or national holidays. It is anticipated that, with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1a through NOI-1j, construction noise levels associated with housing development could be reduced below the applicable FTA noise limits for construction noise on a case-by-case basis. Nonetheless, larger development projects could combine together, or combine with smaller development projects, to substantially increase noise levels at specific neighboring noise-sensitive receivers.
While Mitigation Measures NOI-1a through NOI-1j would reduce construction noise impacts from developments to the extent feasible. Therefore, concurrent construction of development projects accommodated under the Housing Element Update could be cumulatively considerable without implementation of mitigation.
On-site Operational Noise
On-site operational noise impacts are localized to an individual development site and sensitive receivers within the immediate vicinity. Future development in the city would include mechanical equipment, loading, trash pick-up, and other noise-generating activities. However, such activities would be typical of the urban environment in the city and on-site activities would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the BMC. The incremental effect of the Housing Element Update with respect to on-site operational noise would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Off-site Operational Noise
Cumulative development through the year 2029 would generate vehicle trips, thereby increasing traffic on area roadways. As shown in Table 4.7-8, future daily VT levels by the year 2029 with future development from the Housing Element Update, which accounts for cumulative residential development in the city, would not double existing VT levels or increase mobile noise by more than 3 dBA. Therefore, the effect of the Housing Element Update on off-site traffic noise would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Groundborne Vibration
Operational groundborne vibration impacts are localized to a project site and sensitive receivers within the immediate vicinity. However, it is not anticipated that new residential development within the city would include substantial sources of operational ground-borne vibration. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to operational ground-borne noise and vibration at any sensitive receiver would not be significant. Impacts related to operational groundborne vibration would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Construction of future development projects in the city would produce temporary vibration impacts that would be localized to a project site and sensitive receivers in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, only sensitive receivers located in close proximity to each construction site would be potentially affected by each individual activity. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with individual ATTACHMENT 10 -220
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.7-34
housing development projects from the Housing Element Update may overlap for some time with construction activities for other development projects. For the combined vibration impact from simultaneous construction projects to reach cumulatively significant levels, intense construction from these projects would have to occur simultaneously in close proximity to a sensitive receiver. As such, concurrent construction of development projects accommodated under the Housing Element Update could be cumulatively considerable without implementation of mitigation.
Airport Noise
Aircraft-related noise impacts occur only in the vicinity of airports or airstrips. Although citywide growth could increase the number of people who are exposed to aircraft-related noise impacts, such impacts would be localized in nature. In addition, new residential development would not result in a direct increase to aircraft operations that would increase noise exposure to aircraft overflight patterns within and outside the city. The Housing Element Update would have no contribution to any cumulative impact related to airport hazards or noise. Impacts related to airport or airstrip noise would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
NOI-C1 Construction Building Permits
The City’s Community Development Department shall review the locations and anticipated construction timing for housing development projects with respect to the locations of other pending development projects. The City shall stagger the issuance of building permits for development projects with overlapping construction schedules that meet both of the following criteria:
The development project is located within 1,000 feet of another separate development project; and
The development project is located 500 feet or less from a sensitive receiver.
In these instances, the Community Development Department shall review the findings of any site- specific noise and vibration studies pertaining to future development projects to compare their locations to sensitive receivers identified therein.
Significance After Mitigation
Under a worst-case cumulative scenario, individual development projects located within 1,000 feet of each other would not generate cumulative construction noise or vibration levels upon sensitive receivers located 500 feet (i.e., equidistant) from these projects. Furthermore, due to the attenuation of construction noise and vibration, intervening buildings and/or structures, the construction noise levels of more distant projects (i.e., with distances greater than 500 feet of each other) would not contribute to a significant cumulative construction noise impact. Mitigation Measure NOI-C1 would substantially reduce/control construction such that vibration levels would not exceed the Caltrans vibration criteria for building damage. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-C1, construction noise and vibration impacts would not be cumulative considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
ATTACHMENT 10 -221
Environmental Impact Analysis
Population/Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-1
4.8 Population/Housing
This section analyzes the impacts related to population and housing growth.
4.8.1 Environmental Setting
a. City of Burbank
Table 4.8-1 shows the 2021 estimates of population and housing units for Burbank and Los Angeles County. Burbank’s current (2021) estimated population is 103,969 persons, a 1.8 percent decrease from its 2020 population of 105,861 (California DOF 2021). The City’s population constitutes approximately one percent of the countywide population of 10,044,458; and the City’s 45,069 housing units constitute approximately 1.2 percent of the County’s 3,614,809 total housing units.
The average number of persons per household in the City in 2021 is estimated at 2.45, which is about 16 percent lower than the countywide average of 2.92 persons per household in 2021.
Table 4.8-1 2021 Population, Households, and Housing Unit Estimates City of Burbank Los Angeles County
Population 103,969 10,044,458
Housing Units (Total) 45,069 3,614,809
Housing Units (Occupied) 1 42,282 3,382,896
Persons/Household Ratio2 2.45 2.92
1 Estimated by applying a derived civilian vacancy rate to the estimated civilian housing units. Vacancy rates are based on 2021 DOF data, adjusted to incorporate the directional changes described by the latest available American Community Survey (ACS) dat a. 2This is a ratio of persons (household) to an occupied housing unit.
Source: California DOF 2021
Table 4.8-2 shows the City and County employment, housing, and population estimates and forecasts from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) SCAG 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Demographics & Growth Forecast. SCAG projections indicated an increase of 10,431 persons (10 percent), in the City’s population over the next 25 years, for an estimated 2045 population of 115,400 residents. This forecasted growth represents approximately 417 new residents per year. Additionally, SCAG projections indicate an increase in the City’s number of households by 6,700 (16 percent) over the next 25 year for an estimated 48,600 households in 2045. This forecasted growth represents 268 new households per year (SCAG 2020). There were 2.7 jobs per household in the City in 2016. This ratio is about 89 percent higher than the SCAG estimate of 1.4 jobs per household for Los Angeles County in the same year. This suggests that Burbank is a “jobs rich” community in which more workers commute to the City from other communities for their jobs than residents commute to points outside the City for their jobs. The City’s higher ratio in comparison to the County is expected to continue in future years, based on SCAG forecasts.
ATTACHMENT 10 -222
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.8-2
Table 4.8-2 SCAG Population, Housing, and Employment Forecasts City of Burbank 2016 2030 2035 2045
Population 105,000 110,200 113,320 115,400
Housing Units 41,900 45,250 47,260 48,600
Employment 114,000 126,350 130,055 138,700
Employment/Housing Ratio 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9
Los Angeles County 2016 2030 2035 2045
Population 10,110,000 10,900,000 11,174,000 11,674,000
Housing Units 3,319,000 3,749,000 3,885,000 4,119,000
Employment 4,743,000 5,060,000 5,172,000 5,382,000
Employment/Housing Ratio 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3
Source: SCAG 2020
4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State
Housing Element Law: California Government Code Section 65584(a)(1) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a)(1), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is responsible for determining the regional housing needs assessment (segmented by income levels) for each region’s planning body known as a “council of governments” (COG), SCAG being the COG serving the Southern California area. HCD prepares an initial housing needs assessment and then coordinates with each COG to arrive at the final regional housing needs assessment. To date, there have been five previous housing element update “cycles.” California is now in its sixth “housing element update cycle.” The SCAG RHNA and the City’s General Plan Housing Element are discussed further below.
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375, Steinberg)
Senate Bill (SB) 375 focuses on aligning transportation, housing, and other land uses to achieve regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets established under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 32. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), with the purpose of identifying policies and strategies to reduce per capita passenger vehicle-generated GHG emissions. As set forth in SB 375, the SCS must: (1) identify the general location of land uses, residential densities, and building intensities within the region; (2) identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region, including all economic segments of the population, over the course of the planning period; (3) identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the regional housing need; (4) identify a transportation network to service the regional transportation needs; (5) gather and consider the best practically available scientific information regarding resource areas and farmland in the region; (6) consider the state housing goals; (7) establish the land use development pattern for the region that, when integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light-duty trucks to achieve ATTACHMENT 10 -223
Environmental Impact Analysis
Population/Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-3
GHG emission reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), if there is a feasible way to do so; and (8) comply with air quality requirements established under the Clean Air Act.
The City of Burbank is located in the jurisdiction of SCAG, a Joint Powers Agency established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Pursuant to Federal and State law, SCAG serves as a Council of Governments, a Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and the MPO for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial Counties. SCAG is responsible for preparing the RTP/SCS and RHNA in coordination with other State and local agencies. These documents include population, employment, and housing projections for the region and its 15 subregions.
Existing law requires local governments to adopt a housing element as part of their general plan and update the housing element every four to eight years. SB 375 requires the RHNA to allocate housing units within the region in a manner consistent with the development pattern adopted by the SCS.
On September 3, 2020, SCAG adopted its Connect SoCal: The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which is an update to the previous 2016 RTP/SCS (SCAG 2020a). Using growth forecasts and economic trends, the RTP/SCS provides a vision for transportation throughout the region for the next 25 years that achieves the statewide reduction targets and in so doing identifies the amount and location of growth expected to occur within the region.
Housing Crisis Act of 2019 – (SB 330, Skinner)
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) seeks to speed up housing production in the next half decade by eliminating some of the most common entitlement impediments to the creation of new housing, including delays in the local permitting process and cities enacting new requirements after an application is complete and undergoing local review—both of which can exacerbate the cost and uncertainty that sponsors of housing projects face. In addition to speeding up the timeline to obtain building permits, the bill prohibits local governments from reducing the number of homes that can be built through down-planning or down-zoning or the introduction of new discretionary design guidelines. The bill is in effect as of January 1, 2020 and expires on January 1, 2030.
Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)
The FEHA of 1959 (Government Code Section 12900 et seq.) prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, disability, or source of income.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act
The Unruh Civil Rights Act of 1959 (Civ. Code Section 51) prohibits discrimination in “all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” The provision has been interpreted to include businesses and persons engaged in the sale or rental of housing accommodations.
AB 1763
AB 1763, effective January 1, 2020, amends the State Density Bonus Law (Section 65915) to allow for taller and denser 100 percent affordable housing developments, especially those near transit, through the creation of an enhanced affordable housing density bonus.
ATTACHMENT 10 -224
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.8-4
Housing Element Law: California Government Code Section 65583(c)(7) Section 65583 of the California Government Code requires cities and counties to prepare a housing element, as one of the state-mandated elements of the General Plan, with specific direction on its content. Pursuant to Section 65583(c)(7), the Housing Element must develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.
Housing Element Law: California Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(3) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(3), the Housing Element is required to include a program to impose housing replacement requirements on certain sites identified in the inventory of sites. Under these requirements, the replacement of units affordable to the same or lower income level, consistent with those requirements set forth in State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915(c)(3)), would be required.
Relocation Assistance: California Government Code Section 7261(a) Section 7261(a) of the California Government Code requires that programs or projects undertaken by a public entity must be planned in a manner that (1) recognizes, at an early stage in the planning of the programs or projects and before the commencement of any actions which will cause displacements, the problems associated with the displacement of individuals, families, businesses, and farm operations, and (2) provides for the resolution of these problems in order to minimize adverse impacts on displaced persons and to expedite program or project advancement and completion. The displacing agency must ensure the relocation assistance advisory services are made available to all persons displaced by the public entity. If the agency determines that any person occupying property immediately adjacent to the property where the displacing activity occurs is caused substantial economic injury as a result of the displacement, the agency may also make the advisory services available to that person.
b. Regional
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
California’s Housing Element law requires that a local jurisdiction accommodate a share of the region’s projected housing needs for the planning period. This share, called RHNA, is important because State law mandates that jurisdictions provide sufficient land to accommodate a variety of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. Compliance with this requirement is measured by the jurisdiction’s ability to provide adequate land to accommodate the RHNA. SCAG, as the regional planning agency, is responsible for allocating the RHNA to individual jurisdictions within the six-county region: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial. For the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the RHNA will cover the planning period October 2021 through October 2029. The RHNA is distributed by income category. For the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element update, Burbank is allocated a RHNA of 8,772 units, as shown in Table 4.8-3.
During the current RHNA reporting period (2014-2021), the City has adopted the 2017 Affordable Housing Strategy to facilitate the building of 12,000 units through 2035, acquired and rehabilitated 27 very low-income units with affordability covenants, approved three mixed-use projects providing 1,089 new apartments (including 82 moderate income units), adopted new accessory dwelling units (ADU) producing more than 350 ADUs as of April 2021 approved development of 96 affordable ATTACHMENT 10 -225
Environmental Impact Analysis
Population/Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-5
housing units with 86 additional lower income units currently under review, initiated the Golden State and Downtown Burbank Metrolink Station Transit Oriented Development specific plans, adopted a Homelessness Plan for 2018-2021, adopted an eviction moratorium for non-payment of rent related to the COVID-19 pandemic and a Rent Repayment Ordinance, and maintained ongoing dialogue with property owners to extend affordability controls on two at-risk projects.
Table 4.8-3 Burbank 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment Income Group RHNA Allocation (units) Percent of Total
Very Low 2,553 29%
Low 1,418 16%
Moderate 1,409 16%
Above Moderate 3,392 39%
Total 8,772 100%
Source: SGAG 2021
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SCAG’s RTP/SCS is a long-range regional transportation and land use network plan that looks ahead 20+ years and provides a vision of the region’s future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP identifies major challenges as well as potential opportunities associated with growth, transportation finances, the future of airports in the region, and impending transportation system deficiencies that could result from growth that is anticipated in the region. SCAG adopted its current RTP/SCS on September 3, 2020 (SCAG 2020). c. Local Regulations
Burbank 2014-2021 Housing Element
The City’s Housing Element fulfills the 2014-2021 update cycle for jurisdictions in the SCAG region that covers the planning period from January 1, 2014 through October 1, 2021. The Housing Element ensures that the City establishes policies, procedures and incentives in its land use planning and development activities that result in the maintenance and expansion of the housing supply to adequately accommodate the City’s housing needs. As required by State law, the Housing Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on: (1) conserving and improving existing affordable housing; (2) providing adequate housing sites to accommodate future housing needs for all income segments of the community; (3) assisting in the development of affordable housing; (4) removing governmental constraints to housing development; and (5) promoting equal housing opportunities for all Burbank residents (Burbank 2014).
4.8.3 Environmental Impacts
a. Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of significance are based on the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix B) determined that a potentially significant impact might occur under the following threshold.
ATTACHMENT 10 -226
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.8-6
Induce substantial 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) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere
The Initial Study found no potentially significant impacts related to displacement; therefore, this issue is not studied further herein.
b. Methodology
Although CEQA requires an EIR to consider its growth-inducing impacts, CEQA provides that the EIR “should not assume that growth is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance.” The underlying purpose of the Housing Element Update is to accommodate housing needs, which includes needs as a result of population growth and existing growth in the City. Even substantial growth is not a significant impact if it accommodates growth projections for the City that can be accommodated by existing or planned facilities and services, and is consistent with the City’s General Plan, as well as State and regional policies and regulations. As such, a significant impact for purposes of this threshold is whether the updates to the Housing Element will induce unplanned growth.
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: 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)? Impact POP-1 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE 2021-2029 RHNA AND THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN BUT WOULD EXCEED SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS POPULATION FORECASTS. THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD UPDATE THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH BURBANK’S RHNA, AND SCAG’S NEXT RTP/SCS WOULD INCORPORATE THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN UPDATES. THE CITY WOULD HAVE ADEQUATE HOUSING CAPACITY TO FACILITATE THE 10,456 NEW UNITS ASSUMED AS PART OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE. THE HOUSING
ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD NOT INDUCE UNPLANNED GROWTH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Burbank is a largely built-out community with few remaining vacant parcels open for future development. As such, the Housing Element would primarily accommodate new housing units on infill sites, which would increase development density in portions of the City. The RHNA allocation is intended to accommodate forecasted population growth.
As described in Section 2.5.2, RHNA Allocation, the estimated net housing units that can be counted based on entitled and pending projects, opportunity sites with existing General Plan and zoned capacity, accessory dwelling units, and committed assistance, would fall short of the RHNA allocation by 2,391 units. To make up for this shortfall, the Housing Element includes a housing program to amend the General Plan and adopt the Downtown TOD and the GSSP within three years from the start of the eight-year 2021-2029 planning period, which would provide the necessary zoning, objective development standards, and processing procedures to facilitate the production of housing required to accommodate the City’s RHNA along with the required sites buffer. In addition to the housing accommodated under the Housing Element Update, the proposed zone changes ATTACHMENT 10 -227
Environmental Impact Analysis
Population/Housing
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-7
would accommodate up to about 1.4 million square feet of additional commercial development and 1,534 associated jobs (please see Table 2-5 for the calculation of square footage and jobs). These additional jobs would primarily be in the office/media production, retail, and service industry and would likely be filled by the existing labor force or by the new residents anticipated in the new housing units accommodated by the Housing Element Update.
The City of Burbank has a current population of 103,969 with an average household size of 2.45 (DOF 2021). Based on the average household size of 2.45, the increase of 10,456 residential units would generate a population increase of approximately 25,617 residents. This would increase the City’s population to 129,586. This population increase would be approximately 12 percent higher than SCAG’s forecast population of 115,400 persons by 2045. Although the Housing Element Update would facilitate development beyond RTP/SCS forecasts, the next RTP/SCS update would reflect new forecasts for each jurisdiction in the region based on their RHNA allocation.
Burbank’s Land Use Element forecasts an estimated city-wide buildout capacity of 61,647 residential units (City of Burbank 2013). With the addition of the 10,456 new units anticipated through this Housing Element update, the City would have 55,525 total residential units, 6,122 lower than Burbank’s estimated residential capacity. Adoption and implementation of the Housing Element would not induce growth beyond that already anticipated in the current Land Use Element.
The Housing Element Update would be consistent with State requirements for the RHNA. Although the Housing Element Update would facilitate development beyond what is forecast in SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS, it would bring the forecasts for the City’s General Plan and the RTP/SCS into consistency since the RTP/SCS will be updated to reflect new forecasts for each city in the region. Additionally, the Housing Element Update would be consistent with ongoing planning in the City through the adoption of the Downtown TOD and the GSSP.
The State requires that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of their communities. The proposed element provides appropriate guidance for the residential growth that would occur with or without project implementation. The Housing Element Update focuses on expanding housing opportunities for all segments of the population and improving the quality of existing housing stock. Therefore, the Housing Element would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the City by identifying future actions to increase capacity for the future development of new dwelling units, as necessary to meet State housing law requirements, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts
The Housing Element Update would accommodate all projected citywide population and housing growth through 2029. Employment growth associated with commercial development primarily in the Downtown TOD and the GSSP would be mostly filled by the existing workforce and new residents anticipated in the new housing units and would not induce substantial population growth.
Therefore, cumulative impacts relating to population and housing would be the same as project impacts under Impact POP-1 and would be less than significant. The Housing Element Update
incorporates regional growth anticipated by SCAG’s RHNA projections and thus considers cumulative growth.
ATTACHMENT 10 -228
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.8-8
State laws require local governments to regularly assess and plan for future growth. For example, SCAG is required to update its RTP/SCS and accompanying growth projections every four years and the City is required to update its Housing Element, and correspondingly conduct a RHNA, every other RTP/SCS cycle, or every eight years. In turn, individual development projects that exceed zoning code and land use designation requirements would be assessed for consistency with SCAG projections through the environmental review process. Therefore, it is not anticipated that future cumulative development would induce population growth exceeding projections incorporated into the City’s Housing Element Update planning efforts.
The Housing Element would provide for a planned increase in the City’s housing capacity to meet the City’s RHNA allocation and additional units for the unmet need from the 5th Cycle Housing Element. The Housing Element Update would not propose any housing development but would include zone changes that would facilitate increased residential and commercial density and intensity on selected opportunity sites consistent with Project objectives. The Housing Element would identify a series of implementation actions to facilitate future housing development, as necessary to meet the City’s housing obligations per State law. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would be subject to City development review and permitting and would be required to undergo applicable CEQA review and compliance with the City’s General Plan before their approval. This would ensure that any potential environmental effects stemming from their development would be minimized to the extent feasible. The projected growth of housing units associated with future development facilitated by the Housing Element would also be less than the City’s estimated housing capacity under the existing General Plan. As previously mentioned, due to the active global pandemic related to COVID-19, and the resulting slowdown in the national, state, and local economy, which is projected to result in a significant and sustained recession, it is likely that the initial growth forecasts from the State and SCAG as presented in this analysis are overstated and that actual population growth will end up being less. Cumulative impacts associated with Housing Element implementation would therefore be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 10 -229
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-1
4.9 Public Services
This section analyzes impacts related to the provision of public services, including fire protection services, police protection services, schools, parks, and library facilities.
4.9.1 Environmental Setting
a. Fire Protection
The Burbank Fire Department (BFD) provides fire protection services in Burbank. The BFD consists of seven divisions, including: Fire Prevention Bureau, Fire Suppression, Emergency Medical Services, Emergency Management, Fire Apparatus and Equipment, Training and Safety, and Administration. A total of 136 personnel makes up the BFD, which has jurisdiction over all fires and life-threatening incidents within the City (BFD 2021). The firefighter-to-1,000 resident population ratio citywide and for the fire stations in Burbank is 1.31 firefighters/1,000 residents. If the City has a fire emergency for which the BFD does not have sufficient resources, a statewide system of mutual aid can provide services. These aid requests are processed through the California Emergency Management Agency and under this system, the City is to rely on its own resources and neighboring jurisdiction’s resources before calling for outside assistance. BFD also has mutual aid agreements with the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Los Angeles City Fire Department. Additionally, BFD has automatic mutual aid through Area C Unified Response with the cities of Alhambra, Arcadia, Hollywood-Burbank Airport, Glendale, Montebello, Monrovia, Monterey Park, Pasadena, San Gabriel, San Marino, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, and Vernon.
The BFD, reviews site plans, construction plans, and architectural plans prior to occupancy to ensure that required fire protection safety features, including building sprinklers and emergency access, are implemented. Development with modern materials and in accordance with current standards, inclusive of fire-resistant materials, fire alarms and detection systems, automatic fire sprinklers, would enhance fire safety and would support fire protection services (Title 24, Cal. Code Regs. Part 9).
The City is divided into six geographical fire districts. Each fire district is served by a fire station and defines the first-due response area for each station. The Burbank Fire Headquarters and the six fire stations are described below.
Burbank Fire Headquarters
The Burbank Fire Headquarters is located at 311 East Orange Grove Avenue. This building is a combined Police and Fire Headquarters building.
Fire Station 11
Fire Station 11 is located at 311 East Orange Grove Avenue. This station houses Engine 11, Truck 11, Rescue Ambulance 11, and Battalion 1. The BFD’s mechanic shop is also located within Fire Station
11. Truck 11 includes four staff persons (Captain, Engineer and two Firefighters). Engine 11 includes four staff persons (Captain, Engineer and two Firefighters). Rescue Ambulance 11 includes two Firefighters/Paramedics. Battalion 1 includes one Battalion Chief.
ATTACHMENT 10 -230
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.9-2
Fire Station 12
Fire Station 12 is located at 644 North Hollywood Way. This station houses an engine and truck company. Engine 12 includes four staff persons (Captain, Engineer and two Firefighters). Truck 12 includes four staff persons (Captain, Engineer and two Firefighters). Hazmat 12 includes four staff persons (Captain, Engineer and two Firefighters). Hazmat 12 is also Staffed by crossover personnel from Truck 12. The Hazardous Materials Division is also located in this station. The crew of Engine 12 will switch to Hazardous Materials 12 as needed. This station is first in response to Warner Bros.
Studios and the Warner Bros. Ranch, as well as several high-rise office buildings.
Fire Station 13
Fire Station 13 is located at 2713 Thornton Avenue. This station houses an engine and a rescue ambulance. Engine 13 includes four staff persons (Captain, Engineer and two Firefighters). Rescue ambulance 13 includes is staffed by two Firefighters/Paramedics.
Fire Station 14
Fire Station 14 is located at 2305 West Burbank Boulevard. This station is home to a single fire engine. Engine 14 incudes 3 staff persons (Captain, Engineer and one Firefighter). This station maintains and repairs the self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), as well as tests all firefighters in the correct fit of the SCBA masks.
Fire Station 15
Fire Station 15 is located at 1420 West Verdugo Avenue. This station is home to Engine 15 and Rescue Ambulance 15. Engine 15 includes three staff persons (Captain, Engineer and one Firefighter). Rescue ambulance includes two staff Firefighters/Paramedics. This station handles the majority of the Emergency Medical Services.
Fire Station 16
Fire Station 16 is located at 1600 North Bel Aire Drive. This station houses an engine and a water tender. Station 16 includes three staff persons (Captain, Engineer and one Firefighter). b. Police Protection
The Burbank Police Department (BPD) provides police protection services within the City limits. BPD currently has 160 sworn officers. Based on Burbank’s current population of 103,969, the BPD employs 1.54 officers per 1,000 residents. The BPD is made up of five divisions, including: patrol, investigations, administrative services, support services, and budget and finance. The Patrol Division receives and responds to all calls for emergency services, conducts initial investigations and appropriate follow-up, prevents crime through directed and non-directed patrols, and prepares documentation on all calls for service and police reports. The BPD operates five facilities: a Police Headquarters, an animal shelter, a police pistol range, the City Jail, and a heliport in Sun Valley.
Similar to the BFD, the BPD maintains mutual aid relationships with police departments for the Cities of Los Angeles, San Fernando, Glendale, and Pasadena. As part of the State Emergency Aid System, the BPD will also provide officers and equipment to other jurisdictions in the event of an emergency. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department of the California Emergency Management Agency can also provide aid, if needed.
ATTACHMENT 10 -231
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-3
c. Schools
The City is within the jurisdiction of the Burbank Unified School District (BUSD), which provides public school services to Burbank residents for grades kindergarten through 12. BUSD oversees eleven elementary schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and alternative schools that offer child development, special education, independent learning, and adult education programs.
Schools within BUSD have a combined student capacity of 16,028. Table 4.9-1 shows the current enrollment and capacity of the schools within the BUSD.
Table 4.9-1 BUSD Student Enrollment and Capacity
School Name Current Enrollment Enrollment Capacity Remaining Capacity Elementary Schools
Bret Harte 557 600 43
George Washington 468 496 28
Joaquin Miller 724 760 36
Providencia 404 440 36
R. L. Stevenson 600 632 32
Ralph Emerson 606 632 26
Theodore Roosevelt 585 600 15
Thomas Edison 526 600 74
Thomas Jefferson 726 736 10
Walt Disney 401 444 43
William McKinley 454 468 14
Total 6,051 6,408 357
Middle Schools
Dolores Huerta 1,061 1,250 189
John Muir 1,424 1,500 76
Luther Burbank 897 1,200 303
Total 3,382 3,950 568
High Schools
Burbank 2,487 2,700 213
John Burroughs 2,450 2,700 250
Monterey High School 108 270 162
Total 5,045 5,670 625
Additional Schools in District
Community Day School 17 50 33
Total 17 50 33
Grand Total 14,478 16,028 1,550
BUSD 2021
d. Parks
Burbank contains nearly 2,700 acres of designated open space, including approximately 732 acres of improved parkland. Wildwood Canyon Park and Stough Canyon Park are the two largest parks in the ATTACHMENT 10 -232
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.9-4
City, at 500 acres and approximately 100 acres, respectively. These regional parks are located in the Verdugo Mountains and are less developed than other parks in the City, particularly those located in the flat developed portions of Burbank. The remaining open space is located primarily in the Verdugo Mountains. This acreage connects to approximately 60,000 acres of additional open space managed by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. 26 parks are located within Burbank, ranging in size from pocket parks less than 0.25 acre up to a 500 -acre regional park. Based on the
existing population of 103,969 in 2021, there are approximately 7.0 acres of parkland for every 1,000 Burbank residents.
e. Libraries
The Burbank Public Library was founded in 1913 and has three locations: Central, Buena Vista, and Northwest. The Library lends material in a variety of formats, including eBooks, and offers programs for all ages on subjects ranging from arts and literature to science, technology, and current events.
Flagship programs include a volunteer-based tutoring program for adults who read below an 8th grade level, the Spark! Digital Media Lab, and the Burbank in Focus collection of digitized historical photos. The Library is supported by a volunteer corps and Friends of the Library group and also coordinates the Sister City program on behalf of the City of Burbank. During the 2018-2019 fiscal year, the Burbank Public Library received 720,994 visits to the branches (Burbank Public Library 2020)
4.9.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Policies
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA) as well as California OSHA (Cal- OSHA) enforce the provisions of the Federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Acts, respectively, which collectively require safety and health regulations for construction under Part 1926 of Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The fire-related requirements of the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act are specifically contained in Subpart F, Fire Protection and Prevention, of Part 1926. Examples of general requirements related to fire protection and prevention include maintaining fire suppression equipment specific to construction on-site; providing a temporary or permanent water supply of sufficient volume, duration, and pressure; properly operating the on-site fire-fighting equipment; and keeping storage sites free from accumulation of unnecessary combustible materials.
Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA)
FEMA was established in 1979 via executive order and is an independent agency of the federal government. In March 2003, FEMA became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security with the mission to lead the effort in preparing the nation for all hazards and effectively manage federal response and recovery efforts following any national incident. FEMA also initiates proactive mitigation activities, trains first responders, and manages the National Flood Insurance Program and the U.S. Fire Administration.
ATTACHMENT 10 -233
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-5
Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000
Disaster Mitigation Act (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 5121) provides the legal basis for FEMA mitigation planning requirements for state, local, and Indian Tribal governments as a condition of mitigation grant assistance. It amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. Section 5121-5207) by repealing the previous mitigation planning provisions and replacing them with a new set of requirements that emphasize the need and creates incentives for state, tribal, and local agencies to closely coordinate mitigation planning and implementation efforts. This Act reinforces the importance of pre-disaster infrastructure mitigation planning to reduce disaster losses nationwide and the streamlining of the administration of Federal disaster relief and programs to promote mitigation activities. Some of the major provisions of this Act include:
Funding pre-disaster mitigation activities
Developing experimental multi-hazard maps to better understand risk Establishing state and local government infrastructure mitigation planning requirements Defining how states can assume more responsibility in managing the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
Adjusting ways in which management costs for projects are funded The mitigation planning provisions outlined in Section 322 of this Act establish performance-based standards for mitigation plans and require states to have a public assistance program (Advance Infrastructure Mitigation [AIM]) to develop county government plans. The consequence for counties that fail to develop an infrastructure mitigation plan is the chance of a reduced Federal share of damage assistance from 75 percent to 25 percent if the damaged facility has been damaged on more than one occasion in the preceding 10-year period by the same type of event. b. State Policies
Fire Services
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration In accordance with California Code of Regulations Title 8 §1270 "Fire Prevention" and §6773 "Fire Protection and Fire Equipment" the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hose sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all fire-fighting and emergency medical equipment. 2010 California Strategic Fire Plan (Fire Plan)
The Fire Plan is a cooperative effort between the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. By placing the emphasis on what needs to be done before a fire starts, the Fire Plan looks to reduce firefighting costs and property losses, increase firefighter safety, and to contribute to overall ecosystem health. The central goals that are critical to reducing and preventing the impacts of fire revolve around both suppression efforts and fire prevention efforts. The Fire Plan addresses:
Improved availability and use of information on hazard and risk assessment ATTACHMENT 10 -234
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.9-6
Land use planning: Development of wildland and Wildland Urban Interface protection policies, incorporating minimum key elements of a fire safe community, and promote the consolidation of project-level land use planning and wildland fire occurrence data Shared vision among communities and the multiple fire protection jurisdictions, including county-based plans and community-based plans such as Community Wildfire Protection Plans Establishing fire resistance in assets at risk, such as homes and neighborhoods Shared vision among multiple fire protection jurisdictions and agencies Levels of fire suppression and related services
Post-fire recovery
California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9, California Code of Regulations) The California Fire Code incorporates the Uniform Fire Code (UFC) with necessary California amendments. This Code prescribes regulations consistent with nationally recognized good practices for the safeguarding, to a reasonable degree, of life and property from the hazards of fire explosion.
It also addresses dangerous conditions arising from the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials and devices; conditions hazardous to life or property in the use or occupancy of buildings or premises; and provisions to assist emergency response personnel.
California Building Code
The 2019 California Building Code (CBC) became effective January 1, 2017, including Part 9 of Title 24, the California Fire Code. Section 701A.3.2 of the CBC requires that new buildings located in any Fire Hazard Severity Zone in State Responsibility Areas, any Local Agency Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, or any Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area designated by the enforcing agency for which an application for a building permit is submitted, comply with all sections of the Chapter.
California Health and Safety Code (Sections 13000 et seq.) This Code establishes State fire regulations, including regulations for building standards (also set forth in the California Building Code), fire protection and notification systems, fire protection devices such as extinguishers and smoke alarms, high-rise building and childcare facility standards, and fire suppression training.
California 2015 Emergency Services Act
The State passed legislation authorizing the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to prepare a Standard Emergency Management System (SEMS) program, which sets forth measures by which a jurisdiction should handle emergency disasters. Non-compliance with SEMS could result in the State withholding disaster relief from the non-complying jurisdiction in the event of an emergency disaster.
Police Services
California Penal Code
All law enforcement agencies within the State of California are organized and operated in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Penal Code. This code sets forth the authority, rules of conduct, and training for peace officers. Under State law, all sworn municipal and county officers are state peace officers.
ATTACHMENT 10 -235
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-7
California Constitution Article XIII, Section 35
Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution was adopted by the voters in 1993 under Proposition 172. Proposition 172 directed the proceeds of a 0.50-percent sales tax to be expended exclusively for local public safety services. California Government Code Sections 30051-30056 provide rules to implement Proposition 172. Public safety services include police protection. Section 30056 provides that cities are not allowed to spend less of their own financial resources on their combined public safety services in any given year compared to the 1992-93 fiscal year. Therefore, an agency is required to use Proposition 172 to supplement its local funds used on police protection, as well as other public safety services. Section 35 at subdivision (a)(2) provides: “The protection of public safety is the first responsibility of local government and local officials have an obligation to give priority to the provision of adequate public safety services.” In City of Hayward v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 833, the court found that Section 35 of Article XIII of the California Constitution requires local agencies to provide public safety services, including police protection, and that it is reasonable to conclude that the city will comply with that provision to ensure that public safety services are provided.
School Services
California Government Code Section 65995 (California Government Code, Title 7, Chapter 4.9)
California Government Code Section 65995 authorizes school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential and commercial/industrial building space. Section 65995 was established under the School Facilities Act of 1986 and refined and amended by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (SB 50) to provide further guidance and restrictions on fee limits and fee types. The maximum fees authorized under SB 50 apply to zone changes, general plan amendments, zoning permits and subdivisions. The payment of school impact fees by developers are deemed to provide full and complete mitigation of school facilities impacts, notwithstanding any contrary provisions in CEQA or other State or local laws. BUSD determines fees annually in accordance with California Government Code Section 65995.
Comprehensive School Safety Plan
It Comprehensive School Safety Plan’s intent that all California public schools that offer kindergarten and/or grades 1 through 12 that are inclusive and that are operated by school districts develop a comprehensive school safety plan that addresses the safety concerns identified through a systematic planning process. The schools must work in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies, community leaders, parents, pupils, teachers, administrators, and other persons who may be interested in the prevention of campus crime and violence (California Education Code, Title 1, §32280).
California Education Code
Educational services and school facilities are subject to the rules and regulations of the California Education Code, the California Department of Education (CDE) and governance of the State Board of Education (CBE) (Gov. Code Section 33000, et seq.). The CDE is the government agency responsible for public education throughout the State. With the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the CDE is responsible for enforcing education law and regulations and for continuing to reform and improve public elementary school, secondary school, childcare programs, adult education, and ATTACHMENT 10 -236
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.9-8
preschool programs. The CDE oversees funding, and student testing and achievement levels for all state schools. A sector of the CDE, the SBE is the 11-member governing and policymaking body of the California Department of Education (CDE) that sets Kindergarten through 12th Grade (K–12) education policy in the areas of standards, instructional materials, assessment, and accountability.
The State also provides funding through a combination of sales and income taxes. In addition, pursuant to Proposition 98, the State is also responsible for the allocation of educational funds that are acquired from property taxes. Further, the governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any construction within the boundaries of the district, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities.
Senate Bill 50
The Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (known as the Greene Act), enacted in 1998, is a program for funding school facilities largely based on matching funds. For new school construction, grants provide funding on a 50/50 State and local match basis. For school modernization, grants provide funding on a 60/40 State and local match basis. Districts that are unable to provide some, or all, of the local match requirement and are able to meet the financial hardship provisions may be eligible for additional State funding.
The Greene Act permits the local district to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any development project within its boundaries, for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of school facilities. The Act also sets a maximum level of fees a developer may be required to pay. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65996, the payment of these fees by a developer serves to mitigate all potential impacts on school facilities that may result from implementation of a project to a less-than-significant level.
Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998
Proposition 1A, the Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998 (Ed. Code, Section 100400–100405) is a school construction funding measure that was approved by the voters on the November 3, 1998 ballot. This Act created the School Facility Program where eligible school districts may obtain state bond funds. c. Local Regulations
Burbank Development Impact Fees
The City of Burbank requires the payment of development impact fees (DIFs) that are meant to offset the impacts of new developments on City facilities. As stated in BMC Article 22, Community Facility Fees (also known as DIFs) are collected for the purpose of financing capital improvements within the following categories: transportation improvement fees, library fees, park and recreation fees (except fees charged in lieu of park land dedication pursuant to Government Code Section 66477), police fees, and fire fees. Per BMC Section 10-1-2204, Definitions, DIFs are collected for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of certain capital improvements related to a development project. Per BMC Section 10-1-2208, DIFs shall be used exclusively for the capital improvements for which the development fees were collected. These fees do not usurp Park and Recreation fees charged in lieu of park land dedication pursuant to Government Code Section 66477, Quimby Act. The current rates for DIFs are specified within Article VIII, Electrical and Building ATTACHMENT 10 -237
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-9
Permits, Section 3, Development Impact Fees, of the City’s Adopted Citywide Fee Schedule. Fees are determined at a rate per square foot; the square footage of the development determines the total fee to be paid. A portion of development fees collected by the City are distributed to public facilities, including fire protection facilities, library facilities, parks and recreation facilities, and police protection facilities.
Burbank Fire Department Plan Checks and Building Inspections Fire system plan checks are required and performed by the BFD Fire Prevention Bureau for all commercial and residential occupancies. Plan checks of fire systems include automatic fire sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, and architectural plan reviews. Fire system plans must be submitted by a contractor who has paid the Contractor’s City Business Tax.
The BFD Fire Prevention Bureau is also responsible for conducting life safety inspections of new building construction, building tenant improvements or re-models, fire sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems and special protection systems for compliance with the California Fire Code as amended by the BMC. The fee for these inspections must be paid by the project applicant.
Burbank Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 2 – Fire Prevention This City code section discusses fire prevention and building regulations as they apply to fire prevention. The section points to the California Fire Code as a reference.
City of Burbank Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (2011)
The hazard mitigation plan addresses natural hazards such as wind storms, localized stormwater drainage floods, earthquakes, fires, landslides, and major floods. The Plan is designed to meet requirements set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding FEMA funding for mitigation projects.
Burbank2035 General Plan
The Burbank2035 General Plan Safety Element’s main objective is to introduce safety considerations into the planning process to reduce the potential loss for life, injuries, damage to property, or economic and social dislocation resulting from fire, geologic hazard, or seismic hazards. The Safety Element’s discussion of fire services is generally geared toward planning for effective confrontation of wildfires (Burbank2035 2013).
Table 4.9-2 details specific policies relating to fire protection, police protection, crime prevention, and open space and conservation within the General Plan’s Safety Element and Open Space and Conservation Element.
ATTACHMENT 10 -238
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.9-10
Table 4.9-2 Burbank2035 General Plan Policies Relating to Public Services General Plan Policy Description of Policy
Police Protection
Policy 2.1 Maintain an average police response time of less than 4 minutes to emergency calls for service.
Policy 2.2 Ensure adequate staffing, facilities, equipment, technology, and funding for the Burbank Police Department to meet existing and projected service demands and response times.
Policy 2.3 Provide and use up-to-date technology to improve crime prevention.
Policy 2.4 Develop and support crime prevention programs throughout the city, including the Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) and Neighborhood Watch programs.
Policy 2.5 Provide public education from neighborhood safety programs to encourage active participation by Burbank residents and businesses.
Crime Prevention
Policy 3.1 Adapt to changing safety needs of the community.
Policy 3.2 Reduce opportunities for criminal activity through physical design standards such as CPTED and youth programs, recreation opportunities, education programs, and counseling services.
Fire Protection
Policy 4.1 Maintain a maximum response time of 5 minutes for fire suppression services. Require new development to ensure that fire response times and service standards are maintained.
Policy 4.2 Provide adequate staffing, equipment, technology, and funding for the Burbank Fire Department to meet existing and projected service demands and response times.
Policy 4.3 Implement fire prevention and suppression programs in areas of high fire hazard risk, including both urban and wildland areas.
Policy 4.4 Maintain adequate fire breaks in areas within and adjacent to areas of high wildfire risk.
Policy 4.5 Coordinate firefighting efforts with local, state, and federal agencies.
Policy 4.6 Reduce fire hazards associated with older buildings, multi-story structures, and industrial facilities.
Policy 4.7 Maintain adequate fire suppression capability in areas of intensifying urban development, as well as areas where urban uses and open spaces mix.
Open Space and Conservation
Policy 2.1 Identify areas of the city that are currently underserved and focus park expansion and open space acquisition in these areas.
Policy 2.2 Provide a community or neighborhood park within 1/2 mile of all Burbank residences.
Policy 2.3 Provide park and recreation facilities at a minimum level of 3 acres per 1,000 persons, with the goal of 5 acres per 1,000 persons.
Policy 2.4 Seek opportunities to develop additional parks and open space in areas where needed, including pocket parks, dog parks, athletic fields, amphitheaters, gardens, and shared facilities.
Policy 3.1 Improve and rehabilitate existing parks and recreation facilities.
Policy 3.2 Improve existing athletic fields with lights, equipment, and seating.
Policy 3.3 Develop a clear and unified system of identification and directional signs for all park and recreation facilities.
Policy 3.4 Provide low-maintenance, vandal-resistant parks, recreation facilities, and equipment.
Policy 3.5 Provide adequate lighting in parking areas to ensure user safety.
ATTACHMENT 10 -239
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-11
General Plan Policy Description of Policy
Policy 3.6 Improve and maintain access to accommodate persons with disabilities at all parks.
Policy 3.7 Ensure that the public transit system connects parks and recreation facilities to the rest of the community.
Policy 4.1 Provide a variety of arts, cultural, historical, fitness, and environmental education programs at parks and recreation facilities.
Policy 4.2 Enhance and expand existing recreation programs in response to changing community demographics and needs.
Policy 4.3 Continue the joint use of facilities owned by the Burbank Unified School District.
Policy 4.4 Continue the use of “drop-in” centers in existing and future recreation facilities.
Policy 4.5 Ensure that buildings, equipment, fields, and other recreation amenities are in full use and capable of accommodating changing program demands.
Source: Burbank 2013
4.9.3 Environmental Impacts
a. Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of significance are based on the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed Project (Appendix B) determined that a potentially significant impact might occur under the following threshold and therefore will be analyzed in this section of the EIR.
1. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for or provision of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other objectives for:
a. Fire protection
b. Police protection
c. Schools
d. Parks
e. Other public facilities (such as libraries)
b. Methodology
This analysis considers the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds, as described above, in determining whether the proposed Project, including future development accommodated by the Housing Element Update, would result in impacts related to the provision of public services. The evaluation was based on reviewing the regulations and determining their applicability to the proposed Project. Public services information was acquired through review of relevant documents, questionnaires sent to the BUSD and other service providers, and consultation with City staff, BFD, BPD, and BUSD. The determination that the proposed Project would or would not result in "substantial" adverse effects concerning public services considers the relevant policies and regulations established by local and regional agencies, the proposed Project’s compliance with such policies, and whether the Project would create the need for new or expanded facilities, the construction of which could result in environmental impacts.
ATTACHMENT 10 -240
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.9-12
In City of Hayward v. Trustees of California State University (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 833, the Court of Appeal held that significant impacts under CEQA consist of adverse changes in any of the physical conditions within the area of a project and potential impacts on public safety services are not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project applicant to mitigate: “[T]he obligation to provide adequate fire and emergency medical services is the responsibility of the city. (Cal. Const., art. XIII, § 35, subd. (a)(2) [“The protection of the public safety is the first responsibility of local government and local officials have an obligation to give priority to the provision of adequate public safety services.”].) Thus, the need for additional fire and police protection services is not an environmental impact that CEQA requires a project proponent to mitigate.
Generation rates for the potential future elementary, middle, and high school students assumed as part of the proposed Project was based on the 2020 BUSD School Fee Justification Study.
Generation rates for multi-family residential units include: 0.1039 for elementary school students (grades K-5), 0.0547 for middle school students (grades 6-8), and 0.0818 for high school students (grades 9-12).
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1a: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-1 DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD RESULT IN
AN INCREASE IN POPULATION IN THE CITY, WHICH WOULD INCREASE DEMAND FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES, RESULTING IN THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL AND/OR EXPANDED FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES. HOWEVER,
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND SALES TAXES WOULD OFFSET HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE DEMAND FOR NEW FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES, THE NEED FOR WHICH WOULD BE DUE TO CUMULATIVE GROWTH IN THE AREA. THE
LOCATIONS OF FUTURE NEW OR EXPANDED FACILITIES IS NOT KNOWN AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WOULD BE SPECULATIVE. HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES AND
REGULATIONS AND COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES WOULD REDUCE POTENTIAL
IMPACTS RELATED TO FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
As discussed in Section 4.8, Population/Housing, housing development accommodated by the Housing Element Update would add an estimated 25,617 residents to the City (based on the average household size in Burbank of 2.45), increasing Burbank’s population from 103,969 to 129,586 persons. Most of this population growth would occur in Burbank’s downtown area and around Hollywood Burbank Airport due to the zone changes proposed in the Downtown Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan area and the Golden State Specific Plan (GSSP) area. This population increase would incrementally increase demand for fire protection services.
Increased development, density, population, and traffic accommodated by the proposed Project would increase calls for service throughout the City for issues including, but not limited to, emergency medical service, structure fires, and traffic collisions. The direct effect on the BFD would include evaluation of staffing and resource deployment to accommodate the increase in call volume throughout the community including all six fire stations. The increase in calls for service directly affects the use, lifespan and deterioration of infrastructure, facilities, and equipment. Additionally, ATTACHMENT 10 -241
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-13
housing development would increase the BFD’s staffing need to fulfill their obligations for fire prevention and safety (Hatch; BFD 2021).
BFD is responsible for enforcing fire codes, providing fire inspections, assisting in planning and enforcing development standards for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), and implementing the Fire Hazard Reduction Program (Brush Clearance) to ensure that a defensible space is incorporated into newly constructed homes within the VHFHSZ (BFD 2021). All development carried out under the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinances requirements for construction, emergency/fire, access, water mains, fire flows, and hydrants, and would be subject to review and approval by the BFD prior to building permit and certificate of occupancy issuance. Development with modern materials and in accordance with current standards, inclusive of fire-resistant materials, fire alarms and detection systems, automatic fire sprinklers, would enhance fire safety and support fire protection services.
Future housing development under the Housing Element Update would be required to submit a service questionnaire to the BFD in conjunction with their applications to ensure fire protection services are available to serve the proposed housing development and would be required to adhere to the 2019 California Fire Code. The City would review future housing development applications to ensure compliance with the established regulatory framework. Additionally, prior to issuance of occupancy permits, applicants of future housing developments would be required to pay City fees for Fire Code plan review and inspections.
General Plan Policies 4.1 through 4.7 are intended to reduce fire risk in the City by allocating resources to meet projected demands and response times, maintaining adequate fire resources areas vulnerable to fires in VHFHSZ and dense urban areas, and coordinating firefighting efforts with other local, state, and federal agencies. The BFD receives its funding through property taxes, fees for service, and grant funding and can fund expanded services as new development occurs. All new development projects would be required to pay fire protection development impact fees to fund additional facilities and equipment. These funds, in addition to General Fund property and sales tax revenues, would help pay for costs associated with the development of new fire stations, if needed, including any required environmental analysis. As a result of new housing and population growth consistent with the Housing Element, the City will consider long term capital facility needs and associated staffing needs to maintain optimal rates of emergency service personnel per capital to ensure continuity of service at levels that protect the public health, safety, and general welfare consistent with CA Constitution Article XIII Section 35 subdivision (a)(2).
Construction of a future fire station or an expansion to an existing station could result in one or more potentially significant impacts. However, no sites have yet been selected by the City. It is anticipated that a future fire station or an expansion to an existing station will be subject to CEQA review at the time a site is identified and a specific design proposed. Additionally, implementation of the Safety Element Update could provide additional improvements regarding emergency access and evacuation beyond the current Safety Element. Therefore, impacts related to the provision of fire services would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
ATTACHMENT 10 -242
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.9-14
Threshold 1b: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Impact PS-2 DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD RESULT
IN AN INCREASE IN POPULATION IN THE CITY, WHICH WOULD INCREASE DEMAND FOR POLICE PROTECTION SERVICES, RESULTING IN THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF AND EQUIPMENT. HOWEVER, CONFORMANCE WITH
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND PROGRAMS RELATED TO POLICE PROTECTION WOULD REQUIRE THE CITY TO
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FUNDING AND ADEQUATE STAFFING, FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY TO MEET EXISTING AND PROJECTED SERVICE DEMANDS AND RESPONSE TIMES. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As discussed in Section 4.8, Population/Housing, housing development accommodated by the Housing Element Update would add an estimated 25,617 residents to the City, increasing Burbank’s population from 103,969 to 129,586 persons. Based on BPD’s current staffing level of 160 sworn officers, the BPD’s officer/resident ratio would drop from 1.54 to approximately 1.23 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. This ratio is below the City’s goal of 1.55.
Policies 2.1 and 2.2 in Burbank’s Safety Element require the BPD to ensure that there is adequate staffing, facilities, equipment, technology, and funding to meet existing services demands and maintain an average response time of four minutes to emergency calls for service. There are no proposed updates to police protection policies in the Safety Element update. Additional demand for police service would be accommodated through the expansion of policy personnel and facilities to continue to meet the BPD’s service standards. New facilities would be required to comply with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and policies discussed in this EIR. Police protection service levels would continue to be evaluated and maintained by BPD in accordance with existing policies, procedures and practices as development occurs over the lifetime of the Housing Element Update. Future housing developers would be required to submit a service questionnaire to the BPD in conjunction with their applications to ensure that police protection services are available to serve the proposed housing development. Additionally, new development projects would be required to pay police protection development impact fees to help fund additional facilities and equipment.
These funds, in addition to General Fund property and sales tax revenues, would help pay for costs associated with the development of new police stations, if needed, including any required environmental analysis.
Planning for new or physically altered BPD stations is based on an assessment of the cumulative need for new facilities. The proposed Project itself would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities. The incremental contribution to demand for increased BPD protection services would be offset by payment of proportionate property taxes and sales taxes and development impact fees to the City of Burbank by developers and the addition of new residents.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
ATTACHMENT 10 -243
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-15
Threshold 1c: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-3 DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD RESULT IN
AN INCREASE IN POPULATION IN THE PLANNING AREA, RESULTING IN THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL AND/OR EXPANDED SCHOOL FACILITIES. HOWEVER, GOVERNMENT CODE 65995 (B) WOULD REQUIRE FUNDING FOR THE PROVISION OR EXPANSION OF NEW SCHOOL FACILITIES TO OFFSET IMPACTS FROM NEW RESIDENTIAL.
ADDITIONALLY, ACCOMMODATING GROWTH PURSUANT TO THE RHNA MAY REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE RATE OF INTER-DISTRICT PERMITS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The proposed Project would not directly affect local schools but would generate new students entering the BUSD. Implementation of the proposed Project would add an estimated 25,617 residents and some of those residents would be school-aged children. Based on student generation rates for the BUSD, the proposed Project could generate an estimated 6,158 students, including 2,662 elementary school students (grades K-5), 1,401 middle school students (grade 6-8), and 2,095 high school students (grades 9-12).1 As shown in Table 4.9-1, enrollment capacity in the BUSD as of school years 2020 and 2021 would not adequately accommodate additional students assumed as part of the proposed Project. However, to offset a project’s potential impact to schools as discussed in Regulatory Setting, Government Code 65995 (b) establishes the base amount of allowable developer fees a school district can collect from development projects located within its boundaries.
The fees obtained by BUSD are used to maintain the desired school capacity and the maintenance and/or development of new school facilities. Any development facilitated by the proposed Housing Element Update and associated rezonings would be subject to these State-mandated school impact fees and collected at the time of building permit issuance. Pursuant to Section 65995 (3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the payment of statutory fees “is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization.” Additionally, BUSD utilizes an inter-district permit policy to keep overall enrollment and average daily attendance numbers at levels sufficient to maintain the level of funding necessary for ongoing operations of schools, including staffing, supplies, and programming. Between 2016 and 2021, the District’s resident-based enrollment decreased by approximately 5.3 percent (a decrease of 745 students); during the same period, there was an increase in the number of inter-district permits that the District issued to address the decrease and sustain necessary average daily attendance. BUSD will continue to evaluate demand, capacity, and plans for facility needs as future projects under the Housing Element are built out, including any required adjustments to the number of inter-district permits relative to new student population generated from additional housing development in the City.
There are no planned improvements to add capacity through expansion. To accommodate additional students brought into the District from new housing development(s), BUSD would place students at other District schools in the event their home school enrollment was at capacity (Kukta 2021). It is important to note that student daily attendance has a direct effect on State funds in the form of “average daily attendance numbers.” The average daily attendance for individual schools
1 Generation rates based on the 2020 Burbank Unified School District (BUSD) School Fee Justification Study. Generation rates for multi - family residential units include: 0.1039 for elementary school students (grades K-5), 0.0547 for middle school students (grades 6-8), and
0.0818 for high school students (grades 9-12).
ATTACHMENT 10 -244
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.9-16
and the district as a whole can affect the availability of state money received to help fund daily operations that include school staffing needs. In the event that BUSD constructs a new school or physically alter an existing facility, a project-specific environmental analysis would be required under CEQA to address site-specific environmental concerns. As described above, existing laws and regulations would require funding for the provision or expansion of new school facilities to offset impacts from new residential development and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Threshold 1d: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Impact PS-4 DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD RESULT
IN AN INCREASE IN POPULATION IN THE CITY, WHICH WOULD INCREASE DEMAND FOR PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES. HOWEVER, CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND PROGRAMS RELATED TO OPEN
SPACE WOULD REQUIRE PROVISION OF NEW PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND ONGOING PARKLAND MAINTENANCE TO PREVENT DETERIORATION. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As identified in the Burbank2035 General Plan, the City contains 26 parks that total approximately 732 acres of parkland. Stough Canyon Park and Wildwood Canyon Park are the two largest parks in the City. They each serve as recreational and cultural focal points for the community at large.
General Plan Policy 2.3 establishes a minimum level of 3 acres per 1,000 persons, with a goal of 5 acres per 1,000 persons. The Housing Element Update would add an estimated 25,617 residents to the City, increasing Burbank’s population from 103,969 to 129,586 persons. With this increased population, the parkland ratio would decrease from 7.0 acres of parkland for every 1,000 Burbank residents to 5.6 acres of parkland for every 1,000 Burbank residents. Therefore, service ratios would still be above the General Plan goal.
Policies in Burbank’s Open Space and Conservation Element would ensure that adequate parks and recreational facilities are provided to accommodate the anticipated increase in new residents. Policy
2.2 establishes a standard to provide a community or neighborhood park within ½ mile of all residences in the city. Policy 2.4 encourages the City to provide additional types of park facilities such as pocket parks, dog parks, athletic fields, amphitheaters, gardens, and shared facilities.
Policies 3.1 through 3.6 provide specific guidance to the City to maintain existing parks and recreation facilities by rehabilitating facilities, installing improvements (e.g., field lighting). Program OSC-2 requires the development of a Park, Recreation, and Community Services Master Plan which would direct long-term acquisition, operation, management, and programming for parks, open spaces, and recreation facilities. The Master Plan is intended to guide the in-lieu fee structure for the acquisition and management of recreation land in connection with the development review process. Program LU-8 would review and revise the community facilities fee program to ensure that new development adequately offsets impacts related to fire, police, library, and park and recreation services. These policies and programs maintain existing levels of service for park and recreation facilities for both existing and new residents, including maintenance to prevent deterioration of existing parks. Implementation of these policies and programs would direct construction of new parks and provide ongoing park maintenance to prevent deterioration of existing facilities. The ATTACHMENT 10 -245
Environmental Impact Analysis
Public Services
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-17
proposed updates to the Safety Element would not directly or indirectly impact park facilities.
Increased demand associated with an increase in population would not significantly accelerate the deterioration of existing park areas or recreational facilities because development would be required to pay the applicable Development Impacts Fees as well as provide on-site private and common open space, consistent with applicable development standards. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Threshold 1e: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives?
Impact PS-5 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN POPULATION IN THE CITY, WHICH WOULD INCREASE DEMAND FOR OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES, RESULTING IN THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL AND/OR EXPANDED FACILITIES. THE BURBANK LIBRARY WOULD MEET THE CITY’S LIBRARY NEEDS PROJECTED UNDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE.
THEREFORE, IMPACTS RELATED TO THE CITY’S LIBRARY SYSTEM WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As discussed in Section 4.8, Population/Housing, housing development accommodated by the Housing Element Update would increase Burbank’s population from 103,969 to 129,586 persons, an approximately 25 percent increase from the City’s estimated 2021 population. Given that not all new residents would visit the library every month, the increase in monthly visitation would be lower than 25 percent.
The Burbank Public Library has three locations: Central, Buena Vista, and Northwest. These three sites were collectively open 155.5 hours per week. During the 2018-2019 fiscal year, the Burbank Public Library received 720,994 visits to the branches and had 30,000 attendees in 615 programs (Burbank Public Library 2020). Compared to other libraries in the region (Glendale, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Thousand Oaks, Torrance), Burbank is low on space (ranks 5 of 6 at 0.74 square feet per capita, with only Torrance lower) and is moderately well-staffed (ranks 3 of 6 at 0.60 staff FTE per 1,000 population, slightly ahead of Thousand Oaks and Torrance). A less than 25 percent increase in monthly visitation would warrant the need for additional and/or expanded facilities.
While a less than 25 percent increase would be a large increase to the usage of the libraries, this is in line with SCAG’s growth projections for the area and the growth is also anticipated to occur over the next eight years and would not occur all at once. Additionally, Program LU-8 in the Burbank General Plan provides development impact fees for libraries. As mentioned under Impact PS-1, impacts from development would be offset by payment of development impact fees in addition to property taxes and sales taxes to the City. Additionally, potential environmental impacts related to the construction of new or expanded library facilities would be assessed on a project-specific level under CEQA. Therefore, Housing Element Update impacts to public library facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
ATTACHMENT 10 -246
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.9-18
4.9.4 Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in the Impact Analysis, the addition of approximately 25,617 new residents to the City would not significantly reduce service times or ratios experienced to fire protection, police protection, schools, or other associated public facilities such as libraries. Additionally, the increase of approximately 25,617 new residents would not reduce recreation land service ratios below five acres per 1,000 persons. This increase would not exacerbate the existing need for new or expanded recreational facilities over time. In the absence of new parks, the citywide and regional population (i.e. surrounding cities and unincorporated areas) increase would increase park demand and therefore would be expected to accelerate the deterioration of existing parks, which would be a potentially significant cumulative impact.
As discussed under Impacts PS-1, PS-2, PS-3 and PS-5 reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update could increase demand for fire protection and emergency medical services; would increase demand for police protection service; would increase demand for public facilities such as libraries; and would likely result in an increase in student enrollment that exceeds overall district capacity. However, development impact fees and property taxes collected from potential housing development proposed under the Housing Element Update would go towards any necessary facility upkeep or expansion. Therefore, the increase to these services would not constitute a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to the deterioration of acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services listed above. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
As discussed under Impact PS-4, reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would not result in a potentially significant impact related to the deterioration of existing parks or open space serving the urban areas, since there is adequate space to provide sufficient recreational acreage to meet the projected increase in demand for parks based on the City’s adopted standards. Therefore, this would not constitute a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact related to park deterioration, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Based on the above information, the incremental effect of the Housing Element Update with respect to the deterioration of public services and recreation facilities would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 10 -247
Environmental Impact Analysis
Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-1
4.10 Recreation
This section analyzes the potential impacts on and from recreational resources resulting from implementation of the Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update (proposed Project) using information from the Burbank2035 General Plan and Municipal Code (BMC).
4.10.1 Environmental Setting
a. Existing Conditions
The Housing and Safety Element Update would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City, which encompasses 17.1 square miles. Burbank is located in the central portion of Los Angeles County, approximately 12 miles north of downtown Los Angeles. The northeastern part of the City is located along the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains and the western edge of the City is located near the eastern part of the San Fernando Valley. The City is bisected by the Interstate 5 (I-5) and is adjacent to the developed areas of the cities of Los Angeles and Glendale.
The City of Burbank Parks and Recreation Department owns and operates parks and recreational facilities throughout the City. These include 26 park sites, totaling approximately 732 acres (City of Burbank 2013). The types of parks in the City range from smaller “pocket” parks to regional parks.
The breakdown of these park classifications is based primarily on size, as listed below. Figure 4.10-1 provides a map of all the parks in the City.
Pocket parks – based on acreage totals for parks which are less than 1 acre in size Neighborhood parks – based on acreage totals for parks which are 1 – 10 acres in size Community parks – based on acreage totals for parks which are 10 – 50 acres in size Regional parks – based on acreage totals for parks which are 50+ acres in size While pocket and neighborhood parks are generally meant to serve the areas adjacent to these parks, residents often use parks, parkland, and recreational facilities in areas outside of their general community. A breakdown of parks, recreational, and open space totals within City limits is shown in Table 4.10-1.
Table 4.10-1 City of Burbank Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Park Type Total Acreage
Acres per
1,000 Persons Recommended Ratio1
Meets
Recommended Ratio?
Pocket 2.02 0.02 0.04 No
Neighborhood 55.43 0.52 1.5 No
Community 70.83 0.67 2.0 No
Regional 603.57 5.69 8.0 No
Total 731.85 6.9
1 Acres per 1,000 residents
Service levels recommended by National Recreation and Park Association Source: City of Burbank 2013
ATTACHMENT 10 -248
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.10-2
Figure 4.10-1 Parks in the City of Burbank
ATTACHMENT 10 -249
Environmental Impact Analysis
Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-3
The City’s Burbank2035 General Plan has a citywide parkland level of service goal of five acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. Based on the current 2021 citywide population of 103,969 persons (California Department of Finance [DOF] 2021) and a total of approximately 732 available acres of parkland, the City currently provides approximately seven acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
Total park acreage includes regional parks, recreation centers, pools and bathhouses, senior centers, lakes, trails, picnic areas, and playgrounds. As shown in Table 4.10-2, available parkland currently meets the City’s parkland level of service goal.
Table 4.10-2 City of Burbank Parkland Ratio
Total Existing
Parkland Acres1 Population2
Acres per
1,000 Persons Goal Meets Goal?
732 103,969 7.0 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons Yes 1 City of Burbank 2013
2 DOF 2021
As shown in Table 4.10-1, there are approximately 732 acres of recreational space in the City, including pocket, neighborhood, community, and regional parks. The City has two regional parks, Stough Canyon Park and Wildwood Canyon Park, which are both located in the Verdugo Mountains and comprise the majority of parkland in the City. These two regional parks are undeveloped open space providing passive recreational opportunities including trails and observation points. The rugged topography of these regional parks makes it difficult to develop any recreation buildings or sports fields. Moreover, the location of these two regional parks in the Verdugo Mountains makes them less accessible to most Burbank residents, who generally live in flatter, more developed portions of the City. As stated in the Burbank2035’s General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, without including the two regional parks in the calculation of parkland acreage ratio, the ratio would be 1.2 acres per 1,000 residents, which is considered low by most nationally accepted parkland standards (City of Burbank 2013).
Burbank is a largely built out city, which makes locating new parks difficult. As stated in the Burbank2035’s General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, the City will prioritize new parks in locations where residences are not located within 1/2 mile of a park, to the extent feasible, and will seek vacant and underutilized lots as they become available, and as funding allows. In addition, the City will prioritize accessibility as a major factor in the selection of future park sites to prevent locations that are inaccessible, lack usable open space, or otherwise constrained (City of Burbank 2013). Established City standards included in the Burbank2035’s General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element for the acquisition of new parkland include:
The service area should not be divided by natural or human‐made barriers such as arterial highways, railroads, freeways, and commercial or industrial areas that would render the site inaccessible or undesirable as a park.
Neighborhood parks should be located adjacent to elementary schools whenever possible. The primary consideration should be whether the existing school has adequate play space to serve both its educational needs and the needs of the neighborhood for playground space. The site for a community park should be of sufficient size to include a recreation building unless adjacent school facilities can be designated to serve public uses when school is not in session. Neighborhood parks should have street frontage. If a park is located where adjacent streets are insufficient for parking, the site should have a parking lot. Community park sites should be readily accessible from pedestrian and bicycle routes.
ATTACHMENT 10 -250
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.10-4
All neighborhood and community park sites should be accessible by foot or by bicycle.
4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State
Quimby Act
The Quimby Act was established by the California legislature in 1965 to provide parks for growing communities in California. The Act authorizes cities to adopt ordinances addressing park land and/or fees for residential subdivisions for the purpose of providing and preserving open space and recreational facilities and improvements. The Act requires the provision of three acres of park area per 1,000 persons residing within a subdivision, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area exceeds that limit, in which case the City may adopt a higher standard not to exceed five acres per 1,000 residents. The Act also specifies acceptable uses and expenditures of such funds.
State Public Park Preservation Act
The primary instrument for protecting and preserving parkland is the State Public Park Preservation Act. Under the Public Resource Code, cities and counties may not acquire any real property that is in use as a public park for any non-park use unless compensation or land, or both, are provided to replace the parkland acquired. This provides for no net loss of parkland or facilities. b. Local
Burbank2035 General Plan
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the Burbank2035 General Plan includes several objectives, policies, and actions relating to recreational open space as listed below:
Goal 2: Parks, open space and recreation facilities contribute to the high quality of life enjoyed by Burbank residents and the economic value of the community.
Policy 2.1: Identify areas of the City that are currently underserved and focus park expansion and open space acquisition in these areas.
Policy 2.2: Provide a community or neighborhood park within 1/2 mile of all Burbank residences.
Policy 2.3: Provide park and recreation facilities at a minimum level of 3 acres per 1,000 persons, with the goal of 5 acres per 1,000 persons.
Policy 2.4: Seek opportunities to develop additional parks and open space in areas where needed, including pocket parks, dog parks, athletic fields, amphitheaters, gardens, and shared facilities.
Goal 3: Parks and recreation facilities are improved and maintained to ensure they meet the needs of the community.
Policy 3.1: Improve and rehabilitate existing parks and recreation facilities.
Policy 3.2: Improve existing athletic fields with lights, equipment, and seating.
Policy 3.3: Develop a clear and unified system of identification and directional signs for all park and recreation facilities.
ATTACHMENT 10 -251
Environmental Impact Analysis
Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-5
Policy 3.4: Provide low‐maintenance, vandal‐resistant parks, recreation facilities, and equipment.
Policy 3.5: Provide adequate lighting in parking areas to ensure user safety.
Policy 3.6: Improve and maintain access to accommodate persons with disabilities at all parks.
Policy 3.7: Ensure that the public transit system connects parks and recreation facilities to the rest of the community.
Goal 4: Burbank provides a variety of recreation opportunities that meet the needs of all members of the community.
Policy 4.1: Provide a variety of arts, cultural, historical, fitness, and environmental education programs at parks and recreation facilities.
Policy 4.2: Enhance and expand existing recreation programs in response to changing community demographics and needs.
Policy 4.3: Continue the joint use of facilities owned by the Burbank Unified School District.
Policy 4.4: Continue the use of “drop-in” centers in existing and future recreation facilities.
Policy 4.5: Ensure that buildings, equipment, fields, and other recreation amenities are in full use and capable of accommodating changing program demands.
Goal 5: Parks, trails, and open spaces are connected within the city and to regional open spaces.
Policy 5.1: Develop a comprehensive trails network linking hiking, biking, and equestrian trails to parks and open spaces both within and outside the city.
Policy 5.4: Require that new development projects provide public access to adjacent open space areas.
Burbank Municipal Code (BMC)
Under BMC Article 13, Section 11-1-1301, developers of most residential development projects requesting a subdivision or a zone change are required to either dedicate land for recreation and park purposes, pay an in-lieu fee as designated in the Burbank Fee Resolution, or do both. The in- lieu fees need to be spent on providing park and recreation facilities to serve the development that paid the fee.
4.10.3 Impacts Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the Housing and Safety Element Update would have a significant impact related to parks and recreational facilities if it would:
1. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment As discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix B), the proposed Project would not 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. Therefore, this impact was found to be less than significant and is not discussed further.
ATTACHMENT 10 -252
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.10-6
b. Methodology
The recreation analysis focuses on determining whether development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would create the need for new parks, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts. This analysis calculates the projected parkland ratio for Burbank under the Housing and Safety Element Update using the 2021 DOF persons/household ratio and population data for Burbank, the projected housing units under the proposed Project, and Burbank’s total parkland acreage, and compares it to the City’s goal of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents to assess whether the proposed Project would result in the need for new park facilities.
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: 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?
Impact REC-1 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE HOUSING AND SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE MAY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION OF ADDITIONAL PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, BUT IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES CONTAINED IN THE BURBANK2035 GENERAL PLAN AND BMC WOULD AVOID OR ADEQUATELY MITIGATE ADVERSE PHYSICAL EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would increase the population of the City by an estimated 25,617 residents by 20291, resulting in a total City population of approximately 129,586 residents and a parkland ratio of 5.6 acres per 1,000 residents. This ratio would still meet the City’s goal of five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. However, the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Burbank2035 General Plan establishes a requirement for three acres of new parkland per 1,000 new residents. This requirement applies to large residential developments and would result in parkland dedications, improvements, or in-lieu payments if a project applicant is not able to dedicate land or the land is considered unsuitable for park or recreation use (BMC 2021).
The proposed Project includes large residential developments that would need to comply with this requirement. Figures 2-3 and 2-4 in Section 2, Project Description indicate the locations of approved and pending projects and housing opportunities under the Housing and Safety Element Update.
Based on these figures, parks located in/near the Downtown District, Golden State Specific Plan District, and the southwest corner of the City would be most impacted by the proposed Project. A majority of the large residential development sites under the Housing and Safety Element Update are located within a quarter- or half-mile of an existing community, neighborhood, or pocket park.
The Valhalla (678 units) and Empire (581 units) Golden State Specific Plan housing opportunity sites are adjacent to the Pacific Park and Robert E. Gross Park, respectively. Furthermore, the Burbank Town Center (1,020 units) Downtown housing opportunity site and the Lima/Avon (334 units) and North Hollywood Way (505 units) Golden State Specific Plan housing opportunity sites are not located within a quarter- or half-mile of an existing community, neighborhood, or pocket park. As previously discussed in Section 4.10.1, Environmental Setting, the City is largely built out, which makes locating new parks difficult. Developers of the large residential development projects under the Housing and Safety Element Update would need to provide dedicated parkland on the project site, parkland improvements, or pay in-lieu fees if they are unable to dedicate land or if the land is
1 10,456 (Projected residential units) *2.45 (Persons/household ratio from DOF 2021) ATTACHMENT 10 -253
Environmental Impact Analysis
Recreation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.10-7
considered unsuitable for park or recreation use in order to comply with the Burbank2035 General Plan’s requirement of three acres of new parkland per 1,000 new residents.
Construction and operational impacts to air, noise, and traffic, as well as other impacts of new developments are discussed throughout this EIR. Impacts from the construction of new or expanded parks in the City would be similar to those identified in this EIR for construction or operations.
Similar to other types of development, the construction of new or expanded park facilities could potentially contribute to the significant historic resource and construction noise impacts identified in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources, and Section 4.7, Noise, of this EIR.
Construction would be required to adhere to the policies contained in the Burbank2035 General Plan and BMC. Policies include noise control during construction and operation of the project, air pollutant reduction by incorporating best available air quality and greenhouse gas mitigation in project design, and the prohibition of development that jeopardizes the integrity of sensitive or protected plant and animal communities. Based on the City’s urban location and the limited land available, the construction or expansion of park facilities would result in less than significant impacts with adherence to the City’s policies and project specific design features.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures would be required, as implementation of the policies contained in the Burbank2035 General Plan and BMC, as well as existing City review processes, would avoid or adequately mitigate potential environmental impacts relating to the development of new parks.
4.10.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic area to analyze cumulatively considerable recreation impacts includes the entire City of Burbank and surrounding areas. Planned cumulative development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would accommodate all planned housing and population growth within the City through 2029. Based on the citywide Project area for the Housing and Safety Element Update, potential Project and cumulative impacts would be the same. Overall development intensity would increase throughout the City, which would increase the use of existing parks and would likely result in the construction or expansion of parks. Developers of the large residential developments under the proposed Project would be required to provide parkland dedications, improvements, or in-lieu payments to comply with the Burbank2035 General Plan requirement of three acres of new parkland per 1,000 new residents. Due to the City’s urban location and limited land availability, the construction or expansion of park facilities would likely result in less than significant impacts with adherence to the City’s policies and project specific design features. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative recreation impacts would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 10 -254
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.10-8
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 10 -255
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-1
4.11 Transportation
This section analyzes the potential effects of the Housing Element Update with respect to transportation. Topics addressed in this chapter include the environmental setting, circulation and mobility systems, regulatory framework, thresholds of significance, methodology, and mitigation measures related to transportation impacts.
The analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was prepared based on standard guidance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR’s) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA and interim guidance from the City of Burbank as the lead agency.
This guidance reflects the new State of California requirements that transportation impacts be evaluated based on VMT rather than level of service (LOS) or any other measure of a project’s effect on automobile delay.
4.11.1 Environmental Setting
a. Circulation System
Overview
The study area is defined by the boundaries of the City of Burbank (City), which encompasses 17 square miles. The City is served by a circulation system that facilitates travel by multiple modes, including walking, bicycling, public transit, and motor vehicles, and includes a network of freeways, highways, railways, local streets, and bicycle facilities. The City of Burbank General Plan Mobility Element, discussed in greater depth in the Regulatory Setting section, contains definitions, goals and objectives, and regulatory requirements for a variety of roadway classifications that make up the City’s roadway system.
Regional Access
The roadway network in the City includes two freeways that connect the City to neighboring cities and communities: Interstate 5 in the north-south direction and State Route 134 in the east-west direction. Existing freeways, state highways, and arterial streets are presented in Figure 4.11-1.
Local Roadway Network
The City contains public streets that accommodate motorized vehicles, including private motorized vehicles, taxis, freight vehicles, and transit vehicles. Walking and cycling are also important components of the local roadway network. Most roadways in the city organized on a few grid systems. Below is a brief description of the types of facilities in the City based on the Burbank2035General Plan Mobility Element and Complete Our Streets Plan.1
1 Complete Streets Plan. Adopted June 16, 2020. Available:
https://www.burbankca.gov/web/community-development/complete-streets-plan ATTACHMENT 10 -256
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.11-2
Figure 4.11-1 Existing Regional and Local Roadway Network ATTACHMENT 10 -257
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-3
Major and Secondary Arterial Streets are generally defined as having at least two lanes in each direction along with a median turn lane. The width of Major and Secondary Arterial Streets is usually 68-76 feet with a typical parkway width of 6-16 feet.
Downtown Collectors are generally defined as having one lane in each direction along with a median turn lane. The width of Downtown Collectors is usually 44-60 feet with a typical parkway width of 12-15 feet. Such streets are in the downtown commercial core of the City and prioritize people walking over all other modes.
Neighborhood Collectors or Locals are generally defined as having one lane in each direction and no median turn lane. The width of Neighborhood Collectors or Locals is usually 36 feet with a typical parkway width of 12 feet. Such streets are typically intended for vehicle trips that start or end in the immediate vicinity of the street.
Signalized Intersections and Traffic Control Devices. The City of Burbank’s Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) is a computer-based traffic signal control system that monitors traffic conditions and system performance to allow ITS operations to manage signal timing to improve traffic flow conditions. This system allows monitoring and control of the signals from a central operations center. The importance of linking to the ITS system is the ability to coordinate the signals in relationship with other signals along a travel corridor. Signal coordination minimizes delay due to stops and enhances vehicle flow. In addition, City staff can manually adjust traffic signals remotely from the central operations center to respond to collisions, weather, special events, and other major incidents. The ITS network is located along most arterial streets. The City’s traffic signal system is interconnected with the Los Angeles County traffic signal Information Exchange Network (IEN) and shares information with Los Angeles City and County, and the cities of Glendale and Pasadena. Traffic signal timing is also coordinated with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
Existing arterial streets (Major and Secondary) are illustrated in Figure 4.11-1 along with freeways and state highways.
Public Transit
Transit service is provided by multiple transit operators, including LA Metro, Burbank Bus, Metrolink, Amtrak, and other local operators, with networks connecting communities within and outside the City of Burbank. Figure 4.11-2 illustrates existing transit routes for LA Metro, Burbank Bus, and Metrolink.
Below are brief descriptions of the three primary transit operators that provide service within the City:
LA Metro is the primary transit operator in Los Angeles County, providing bus, light rail, and subway services. LA metro provides Local bus lines within the City of Burbank. Burbank Bus provides additional local bus service within the City of Burbank. The three routes comprising the Burbank Bus system connect key destinations, including: the Media District, two LA Metro subway stations, two Metrolink stations, and the Hollywood Burbank Airport. Metrolink provides commuter rail service throughout the greater Los Angeles region. The Metrolink system includes three stations within the City of Burbank. Metrolink service focuses on the peak commute hours but also provides some off-peak service. Amtrak provides regional and inter-regional rail service via the Pacific Surfliner route and connects San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo.
ATTACHMENT 10 -258
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.11-4
Service is provided to Burbank via the Burbank Airport South Metrolink Station, along with limited stops at the Downtown Burbank Station. Amtrak offers four daily round trips serving Burbank.
ATTACHMENT 10 -259
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-5
Figure 4.11-2 Existing Public Transit Network
ATTACHMENT 10 -260
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.11-6
Bicycle Network and Pedestrian Facilities
The City’s existing bicycle network consists of on- and off-street facilities. Bicycle facilities are defined as off-street bicycle paths (Class I), on-street signed and striped bicycle lanes (Class II), on- street signed bicycle routes (Class III), and protected bicycle lanes or cycle tracks (Class IV). Existing bicycle facilities are presented in Figure 4.11-3.
Pedestrian travel in the City varies based on the circulation network in any given area. Areas that have pedestrian-oriented uses fronting the sidewalk offer a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere whereas other areas characterized by long blocks fronting surface parking lots and auto-oriented uses offer few pedestrian amenities. In general, sidewalks range from 6 to 16 feet wide.
ATTACHMENT 10 -261
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-7
Figure 4.11-3 Existing Bicycle Facilities Network
ATTACHMENT 10 -262
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.11-8
4.11.2 Regulatory Setting
There are several plans, regulations, and programs that include policies, requirements, and guidelines regarding transportation at the Federal, State, regional, and City of Burbank levels. a. Federal Regulations
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990
Titles I, II, III, and V of the ADA have been codified in Title 42 of the United States Code, beginning at Section 12101. Title III prohibits discrimination based on disability in “places of public accommodation” (businesses and non-profit agencies that serve the public) and “commercial facilities” (other businesses). The regulation includes Appendix A through Part 36 (Standards for Accessible Design), establishing minimum standards for ensuring accessibility when designing and constructing a new facility or altering an existing facility. Examples of key guidelines include detectable warnings for pedestrians entering traffic where there is no curb, a clear zone of 48 inches for the pedestrian travel way, and a vibration-free zone for pedestrians. b. State Regulations
Complete Streets Act
Assembly Bill 1358, the Complete Streets Act (Government Code Sections 65040.2 and 65302), was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in September 2008. As of January 1, 2011, the law requires cities and counties, when updating the part of a local general plan that addresses roadways and traffic flows, to ensure that those plans account for the needs of all roadway users.
Specifically, the legislation requires cities and counties to ensure that local roads and streets adequately accommodate the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders, as well as motorists.
At the same time, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which administers transportation programming for the State, unveiled a revised version of Deputy Directive 64 (DD-64- R1 October 2008), an internal policy document that explicitly embraces the Complete Streets Act and its incorporation into all phases of state highway projects, from planning to construction to maintenance and repair.
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375)
With the passage of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the State of California committed itself to reducing statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is coordinating the response to comply with AB 32.
On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Scoping Plan for AB 32. This scoping plan included the approval of SB 375 as the means for achieving regional transportation related GHG targets. SB 375 provides guidance on how curbing emissions from cars and light trucks can help the state comply with AB 32.
There are five major components to SB 375. First, regional GHG emissions targets: CARB’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee guides the adoption of targets to be met by 2020 and 2035 for each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the State. These targets, which MPOs may propose ATTACHMENT 10 -263
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-9
themselves, are updated every eight years in conjunction with the revision schedule of housing and transportation elements.
Second, MPOs are required to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that provides a plan for meeting regional targets. The SCS and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) must be consistent with each other, including action items and financing decisions. If the SCS does not meet the regional target, the MPO must produce an Alternative Planning Strategy that details an alternative plan to meet the target. The RTP and SCS are further described below.
Third, SB 375 requires that regional housing elements and transportation plans be synchronized on 8-year schedules. In addition, Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation numbers must conform to the SCS. If local jurisdictions are required to rezone land as a result of changes in the housing element, rezoning must take place within three years.
Fourth, SB 375 provides CEQA streamlining incentives for preferred development types. Certain residential or mixed-use projects qualify if they conform to the SCS. Transit-oriented developments (TODs) also qualify if they (1) are at least 50 percent residential, (2) meet density requirements, and (3) are within 0.5 mile of a transit stop. The degree of CEQA streamlining is based on the degree of compliance with these development preferences.
Finally, MPOs must use transportation and air emissions modeling techniques consistent with guidelines prepared by the California Transportation Commission (RTC). Regional transportation planning agencies, cities, and counties are encouraged, but not required, to use travel demand models consistent with the CTC guidelines.
California Vehicle Code (CVC)
The CVC provides requirements for ensuring emergency vehicle access regardless of traffic conditions. Sections 21806(a)(1), 21806(a)(2), and 21806(c) define how motorists and pedestrians are required to yield the right-of-way to emergency vehicles.
Senate Bill (SB) 743
On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743, which went into effect in January 2014. SB 743 directed OPR to develop revisions to the CEQA guidelines by July 1, 2014 to establish new criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts and define alternative metrics instead of traffic LOS. This law significantly changes the transportation impact analysis required under CEQA. These changes include elimination of auto delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts for land use projects and plans in California. According to the legislative intent contained in SB 743, these changes to current practice were necessary to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”
On January 20, 2016, OPR released the Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, which was an update to Updating Transportation Impacts Analysis in the CEQA Guidelines, Preliminary Discussion Draft of Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Implementing Senate Bill 743, which had been released on August 6, 2014. Of note was the updated text of the proposed new CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 that relates to the determination of the significance of transportation impacts, alternatives, and mitigation measures.
Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, discussed further below, establishes VMT as the most ATTACHMENT 10 -264
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.11-10
appropriate measure of transportation impacts. In November 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency finalized the updates to the CEQA Guidelines, and the updated guidelines became effective on December 28, 2018.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
As discussed above, recent changes to CEQA include the adoption of Section 15064.3, Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 establishes VMT as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. Generally, land use projects within 0.5 mile of either an existing major transit stop2 or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor3 should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate VMT, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may also use models to estimate VMT and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment supported by substantial evidence. For example, for programmatic planning documents covering a large geographical area (such as the Project), a lead agency may use regional models such as the RTP/SCS SCAG travel demand model since it includes land use and transportation assumptions for specific cities in its jurisdiction and the greater SCAG region. c. Regional Regulations
Southern California Association of Governments 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
In compliance with SB 375, on September 3, 2020, the SCAG Regional Council adopted the Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS), a long-range visioning plan that incorporates land use and transportation strategies to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern while meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets set by the CARB. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS contains baseline socioeconomic projections that are used as the basis for SCAG’s transportation planning, as well as the provision of services by the SCAG six-county region. SCAG policies are directed towards the development of regional land use patterns that contribute to reductions in vehicle miles and improvements to the transportation system.
The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS builds on the long-range vision of SCAG’s prior 2016-2040 RTP/SCS to balance future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. A substantial concentration and share of growth is directed towards Priority Growth Areas (PGAs), which include high-quality transit areas (HQTAs), Transit Priority Areas (TPAs), job centers, Neighborhood Mobility Area (NMAs) and Livable Corridors. These areas account for four percent of SCAG’s total land area. HQTAs are corridor-focused PGAs within 0.5 mile of an existing or planned fixed guideway transit stop or a bus transit corridor where buses pick up passengers at a frequency of every 15 minutes (or less) during peak commuting hours. TPAs are PGAs that are within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned. Job centers are defined as areas with significant
2 “Major transit stop” is defined in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3 as a site containing an existing rail transit statio n, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. 3 “High-quality transit corridors” are defined in Public Resources Code Section 21155 as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.
ATTACHMENT 10 -265
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-11
higher employment density than surrounding area. NMAs are PGAs with robust residential to non- residential land use connections, high roadway intersection densities, and low-to-moderate traffic speeds. Livable Corridors are arterial roadways where local jurisdictions may plan for a combination of the following elements: high-quality bus frequency; higher density residential and employment at key intersections; and increased active transportation through dedicated bikeways. d. Local Regulations
Burbank2035 General Plan Mobility Element
In February 2013, the Burbank City Council adopted the Burbank2035 General Plan, which includes the City’s Mobility Element. The Mobility Element incorporates “complete streets” principles and lays the policy foundation for how the city’s residents interact with the city’s transportation network. The Mobility Element includes nine main goals that define the City’s high-level mobility priorities:
1. Balance
2. Sustainability
3. Complete Streets
4. Transit
5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility
6. Neighborhood Protection
7. Parking
8. Transportation Demand Management
9. Safety, Accessibility, Equity
Each of the goals contains objectives and policies to support the achievement of those goals.
4.11.3 Impact Analysis
This section explains the metrics used to measure the potential VMT impacts of the Housing Element Update. The metrics used are based on standard OPR guidance and interim guidance from the City.
a. Performance Metrics
Under the new SB 743 guidelines, the focus of transportation impact analyses has shifted from a measurement of vehicle congestion to measurement of vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT). The reason for this is that under SB 743 the environmental impact caused by vehicle transportation is not the inconvenience and delay caused by congestion, but the greenhouse gas emissions generated by operating these vehicles. Key terms for this new type of analysis are defined as follows, with methodology specifics outlined in the following Methodology section:
Vehicle Trips. VT are defined as the number of trips undertaken in an automobile, such as in single occupancy vehicles, private automobiles, and vehicles that contain two or more travelers, such as carpools, taxis, or ride-share vehicles. A reduction in VT over time can ATTACHMENT 10 -266
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.11-12
indicate a reduced reliance on the automobile as well as more travel by carpools and active transportation.
Vehicle Miles Traveled. VMT is a measurement of miles traveled (e.g., private automobiles, trucks and buses) by all land uses (e.g., residential, retail, office) within a defined region, such as the City of Burbank. A reduction in VMT over time can indicate a reduced reliance on vehicular travel, primarily by private automobiles.
VMT per Capita. VMT per capita is a metric comprising all VMT generated by residents including only trips originating from the residents’ home location divided by the total resident population. This does not include trips by residents that did not originate from their home location, such as a lunch trip from their office location or a trip from a hotel. VMT per Employee. VMT per employee is a metric comprising all VMT attracted to office locations including only trips originating from the employees’ home location divided by the total employee population. This does not include visitor or delivery trips to an office location.
Service Population. Service population is the sum of population and employment within a defined region, such as the City of Burbank
VMT per Service Population. VMT per service population is a metric comprising all VMT within a defined region divided by the total service population. This includes not only trips that are attracted and produced by home and work trips, but also trips that fit in neither category (i.e., school to grocery store) as well as freight/delivery trips. b. Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of significance are based on the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix B) determined that a potentially significant impact might occur under the following thresholds and therefore will be analyzed in this section of the EIR.
1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities
2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)
3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)
4. Result in inadequate emergency access
Threshold 2, listed above, relates to the new SB 743 guidelines requiring VMT (instead of LOS) as the primary metric to assess potential transportation impacts in CEQA documents. The following is an excerpt from CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b):
“Land Use Projects. Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.
Qualitative Analysis. If existing models or methods are not available to estimate the vehicle miles traveled for the particular project being considered, a lead agency may analyze the ATTACHMENT 10 -267
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-13
project’s vehicle miles traveled qualitatively. Such a qualitative analysis would evaluate factors such as the availability of transit, proximity to other destinations, et cetera. For many projects, a qualitative analysis of construction traffic may be appropriate.
Methodology. A lead agency has discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicle miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or in any other measure. A lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled and may revise those estimates to reflect professional judgment based on substantial evidence. Any assumptions used to estimate vehicle miles traveled and any revisions to model outputs should be documented and explained in the environmental document prepared for the project. The standard of adequacy in Section 15151 shall apply to the analysis described in this section.” As of July 1, 2020, the City of Burbank is required to analyze transportation impacts using VMT. In response to this requirement, the City of Burbank developed interim guidance on how projects should be analyzed for VMT impacts. This guidance is based heavily on the State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidance. Based on standard OPR guidance and City interim guidance applied to programmatic planning documents like the Housing Element, the Housing Element Update would have an impact related to transportation if it would result in VMT per service population, VMT per capita, or VMT per employee that exceeded an applicable threshold of significance. OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is fifteen percent below that of existing development regionally or citywide may be a reasonable threshold. As CEQA generally defers to lead agencies on the choice of methodology to analyze impacts, the City of Burbank has chosen to use the following as part of a three-pronged threshold:
The Project would result in average total VMT per service population in the plan horizon year that exceeds 15 percent below the regional average total VMT per service population from the most recent regional metric available.
The Project would result in average VMT per capita in the plan horizon year that exceeds 15 percent below the regional average VMT per capita from the most recent regional metric available.
The Project would result in average VMT per employee in the plan horizon year that exceeds 15 percent below the regional average VMT per employee from the most recent regional metric available.
The City has chosen to evaluate all three of these metrics because the program-level goals and policies of the Housing Element will impact many types of travel including home-based travel, employment-based travel, and non-home/employment travel such as shopping or recreation. c. Methodology
The methodology to answer the VMT transportation question in Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines is described in detail below. The other three transportation questions in Appendix G are answered through a qualitative review and assessment.
ATTACHMENT 10 -268
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.11-14
VMT Methodology
The VMT analysis for the Housing Element Update includes the use of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS SCAG travel demand model4 for the analysis of the 2021 baseline year and the future 2029 scenarios. The SCAG model was chosen because it includes land use and transportation assumptions for both the City of Burbank General Plan and the greater SCAG region. This VMT Methodology section describes the procedures used to assess potential VMT impacts on the transportation system. It includes an overall discussion of methodology and assumptions, followed by a discussion of how the Housing Element Update is expected to perform in comparison to the thresholds described above. In order to determine whether the Housing Element Update would result in an impact, VMT calculated for the 2021 Baseline scenario is compared to the 2029 with Project scenario. This is calculated using the following outputs from the SCAG model.
Vehicle Trips
VT are calculated from outputs of the SCAG model. For this study, the model generated a vehicle trip calculation for both the City of Burbank and SCAG region in both scenario years using estimated population, household and employment values inputted into each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) of the model.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
VMT is calculated by multiplying vehicle trip length by the number of trips estimated through the SCAG model. VMT takes into consideration population, household, and employment values, as well as travel patterns of origins and destinations. The model generates unique travel patterns and VMT results for each scenario, depending on the size and geographic distribution of the socioeconomic data into the model’s TAZs.
d. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the proposed project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Impact TRA-1 THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL APPLICABLE PROGRAM, PLAN, ORDINANCE, AND POLICY RELATED TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. THEREFORE, IMPACTS RELATED TO CONFLICTS WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
The Housing Element Update would not conflict with any applicable program, plan, ordinance, or policy relevant to the transportation system, nor would it limit or preclude the City’s ability to implement programs and policies in furtherance of climate or equity goals.
The Burbank2035 General Plan Mobility Element includes policies supporting the development of alternative transportation programs. Key goals and objectives described by the Mobility Element include:
Policy 2.1: Improve Burbank’s alternative transportation access to local and regional destinations through land use decisions that support multimodal transportation.
4 The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS SCAG travel demand model has not yet been released. Therefore, the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS SCAG travel demand model was the latest available regional travel demand model to perform the VMT analysis for this project.
ATTACHMENT 10 -269
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-15
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.
The Complete Streets Plan also includes goals to promote alternative transportation use by people of all ages and abilities and improve the experience for people taking transit, walking, and bicycling.
In addition, increased alternative transportation usage is a key goal of regional transportation plans and policies:
The SCAG Connect SoCal (2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) (2020) includes specific goals of sustainable mobility. This includes plans to improve air quality and public health, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote transit-friendly development.
The SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan (2008) includes an adopted policy supporting local jurisdiction programs that encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bicycle.
The Project will not interfere with these adopted plans, guidelines, policies, and standards.
Additionally, by encouraging development on infill sites or development of existing parcels with greater density in high-resource areas around the city already serviced by public transit, the Project will improve residential transit access and possibly increase transit mode share. The Project will also facilitate the completion of household errands on bike or foot, rather than in a car, which further supports state and local transportation-related climate and congestion goals. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Threshold 2: Would the proposed project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Impact TRA-2 THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD REDUCE VMT IN THE THREE TARGET POPULATIONS, HOWEVER IT WOULD NOT REDUCE VMT MORE THAN THE REQUIRED 15 PERCENT. THEREFORE, IMPACTS RELATED TO VMT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.
The Housing Element Update would have an impact if its VMT exceeds at least one of the following:
The Housing Element Update would result in average total VMT per service population for the 2029 City of Burbank Housing Element Plan that exceeds 15 percent below the regional average total VMT per service population from the 2021 SCAG region. The Housing Element Update would result in average VMT per capita for the 2029 City of Burbank Housing Element Plan that exceeds 15 percent below the regional average VMT per capita from the 2021 SCAG region.
The Housing Element Update would result in average VMT per employee for the 2029 City of Burbank Housing Element that exceeds 15 percent below the regional average VMT per employee from the 2021 SCAG region.
ATTACHMENT 10 -270
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.11-16
Table 4.11-1 shows vehicle trips and VMT for the 2021 SCAG region scenario and the 2029 Housing Element Update scenario. As shown in Table 4.11-1, full buildout of the 2029 Housing Element Update would result in 3 percent less average total VMT per service population, 39 percent less average VMT per capita, and 7 percent less average VMT per employee compared to the 2021 SCAG region baseline. This result exceeds the thresholds of significance for average total VMT per service population and average VMT per employee and does not exceed the threshold of significance for average VMT per capita. The analysis shows that the addition of new housing to the City in conformance with the goals and policies of the Housing Element provides a large reduction in VMT per capita because the Project improves the jobs-to-housing balance in Burbank, allowing more residents to live closer to their work location. The goals and policies of the Housing Element also reduce VMT per employee. However, since a large proportion of employees who work in Burbank live outside of Burbank, the reduction in VMT per employee due to the Project is not as large as the reduction in VMT per capita. In other words, adding housing supply affects resident travel behavior more so than employee travel behavior. Similarly, the Project provides a reduction in total VMT per service population, but to a lesser extent than VMT per capita. This is because total VMT per service population includes non-home-based trips, such as heavy truck delivery trips (i.e., adding housing supply does not directly affect freight/logistics operations in the City). Therefore, while the Housing Element would reduce VMT for all three metrics, it would not reduce them beyond the threshold of 15 percent for two of the metrics. Since the Housing Element Update would exceed two of the three thresholds of significance, the project results in a significant impact.
Table 4.11-1 Project VMT Compared to SCAG Region Baseline Metric
2021 SCAG
Region Baseline
2029 Burbank Housing
Element Update
Percent
Difference
Average Total Daily VMT per Service
Population
34.5 33.5 -3%
Average Daily VMT per Capita 14.9 9.2 -39%
Average Daily VMT per Employee 18.1 16.7 -7%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021
Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures that would reduce the average total VMT per service population and average VMT per employee are generally project specific mitigation measures such as:
Provide bicycle parking at employer locations
Provide parking cash-out programs
Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs at employer locations Provide transit passes to employees
Improve or increase transit accessibility to employer locations Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service Provide traffic calming features on City roadways
These mitigation measures can be applied at the project specific level but are not feasible at the program level for a housing element as they are beyond the scope of the document. Therefore, there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce the impacts.
ATTACHMENT 10 -271
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.11-17
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Threshold 3: Would the proposed project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Threshold 4: Would the proposed project result in inadequate emergency access? Impact TRA-3 THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT COULD INCREASE HAZARDS DUE TO DESIGN FEATURES. THEREFORE, IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
Adoption of the Housing Element Update analyzes the amount of new housing units the City will accommodate during the document’s planning period and sets goals and policies for how this housing is implemented. It does not grant entitlements for any specific project or future development. Thus, the plan for new housing and the goals and policies needed to achieve that housing do not have a specific transportation safety impact or hazard. All future developments would be reviewed by the appropriate City staff to ensure consistency with all applicable City and State design standards, including standards for project access points, location, and design, sight lines, roadway modifications, provisions for bicycle and pedestrian transportation connections, and emergency access. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not result in increased hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use or inadequate emergency access and the impact is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts
CEQA Guidelines 15130(a) require that the cumulative effect of implementing a project be assessed to determine if the project’s incremental effect - together with that of other projects including growth envisioned by the Burbank2035 General Plan and regional growth assumed in the RTP/SCS - would be cumulatively considerable. The Housing Element Update envisions full buildout of the housing accommodated by the plan by 2029, with cumulative impacts being evaluated on full implementation. The significance thresholds used to assess the Housing Element’s potential project- level VMT impacts (15% below baseline VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and total VMT per service population) were developed based on OPR guidance and were designed to support the State’s long-term environmental goals. Since the project-level significance thresholds were designed to support long-term environmental goals, they inherently also address potential cumulative VMT impacts. Therefore, since the Housing Element has two significant and unavoidable project-level VMT impacts, these are also significant and unavoidable cumulative VMT impacts.
ATTACHMENT 10 -272
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.11-18
This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 10 -273
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-1
4.12 Utilities/Service Systems
This section analyzes environmental impacts associated with the provision of infrastructure for water supply, wastewater conveyance, treatment, and disposal, solid waste disposal, and stormwater management, as well as telecommunications facilities, energy, and natural gas. The discussion and analysis contained herein is informed by outputs from the CalEEMod prepared for the proposed Project, as well as publicly available data and reports from the City of Burbank, Burbank Water and Power (BWP), and other publicly available sources of information, as cited throughout the discussions below.
4.12.1 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for infrastructure related to water supply, wastewater treatment conveyance and treatment, stormwater conveyance and treatment, solid waste conveyance and disposal, electricity and natural gas, and telecommunications, is described below. a. Water Supply
BWP provides domestic and potable water service in Burbank. The City’s water comes from two sources: water purchased from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan), a regional wholesaler and State Water Project (SWP) contractor, and local groundwater from the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin (San Fernando Basin). BWP also uses recycled water to meet some of its water needs such as outdoor irrigation and power plant cooling.
Water purchased from Metropolitan is imported from the Colorado River Aqueduct and the SWP.
Metropolitan is a regional wholesaler with no retail customers, which provides treated and untreated water directly to its 26 member agencies. Member agencies include 14 cities, 11 municipal water districts, and one county water authority (Metropolitan 2021). Each of Metropolitan’s qualifying member agencies, including BWP, is responsible for implementing its own Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP); see further discussion of UWMPs in Section 4.13.2(a).
BWP’s 2020 UWMP, adopted in June 2021, includes an assessment of past and future water supplies and demands, evaluation of the future reliability of the region’s water supplies over a 20-year planning horizon, discussion of demand management measures and Burbank’s water shortage contingency plan, discussion of the use and planned use of recycled water, and an evaluation of distribution system water losses (BWP 2021a).
BWP does not have ownership rights to the naturally occurring groundwater underneath the City, but BWP does have rights to pump groundwater through groundwater credits. Groundwater provided by BWP is managed in accordance with the Upper Los Angeles River Adjudication Judgment, administered by the Upper Los Angeles River Area Watermaster as the Watermaster. The adjudication Judgment limits production from the San Fernando Basin to ensure the long-term reliability of the basin. As with Metropolitan, BWP also maintains an UWMP that forecasts future water demands in Burbank under average and dry year conditions, identifies future water supply projects, and evaluates future supply reliability. The UWMP discusses the provider’s supply portfolio, including current and planned water conservation and recycling activities (BWP 2021a).
The Burbank Water Reclamation Plant (BWRP) produces a disinfected tertiary effluent that is approved for all uses, including full body contact, with the exception of human consumption. The BWRP produces up to 10,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water, which is available for reuse in any of the following three ways:
ATTACHMENT 10 -274
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-2
Flowed via gravity pipeline to the BWP campus
Pumped into the recycled water distribution system
Discharged to the Burbank Wester Channel adjacent to the BWRP Recycled water produced at the BWRP is used for power production, landscape irrigation, and evaporative cooling (BWP 2021a). BWP has recently completed a feasibility study of both indirect and direct potable reuse of BWP’s excess recycled water. b. Wastewater
Wastewater generated in Burbank is collected and conveyed by approximately 230 miles of underground pipelines ranging in diameter from six inches to 30 inches. The City’s wastewater conveyance system also includes two pump stations and 19 diversion manholes. In addition, the Los Angeles 48-inch North Outfall Sewer (NOS) line runs from west to east through the southern portion of the City. A small number of flows go directly to the NOS.
Wastewater flows to the BWRP, which has a design capacity of 12.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently treats 8.5 mgd (BWP 2021a). The disinfected tertiary effluent produced by the BWRP is discharged to either the Burbank Western Channel or to the City’s recycled water distribution system for non-potable use. The discharged tertiary effluent meets discharge limitations identified in its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The BWRP’s effluent also meets the most stringent water quality criteria for recycled water, as defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 requirement as Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water. The City of Burbank Department of Public Works is responsible for maintaining, replacing, and upgrading the City’s sewer collection system.
c. Stormwater
The City of Burbank Public Works Department (PWD) oversees stormwater management throughout the City. In 2012, the Los Angeles RWQCB adopted the Final Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County. Burbank is a co-permittee in fulfilling the requirements of the municipal storm water permit, which regulates discharges of stormwater and urban runoff from storm drain systems. Furthermore, the City has an established Storm Water Quality Management Program that educates existing and future efforts relating to stormwater management across the City. The City’s existing stormwater pipeline system is comprised of 42-inch-wide reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) that collects stormwater runoff from throughout the city and ultimately discharges it into the Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s (LACFCD) Burbank Western Channel and the Pacific Ocean.
d. Solid Waste
The Street and Solid Waste Division of the Burbank PWD is responsible for the collection of solid waste, green waste, recyclables, and bulky items in the City. City solid waste collection crews service all single-family residences, 50 percent of multifamily residences, and approximately 10 percent of the City’s commercial/industrial refuse customers. Businesses and larger multifamily residences can use City solid waste and recycling services as well or hire a private waste collection and hauling company (Burbank 2020).
ATTACHMENT 10 -275
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-3
Solid waste generated in Burbank is transported to and disposed of at any of seven southern California landfills including Burbank Landfill Site No. 3, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Puente Hills Landfill, Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center, and Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill (City of Burbank 2013).
The City owns and operates the Burbank Landfill, located in the Verdugo Hills at the eastern edge of Burbank. The facility is located on 86 acres, 48 of which are used for disposal. The landfill has a maximum permitted capacity of 5,933,365 cy (CalRecycle 2019) and as of December 31, 2019, had a remaining capacity of 4,843,582 cy (approximately 82 percent of the maximum permitted capacity) (Los Angeles County 2020). The maximum permitted intake is 240 tons (436 cy) per operating day and average intake is approximately 123 tons (224 cy) per day. Burbank Landfill had an original expected closure year of 2053 but is now estimated to be open through 2150 (Los Angeles County 2020; Burbank Landfill 2021). Routine inspection for compliance with state minimum standards is conducted monthly. As of October 2021, the landfill’s best management practices (BMPs) were observed to be fully in place and the site looked to be in satisfactory condition (CalRecycle 2021).
One hundred percent of the intake at the landfill is from Burbank (City of Burbank 2013, Los Angeles County 2020). Residential trash collected by the City is deposed of at this facility, including trash collected by the City from all single-family residences, 50 percent of multifamily residences, and 10 percent of commercial/industrial refuse customers. Private waste haulers also collect trash from within the City, and serves the multifamily residential units and commercial/industrial users that are not otherwise served by the City. Solid waste collected by private waste haulers may be transported to any of the landfill facilities.
The City also owns the Burbank Recycle Center, which houses a materials recovery facility and buyback/drop off center, as well as a used oil center, composting information, and a learning center.
The Burbank Recycle Center is a private/public partnership with Burbank Recycling Inc. that collects and diverts wastes that contribute to the Burbank Landfill capacity (Burbank 2013).
Hazardous waste requiring disposal is sent to the Kettleman Hills Hazardous Waste Facility, a 1,600- acre hazardous waste and municipal solid waste disposal facility located southwest of Kettleman City in the western San Joaquin Valley. The facility is permitted for the direct landfill of California hazardous waste, Toxic Substances Control Act-regulated polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) wastes (that naturally meet treatment standards) (Waste Management 2015). The facility is regulated and inspected by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Central Valley RWQCB, Kings County Department of Public Health, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution District (SJVAPD), and CalRecycle. It has a remaining capacity of six million cy. Permits are currently pending to expand the existing hazardous waste landfill to allow more years of disposal and to develop a new hazardous waste landfill on currently undeveloped land to open after the existing landfill reaches capacity (Waste Management 2018). e. Telecommunications, Electricity, and Natural Gas
Telecommunications services in Burbank are provided by private companies, including AT&T, EarthLink, and Spectrum, among others. The telecommunications provider used by residents and businesses in Burbank is subject to the user’s discretion. Telecommunications facilities are generally available throughout the City.
Electric power supply throughout the City is provided by BWP. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), in 2020 BWP had a total usage of 995.1 Gigawatt hours (GWh). Residential uses consisted of the second most energy intensive source (287.6 GWh) for BWP, behind commercial and ATTACHMENT 10 -276
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-4
building (507.8 GWh) (CEC 2020a). BWP’s power mix from the power content label (PCL), which shows total generation delivered for a calendar year, divided by retail sales (not renewable energy credits retired) for 2020 consisted of approximately 31percent renewable resources (wind, geothermal, biomass, solar, and small hydroelectric), 26 percent coal, 31 percent natural gas, eight percent nuclear, two percent hydroelectric, and the remainder from other sources (BWP 2020).
Burbank is in Southern California Gas Company’s (SCG) natural gas service area, which provides service to most of southern California (SCG 2021). SCG’s service area is equipped with approximately 5.9 million meters of gas transmission pipelines throughout the 24,000-square mile service area (SCG 2021). In 2019, SCG customers consumed a total of 5.2 billion therms of natural gas (CEC 2020b). Residential users accounted for approximately 46 percent of SCG’s natural gas consumption. Industrial and commercials users accounted for another 31 percent and 17 percent, respectively. The remainder was used for mining, construction, agricultural, and water pump accounts (CEC 2020). Natural gas is also addressed in Section 4.6, Energy.
4.12.2 Regulatory Setting
The regulatory setting for utilities is provided below, organized per the topics addressed in this section, including water supply; wastewater; stormwater; solid waste; telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas.
a. Water Supply
State Regulations
California Water Conservation Bill (Senate Bill X7-7)
The Water Conservation Bill, enacted in 2009, set an overall goal of reducing per capita urban water use in the State by 20 percent by December 31, 2020. Under this bill, the State was required make incremental progress toward the 2020 goal by reducing per capita water use by at least 10 percent by December 31, 2015. The bill also required urban water suppliers (such as the City of Burbank) to reduce per capita water use 20 percent by 2020, establish water conservation targets for the years 2015 and 2020, and include the following information in their water management plans: the baseline daily per capita water use; water use targets; interim water use targets; compliance daily per capita water use.
Senate Bill 610
In 2001, California adopted Senate Bill (SB) 610, thereby amending California Water Code. Under this law, certain types of development projects are now required to provide detailed water supply assessments to planning agencies. Any project that is subject to CEQA and would demand more than 75 AFY of water, or an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling-unit project, is subject to SB 610 and is required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA). The primary purpose of a WSA is to determine whether the identified water supply or water supplier will be able to meet projected demands for the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, over a 20-year projection and with consideration to normal, dry, and multi-dry water years.
The Project is subject to CEQA and includes more than 500 dwelling units. However, the Housing Element is a planning document, not a development project, and it therefore does not directly trigger the need for a WSA as defined by California Water Code. Nonetheless, a WSA was prepared ATTACHMENT 10 -277
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-5
for the Housing Element toward the purpose of providing a well-informed analysis of potential impacts to water supply availability and reliability. The Housing Element WSA, which was prepared in accordance with California Water Code, is provided as Appendix L.
Senate Bill 221
SB 221 also addresses water supply in the land use planning process and focuses on new residential subdivisions in nonurban areas. SB 221 requires the provision of written verification from the water service provider indicating that sufficient water supply is available to serve a proposed subdivision or a finding by the local agency that sufficient water supplies are or will be available prior to completion of a project. SB 221 specifically applies to residential subdivisions of 500 units or more.
Government Code Section 66473.7(i) exempts “any residential project proposed for a site that is within an urbanized area and has been previously developed for urban uses, or where the immediate contiguous properties surrounding the residential project site are, or previously have been, developed for urban uses, or housing projects that are exclusively for very low and low- income households.”
The proposed Project involves the update of the Burbank General Plan and does not involve any development application. As such, it does not propose development of 500 or more dwelling units in a nonurban area and is not subject to SB 221.
Urban Water Management Act
The California Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code Division 6, Part 2.6, Sections 10610–10656) requires that all public water suppliers that provide municipal and industrial water to more than 3,000 customers, or supply more than 3,000 AFY of water, adopt an UWMP. An UWMP is intended to forecast future water demand and supply under normal and dry conditions.
The UWMP must include a description of existing and planned sources of water available to the water supplier; conservation efforts to reduce water demand; alternative sources of water; assessment of reliability and vulnerability of water supply; and water shortage contingency analysis.
It must be updated every five years and submitted to the DWR for review. Metropolitan and BWP both maintain UWMPs for their water systems. BWP’s 2020 UWMP was updated in June 2021 and is therefore used to inform this analysis.
The Urban Water Management Planning Act has been modified several times in response to the water shortages, droughts, and other factors. The Water Conservation Act of 2009 amended the Urban Water Management Planning Act to call for a statewide reduction of 20 percent in urban water use by the year 2020. An amendment in 2014 requires water suppliers to provide narrative descriptions of their water demand management measures and account for system water losses.
California Code of Regulations
CCR Title 24, Part 5, establishes the California Plumbing Code (last updated in 2013) that became effective January 1, 2014. The California Plumbing Code sets forth efficiency standards (i.e., maximum flow rates) for all new federally regulated plumbing fittings and fixtures, including showerheads and lavatory faucets.
CCR Title 22 regulates production and use of recycled water in California by establishing three categories of recycled water: (1) primary effluent, which that typically includes grit removal and initial sedimentation or settling tanks; (2) adequately disinfected, oxidized effluent (secondary effluent), which that typically involves aeration and additional settling basins; and (3) adequately ATTACHMENT 10 -278
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-6
disinfected, oxidized, coagulated, clarified, filtered effluent (tertiary effluent), which typically involves filtration and chlorination. In addition to defining recycled water uses, Title 22 also defines requirements for sampling and analysis of effluent and requires specific design requirements for plants.
CCR Title 24, Part 11, establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. These provisions became effective January 1, 2011.
California Drought Update
In 2014, the governor issued a Drought Declaration and requested a voluntary 20 percent reduction in urban water use statewide, directing the State Board to adopt Emergency Regulations. As a result, the State Board adopted Emergency Regulations for Statewide Urban Water Conservation that were documented in CCR Title 23, Sections 863–865.
In 2015, the governor issued an Executive Order for mandatory statewide water reductions to reduce water usage by 25 percent. The Executive Order directed local water agencies to increase enforcement over wasteful use of water and invest in modern technologies that will make California more drought resilient. The Executive Order establishes several provisions for water saving and increased enforcement against wasteful water use:
The State Board shall impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25 percent reduction in potable urban water usage, compared to amount used in 2013, through February 28, 2016; The Department of Water Resources (DWR) shall lead a statewide initiative to replace 50 million sf of lawns and ornamental turf with drought tolerant landscapes; The CEC, jointly with the Department of the Water Board, shall implement a time-limited statewide appliance rebate program to replace inefficient household devices; The State Board shall impose restrictions to require that commercial, industrial, and institutional uses implement water efficiency measures to reduce potable water usage; The State Board shall prohibit irrigation with potable water of ornamental turf on public street medians;
The State Board shall prohibit irrigation with potable water outside of newly constructed homes/buildings that is not delivered by drip or microspray systems; and The State Board shall require urban water suppliers to provide monthly information on water usage, conservation, and enforcement on a permanent basis.
Local Regulations
Metropolitan’s Integrated Water Resources Plan – 2015 Water Tomorrow Update The proposed Project is located within the services areas of BWP (discussed above) and Metropolitan. Metropolitan’s Integrated Water Resources Plan was first developed in 1996 to establish targets for a diversified portfolio of supply investments. The 2015 Water Tomorrow Update is a plan to provide water supplies under a wide range of potential future conditions and risks. It identifies supply actions including recycled water, seawater desalination, stormwater capture, conservation, and groundwater cleanup to ensure local water supply reliability. The 2015 Water Tomorrow Update was adopted by Metropolitan’s board of directors in January 2016 ATTACHMENT 10 -279
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-7
(Metropolitan 2016b). The 2015 Water Tomorrow Update is separate from Metropolitan’s UWMP and is incorporated by reference in the UWMP, as applicable.
Greater Los Angeles County Region IRWMP
The Greater Los Angeles County (GLAC) Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) is a regional plan designed to improve collaboration in water resources management. To make governance and stakeholder involvement manageable, the GLAC Region was organized into five Subregions which consider both geographic and demographic variations over the 2,058 square mile area. These Subregions include: Lower San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers (Lower SG & LA); North Santa Monica Bay (North SM Bay); South Bay; Upper Los Angeles River Area (ULARA); Upper San Gabriel and Rio Hondo Rivers (Upper SG & RH). Of these regions, BWP is a member of the ULARA Steering Committee. The first IRWMP for the GLAC Region was published in 2006, following a multi- year collaborative effort between water retailers, wastewater agencies, stormwater and flood managers, watershed groups, businesses, tribes, the agriculture community, and non-profits. In 2014, the IRWM group updated the IRWMP to comply with new State integrated planning requirements and update the content (Leadership Committee of the GLAC IRWMP 2014). The IRWMP provides a mechanism for: 1) coordinating, refining, and integrating existing planning efforts within a comprehensive, regional context; 2) identifying specific regional and watershed-based priorities for implementation projects; and 3) providing funding support for the plans, programs, projects, and priorities of existing agencies and stakeholders.
Burbank 2035 General Plan
The Burbank2035 General Plan (adopted February 2013) is the primary mechanism for guiding future population growth and development in Burbank and provides a guide for land use decision- making. The General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element addresses the conservation and enhancement of open space, parks, recreation, and natural resources within the City. The goals and policies of the Open Space and Conservation Element are intended to protect natural resources including water resources (Burbank 2013). The goal and policies applicable to water resources are presented below:
Goal 9: Water Resources
Adequate sources of high-quality water provide for various uses within Burbank.
Policy 9.1: Meet the goal of a 20 percent reduction in municipal water use by 2020.
Policy 9.2: Provide public information regarding the importance of water conservation and avoiding wasteful water habits.
Policy 9.3: Offer incentives for water conservation and explore other water conservation programs.
Policy 9.4: Pursue infrastructure improvements that would expand communitywide use of recycled water.
Policy 9.5: Require on‐site drainage improvements using native vegetation to capture and clean stormwater runoff
ATTACHMENT 10 -280
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-8
City of Burbank Sustainable Use Ordinance
Section 8-2, Article 3, Sustainable Water Use Ordinance, of the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) established procedures for implementing and enforcing sustainable water use practices to mitigate the effect of a shortage of water resources. The ordinance establishes mandatory water use practices related to outdoor uses such as irrigation of outdoor landscaped areas, washing down of driveways and walkways, use of evaporative coolers (misters), and the filling or refilling of swimming pools and spas. The ordinance also establishes mandatory restrictions on service of drinking water at restaurants, hotels, and eating establishments if not requested by customers. The ordinance establishes six incremental stages of water use restrictions and penalties in order to discourage wasteful water use practices and achieve reduced water consumption and conservation during drought conditions.
b. Wastewater
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act (CWA)
The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters and maintain the integrity of wetlands. The CWA seeks to regulate point and nonpoint pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works (commonly known as wastewater treatment plants owned by a governmental agency for the improvement of wastewater treatment).
The CWA established the NPDES, which requires a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be developed and implemented for projects that disturb more than 0.5 acre of land. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine RWQCBs administer NPDES to regulate and monitor discharged waters and to ensure they meet water quality standards.
State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act), enacted by the State in 1969, includes provisions to address requirements of the CWA. The Porter-Cologne Act is broad in scope and addresses issues relating to the conservation, control, and utilization of the water resources of the State. The SWRCB and the RWQCBs are the State agencies with primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality. Porter-Cologne grants the RWQCBs authority to implement and enforce water quality laws, regulations, and plans to protect the groundwater and surface waters.
In 2006, the SWRCB adopted the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for publicly owned sanitary sewer systems with greater than one mile in length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility in California. Under the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements, the owners of such systems must comply with the following requirements: (1) acquire an online account from the SWRCB and report all sanitary sewer overflows online; and (2) develop and implement a written Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) to control and mitigate sanitary sewer overflows and make it available to any member of the public upon request in writing.
ATTACHMENT 10 -281
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-9
SSMP requirements are modeled on proposed Federal capacity, management, operations, and maintenance plans. The SSMP policy requires dischargers to provide adequate capacity in the sewer collection system, take feasible steps to stop sewer overflows, identify and prioritize system deficiencies, and develop a plan for disposal of grease, among other requirements. In addition, wastewater providers must report sanitary sewer overflows to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, must keep internal records of these overflows, and must produce an annual report on overflows. Reporting of overflows from laterals on private property, if caused by an owner, is not required.
California Code of Regulations
The California Water Code requires the Department of Health Services (DHS) to establish water reclamation criteria. In 1975, the DHS prepared Title 22 to fulfill this requirement, regulating production/use of recycled water by establishing three categories of recycled water:
Primary effluent, that typically includes grit removal and initial sedimentation or settling tanks; Adequately disinfected, oxidized effluent (secondary effluent), that typically involves aeration and additional settling basins; and
Adequately disinfected, oxidized, coagulated, clarified, filtered effluent (tertiary effluent), that typically involves filtration and chlorination.
In addition to defining recycled water uses, Title 22 defines requirements for sampling and analysis of effluent and requires specific design requirements for plants.
CCR Title 24, Part 5, establishes the California Plumbing Code, which became effective January 1, 2014, and sets efficiency standards (i.e., maximum flow rates) for all new federally regulated plumbing fittings and fixtures, including showerheads and lavatory faucets. Accordingly, the maximum flow rate for showerheads is 2.0 gallons per minute (GPM) at 80 pounds per square inch (psi) and for lavatory faucets is 1.5 GPM at 60 psi. In addition, all water closets (i.e., flush toilets) are limited to 1.6 gallons per flush (GPF) and urinals are limited to 0.5 GPF. In addition, Section 1605.3(h) establishes State efficiency standards for non-federally regulated plumbing fittings, including commercial pre-rinse spray valves.
CCR Title 24, Part 11, establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. These provisions became effective January 1, 2011.
Local Regulations
Burbank Sewer System Management Plan
In compliance with SWRCP Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, the City has adopted a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) that also include a Sanitary Sewer Overflow Emergency Response Plan.
The SSMP addresses the operation, maintenance, design, and performance of the City’s sewers and provides an overflow emergency response plan and a system evaluation and capacity assurance plan to reduce the frequency and volume of sanitary sewer overflows. Implementation of the SSMP, requires the City to (1) properly fund, manage, maintain, and operate its sanitary sewer systems to prevent sanitary sewer overflows; (2) construct and maintain the collection system using trained staff possessing adequate knowledge, skills, and abilities, as demonstrated through validated programs; and (3) fully comply with SWRCB Order No. 2006-003-DWQ.
ATTACHMENT 10 -282
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-10
Burbank Sewer System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan The City prepared a Sewer System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SSECAP) in 2006 (Chapter 8 of the Burbank Sewer System Management Plan). The SSECAP includes hydraulic modeling of the City’s existing wastewater system. The SSECAP also identifies areas of future study that are cost-effective and technically feasible to address both potential capacity and operational constraints and are coordinated with other improvement projects. The plan contains the following key objectives:
Properly fund, manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the wastewater collection system; Provide adequate capacity to convey peak sewer flows; Minimize the frequency of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs); and Construct and maintain the collection system using trained staff possessing adequate knowledge, skills, and abilities as demonstrated through a validated program.
The SSECAP and the City’s capital improvement plan (CIP) provide hydraulic capacity of key sanitary sewer system elements for peak flow conditions, to facilitate design of sufficient capacity to accommodate runoff from storm events.
Burbank Municipal Code (BMC)
Title 8, Chapter 1, Article 1, Sewers, of the BMC establishes regulatory compliance for discharges to the publicly owned treatment works (POTW), sewer system and storm drain system for the City and requires compliance with applicable State and Federal laws, including the CWA (33 United States Code 1251 et seq.) and the general pretreatment regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 403). Per BMC Section 8-1-301, to connect to the City’s main sewer line, an excavation permit and a sewer connection permit must be obtained from the Burbank Public Works Department. For sewer construction entirely on private property, the owner must obtain a plumbing permit from the Building Department, and an excavation permit from the Burbank PWD. c. Stormwater
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act (CWA)
The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the CWA, is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters and maintain the integrity of wetlands. The CWA seeks to regulate point and nonpoint pollution sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works (commonly known as wastewater treatment plants owned by a governmental agency for the improvement of wastewater treatment).
The CWA established the NPDES, which requires a SWPPP to be developed and implemented for projects that disturb more than 0.5 acre of land. The SWRCB and the nine regional water quality control boards RWQCBs administer NPDES to regulate and monitor discharged waters and to ensure they meet water quality standards.
ATTACHMENT 10 -283
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-11
Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
Section 303(d) of the CWA (CWA, 33 USC 1250, et seq., at 1313(d)) requires states to identify “impaired” waterbodies as those which do not meet water quality standards. States are required to compile this information in a list and submit the list to the USEPA for review and approval. This list is known as the Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. As part of this listing process, states are required to prioritize waters and watersheds for future development of total maximum daily loads (TMDL). The SWRCB and RWQCBs have ongoing efforts to monitor and assess water quality, to prepare the Section 303(d) list, and to develop TMDL requirements.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The Federal government also administers the NPDES permit program, which regulates discharges into surface waters. The primary regulatory control relevant to the protection of water quality is the NPDES permit administered by the SWRCB. The SWRCB establishes requirements prescribing the quality of point sources of discharge and water quality objectives. These objectives are established based on the designated beneficial uses (e.g., water supply, recreation, and habitat) for a particular surface water body or groundwater basin. The NPDES permits are issued to point source dischargers of pollutants to surface waters pursuant to Water Code Chapter 5.5, which implements the Federal CWA. Examples include, but are not limited to, public wastewater treatment facilities, industries, power plants, and groundwater cleanup programs discharging to surface waters (SWRCB, Title 23, Chapter 9, Section 2200). The RWQCB establishes and regulates discharge limits under the NPDES permits.
Projects that will disturb more than one acre of land during construction are required to file a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB to be covered under the NPDES Construction General Permit for discharges of stormwater associated with construction activity. The project proponent must develop measures that are consistent with the Construction General Permit. Furthermore, a SWPPP must be developed and implemented for each site covered under the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP describes the BMPs the discharger will use to protect stormwater runoff and reduce potential impacts on surface water quality through the construction period. The SWPPP must contain the following:
A visual monitoring program;
A chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants (to be implemented if a BMP failure occurs); and
A sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body on the 303(d) list for sediment.
State Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (Porter-Cologne Act) established the SWRCB and divided the state into nine regional basins, each with a RWQCB. The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The SWRCB is the primary state agency with responsibility to protect surface water and groundwater quality. The Porter-Cologne Act authorizes the SWRCB to draft policies regarding water quality in accordance with CWA Section 303. In addition, the Porter-Cologne Act authorizes the SWRCB to issue waste discharge requirements for projects that would discharge to state waters. These requirements regulate discharges of waste to ATTACHMENT 10 -284
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-12
surface and groundwater, regulate waste disposal sites, and require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substance, sewage, or oil or petroleum product.
The Porter-Cologne Act requires the SWRCB or the RWQCBs to adopt water quality control plans (basin plans) and policies for the protection of water quality. The Basin Plan must conform to the policies set forth in the Porter-Cologne Act and established by the SWRCB in its State Water Policy.
The Basin Plan must:
Identify beneficial uses for the water to be protected, Establish water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of the beneficial uses, and Establish an implementation program for achieving the water quality objectives.
Basin plans also provide the technical basis for determining waste discharge requirements, taking enforcement actions, and evaluating clean water grant proposals. Basin plans are updated and reviewed every 3 years in accordance with Article 3 of Porter-Cologne Act and CWA Section 303(c).
California Toxics Rule
The California Toxics Rule is a USEPA-issued federal regulation that provides water quality criteria for potentially toxic constituents in California surface waters with designated uses related to human health or aquatic life. The rule fills a gap in California water quality standards that was created in 1994 when a state court overturned the state’s water quality control plans containing water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants. These federal criteria are legally applicable in the State of California for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries for all purposes and programs under the CWA. The California Toxics Rule establishes two types of aquatic life criteria:
Acute criteria represent the highest concentration of a pollutant to which aquatic life can be exposed for a short period of time without harmful effects; and Chronic criteria equal the highest concentration to which aquatic life can be exposed for an extended period of time (4 days) without deleterious effects. Due to the intermittent nature of stormwater runoff (especially in southern California), the acute criteria are considered to be more applicable to stormwater conditions than chronic criteria.
State Antidegradation Policy
Under the State Antidegradation Policy, whenever the existing quality of waters is better than what is needed to protect present and future beneficial uses, such existing quality must be maintained.
This state policy has been adopted as a water quality objective in all the State’s Basin Plans. The State policy establishes a two-step process to determine if discharges with the potential to degrade the water quality of surface or groundwater will be allowed.
The first step requires that, where a discharge would degrade high-quality water, the discharge may be allowed only if any change in water quality would:
Be consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state; Not reasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses of such water; and Result in water quality that is not less than that prescribed in state policies (i.e., Basin Plans).
ATTACHMENT 10 -285
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-13
The second step states that any activity resulting in discharge to high-quality waters is required to use the best practicable treatment or control of the discharge necessary in order to avoid the occurrence of pollution or nuisance and to maintain the “highest water quality consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the state.” The State policy applies to both surface and groundwater, as well as to both existing and potential beneficial uses of the applicable waters.
In 1999, the SWRCB issued and subsequently amended the General Construction Stormwater Permit that governs discharges from construction sites that disturb 1 acre or more of surface area. Again, on September 2, 2009, the SWRCB adopted a new General Construction Permit that substantially alters the approach taken to regulate construction discharges through (1) requiring the determination of risk levels posed by a project’s construction discharges to water quality and (2) establishing numerical water quality thresholds that trigger permit violations. These new permit regulations took effect on July 1, 2010.
California Code of Regulations – Recycled Water Regulations (Titles 22 and 17) Titles 22 and 17 of the CCR include regulations for the various uses of recycled water within the state. According to the CCR, recycled water used for the following purposes shall be at least disinfected secondary-23 recycled water: (1) industrial boiler feed, (2) nonstructural firefighting, (3) backfill consolidation around non-potable piping, (4) soil compaction, (5) mixing concrete, (6) dust control on roads and streets, (7) cleaning roads, sidewalks and outdoor work areas, and (8) industrial process water that will not come into contact with workers. The CCR also requires that spray, mist, or runoff of recycled water does not enter dwellings, designated outdoor eating areas, or food handling facilities. Drinking water fountains must also be protected against contact with recycled water spray, mist, or runoff. No irrigation with, or impoundment of, disinfected secondary-
2.2 or disinfected secondary-2.3 recycled water can take place within 100 feet of any domestic water supply well.
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
On November 8, 2012, the RWQCB adopted Order R4‐2012‐0175, the MS4 Permit. Order R4‐2012‐ 0175 became effective on December 28, 2013 and serves as the NPDES permit for coastal watershed stormwater and non‐stormwater discharges originating from the Los Angeles County region. The permit covers the land areas in the Los Angeles County Flood Control jurisdiction, unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, and 84 cities in the County. The City of Burbank is included in the MS4 Permit as a permittee under Order R4‐2012‐0175.
In coordination with permittees under MS4 Permit, RWQCB staff performs annual performance reviews and evaluations of the City’s stormwater management program and NPDES compliance activities.
Local Regulations
City of Burbank Low Impact Development (LID) Ordinance
On June 16, 2015, the Burbank City Council adopted a LID Ordinance in compliance with the requirements of the MS4 Permit. The City uses the LID Ordinance to review and permit development and redevelopment projects that qualify under the triggering requirements of the ordinance. Qualifying development projects are directed to control pollutants, pollutant loads, and runoff volume to the maximum extent feasible by minimizing impervious surface area and controlling runoff from impervious surfaces through infiltration, evapotranspiration, bioretention, ATTACHMENT 10 -286
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-14
and/or rainfall harvest and use. The intent of the LID ordinance is to retain stormwater runoff on site in a manner that is similar to predevelopment conditions.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Hydrology Manual (2006) contains the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) that applies to development and re- development projects in Los Angeles County. The SUSMP is described in detail below. The Hydrology Manual also includes TMDLs for pollutants per Section 303 of the CWA and BMPs for managing stormwater quality during construction. As the holder of the MS4 Permit, the RWQCB is responsible for enforcing these BMPs.
Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) The SUSMP is a comprehensive stormwater quality program to manage urban stormwater and minimize pollution of the environment in Los Angeles County. The purpose of the SUSMP is to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater by outlining BMPs that must be incorporated into the design plans of new development and redevelopment. The SUSMP requirements contain a list of minimum BMPs that must be employed to infiltrate or treat stormwater runoff, control peak flow discharge, and reduce the post-Project discharge of pollutants from stormwater conveyance systems. The SUSMP requirements define, based upon land use type, the types of practices that must be included and issues that must be addressed as appropriate to the development type and size. The SUSMP requirements apply to all development and redevelopment projects that fall into one of the following categories:
Single-family hillside residences
One acre or more of impervious surface area for industrial/commercial developments Automotive service facilities
Retail gasoline outlets
Restaurants
Ten or more residential units
Parking lots of 5,000 square feet or greater or with 25 or more spaces Projects located in or directly discharging to an Ecologically Sensitive Area The SUSMP requirements are administered, implemented, and enforced through the Community Development Department Building and Safety Division and final review would be conducted by the Chief Building Official. During the review process, individual development project plans are reviewed for compliance with stormwater requirements.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan) The County of Los Angeles is under the jurisdiction of RWQCB Region 4 (Los Angeles Region). The RWQCB provides permits for projects that may affect surface waters and groundwater locally, and is responsible for preparing the Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (Basin Plan).
The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of water in the region and establishes narrative and numerical water quality objectives. Water quality objectives, as defined by the CWA Section 13050(h), are the “limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses or the prevention of nuisance within a specific area.” The State has developed TMDLs that are a calculation of the maximum amount of a ATTACHMENT 10 -287
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-15
pollutant that a water body can have and still meet water quality objectives established by the region.
Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) Plan
Conditions of the MS4 Permit require that all permittees develop a watershed management plan on an individual or joint basis that will address water quality issues in the permitee’s jurisdictional area.
The City of Burbank is a member of the Los Angeles River Watershed Management Group’s EWMP.
The EWMP submitted its Revised EWMP Plan to the RWQCB for review in January 2016 and the Plan was approved in April 2016. The EWMP Plan, along with a Coordinated Monitoring Plan, serves as a guiding document for implementing water quality improving infrastructure, policies, and programs.
City of Burbank General Plan 2035
On February 19, 2013, the City of Burbank approved the updated elements of the Burbank2035 General Plan, except for the Housing Element which was adopted in January 2014. The General Plan is certified through 2035. The updates are intended to refine policies regarding long-term growth in the community through the year 2035 and to ensure that the General Plan reflects current State law (Burbank 2013). The goal and policies applicable to stormwater are presented below.
Goal 6: Flood Safety
Potential risks—such as injury, loss of life and property, and economic and social disruption—caused by flood and inundation are minimized.
Policy 6.5: Enforce regulations prohibiting the draining of rainwater into the sewer system.
Policy 6.6: Prepare and update a stormwater master plan to ensure proper maintenance and improvements to storm drainage facilities.
Policy 6.7: Employ strategies and design features to reduce the area of impervious surface in new development projects.
Goal 9: Water Resources
Adequate sources of high-quality water provide for various uses within Burbank.
Policy 9.5: Require on‐site drainage improvements using native vegetation to capture and clean stormwater runoff
d. Solid Waste
State Regulations
Assembly Bill 1327
The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 or Assembly Bill (AB) 1327, as amended, requires each local jurisdiction in the State to adopt an ordinance requiring commercial, industrial, or institutional buildings; marinas; or residential buildings having five or more living units to provide an adequate storage area for the collection and removal of recyclable materials. The City passed an ordinance in 1997.
ATTACHMENT 10 -288
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-16
Assembly Bill 939 and Senate Bill 1016
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or Assembly Bill (AB) 939, established the Integrated Waste Management Board, required the implementation of integrated waste management plans, and mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste generated (from 1990 levels), beginning January 1, 2000, and divert at least 75 percent by 2010. In 2006, SB 1016 updated the requirements. The updated per capita disposal and goal measurement system moves the emphasis from an estimated diversion measurement number to using an actual disposal measurement number as a factor, along with evaluating program implementation efforts.
These two factors will help determine each jurisdiction's progress toward achieving its AB 939 diversion goals. The 75 percent diversion requirement is now measured in terms of per-capita disposal expressed as pounds per person per day.
Assembly Bill 341
The purpose of AB 341 is to reduce GHG emissions by recycling commercial solid waste rather than diverting it for landfill disposal, and to expand the opportunity for additional recycling services and recycling manufacturing facilities in California. In addition to Mandatory Commercial Recycling, AB 341 sets a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020.
Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion Program Requirements (SB 1374)
In 2002, Construction and Demolition Waste Materials Diversion Requirements (SB 1374) added California Public Resources Code Section 42912, requiring jurisdictions to include in their annual AB 939 report a summary of the progress made in diverting construction and demolition waste. The legislation also requires that CalRecycle adopt a model ordinance for diverting 50 to 75 percent of all construction and demolition waste from landfills.
Zero Waste California
Zero Waste California is a State program launched by CalRecycle in 2002 to promote a new vision for the management of solid waste. Zero waste provides that wasting resources is inefficient and that the efficient use of natural resources should be achieved. The concept requires maximizing existing recycling and reuse efforts, while ensuring that products are designed for the environment and have the potential to be repaired, reused, or recycled. The Zero Waste California program promotes the goals of market development, recycled product procurement, and research and development of new and sustainable technologies.
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)
Effective January 1, 2017, the State’s Green Building Code requires developers of newly constructed buildings to develop a waste management plan to divert 60 percent of the construction waste generated by project construction. Builders or developers are required to submit a construction waste management plan to the appropriate jurisdiction’s enforcement agency. The City has adopted the 2019 CALGreen Code as part of its Municipal Code.
ATTACHMENT 10 -289
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-17
Local Regulations
County of Los Angeles Integrated Waste Management Plan
The County of Los Angeles Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP), approved by the CIWMB in 1999, sets forth a regional approach for the management of solid waste through source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and disposal. The CoIWMP ensures that the waste management practices of cities and other jurisdictions in the County are consistent with the solid waste diversion goals of AB 939 through source reduction, recycling and composting programs, household hazardous waste management programs, and public education awareness programs. The plan calls for the establishment of 50 years of in-County permitted landfill capacity, as well as the County’s support for the development of disposal facilities outside the County.
The County continually evaluates landfill needs and capacity through the preparation of the CoIWMP annual reports. Within each annual report, future landfill disposal needs over the next 15- year planning horizon are addressed, in part, by determining the available landfill capacity. The most recent annual report is the 2012 report, completed in August 2013.
As part of the CoIWMP, the County prepared the Countywide Siting Element which identified goals, policies, and strategies for the proper planning and siting of solid waste disposal and transformation facilities over 15 years, through year 2014. The latest Siting Element was approved by CalRecycle in 2016 and, as with the previous Siting Element, provides strategic planning over a 15-year horizon, through year 2031.
Burbank Municipal Code (BMC)
Title 4, Chapter 2, Article 1, Solid Waste Management, of the BMC establishes regulatory compliance for the collection, removal and disposal of garbage, solid waste, green waste, and recyclable material within the City.
Burbank Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance The Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance was designed to meet the goals of the California Waste Management Act (SB 1374), which requires all cities and counties in the State to reduce the amount of waste materials deposited in landfills by 65 percent. The ordinance requires new building projects meeting specified size requirements to divert and recycle at least 65 percent of their construction and demolition debris. To obtain a building permit from the City, proponents for projects meeting specified size requirements must prepare and implement a Waste Management Plan (WMP) that outlines how much scrap and debris would be generated during construction, what proportion of this debris would be diverted and how, and the final destination for both the diverted and non-diverted components of construction debris (City of Burbank 2016).
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. The Accords include 21 specific actions organized into seven urban themes designed to collectively address urban sustainability concerns.
The themes include energy, waste reduction, urban design, urban nature, transportation, environmental health, and water (City of Burbank 2008a). Action items related to waste include zero ATTACHMENT 10 -290
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-18
waste, manufacturer responsibility, and consumer responsibility. As part of the Sustainability Action Plan, the City adopted the Zero Waste Strategic Plan, which 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 (City of Burbank 2008b). The four basic strategies include:
Advocate for Manufacturer Responsibility for Product Waste and Support Elimination of Problem Materials
Adopt New Rules and Incentives to Reduce Waste
Expand and Improve Local and Regional Recycling and Composting Educate, Promote, and Advocate a Zero Waste Sustainability Agenda e. Telecommunications, Electricity, and Natural Gas
Federal Regulations
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil. The FERC is an independent Agency. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave FERC additional responsibilities in its capacity. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states.
State Regulations
California Public Utilities Commission
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates private and investor-owned electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies.
The CPUC regulates natural gas rates and natural gas services, including in-state transportation over the utilities' transmission and distribution pipeline systems, storage, procurement, metering, and billing.
California Energy Commission
The CEC regulates publicly owned utilities (POUS), like BWP, as it comes to compliance with state mandates. However, the City Council ensures the City’s compliance with regulations and reporting and compliance filings for Burbank Water and Power, as it relates to power supply, is regulated through the CEC. The CEC is the state’s primary energy policy and planning agency.
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulates electric utilities, including BWP, as it comes to compliance with emissions related activities. CARB manages the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Regulation which includes regulations that mandate GHG reporting for retail providers ATTACHMENT 10 -291
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-19
and operators. CARB also manages the Cap-and-Trade Program which is an offset tool to minimize State GHG emissions.
Senate Bill 100
SB 100 modifies the State Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and establishes robust clean energy goals. SB 100 modifies the RPS from requiring that 50 percent of electricity be procured by renewable electricity sources by 2030 (set by SB 350), to 60 percent by 2030. In addition, SB 100 sets a goal of a 100 percent zero-carbon resource portfolio by 2045.
Senate Bill 1368
SB 1368 also referred to as the Emissions Performance Standard, prohibits purchase arrangements for baseload energy for periods of longer than five years from resources that exceed the emissions of a relatively clean, combined cycle natural gas power plant. The purpose is to limit carbon emissions associated with electrical energy consumed in California. Coal-fired plants cannot meet this standard because these plants emit roughly twice as much carbon as combined cycle natural gas power plants. SB 1368 effectively prevents California’s utilities from investing in, financially supporting, or purchasing power from new coal plants located in or out of the State.
California Green Building Standards Code (2019), California Code of Regulations Title 24
California’s Green Building Code, referred to as CalGreen, was developed to reduce GHG emissions from buildings, promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work, reduce energy and water consumption, and respond to the environmental directives of the administration. The most recent version of CalGreen (January 2019) lays out the minimum requirements for newly constructed residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce GHG emissions through improved efficiency and process improvements. It also includes voluntary tiers to encourage building practices that improve public health, safety, and general welfare by promoting a more sustainable design.
Local Regulations
Burbank2035 General Plan
The Burbank2035 General Plan includes an Air Quality and Climate Change Element as well as an Open Space and Conservation Element, both of which address energy efficiency and overall energy reduction the City. The goals and policies of each element are intended to increase the City’s overall energy efficiency and help achieve the City’s goal of using 100 percent clean energy. The goals and policies applicable to energy resources are presented below:
Burbank2035 Land Use Element
Goal 2: Sustainability
Burbank is committed to building and maintaining a community that meets today’s needs while providing a high quality of life for future generations. Development in Burbank Respects that environmental and conserves natural resources.
Policy 2.3: Require that new development pay its fair share for infrastructure improvements.
Ensure that needed infrastructure and services are available prior to or at project completion.
ATTACHMENT 10 -292
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-20
Burbank2035 Air Quality and Climate Change Element
Goal 3: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Burbank seeks a sustainable, energy-efficient future and complies with statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Policy 3.4: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new development by promoting water conservation and recycling; promoting development that is compact, mixed-use, pedestrian- friendly, and transit-oriented; promoting energy-efficient building design and site planning; and improving the jobs/housing ratio.
Policy 3.6: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging the retrofit of older, energy inefficient buildings.
Policy 3.8: Transition all economic sectors, new development, and existing infrastructure and development to low- or zero-carbon energy sources. Encourage implementation and provide incentives for low- or zero-carbon energy sources.
Policy 3.9: Continue efforts to diversify Burbank Water and Power’s energy portfolio beyond 2020.
Burbank2035 Open Space and Conservation Element
Goal 9: Water Resources
Burbank seeks to provide adequate sources of high-quality water for uses throughout the City.
Policy 9.1: Meet the goal of a 20 percent reduction in municipal water use by 2020.
Policy 9.2: Provide public information regarding the importance of water conservation and avoiding wasteful water habits.
Policy 9.3: Offer incentives for water conservation and explore other water conservation programs.
Policy 9.4: Pursue infrastructure improvements that would expand communitywide use of recycled water.
Policy 9.5: Require on-site drainage improvements using native vegetation to capture and clean stormwater runoff.
Goal 10: Energy Resources
Burbank conserves energy, uses renewable energy sources, zero-carbon energy sources and promotes sustainable energy practices that reduce pollution and fossil fuel consumption.
Policy 10.1: Incorporate energy conservation strategies in City projects.
Policy 10.2: Promote energy-efficient design features to reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling.
Policy 10.3: Continue to acquire alternative fuel vehicles like hybrid, natural gas, electric, or hydrogen-powered vehicles when adding to the City’s vehicle fleet.
Policy 10.4: Encourage residents and businesses to reduce vehicle use or to purchase alternative fuel vehicles.
ATTACHMENT 10 -293
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-21
Policy 10.5: Promote technologies that reduce use of non-renewable energy resources.
Policy 10.6: Support private sources of sustainable, environmentally friendly energy supplies.
Policy 10.7: Encourage the use of solar energy systems in homes and commercial businesses as a form of renewable energy.
Burbank Municipal Code (BMC)
Title 8, Chapter 2, Utilities, of the BMC establishes regulatory compliance for rules, regulations, fees, charges, and other additional requirements related to energy and energy use within the City.
4.12.3 Impact Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
To determine whether a project would result in a significant impact related to Utilities and Service Systems, thresholds were developed based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The impact would be significant if the proposed Project would meet the criteria below.
Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects Not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments
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 Not comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste
The Initial Study (Appendix A) determined that the project would result in no impacts related to compliance with solid waste statutes and regulations; therefore, this issue is not studied further herein. The Initial Study (Appendix A) also determined that potential impacts to energy and natural gas would be less than significant under the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist issue area for Energy; however, because the Initial Study also determined that impacts to energy and natural gas would be potentially significant under the issue area for Utilities and Service Systems, these topics are therefore addressed further herein for the purposes of this EIR. b. Methodology
Impacts related to utilities and service systems were evaluated by forecasting utility demands associated with the proposed Project and comparing such demands to current and planned service system capacity. Utility and service system demands of the proposed Project were quantified where possible, based upon readily available public information and industry standards, with all assumptions identified in the analysis below. Where insufficient data was available to quantify utility and service system demands, such demands are discussed qualitatively in order to inform the impact analysis.
ATTACHMENT 10 -294
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-22
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: 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?
Impact UTIL-1 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD
REQUIRE UTILITY SERVICE AND CONNECTIONS FOR WATER SUPPLY, WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE, AND STORMWATER CONVEYANCE, AS WELL AS TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ELECTRICITY, AND NATURAL GAS. EXISTING
UTILITY SYSTEMS FOR WATER, ELECTRIC POWER, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN BURBANK HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO SERVE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, NEW
CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING OR EXPANDED WASTEWATER SERVICE SYSTEMS WOULD BE REQUIRED, AND SUCH CONNECTIONS COULD RESULT IN POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. NONETHELESS, IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.
Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would involve up to 10,456 new housing units by 2029. The Safety Element Update would not involve new development so would not affect utilities or service systems. Impacts associated with the Housing Element Update are discussed below. As mentioned under Thresholds of Significance, above, the topic of solid waste is not assessed herein because the Initial Study determined that potential impacts would be less than significant and therefore do not require further analysis.
Water Supply
Construction activities associated with reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would require recycled water for dust suppression, concrete manufacturing, and such activities as washing wheels and equipment. Temporary construction recycled water would be trucked to active construction sites or produced from existing fire hydrants near the applicable site(s), with City approval. Temporary construction water demands would not require new connections or conveyance facilities, as existing or mobile facilities would be used.
New water supply connections and associated facilities would be required for future developments, to convey potable water supply to future housing developments. Such upgrades would occur within existing utility easements and would be located underground, primarily within existing roadways.
Housing development under the proposed Project would be located in previously developed areas that are either currently zoned for residential development or would be rezoned for residential development under the proposed Project. As shown in Figure 2-2 of Section 2, Project Description, the proposed Project area is previously disturbed and largely urbanized. Due to the built-up nature of this area, there are substantial existing utility rights-of-way previously established, largely within existing roadways, which are prevalent. New water service connections that may be required for development associated with the proposed Project would be conducted within previously disturbed areas and existing rights-of-way, and would be consistent with utility expansion in urbanized areas, such that minimal areas of new disturbance would occur. Although all parcels in Burbank have access to public utility infrastructure, in some cases the infrastructure is older and in need of replacement or insufficient to meet the needs of a particular project. Pursuant to General Plan Land Use Policy 2.3, new development is required to pay for their share of upgrading the utility infrastructure as needed to serve their project. This may include installing larger water mains, new water meters, and/or upgrades to existing facilities.
ATTACHMENT 10 -295
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-23
Developers are responsible for funding any infrastructure improvements that are required to mitigate project impacts and have not been previously identified as part of a capital improvement program covered by the development impact fees. Consistent with applicable State law, the City’s development fees will ensure that the developers pay the cost attributable to the increased demand for the affected public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to refurbish the existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service and achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the City’s General Plan (California Government Code Section 66001(g)).
As individual housing projects are proposed and considered for approval by the City, project proponents would be required to demonstrate that any identified system deficiencies reasonably related to the development project are adequately addressed by the responsible project proponent and future upgrades are designed in accordance with the BMC and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, the City requires applicants to coordinate with the Burbank Fire Department and City of Burbank Building and Safety Division to ensure that existing and planned fire hydrants provide sufficient fire flow pressure requirements. The City’s issuance of building permits is contingent upon review, testing, and approval that sufficient fire flow pressure is provided for the applicable site. Due to the existing built-up nature of the City, it is reasonably anticipated that future improvements for water supply and fire flow requirements would not disturb previously undisturbed areas and would be situated within existing utility rights-of-way, such as but not limited to within public roadways.
Water supply for new housing developments would be provided by BWP, which purchases imported surface water supplies from the SWP and the Colorado Aqueduct via Metropolitan, as well as local groundwater supplies which are pumped by the City in accordance with groundwater credits consistent with the local Adjudication Judgment for the underlying groundwater basin. The availability and reliability of water supply for the proposed Project is addressed below, under Impact UTIL-2. Potential impacts related to relocation or construction of water supply facilities would be less than significant.
Wastewater
Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would require new connections for wastewater conveyance. As described in Section 4.13.1(b) above, wastewater conveyance in Burbank is provided by approximately 230 miles of City-owned and operated underground pipelines and associated pump stations. The Burbank Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance of the City’s sewer mainlines, while individual property owners are responsible for the maintenance of the sewer laterals that connect buildings to mainlines. All structures producing sewage or liquid waste in the City of Burbank must be connected to the sewer system mainline by sewer lateral lines, which require issuance of an excavation permit and a sewer connection permit from the Public Works Permit Section (Burbank 2021). All sewer connections are subject to a Sewer Service Charge (SSC). For residential developments such as those that would occur under the proposed Project, the SSC is not based on water usage rates, but rather on the actual costs associated with providing sewer services (Burbank 2021). The majority of wastewater generated in the City is conveyed to the BWRP for treatment prior to discharge in accordance with an existing NPDES permit. Project impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity at BWRP are discussed further under Impact UTIL-3.
Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would occur in compliance with the requirements of BMC Chapter 8-1, Sewers, which establishes City standards related to wastewater discharge, peak flow, and sewer capacity. New connections to the City sewer system, ATTACHMENT 10 -296
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-24
including the construction of new laterals connecting to the sewer mainline, would be subject to permitting approval by the City of Burbank Public Works Permit Section (Burbank 2021). To the extent that sewer pipeline upgrades may be necessary as reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project occur s, such upgrades would occur either within existing utility easements to the maximum extent practicable or when determined necessary through project sewer capacity analysis, the construction of new facilities and/or upgrades to existing ones, and any required upgrades resulting from the Project are necessary to mitigate potential significant impacts to the City’s wastewater system. New wa stewater conveyance connections are allowed and will be the responsibility of the private property owner to connect their private sewer lateral to the City sewer main provided that the appropriate permits are obtained, and sufficient capacity exists prior to construction. Although all parcels in Burbank have access to public utility infrastructure, in some cases the infrastructure is older and in need of replacement to meet the needs of a particular project.
Pursuant to Burbank2035 General Plan Land Use Policy 2.3, new development is required to pay for their share of upgrading the utility infrastructure as needed to serve their project. Based on project - specific conditions and General Plan policy related to ensuring sufficient wastewater infrastructure to support projects as envisioned through the Housing Element, a sewer capacity analysis would be required for individual projects to determine the applicable development fees and any physical improvements that would be needed to ensure the City’s wastewater system can adequately address the needs of these future developments envisioned under the proposed Project and continue to meet the needs of surrounding land uses within the Project area and the community as a whole. Based on the results of the sewer capacity analysis, t hese improvements may include, but not be limited to installing new or larger sewer lines and/or upgrading existing facilities.
Developers are responsible for funding any infrastructure improvements that are required to mitigate project impacts as part of a capital improvement program covered by the development fees. Consistent with applicable State law, the City’s development fees would ensure that the developers pay the cost attributable to the increased demand for the affected public facilities reasonably related to the development project, such that existing facilities can maintain the necessary capacity to serve existing and future demand and achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the City’s General Plan (California Government Code Section 66001(g)). However, where sanitary sewer capital upgrades are needed because of new development, the developer would be responsible for payment of applicable sewer infrastructure fees and any physical improvements to the wastewater system that are necessary to serve the project as determined by the Director of Public Works prior to the proposed project’s construction.
Development under the proposed Project would be in previously developed areas that are either currently zoned for residential development or would be rezoned for residential development under the proposed Project. Due to the built-up nature of this area, there are substantial existing utility rights-of-way previously established, largely within existing roadways, which are prevalent. New wastewater service connections that may be required as a direct result of new development associated with the proposed Project would be conducted within previously disturbed areas, existing rights-of-way, and, in some cases, a new easement would be created. Nonetheless, these connections would be subject to City approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
While individual projects conducted under the Housing Element Update would require new wastewater conveyance connections, such connections would be designed and permitted on a project-specific basis. In addition, future project proponents have a legal obligation for all future wastewater upgrades to be designed in accordance with the BMC and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works or their designee. However, as noted above, where sanitary sewer capital ATTACHMENT 10 -297
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-25
upgrades are needed it is possible that a new development may require new or expanded facilities to serve the project prior to the proposed project’s construction (at cost to the developer).
Therefore, impacts to new or expanded wastewater conveyance associated with build-out of future housing development projects associated with the Housing Element would be potentially significant.
Stormwater
Reasonably foreseeable residential development under the Housing Element Update would not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces since it would be focused in urban infill areas already largely covered with impervious surfaces. Compliance with Sections 9-3-413 and 9-3-414 of the BMC would ensure that future development projects resulting from the Housing and Safety Element Update would be implemented with appropriately sized and sited stormwater conveyance facilities. In the long-term, redevelopment of properties in the City is anticipated to improve the quality of stormwater runoff by replacing older development with new development that incorporates Low Impact Development (LID) methods. LID methods include features such as stormwater detention basins and vegetated swales that slow the velocity of surface runoff and filter some water quality constituents before the runoff percolates to the underlying groundwater system or is conveyed through the City’s, or Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s (LACFCD), stormwater infrastructure. In accordance with the BMC, post-construction stormwater runoff from new projects must be captured and used to the maximum extent practicable, including through the implementation of on-site BMPs for stormwater management. Therefore, while individual housing developments would include site-specific stormwater drainage and conveyance facilities, such facilities would be designed and built in accordance with the BMC and BMPs for stormwater management. Potential impacts related to relocation or construction of new wastewater conveyance facilities would be less than significant.
Telecommunications, Electricity, and Natural Gas
Telecommunications services are provided by private companies, at the discretion of the customer.
Electricity in Burbank is provided by BWP, and natural gas is provided by the Southern California Gas Company (SCG). Each of these utility areas are addressed below, with respect to the potential of the proposed Project to result in impacts.
Telecommunications
The City is highly urbanized with existing above- and below-ground telecommunications infrastructure. Telecommunications services are provided by ONE Burbank, AT&T, EarthLink, Spectrum or other providers, at the discretion of current and future residents. Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would increase demand for existing telecommunications in the City. Individual telecommunication providers implement planned improvements throughout their service areas on an as-needed basis, which are typically limited to small-scale upgrades and new facilities in existing developed areas. Construction of additional telecommunications facilities or upgrades to existing facilities to meet demands from the proposed Project would be undertaken by private telecommunication service providers in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Telecommunications are generally available in the City and substantial upgrades to existing telecommunications facilities would not likely be necessary. Necessary facility upgrades to accommodate new service connections would be undertaken by individual telecommunication providers. No restrictions on the ability to provide adequate telecommunication service are present or anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed Project. In addition, due to the built-up nature of the City and the nature of telecommunication ATTACHMENT 10 -298
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-26
upgrades being small-scale and sited within the development footprint of new projects, potential impacts associated with new or expanded facilities would be less than significant.
Electricity
Electricity in Burbank is provided by BWP, which maintains a fully functional system of above- ground and underground electrical facilities, primarily found along roadways throughout the City of Burbank. In addition to electrical power conveyance lines, there are numerous electrical substations throughout the City, from which these conveyance lines flow. Future housing developments that would occur under the proposed Project would require electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities. The services would be provided by BWP, through new future connections that would be implemented on a project-specific basis, and subject to the review and approval of BWP.
Numerous plans by BWP have shifted the generation of electric power to renewable sources of energy. The most recent plan, BWP’s 2019 Final Power Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), identifies a planning tool that is central to the continued reliability of the BWP power system while meeting all regulatory requirements through 2038 (BWP 2019). The 2019 IRP provides analysis of the State of California’s increased RPS, set by SB 100, of 60 percent renewable energy sources by 2030.
Achievement of the RPS includes expansion of local solar power generation, energy storage, and transportation electrification efforts over a 20-year horizon. In order to ultimately achieve a 100 percent zero-carbon resource portfolio as set by SB 100 by 2045, BWP is taking actions to reduce non-renewable energy sources, including the 2025 retirement of BWP’s share of the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) coalfired generating plant in Utah. BWP is looking at several alternative energy options including implementing solar, wind, and batteries to help replace energy that has traditionally been sourced from the Utah IPP coal resource. BWP will procure resources that meet or exceed state clean energy standards, while maintaining reliability of the grid is a cost-effective manner.
To help achieve the City’s renewable energy source goals, BWP may integrate the following issues into future resource planning analysis:
Rate Design: Design time-varying rates that encourage customers to shift their consumption away from higher cost periods to lower cost periods
Demand Response (DR). Consider cost-effective BWP customer DR programs Beneficial Electrification. Enhance and extend BWP efforts to encourage growth in beneficial electrification that reduces GHG emissions, including electric vehicles. Disadvantaged Communities. Develop and implement a program to target disadvantaged communities with selected BWP energy efficiency, demand response, and beneficial electrification programs.
IPP Coal Replacement. Work with LADWP and other IPP participants to determine resources that will replace the IPP coal plant when it is retired in 2025. Transmission Delivery for Renewables. Identify options and costs for transmission delivery of large quantities of renewable energy resulting from SB 100. Solar Over-Generation. Work to mitigate the impact of solar generation (including morning and afternoon ramping, overgeneration, and instantaneous intermittency) such that reliability and affordability are maintained.
Resource Positioning. Position BWP’s resources to balance supply and demand on the grid ad increased renewable energy sources come online, thereby minimizing costs and ATTACHMENT 10 -299
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-27
maximizing energy reliability for Burbank. In this connection, evaluate further improvement in the operational flexibility of the Magnolia Power Project.
The City’s movement towards the contracting of new renewable energy sources, through Power Purchase Agreement, as discussed above, will further bolster the City’s ability to meet energy demands associated with future population growth. In addition, BWP is taking action to diversify energy generation sources, improve energy storage capabilities, and secure future energy reliability.
These efforts are implemented to address the challenges of the power grid’s baseload reliability, which can fluctuate with the introduction of many renewable energy sources to the grid. This fluctuation is directly tied to the fluctuating nature of energy captured; for example, solar energy is only accumulated during optimum sunlight hours, while energy is consumed 24 hours per day.
Therefore, diversification of energy sources is critical to providing reliably energy supply, when incorporating substantial new sources of renewable energy to a power grid. BWP’s efforts toward energy source diversification are consistent with the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) 2019-2020 Transmission Plan, which provides a comprehensive evaluation of the California energy transmission grid to identify upgrades needed to successfully meet California’s policy goals (CAISO 2019).
New connections for electrical power would be implemented on a project-by-project basis. As shown in Figure 2-2 of Section 2, Project Description, the proposed Project area is previously disturbed and largely urbanized. Due to the built-up nature of this area, there are substantial existing utility rights-of-way previously established, largely within existing roadways, which are prevalent. New electricity service connections that may be required for development associated with the proposed Project would be conducted within previously disturbed areas and existing rights- of-way, and would be consistent with utility expansion in urbanized areas. Although all parcels in Burbank have access to public utility infrastructure, in some cases the infrastructure is older and in need of replacement or insufficient to meet the needs of a particular project. Pursuant to General Plan Land Use Policy 2.3, new development is required to pay for their share of upgrading the utility infrastructure as needed to serve their project. This may include new electrical transformers, new transmission lines and/or new substations.
Developers are responsible for funding any infrastructure improvements that are required to mitigate project impacts and have not been previously identified as part of a capital improvement program covered by the development impact fees. Consistent with applicable State law, the City’s development fees will ensure that the developers pay the cost attributable to the increased demand for the affected public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to refurbish the existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service and achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the City’s General Plan (California Government Code Section 66001(g)).
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
Natural gas infrastructure is located throughout Burbank, typically underground and beneath existing paved roadways. Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would increase the demand for natural gas and associated connections. Natural gas is provided by the SCG, which projects total gas demand to decline at an annual rate of approximately one percent per year from 2020 through 2035. The decline is due to modest economic growth, and CPUC mandates for energy efficiency (EE) standards and programs. Other factors that contribute to the downward trend are tighter standards created by revised Title 24 Codes and Standards, renewable ATTACHMENT 10 -300
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-28
electricity goals, a decline in core commercial and industrial demand, and conservation savings linked to Advanced Metering Infrastructure. Pursuant to the 2020 California Gas Report, SCG will meet its projected demand for natural gas resources through at least year 2026, as determined by modeled forecasts (SCG 2020).
Although development associated with the proposed Project would increase the number of natural gas connections in Burbank, all new development would be designed for consistency with the CPUC mandates for implementing EE standards and practices. In addition, as development of additional renewable energy sources for the City continues to expand as discussed above, it is reasonably inferred that demand for natural gas will decrease due to the increased diversity of the City’s energy supply portfolio. Therefore, although natural gas connections would likely increase under the proposed Project, the per capita demand for natural gas in the City is expected to continue decreasing, through compliance with CPUC mandates for EE standards and practices, and through the greater diversification of energy supplies to include a suite of renewable energy sources in addition to natural gas. New connections for natural gas would be implemented on a project-by- project basis and would be implemented within previously disturbed areas and existing rights-of- way. Potential impacts to natural gas would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure has been incorporated to identify any sewer service constraints and determine if there are any sewer capacity issues and necessary mitigations relative to each opportunity site identified in the Project.
UTIL-1 Sewer Service Constraints Analysis
The City will conduct an analysis to identify any sewer service constraints to determine if there are any sewer capacity issues and any constraints in the City’s wastewater system including assessment of system capacity relative to the locations of opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element Update. The analysis will identify upgrades necessary to mitigate the constraints in the system to ensure that individual housing development projects implemented under the Housing Element can be completed and that sufficient capacity and conveyance in the wastewater system exists. However, if a proposed development has a construction schedule that the City cannot accommodate, the developer may be responsible for performing the necessary sewer infrastructure upgrades per Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) 8-1-304. Based on the constraints identified in the analysis, the City’s Public Works Department will prepare a nexus fee study to develop a fair share requirement in the form of a wastewater connection or similar project impact fee, which helps to pay for implementation of upgrades necessary to accommodate future development, including development of the opportunity sites where deficiencies in the system are identified to exist. Through the fee study, subsequent cost recovery fees applied to individual housing development projects will be based on a rough proportionality related to demands on the system reasonably attributed to the development project.
In the event it is determined that necessary upgrades to serve a project cannot be completed by the City prior to project completion, the City may require the developer to perform the necessary sewer infrastructure upgrades (Per BMC 8-1-304) at cost to the developer, or may choose to enter into a reimbursement agreement so that a developer may fund and construct the improvements within the necessary timeframe with subsequent partial reimbursement. If the City and Developer mutually agree to enter into reimbursement agreement (approved as to ATTACHMENT 10 -301
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-29
form by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council), it would be administered by the City’s Public Works Director on behalf of the City.
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would require a sewer service constraints analysis that would be developed by the Public Works Department. The subsequent analysis would provide the necessary information to allow the Public Works Department to initiate work on preparing a fee study to identify a wastewater connection fee that facilitates the recovery of City’s costs of future upgrades necessary to address identified constraints that are attributed to the type of development being proposed and proportional to the individual project’s impact to the City’s wastewater system. The development of a sewer service constraints analysis as designed and developed the Public Works Department (the plan for addressing existing and future demands), and the resulting wastewater connection fee, would be further bolstered by the City’s establishment of a process to allow reimbursement agreements (approved as to form by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council), between the City and the developer for projects that must construct improvements to serve the project ahead of the City’s implementation. The noted plan, cost recovery fee, and reimbursement agreement process collectively result in Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would reduce the noted potential significant impacts to the City’s wastewater conveyance system to less than significant.
Threshold 2: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Impact UTIL-2 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD
REQUIRE A TEMPORARY RECYCLED WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND A LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY DURING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. WATER SUPPLY WOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF BURBANK,
WHICH PURCHASES IMPORTED SURFACE WATER FROM THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA AND RECEIVES GROUNDWATER CREDITS TO SUPPLEMENT ITS PURCHASED WATER SUPPLY WITH LOCALLY PRODUCED GROUNDWATER. GROWTH UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE
CITY OF BURBANK URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, AS INFORMED BY THE GENERAL PLAN, AND SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLIES ARE AVAILABLE TO SERVE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT. POTENTIAL IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As discussed in Section 4.14.1, Setting, water supply in Burbank is provided by BWP, which purchases imported surface water supplies from Metropolitan. The City overlies the San Fernando Valley Groundwater Basin but does not have overlying landowner rights to produce groundwater because the basin is adjudicated and managed in accordance with Upper Los Angeles River Adjudication Judgment, administered by the Upper Los Angeles River Area Watermaster as the Watermaster. Although the City is not party to the Adjudication Judgment, it receives groundwater credits based upon the amount of water BWP imports to Burbank that eventually infiltrates through the ground surface to recharge the underlying groundwater basin (BWP 2021b). Accordingly, Burbank receives groundwater credits equivalent to 20 percent of the total water distributed in the City, including as recycled water (BWP 2021b). These groundwater credits allow BWP to produce groundwater from four City-owned wells, which the City treats to meet State and Federal drinking water standards.
Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would involve up to 10,456 new residential units, which may occur anywhere in the City where residential uses are ATTACHMENT 10 -302
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-30
currently permitted, as well as in areas that may be rezoned in the future to allow for multi-family residential and mixed use of adequate density. As discussed in Section 2.2, Land Use, of the City’s current (2020) UWMP, the City expects that new residential development will be predominantly multi-family (BWP 2021a), which is consistent with the Housing Element Update, as assessed herein.
The City’s 2020 UWMP also reports that 2020 potable water demand was 138 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), indicating a slight bounce-back after drought restrictions, but not returning to pre- drought levels. In addition, the City’s 2020 UWMP reports that water usage in the City is projected to increase to 150 gpcd in 2025, then gradually increase by 2045 to 170 gpcd. Burbank intends to maintain such trends in a sustainable manner through the continued implementation of drought- period conservation efforts as well as long-term plans and programs.
As discussed in Section 4.9, Population and Housing, the City of Burbank’s average household size is
2.45 individuals. Accordingly, the proposed Project’s increase of 10,456 residential units could generate a population increase of approximately 25,617 individuals. Assuming a per capita water demand of 170 gpcd in 2045, as discussed above, the additional population of 25,617 individuals (based on 10,456 new housing units) would increase potable water demand by 4,354,890 gallons per day, which equates to approximately 4,878 AFY. This represents approximately 22 percent of the City’s available water supply in 2045 under normal water year (non-drought) conditions, as shown in . The water supply availability information provided in was sourced from the City’s 2020 UWMP, which is informed by growth projections provided in the Housing Element, which has been updated with the current Housing Element Update, assessed herein.
Therefore, as discussed above, the increased housing that would occur under the proposed Project would increase citywide water demand by up to 4,878 AFY, or approximately 22 percent of the City’s available water supply in 2045. In addition, although population growth has continued to increase, citywide water demand throughout Burbank has declined compared to the early 1970s due to efficient water use after major droughts in the 1970s, 1990s, and especially in response to the previous significant water shortage and closure of major industries (BWP 2021a). The Burbank2035 General Plan includes policies and programs in the Land Use Element as well as the Open Space and Conservation Element to address water resources and prepare Burbank for the possible consequences of climate change on water supply availability. Such policies include using native or drought
-tolerant plants in landscaping, using recycled water in irrigation, and promoting all possible water conservation efforts (Burbank 2013). Conservation efforts would continue to be implemented and expanded as development associated with the proposed Project is constructed, and it is reasonably anticipated that conservation efforts will continue to be effective at reducing water demands.
As mentioned above, the City of Burbank’s primary water supply is comprised of imported SWP and Colorado River water purchased by BWP from Metropolitan. The City also receives credits to use locally produced groundwater for 20 percent of all water supply distributed in the City because imported water supplies from outside the City ultimately recharge local groundwater through infiltration from landscaping, as well as through infiltration of recycled water produced at the BWRP. These groundwater credits diversify the City’s water supply portfolio and further bolster water supply reliability within the City. In addition, because the amount of groundwater credits received by the City is a factor of the total amount of water imported to the City, as water demands increase and the corresponding amount of water imported to the City increases, the amount of groundwater credits received by the City will also increase. Table 4.12-1 summarizes BWP’s current and projected water supplies, as provided in the City’s 2020 UWMP, and delineates both supplies ATTACHMENT 10 -303
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-31
purchased from Metropolitan as well as supplies available through groundwater credits (indicated as “Supplier-Produced Groundwater” and recycled water.
Table 4.12-1 Burbank Water Supplies – Current and Projected Water Supplies (acre-feet) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Potable
Metropolitan Treated Potable 6,165 7,407 9,722 10,714 11,012 11,310 Supplier-Produced Groundwater 9,997 10,655 10,658 10,672 10,700 10,700 Potable Total 16,162 18,062 20,380 21,386 21,712 22,010 Non-Potable
Metropolitan Replenishment 152 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 Recycled Water1 3,149 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540
Non-Potable Total 3,301 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 1 Recycled water is produced at the BWRP by treating wastewater conveyed from throughout the City.
Note: Recycled water includes proposed deliveries to Los Angeles in exchange for groundwater credits. The amounts estimated for untreated replenishment depend on these Los Angeles exchange amounts. If less recycled water is exchanged for groundwater credits, the difference must be made up by increased replenishment purchases.
Source: BWP 2021a
As shown in Table 4.12-1, the City’s potable water demands are anticipated to increase between years 2020 and 2045. Burbank primarily sources its supply from Metropolitan, such that the City’s primary water supply is imported surface water purchased in amounts matching demand. BWP reports that citywide water demands have decreased compared to the 1970s even as population has increased. In addition, as shown in Table 4.12-1, the City’s non-potable water supplies are anticipated to increase between the years 2020 and 2045 due to the continued expansion of recycled water uses and programs throughout the City, specifically at the BWRP. As discussed above, the increased housing that would occur under the proposed Project would increase citywide water demand by up to 4,878 AFY, or approximately 22 percent of the City’s available water supply in 2045, which will continue to be sources primarily from Metropolitan.
Metropolitan’s projected supply allocations for Burbank are shown in Table 4.12-2, for comparison with the City of Burbank demand projections as shown in Table 4.12-1. Metropolitan estimates future water demands for Burbank and the entire region using its Econometric Demand Model, developed by the Brattle Group. BWP utilizes Metropolitan’s projections to provide the basis for dry-year (drought) water supply reliability planning.
ATTACHMENT 10 -304
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-32
Table 4.12-2 Metropolitan Wholesale Supply Allocation for Burbank Source 2020 (actual) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Treated Potable 6,165 7,407 9,722 10,714 11,012 11,310
Untreated Groundwater Replenishment 152 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 Notes: Units in acre-feet (AF)
MWD Replenishment supply was especially low in 2020 due to previous recharge of large quantities of surplus water through MWD’s cyclic storage program. Over the long term, Burbank projects the need to recharge approximately 6,800 AFY to balance groundwater inventory.
Source: BWP 2021a
Table 4.12-1 indicates that Metropolitan’s treated potable water supply allocation for the City of Burbank in 2020 was 6,165 AF. In comparison, Table 4.12-2 indicates that the City of Burbank purchased 6,165 acre-feet of treated potable water from Metropolitan in 2020. As such, the City’s demand for treated potable water in 2020 was equal to the demand projected by Metropolitan. The City’s demand and Metropolitan’s demand projections remain equal over time under all climatic conditions considered, and in the year 2045, the City’s demand for potable treated water is projected to be 11,310 AF, which is also the same as Metropolitan’s projection. Metropolitan further details supply and demand projections under normal water year conditions, singly dry year (drought) conditions, and multiple dry year (extended drought) conditions, as shown in Table 4.12-3 through Table 4.12-5below.
Table 4.12-3 BWP Normal Year Supply and Demand
Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Potable
Normal Year Supply 18,062 20,380 21,386 21,712 22,010
Normal Year Demand 18,062 20,380 21,386 21,712 22,010
Non-Potable
Normal Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340
Normal Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340
Units in acre-feet (AF)
Source: BWP 2021
ATTACHMENT 10 -305
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-33
Table 4.12-4 BWP Single Dry Year Supply and Demand
Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Potable
Single Dry Year Supply 17,989 20,298 21,300 21,625 21,922
Single Dry Year Demand 17,989 20,298 21,300 21,625 21,922 Non-Potable
Single Dry Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Single Dry Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Units in acre-feet (AF)
Source: BWP 2021
Table 4.12-5 LVMWD Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand
Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
First Year- Potable
First Dry Year Supply 18,214 20,730 21,693 22,111 22,406 First Dry Year Demand 18,214 20,730 21,693 22,111 22,406 First Year- Non-Potable
First Dry Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 First Dry Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Second Year- Potable
Second Dry Year Supply 18,600 20,935 21,693 22,172 22,406 Second Dry Year Demand 18,600 20,935 21,693 22,172 22,406 Second Year- Non-Potable
Second Dry Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Second Dry Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Third Year- Potable
Third Dry Year Supply 18,986 21,139 21,693 22,232 22,406 Third Dry Year Demand 18,986 21,139 21,693 22,232 22,406 Third Year- Non-Potable
Third Dry Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Third Dry Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Fourth Year- Potable
Fourth Dry Year Supply 19,373 21,344 21,891 22,293 22,406 Fourth Dry Year Demand 19,373 21,344 21,891 22,293 22,406 Fourth Year- Non-Potable
Fourth Dry Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Fourth Dry Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 ATTACHMENT 10 -306
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-34
Sources 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Fifth Year- Non-Potable
Fifth Dry Year Supply 19,759 21,549 21,958 22,354 22,406 Fifth Dry Year Demand 19,759 21,549 21,958 22,354 22,406 Fifth Year- Non-Potable
Fifth Dry Year Supply 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Fifth Dry Year Demand 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 10,340 Units in acre-feet (AF)
Source: BWP 2021
As shown above, Metropolitan projects that water supply will be equal to water demand under all climatic conditions considered, such that water supply reliability is 100 percent through the year 2045 (BWP 2021a). This is partly due to the effectiveness of conservation programs implemented throughout the planning period. The projections shown above for imported surface water supply availability from Metropolitan indicate that sufficient supplies are available to the City to meet projected demands. These projections are based upon the City’s 2020 UWMP which reflects population growth associated with the Housing Element Update, as well as additional supplies associated with expansion of the City’s current water supply portfolio through increased conservation and conjunctive use management efforts. Since BWP water demands are accounted for in the supply availability projections identified above, and with consideration to BWP’s access to local groundwater supplies and recycled water supplies, both of which are expected to increase over time, it is reasonably anticipated that sufficient water supply is available for the proposed Project demands.
As noted in the City’s UWMP, future development projects that meet the definition of “project” in the California Water Code as amended by Senate Bill 610 are required to develop a project-specific WSA. A WSA is required for several types of development projects, and specifically for residential developments of 500 or more units, or projects that would introduce a water demand equivalent to or greater than that of a 500-unit residential development. In accordance with California Water Code, a WSA is required to evaluate the availability and reliability of water supply over a 20-year projection and with consideration to varying climatic (drought) conditions, similar to the types of projections provided in the UWMP as shown in . Project-specific WSAs are subject to the review and approval of BWP, as the water supplier throughout Burbank, and WSAs will be considered in BWP supply planning documents, including future iterations of the UWMP. As discussed above, based upon the City’s 2020 UWMP and supply availability projections, as well as projected demands associated with the proposed Project, it is reasonably anticipated that sufficient water supply is available to meet future water demands in the City.
In addition to the anticipated sufficiency and reliability of existing and planned water supplies in Burbank, BWP and Metropolitan are actively developing and implementing water supply-related projects that further bolster the reliability of future water supplies. These projects include but are not limited to: an increase of up to 200 AFY of expanded water recycling activities at BWRP; development of North Hollywood Operable Unit wells for expanded potable reuse supplies at the Burbank Operable Unit; and a feasibility study to assess opportunities for indirect potable reuse / direct potable reuse, thereby further bolstering available future supplies (BWP 2021a). Through these efforts, BWP anticipates that recycled water will play an integral role in future water supplies.
ATTACHMENT 10 -307
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-35
In summary, regulatory orders and management agencies ensure the sustainability and reliability of water supplies currently used in the City of Burbank. In addition, BWP and Metropolitan have identified potential future supply sources to augment water supplies and further insulate the region from hydrological uncertainty. Therefore, sufficient water supplies are available to serve reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project, including reasonably foreseeable future development during normal (water year), dry-year, and multiple-dry-year (drought) conditions.
Potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
Threshold 3: 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? Impact UTIL-3 WASTEWATER GENERATED IN THE CITY OF BURBANK IS CONVEYED TO AND TREATED AT THE BURBANK WATER RECLAMATION PLANT. REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INCREASE WASTEWATER GENERATION COMMENSURATE WITH THE INCREASED POPULATION.
SIGNIFICANT TREATMENT CAPACITY IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE AT THE BWRP TO TREAT INCREASED WASTEWATER GENERATED AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE SEWER GENERATION RATES THAT WERE CALCULATED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT, ALONG WITH CONSTRAINTS WITHIN THE CITY’S TREATMENT SYSTEM,
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS COULD RESULT ON A PROJECT-SPECIFIC BASIS WITH NO FEASIBLE MITIGATION AT THE CURRENT PLAN LEVEL. THEREFORE IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.
As discussed in Section 4.13.1(b), all wastewater generated in the City of Burbank is conveyed via sewer laterals to the sewer mainline, which conveys wastewater to the BWRP for treatment and reuse as applicable. The BWRP has a design capacity of 12.5 mgd and currently treats approximately
8.5 mgd (BWP 2021a). The BWRP produces a disinfected tertiary effluent that is discharged to either the Burbank Western Channel or the City’s recycled water distribution system for non-potable use, which is conducted in compliance with an existing NPDES permit issued by the Los Angeles RWQCB.
The City has substantially expanded its recycled water program through petitions filed with and approved by the SWRCB, to change the place of use and purpose of use for treated wastewater from the BWRP to the Burbank Western Channel, which flows to the Los Angeles River (SWRCB 2018). As such, average daily flow rates to BWRP have decreased in recent years due to the successful implementation of water conservation measures that have resulted in less wastewater generated per capita. Water usage is projected to increase to 150 gpcd for 2025, and then gradually increase by 2045 to 170 gpcd (BWP 2021a). Wastewater generation would be reduced by water reuse efforts and programs which are currently being expanded by BWP, such as reusing graywater for landscaping and other non-potable purposes.
The proposed Housing Element Update would increase wastewater generation and the amount of wastewater conveyed to the BWRP for treatment.
The estimated wastewater generated by the Project was calculated using the City’s Department of Public Works sewage generation rates, including a 2.5 peaking factor, to determine if the existing sewer system has the adequate capacity to convey sewage from the existing properties and the ATTACHMENT 10 -308
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-36
proposed developments.1 As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the estimated growth for the purpose of the EIR analysis is 10,456 housing units to account for the 2029 interpolated housing growth assumed under the two Specific Plans along with the City’s RHNA allocation. Furthermore, the City projects approximately 1.4 million square feet of new commercial space (with an allowance of up 10 percent of that to be restaurant space) as part of the Housing Element Update. Based on the City’s wastewater generation rates (and including a peaking factor of 2.5), the Project would generate an estimated 6.3 million gallons per day (mgd) (Burbank, N.d).2 As previously stated, the BWRP’s current available treatment capacity is 4 mgd, which would not be sufficient to accommodate a conservative estimate of 6.3 mgd of wastewater generated by a full buildout of the proposed Housing Element Update.
The City of Burbank Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining, replacing, and upgrading the City’s sewer collection and treatment system. The Public Works Department conducts repairs and upgrades as necessary to accommodate the wastewater conveyance and treatment demands throughout the City. As specific development projects are proposed and evaluated, General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.3 would require developers to pay their fair share for infrastructure improvements as needed to serve their project, and ensure that needed infrastructure and services are available prior to or at project completion, this may include the requirement that the developer pays for and performs the necessary sewer infrastructure upgrades, per BMC 8-1-304. In addition, the projected wastewater generation rates identified herein do not account for the effectiveness of ongoing and future conservation programs at reducing water use rates and associated wastewater generation rates. Wastewater generation rates will likely be less than projected herein, as water use efficiencies reduce water use rates and corresponding wastewater generation rates. However, as discussed in Impact UTIL-1, based on the City’s most recent analysis of the sewer system, constraints within the system could result from subsequent build out of housing development projects under the Project depending on location, timing, and size/scale of the project, and it cannot be assumed that necessary upgrades can always be completed prior to project completion based on the constraints. As a result, measures under Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 provide for an updated sewer service constraints analysis that identifies any such constraints and necessary mitigations relative to each opportunity site identified in the Project. The measure also requires an assessment of the need to prepare a cost of service and rate study to determine the updated sewer service charges and sewer facilities charges for the recovery of development fees for implementation of the upgrades necessary to address the identified constraints. This may also result in the creation of a process for reimbursement agreement (approved as to form by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council) for projects that must construct improvements to serve the project ahead of the City’s implementation. To reiterate, the developer may also be required to pay for and build improvements to the wastewater system as of result of their project impacts.
1 City of Burbank Public Works Department sewage generation rates available at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/174714/1196790/Sewage+Generation+Rates.pdf/5a6181e4-4f22-906e-bc32- 9c29b18cb417?t=1618365964641.
2 Per the City’s wastewater generation rates, multi-family apartment units generate 183 gallons per day (gpd) per unit, single-family residences generate 215 gpd per unit, restaurants generate 2,272.65 gpd per 1,000 sf, and commercial/retail uses generate 85.39 gpd per 1,000 sf. It is assumed that 10% of the mixed-use area is allocated to restaurants and 90% is allocated to retail. Therefore, based on these rates and a 2.5 peak factor, the Project will generate 6,275,625.16 gpd:
2.5 * [(5,385 multi-family units * 183 gpd/unit) + (5,071 single-family units * 215 gpd/unit) + (1,285,947 sf of commercial/retail use *
0.08539 gpd/sf) + (142,883 sf of restaurant use * 2.27265 gpd/sf)]
2.5 * [985,455 gpd + 1,090,265 gpd + 109,807.01 gpd + 324,723.05 gpd]
2.5 * 2,510,250.06 gpd = 6,275,625 gpd
ATTACHMENT 10 -309
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-37
Although significant treatment capacity is currently available at the BWRP to treat wastewater generated because of the Project, the BWRP’s capacity is 4 mgd, which would not be sufficient to accommodate a conservative estimate of 6.3 mgd of wastewater generated by a full buildout of the Housing Element Update. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would result in potentially significant impacts to wastewater treatment capacity.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would address potential impacts related to the City’s wastewater conveyance system but would not address potential impacts associated with exceedance of the available wastewater treatment capacity at BWRP associated with full buildout of the Housing Element Update.
Significance After Mitigation
Public Works is currently working on a both Cost of Service/Rate Study and Needs Assessment for the BWRP. In addition, Public Works will also be initiating a new Sewer Master Plan in FY 2022/23 to evaluate the City’s sewer conveyance and treatment system over the next twenty years. It is noted that the above studies will take approximately one to two years to be completed, and that the final recommendations will not be available at the time the Housing Element is scheduled to be approved. Therefore, no feasible mitigation measure is identified at the plan level to reduce impacts to wastewater treatment capacity associated with the Project and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Threshold 4: 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?
Impact UTIL-4 SOLID WASTE CONVEYANCE AND DISPOSAL SERVICES IN BURBANK ARE PROVIDED BY
THE STREET AND SOLID WASTE DIVISION OF PUBLIC WORKS WHICH TRANSPORTS SOLID WASTE TO THE CITY- OWNED AND OPERATED BURBANK LANDFILL. SUFFICIENT CAPACITY IS AVAILABLE AT THE BURBANK LANDFILL
TO ACCOMMODATE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL VOLUMES ASSOCIATED WITH REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.
As described in Section 4.13.1, Setting, the Street and Solid Waste Division of Public Works is responsible for the collection of solid waste, green waste, recyclables, and bulky items. The City owns and operates the Burbank Landfill, located in the Verdugo Hills at the eastern edge of Burbank, which is expected to have an operational lifetime through year 2150. Solid waste received and processed at Burbank Landfill is 100 percent single family residential, and approximately 50 percent of multi-family and 10 percent commercial solid waste throughout the City. As of 2019, Burbank Landfill had a remaining capacity of 4,843,582 cy, or approximately 82 percent of the maximum permitted capacity of 5,933,365 cy (Los Angeles County 2020; CalRecycle 2019b). The maximum permitted intake to Burbank Landfill is 240 tons (436 cy) per operating day, while the average intake is approximately 123 tons (244 cy) per day, or approximately 51 percent of the permitted daily intake (Los Angeles County 2020). As such, Burbank Landfill has approximately 117 tons (192 cy) of its permitted daily intake available, or approximately 49 percent of the permitted daily intake.
Solid waste generation rates depend on the land use type, with multi-family residential units generating approximately four pounds per dwelling unit per day (lb/du/day), consistent with ATTACHMENT 10 -310
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-38
outputs from the CalEEMod prepared for the proposed Project. If all 10,456 new housing units included under the proposed Project are constructed as multi-family residential units, this equates to approximately 40,352 lb/day (20.2 tons) of solid waste. As stated above, the Burbank Landfill has average daily available permitted capacity of 117 tons (192 cy) per day, or approximately 49 percent of the permitted daily intake. Accordingly, sufficient solid waste disposal capacity is available at Burbank Landfill to meet the potential needs associated with reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project; although, new sources of solid waste will inevitably lower the overall lifespan of the Burbank Landfill. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.13.1(d), “Solid Waste,” multiple landfill facilities in southern California also accept and process solid waste from Burbank. In addition to the Burbank Landfill, approximately 50 percent of new wastes from multi-family residential development generated in Burbank will be transported to and disposed of at seven other southern California landfills including Burbank Landfill Site No. 3, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Puente Hills Landfill, Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center, and Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill (Burbank 2013), which will lower their lifespans while still maintaining sufficient capacity. Therefore, potential impacts from future residential development projects facilitated by the Housing Element will be mitigated through payment of fees charged for new development commensurate with the cost to transport the waste out of the City; such fees are adjusted annually as needed to ensure cost recovery.
Based upon the existing capacity of landfills available to the City, the solid waste generated by reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would not require the development of new or expanded solid waste facilities but, over time, will contribute to the need as other municipalities expand their housing. The proposed Project would not generate solid waste is excess of State or local standards or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
4.12.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts may occur if impacts of the proposed Project combine with similar impacts of other projects in the geographic and temporal scope of cumulative analysis. The proposed Project, including future housing development facilitated by the proposed Project, in conjunction with cumulative development citywide and within neighboring cities that are also served by the respective service areas, would increase demands for utilities that could require facility expansion or construction. Potential impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by- case basis at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the proposed project. Each cumulative project would require separate review , which would address potential impacts to utilities and service systems, as well as the identification and implementation of project-specific mitigation measure as identified under UTIL-1, including conducting an updated sewer service constraints analysis to identify deficiencies in existing utility systems and a resulting update in City fees for new development projects to help offset the cost of any future necessary upgrades on a project-specific basis as deemed necessary. The geographic scope of analysis for utilities and service systems varies depending on the service addressed, as discussed below.
ATTACHMENT 10 -311
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-39
Water Supply
The geographic extent of cumulative analysis for the topic of water supply includes all of Metropolitan’s service territory because Metropolitan provides the primary water supply source to the City, as purchased imported surface water. As discussed in the impact analysis above, full buildout of the proposed Housing Element Update would increase water demands throughout the City. Past and ongoing trends indicate that while population increases, per capita water consumption rates decrease, likely due to the effectiveness of conservation and drought response programs. In addition, the City continues to develop alternative water supplies to supplement the imported surface water supplies purchased from Metropolitan, through recycled water at the BWRP as well as local groundwater, which the City receives credits to use based upon the total amount of water imported to the City. Other projects that are anticipated to occur during implementation of projects under the Housing Element Update include non-residential developments, primarily in the form of commercial land uses. While these cumulative projects would also introduce new water demands, future development would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, which informs the City’s UWMP to project water supply availability and reliability, including as related to imported surface water from Metropolitan as well as locally developed water supplies including recycled water and groundwater. In addition, as with projects under the Housing Element Update, future projects in the cumulative scenario would be subject to the same regulatory orders and management agencies as the proposed Project that ensure the sustainability and reliability of water supplies currently used in the City of Burbank. In addition, BWP and Metropolitan have identified potential future supply sources to augment water supplies and further insulate the region from hydrological uncertainty. Therefore, sufficient water supplies are available to serve reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project and other projects in the cumulative scenario for water supply during normal year, dry year, and multiple dry-year conditions. Potential cumulative impacts associated with water supply would be less than significant.
Wastewater
The geographic extent of cumulative analysis for the topic of wastewater includes the Public Works Department’s service territory as wastewater conveyance and treatment throughout the City is conducted by the City’s Public Works Department. As discussed in the impact analysis above, new wastewater service connections would be installed as needed, on a project-specific basis; this would occur for non-residential developments within the cumulative scenario as it would for residential developments under the proposed Project. The Public Works Department conducts repairs and upgrades to the existing City-owned wastewater conveyance system throughout the City on an as- needed basis. However, as specific development projects are proposed and evaluated, General Plan Land Use Element Policy 2.3 would require developers to pay their fair share for infrastructure improvements as needed to serve their project, and ensure that needed infrastructure and services are available prior to or at project completion, this may include the requirement that the developer pays for and performs the necessary sewer infrastructure upgrades, per BMC 8-1-304. With implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 (Sewer Service Constraints Analysis), cumulative impacts related to wastewater conveyance would be less than significant.
Wastewater generation for full buildout of the proposed Housing Element Update is estimated to be up to approximately 6.3 mgd, which is not within the City’s currently available treatment capacity of 4 mgd. Therefore, impacts would be, significant and unavoidable due to constraints within the sewer system and development under the proposed Project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact associated with wastewater generation.
ATTACHMENT 10 -312
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-40
Stormwater
The geographic extent of cumulative analysis for the topic of stormwater includes the entire City of Burbank because the Public Works Department and LACFCD operates and maintain the Citywide stormwater conveyance system. Non-residential projects in the cumulative scenario would introduce project-specific needs for stormwater conveyance that would be reviewed and permitted on a project-by-project basis by the City. Due to the extensive built-up nature of the City, new development is not anticipated to introduce substantial new areas of impervious surfaces, such that substantial expansion of existing stormwater conveyance infrastructure would be necessary.
Therefore, potential cumulative impacts associated with stormwater would be less than significant.
Solid Waste
The geographic extent of cumulative analysis for solid waste is the entire City of Burbank as all solid waste within the City is collected and transported for landfill disposal at one of seven southern California landfills, including Burbank Landfill Site No. 3, Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Sunshine Canyon City/County Landfill, Simi Valley Landfill and Recycling Center, Puente Hills Landfill, Lancaster Landfill and Recycling Center, and Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill (City of Burbank 2013).
The Street and Solid Waste Division of the Burbank PWD provides solid waste collection services for all single-family residences, 50 percent of multifamily residences, and approximately 10 percent of the City’s commercial/industrial refuse customers. All other uses are served by private solid waste hauling companies which also transfer solid waste from Burbank to one of the aforementioned landfill sites for disposal. The cumulative scenario for solid waste is characterized by non-residential developments that would require solid waste hauling and disposal; such developments would include commercial and industrial land uses, which are primarily served by private waste hauling companies. Based on the existing capacity of landfill sites in the vicinity of Burbank, including the Burbank Landfill which has a remaining disposal capacity of approximately 82 percent (of the maximum permitted capacity) and is estimated to remain operational through 2150, sufficient landfill disposal capacity is anticipated to be available to accommodate cumulative projects.
Therefore, potential cumulative impacts associated with solid waste would be less than significant.
Telecommunications, Electricity, and Natural Gas
The geographic extent of cumulative analysis for telecommunications, electricity, and natural gas includes the entire service territories of the providers for each of these utilities.
Telecommunications
Telecommunications services in Burbank are provided by private companies, including AT&T, EarthLink, and Spectrum, among others, and telecommunications facilities are generally available throughout the City. Connections for new telecommunications services are implemented on an as- needed basis, and the service provider used is generally at the discretion of the customer.
Cumulative projects will establish telecommunications service connections in the same manner as residential developments under the proposed Project. There are no anticipated limitations to the availability of telecommunications service. Potential cumulative impacts associated with telecommunications would be less than significant.
Electricity
Electric power supply throughout the City is provided by BWP. Residential uses in Burbank represent the second most energy intensive land use serviced by BWP (287.6 GWh), behind commercial and ATTACHMENT 10 -313
Environmental Impact Analysis
Utilities/Service Systems
Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.12-41
building (507.8 GWh). Future housing in the City would be implemented in accordance with the Housing Element Update assessed herein, such that projects in the cumulative scenario for energy are non-residential uses, which are generally more energy-intensive than residential uses such as would occur under the proposed Project. As with the proposed Project, other projects in the cumulative scenario would require electric service and would be connected to electricity through BWP. BWP’s unaudited power mix from the PCL, which shows total generation delivered for a calendar year, divided by retail sales (not renewable energy credits retired) for 2020 consisted of approximately 31 percent renewable resources (wind, geothermal, biomass, solar, and small hydroelectric), 26 percent coal, 31 percent natural gas, eight percent nuclear, two percent hydroelectric, and the remainder from other sources (BWP 2020). As such, although electricity usage within the City is anticipated to increase as cumulative projects are implemented, BWP has a diverse power supply portfolio that includes renewable resources as well as traditional power sources and electricity.
In addition, BWP has numerous plans that are being implemented to shift the generation of electric power to renewable sources of energy. The most recent plan, BWP’s 2019 Final Power Integrated Resource Plan, identifies a planning tool that is central to the continued reliability of the BWP power system while meeting all regulatory requirements through 2038 (BWP 2019). BWP is also looking at expanding several alternative energy options including implementing solar, wind, and batteries to help replace energy that has traditionally been sourced from the IPP coal resource. Through the continued expansion of alternative energy sources and compliance with the State’s RPS (discussed under Impact UTIL-1), sufficient power, including as electricity, will be available to meet future demands. Potential cumulative impacts associated with electricity would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
The City of Burbank receives natural gas from the Southern California Gas Company (SCG), which provides service to most of southern California (SCG 2021). In 2019, SCG’s residential customers accounted for approximately 46 percent of SCG’s natural gas consumption, while industrial and commercials customers accounted for another 31 percent and 17 percent, respectively. Projects in the cumulative scenario are anticipated to primarily consist of commercial and industrial developments, as residential developments would be implemented under the proposed Project; as such, cumulative projects will introduce a lower demand for natural gas than the proposed Project.
Given the extent of SCG’s service territory comprising the majority of southern California, sufficient infrastructure is anticipated to be present to accommodate future development under the cumulative scenario, with connections established on a project-by-project basis. In addition, as discussed above for Electricity, the City of Burbank is actively expanding its power supply portfolio, including as applicable to natural gas. Therefore, sufficient natural gas infrastructure and energy supply is available to development projects under the cumulative scenario. Potential cumulative impacts associated with natural gas would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
ATTACHMENT 10 -314
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
4.12-42
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 10 -315
Other CEQA Considerations
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-1
5 Other CEQA Considerations
Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that EIRs identify significant environmental effects of a project and significant environmental effects of a project that cannot be avoided, which are handled in the individual sections of this EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 also requires the identification of significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of a project and growth-inducing impacts of a project, which are identified in this section. Table ES-4 in Executive Summary and Sections 4.1 through 4.12 of this EIR provide a comprehensive identification of the environmental effects of the Housing Element Update, including the level of significance both before and after mitigation.
5.1 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be
Avoided
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Implementation of the Housing Element Update would result in the following significant and unavoidable impact:
Transportation – Impact TRA-2: Would the proposed project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
The Housing Element Update would reduce VMT in the three target populations, however it would not reduce VMT more than the required 15 percent. Utilities/Services – Impact UTIL-3: 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?
Wastewater generated in the City of Burbank is conveyed to and treated at the Burbank Water Reclamation Plant. Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would increase wastewater generation commensurate with the increased population.
Significant treatment capacity is currently available at the BWRP to treat increased wastewater generated as a result of the Project. However, based on the sewer generation rates that were calculated for the proposed Project, along with constraints within the City’s treatment system, potentially significant impacts could result on a project-specific bases with no feasible mitigation at the current plant level. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by a proposed project. Specifically, Section 15126.2(c) states:
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to ATTACHMENT 10 -316
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
5-2
similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irreversible commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.
Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses; The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or The project involves the wasteful use of resources.
Resources that would be consumed as a result of construction and operation of reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels. However, as discussed in Section 6, Energy, of the Initial Study (Appendix A); Section 19, Utilities and Services Systems, of the Initial Study; and Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, of this EIR, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in significant environmental impacts related to the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources.
Construction activities related to reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline for automobile and construction equipment. However, as discussed in Section 6, Energy, of the Initial Study (Appendix A), use of such resources by construction activities associated with residential development under the Housing Element Update would not be unusual as compared to other construction projects and would not substantially affect the availability of such resources.
With respect to operational activities, compliance with all applicable energy and building codes, as well as mitigation measures, would ensure that natural resources are conserved or recycled to the maximum extent feasible. New development under the Housing Element Update would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings), the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations), and the Burbank Green Building Code (Burbank Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 1). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated commercial and residential buildings constructed in California. This Code applies to the building envelope, space-conditioning systems, and water-heating and lighting systems of buildings and appliances and provides guidance on construction techniques to maximize energy conservation.
Minimum efficiency standards are given for a variety of building elements, including appliances; water and space heating and cooling equipment; and insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings.
The Code emphasizes saving energy at peak periods and seasons and improving the quality of installation of energy efficiency measures. The California Green Building Standards Code sets targets for energy efficiency; water consumption; dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water; diversion of construction waste from landfills; and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including ecofriendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation, and acoustical wall and ceiling panels. New developments would also be required to comply with the Burbank Green Building Code, which contains mandatory measures for residential and non-residential uses, particularly those related to energy efficiency (i.e., renewable energy, ATTACHMENT 10 -317
Other CEQA Considerations
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-3
indoor and outdoor water use, and water reuse systems). While consumption of natural resources in the City would increase with implementation of the Housing Element Update due to development and associated population increases, it is also likely that in response to greenhouse gas reduction mandates, new technologies or systems will emerge, or will become more cost-effective or user- friendly, that will further reduce the City’s reliance upon nonrenewable natural resources.
Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of natural resources.
5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the growth inducing impacts of a proposed project. Growth inducing impacts are characteristics of a project that could “foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” According to the CEQA Guidelines, such projects include those that would remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant). In addition, as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Generally, a project may result in growth inducing effects if it involves one of the following:
The removal of a regulatory obstacle to growth (e.g., an annexation or up-zoning), thus indirectly inducing population and/or employment growth; and/or Extension of infrastructure (sewer, water, etc.) to an area currently undeveloped and/or lacking adequate infrastructure, thus removing an obstacle to growth The CEQA Guidelines state that it must not be assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. Therefore, the Housing Element Update’s growth inducing effect is considered a significant environmental impact only if one of the above listed effects results in a significant physical effect in one or more of the issue areas analyzed in Section 4 of this EIR.
Population and Employment
The Housing Element Update would accommodate development of new housing units in already urbanized areas of the City. As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the estimated growth that was analyzed under the proposed Project is 10,456 new housing units, exceeding the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) of 8,772 units, which is determined by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to quantify the need for housing within each jurisdiction based on anticipated growth. New residential units developed under the Housing Element Update could directly increase the population of the City if they would be occupied by people currently residing in other cities or regions.
According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the City of Burbank has a current population of 103,969 with an average household size of 2.45 (California DOF 2021). Based on the average household size of 2.45, the increase of 10,456 residential units would generate a population increase of approximately 25,617 residents. Therefore, the City’s population could increase to 129,586. This population increase would be approximately 12.3 percent higher than SCAG’s forecast population of 115,400 persons by 2045. Additionally, SCAG projections indicate an increase in the ATTACHMENT 10 -318
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
5-4
City’s number of households by 6,700 (16 percent) over the next 25 year for an estimated 48,600 households in 2045.
Burbank’s Land Use Element forecasts an estimated city-wide buildout capacity of 61,647 residential units (City of Burbank 2013). With the addition of the 10,456 new units anticipated through this Housing Element update, the City would have 55,525 total residential units, 6,122 lower than Burbank’s estimated residential capacity. Adoption and implementation of the Housing Element would not induce growth beyond that already anticipated in the current Land Use Element.
The variation in population forecasts is not considered substantial given it would occur over an extended period (i.e., 2021 through 2029). Additionally, the future housing development facilitated by the proposed Project is intended to be dispersed throughout the community to create managed levels of growth in specific areas and be consistent with the City’s RHNA. The City is mostly developed and is supported by existing infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the. New residential development would also increase employment; however, any employment growth would be within regional forecasts and housing would accommodate new employees rather than induce people to move to the region.
Furthermore, the purpose of the Housing Element Update is to address the City's fair share of the regional housing need and specific State statutory requirements. Under the RHNA, SCAG has determined the need for 8,772 units for the City, of which 3,971 must be affordable to low and very low-income households (SCAG 2020b). In addition, State law now implicitly requires a sufficient buffer in the Inventory of Sites to ensure sufficient affordable housing unit availability during the eight-year planning cycle for the Housing Element. For these reasons, the City’s Inventory of Sites will target identifying a capacity of up to 10,456 units, of which approximately 4,425 will be accommodated on sites that meet affordable housing criteria. Therefore, the proposed Project would align with SCAG’s RHNA determination and the State statutory requirements, which are established based on the City’s housing requirements.
Community-Serving Infrastructure
The City is primarily urbanized and contains developed communities with existing serving infrastructure, including roads, water supply, sewers, and storm drains. The City’s existing roadway network would largely accommodate reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update. In the event that roadway upgrades are required to serve specific future development, such upgrades would likely be minor (e.g., lane reconfiguration or restriping) and would not include the construction of new roads. Although new residential development under the Housing Element Update may also require minor utility upgrades or expansion (e.g., water line connections, site drainage design) on a project-by-project basis, such upgrades would be intended to accommodate the growth planned under the Housing Element Update and would not require extensions into undeveloped and sensitive areas. In addition, the Housing Element Update is intended to concentrate new housing development in areas that are already served by infrastructure in order to ensure that infrastructure is utilized efficiently and in a manner that reduces the environmental impacts of development. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the extension of infrastructure to undeveloped areas which would remove an obstacle to growth.
As discussed in Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, the analysis found that existing utility systems for water, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities in the City have sufficient capacity to serve reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project; therefore, potential infrastructure improvements associated with these utilities and service systems ATTACHMENT 10 -319
Other CEQA Considerations
Draft Environmental Impact Report 5-5
would not contribute to growth in the City. Regarding wastewater treatment capacity, the analysis found that development under the proposed Project would increase wastewater generation proportional to the projected increased population. Based on the sewer generation rates that were calculated for the proposed Project, along with constraints within the City’s wastewater treatment system that could result from build out of development projects under the Project, potential impacts associated with wastewater generation are significant and unavoidable. Nonetheless, the City’s plans and improvements to the sewer conveyance and treatment system will be based on the projected population, and therefore, would not result in unplanned population growth.
Because the City is urbanized, housing development would generally not impact sensitive environmental resources such as agriculture, biological resources, and mineral resources. In addition, the Housing Element Update would concentrate housing development along major transit corridors and areas with access to transit, jobs, services, and open spaces, which would generally minimize impacts as new development would be built to current standards and would improve some existing conditions such as stormwater runoff, surface water quality, and protection against substantial seismic damage. The Housing Element Update would not result in unplanned growth but would rather ensure that projected growth is accommodated. The Housing Element Update is anticipated to satisfy the anticipated population growth in the region in an efficient manner consistent with State, regional and local policies and with the projected growth forecast for the Burbank region. To that end, the Housing Element Update would aim to efficiently utilize existing infrastructure, reduce regional congestion, and improve air quality.
ATTACHMENT 10 -320
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
5-6
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 10 -321
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-1
6 Alternatives
As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR examines a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that would attain most of the basic Project objectives (stated in Section 2, Project Description, of this EIR) but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts.
As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the objectives for the proposed Project, are as follows:
Meet the City’s fair share of the regional housing need to accommodate projected population growth within the City and region
Conserve and enhance the quality of existing housing and neighborhoods Provide housing sites that accommodate a range of housing types to meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents
Continue to facilitate the development of housing affordable to all economic segments of the community
Focus on removing governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing
Promote non-discrimination and ensure fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons Included in this analysis are two alternatives, including the CEQA-required “no project” alternative, that involve changes to the Project that may reduce the Project-related environmental impacts as identified in this EIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a reasonable range of options to consider that would help decision makers and the public understand the general implications of revising or eliminating certain components of the proposed Project.
The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:
Alternative 1: No Project
Alternative 2: City Build-Out
Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included in the impact analysis for each alternative. The potential environmental impacts of each alternative are analyzed in Sections 6.1 and 6.2.
6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative
6.1.1 Description
The “No Project” Alternative involves continued implementation of the existing 2013-2021 Housing Element and a continued growth rate predicted by SCAG to yield 3,591 units by 2029. The No Project Alternative assumes that the City’s existing plan and policies would continue to accommodate development in accordance with existing land use designations. Ultimately, this alternative would not fulfill the State requirements regarding updates to the Housing Element and SCAG’s RHNA allocation.
Due to the limitation placed on development in the city under existing plans and policies, the No Project Alternative would not be consistent with Objective 1, which aims to accommodate employment, housing, and population growth projections forecasted through the planning horizon ATTACHMENT 10 -322
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
6-2
year of 2029 and Objective 4, which aims to facilitate affordable housing options throughout the city.
6.1.2 Impact Analysis
a. Air Quality
Under the No Project Alternative, fewer total residential units would be developed, which would result in a smaller anticipated population increase. This alternative would also be consistent with the AQMP the same as the Project. Construction and operational air quality impacts would be less than those of the Project, as less development would occur. The construction of 3,591 units would likely still cause potentially significant construction air quality impacts, therefore Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would still be required. Additionally, although the operational impacts would be less than those of the Project, the impacts would likely still be potentially significant due to the number of units that would be constructed. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would still be required to reduce impacts to less than significant. Overall, air quality impacts under the No Project Alternative would be less than those under the Project.
b. Biological Resources
Development under the No Project Alternative would be less than that under the Project. Impacts could still occur to nesting birds during construction of the anticipated residential units; therefore the Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would still be required. Impacts would be less than what would occur under the Project since fewer nests would be potentially impacted by development. c. Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources, there are various buildings within the city that may qualify as historic structures. Under the No Project Alternative there would be significantly less development than under the Project, however it is still possible that historic structures could be impacted by this development, therefore Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would still be required. Since less development would occur under the alternative, fewer historic structures would be impacted than under the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than the Project and impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d. Geology/Soils
While the No Project Alternative would result in less development than the Project, the development that would occur could still impact previously unidentified paleontological resources.
This is because development could include excavations at depths beyond five feet below the surface. Therefore, Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would still be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. However, it is likely that due to the reduced development under this alternative that fewer unidentified paleontological resources would be impacted than under the Project making the impact less severe than the Project. e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the No Project Alternative, fewer total residential units would be developed, which would result in a smaller anticipated population increase. This alternative would still be consistent with all applicable plans and policies. This alternative would result in lower GHG emissions than the Project ATTACHMENT 10 -323
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-3
as it would result in less development. Therefore, the impact under this alternative would be less than those of the Project.
f. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project Alternative would result in less development than the Project, however the development allowed under this alternative could still occur within 0.25 mile of a school and could result in the release of hazardous materials. Just as with the Project, compliance with regional and federal regulations and compliance with the Safety Element policies would minimize the risk of releases and exposure to these materials. Impacts would remain less than significant.
As discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there are multiple locations within the city that are designated as hazardous materials sites. While the No Project Alternative would result in less development overall, it could still occur on these sites. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would still be required to ensure the potential impacts would be less than significant. Due to the reduced development under this alternative, it is likely that fewer hazardous materials sites would undergo development than under the Project. Therefore, while the mitigation is still required, the impact would be less severe than under the Project. g. Noise
The No Project Alternative would result in less development than the Project, however this development would still generate construction and operational noise. While construction under this alternative would also comply with the allowed daytime construction hours regulated by the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC), larger developments could still generate construction noise in excess of applicable noise limits. Mitigation Measures NOI-1a through NOI-1f would reduce construction noise levels associated with smaller housing development below the eight-hour 80 dBA L
eq daytime residential noise limit per FTA guidelines and Mitigation Measure NOI-1g would reduce construction noise impacts whenever a development project is located within 500 feet of a noise- sensitive land use. Therefore, while the mitigation is still required, the impact would be less severe than under the Project.
Development under the No Project Alternative could also generate vibration exceeding thresholds for building damage, particularly during construction. Although development would occur to a lesser degree than the Project, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would still substantially reduce/control construction such that vibration levels would not exceed the vibration criteria for building damage. Impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation.
Furthermore, as with the Project, it is not anticipated that operation of development under the No Project Alternative would involve activities that would result in substantial vibration levels, such as use of heavy equipment and impacts would remain less than significant.
Although operational noise associated with the No Project Alternative would still be regulated by respective standards in the BMC, such noise sources would occur to a lesser degree than the Project. Nonetheless, on-site operational noise would remain typical of the urban environment and off-site traffic noise associated with development would not result in a perceptible increase in noise levels. Furthermore, while the No Project Alternative would subject less development to overhead flight patterns from airport, all development would nonetheless be required to comply with State and local standards to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels. Impacts would remain less than significant. Overall noise impacts under the No Project Alternative would be slightly less than the Project.
ATTACHMENT 10 -324
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
6-4
h. Population/Housing
The No Project Alternative would result in a smaller number of residential units and therefore would result in a smaller population increase than the Project. Using the DOF persons per household ratio of 2.45, this would result in an estimated population increase of 8,798 people. This would bring the population of the city to 112,767. This population increase would be 2,633 less than SCAG’s forecast population of 115,400 persons by 2045. This growth would still be within the planned population increase in the city as outlined in the SCAG RTP/SCS. Impacts would be less than those of the Project and would be less than significant.
i. Public Services
The No Project Alternative would result in fewer residential units than the Project. Therefore, the increase in demand on public services, including police protection, fire protection, schools, parks, and libraries would be less than that of the Project. Impacts would be less than those of the Project and would remain less than significant.
j. Recreation
The No Project Alternative would result in fewer residences which in turn would result in less of an increase in demand for parks than the Project. Any residences built under the No Project Alternative would still be required to pay the in-lieu fee which would help fund park maintenance. Impacts would be less than those of the Project as there would be less of a demand increase on recreational facilities and the impact would remain less than significant. k. Transportation
Under the No Project Alternative, fewer residential units would be developed and the increase in traffic would be less than that of the Project. However, the VMT for the City would not be reduced by the 15 percent required for each of the three service populations. This is because there would not be sufficient population added to the area surrounding the transit corridors and employment areas to reduce the driving distances. Burbank would still be considered a more “jobs rich” community and people would drive from further outside the city to their jobs. Therefore, impacts to transportation would be greater than under the Project. l. Utilities/Service Systems
Under the No Project Alternative, fewer residential units would be constructed and therefore the demand on utilities would be less than the Project. This includes a reduction in water supply requirements, wastewater generation, electricity use, solid waste generation, and telecommunications. Impacts would be less than significant.
6.2 Alternative 2: City Build-Out
6.2.1 Description
This alternative would involve the buildout of 18,600 units, which would bring the City residential units up to the limit established by Measure One. This would be 8,144 units over the proposed update to the Housing Element. These units would be placed in the Medium Density, High Density and Various Commercial zone districts. No units would be proposed in the Low Density Residential ATTACHMENT 10 -325
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-5
district. Table 6-1 shows the distribution of units throughout these zone districts and the conformity to the maximum allowed under Measure One.
Table 6-1 Alternative 2 – Measure One Unit Distribution and Conformity Alternative 2 Proposed Units Measure One Maximum Build-Out Low Density Residential 0 22,225
Medium Density Residential 2,000 11,502
High Density Residential 8,000 15,910
Various Commercial 8,600 12,010
Total 18,600 61,647
Measure One Build-Out is from Table LU-3 on page 3-26 of the Burbank2035 General Plan This alternative would increase density throughout the city and in order to accommodate this increase in density, housing would be located within the commercial corridors.
Alternative 2 would not fulfill Objective 2 as it would change the character of existing neighborhoods by increasing the density.
6.2.2 Impact Analysis
a. Air Quality
Under Alternative 2, more total residential units would be developed, which would result in a larger anticipated population increase. according to the California Department of Finance the city has an estimated 2.45 persons per household therefore the increase of 18,600 units would increase the population by 25,722. This is beyond the growth estimates put out by SCAG and therefore this alternative would not be consistent with the AQMP.
Construction and operational air quality impacts would be greater than those of the Project, as more development would occur. The construction of 18,600 units would cause potentially significant construction air quality impacts, therefore Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would still be required. Additionally, operational impacts would likely still be potentially significant due to the number of units that would be constructed. Therefore, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would still be required. Overall, air quality impacts under the City Build-Out Alternative would be greater than those under the Project.
b. Biological Resources
Development under Alternative 2 would include 78 percent more units than under the Project.
Impacts would occur to nesting birds during construction of the anticipated residential units, therefore the Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would still be required. Impacts would be greater than what would occur under the Project; however, they would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c. Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
As described in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources, there are various buildings within the city that may qualify as historic structures. Under the City Build-Out Alternative there would be 78 percent more development than under the Project, therefore it is more likely that ATTACHMENT 10 -326
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
6-6
historic structures could be impacted by this development, therefore Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would still be required. Since more development would occur under the alternative, it is likely that more historic structures would be impacted than under the Project. Therefore, impacts would be greater than the Project, but impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d. Geology/Soils
Alternative 2 would result in more development than the Project, and the development that would occur could still impact previously unidentified paleontological resources. This is because development could include excavations at depths beyond five feet below the surface. Therefore, Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Due to the increased amount of development, it is likely that more previously unidentified paleontological resources would be encountered making the impact more severe than under the Project while still being less than significant with mitigation. e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative 2, 78 percent more units would be constructed. Development under this alternative would be consistent with all applicable plans and policies. GHG emissions would specifically arise from direct sources such as motor vehicles, natural gas consumption, solid waste handling/treatment, and indirect sources such as electricity generation. The construction of the units would increase GHG emissions for all contributing factors. Overall, GHG emission impacts under the City Build-Out Alternative would be greater than the Project. f. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 2 would result in 78 percent more development than the Project, which would increase the likelihood that this development would occur within 0.25 mile of a school and could result in the release of hazardous materials. However, just as with the Project, compliance with regional and federal regulations and compliance with the Safety Element policies would minimize the risk of releases and exposure to these materials. Impacts would remain less than significant.
As discussed in Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there are multiple locations within the city that are designated as hazardous materials sites. It is likely that development would occur on one of these sites due to the amount of development that would occur under this alternative.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would still be required to ensure the potential impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the impacts would be more severe due to the increased likelihood of development although the impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
g. Noise
Alternative 2 would result in more development than the Project. As with the Project, construction under this alternative would comply with the allowed daytime construction hours regulated by the BMC; however, larger developments could still generate construction noise in excess of applicable noise limits. Mitigation Measures NOI-1a through NOI-1f would reduce construction noise levels associated with smaller housing development below the eight-hour 80 dBA L eq daytime residential
noise limit per FTA guidelines and Mitigation Measure NOI-1g would reduce construction noise impacts whenever a development project is located within 500 feet of a noise-sensitive land use ATTACHMENT 10 -327
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-7
However, due to the increased amount of development under this alterative, impacts would be greater than the Project, but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Development under Alternative 2 could also generate vibration exceeding thresholds for building damage, particularly during construction. Nonetheless, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI- 3 would still substantially reduce/control construction such that vibration levels would not exceed the vibration criteria for building damage. While this alternative would generate more instances of construction vibration, impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. Furthermore, as with the Project, it is not anticipated that operation of development under the City Build-Out Alternative would involve activities that would result in substantial vibration levels, such as use of heavy equipment and impacts would remain less than significant.
Although operational noise associated with the City Build-Out Alternative would still be regulated by respective standards in the BMC, such noise sources would occur to a greater degree than the Project. Nonetheless, on-site operational noise would remain typical of the urban environment.
Furthermore, while Alternative 2 would subject more development to overhead flight patterns from airports, all development would nonetheless be required to comply with State and local standards to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels. Impacts would remain less than significant. Overall noise impacts under the City Build-Out Alternative would be slightly greater than the Project. h. Population/Housing
Alternative 2 would result in 78 percent more residential units than the Project. Using the DOF persons per household ratio of 2.45, this would result in an estimated population increase of 19,953 people beyond the Project for a total increase of 45,560 people. This would bring the population of the city to 150,529. This population increase would be approximately 30 percent higher than SCAG’s forecast population of 115,400 persons by 2045. Although this alternative would facilitate development beyond RTP/SCS forecasts, the next RTP/SCS update would reflect new forecasts for each jurisdiction in the region based on their RHNA allocation. This increase would be in line with the City’s Measure One predictions for residential units within the city. Therefore, while the alternative would increase the population beyond the Project and beyond the SCAG RTP/SCS forecast, it would still be within the bounds of the planning efforts of the City. Impacts would be greater than those of the Project but would remain less than significant. i. Public Services
Alternative 2 would result in more residential units than the Project. Therefore, the increase in demand on public services, including police protection, fire protection, schools, parks, and libraries would be greater than that of the Project. It is likely that this increase in demand would require the construction of new or expanded facilities for police, fire, schools, parks, and libraries. Any new facilities would be required to undergo CEQA review prior to construction and projects would be required to pay any applicable development impact and permit fees. Nevertheless, impacts from new public services facilities would be greater than those of the Project and would be significant and unavoidable.
j. Recreation
Alternative 2 would result in more residences which in turn would result in a greater increase in demand for parks than the Project. Any residences built under the No Project Alternative would be required to pay the development impact and permit fee which would help fund park maintenance.
Impacts would be greater than those of the Project as there would be a greater demand on ATTACHMENT 10 -328
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
6-8
recreational facilities however with the payment of fees, the impact would remain less than significant.
k. Transportation
Under Alternative 2, more residential units would be developed and the increase in traffic would be greater than that of the Project. However, as shown in Table 6-2, the VMT for the City would not be reduced by the 15 percent required for two of the three service populations. This is because there would not be sufficient population added to the area surrounding the transit corridors and employment areas to reduce the driving distances. However, the reduction in VMT over the SCAG region would be greater than that of the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts to transportation would be less than under the Project.
Table 6-2 Alternative 2 – VMT Generation
SCAG 2021
Baseline
2029 Future with
Alternative
% Difference (SCAG Baseline to
2029 Future)
VMT per Service
Population
34.5 31.7 -8%
Residential VMT per
Capita
14.9 8.7 -42%
Employment VMT per
Employee
18.1 16.5 -9%
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021
l. Utilities/Service Systems
Under Alternative 2, 78 percent more residential units would be constructed and therefore the demand on utilities would be greater than the Project. Developers are responsible for funding any infrastructure improvements that are required to mitigate project impacts. Consistent with applicable State law, the City’s development fees would ensure that the developers pay the cost attributable to the increased demand for the affected public facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to refurbish the existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service and achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the City’s General Plan (California Government Code Section 66001(g)).
Reasonably foreseeable development under Alternative 2 would require new connections for water supply, wastewater conveyance and sufficient capacity for wastewater treatment, electricity use, solid waste disposal, and telecommunications. As stated above, the developers would be required to pay the cost attributable to the increased demand. However, it is likely that new water, wastewater, electricity, solid waste and telecommunications facilities would have to be constructed to serve the expanded population. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
6.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) requires that the “EIR should identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.” Other alternatives considered, and the reasons they were rejected, include the following scenarios.
ATTACHMENT 10 -329
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report 6-9
Relocating housing units to the undeveloped mountain area in the northeastern portion of the city was considered as an alternative. This alternative would have placed residences in the high fire area which would be in conflict with the Safety Element of the Burbank2035 General Plan. Therefore, this scenario was rejected from further consideration.
Increasing density in the single family residential neighborhoods and away from freeway corridors was considered. This would not reduce any significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project as it would increase VMT. Additionally, this would require revisions to Land Use Policy 8.1 of the City’s General Plan, which aims to limit development in the Low Density Residential land use designation to detached single-family homes, with the exception of areas with R-2 zoning where development is limited to single-family homes and duplexes.
The Project includes a 15 percent buffer to the RHNA so including a reduced RHNA buffer was considered as an alternative as it could reduce significant VMT impacts. However, in order to comply with State requirements, a sufficient buffer to the RHNA is needed therefore this alternative would not be feasible and was rejected from further consideration.
6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Table 6-3 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than, less than, or similar to that of the proposed Project for each of the issue areas studied. Based on the alternatives analysis provided above, Alternative 1 would be the environmentally superior alternative.
Alternative 1 (No Project) assumes continued implementation of the existing 2013-2021 Housing Element and a continued growth rate predicted by SCAG to yield 3,591 units by 2029. Alternative 1 also assumes that the City’s existing plan and policies would continue to accommodate development in accordance with existing land use designations. This alternative would result in less impacts to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, and utilities and service systems due to the decrease in residential units developed.
However, impacts relating to transportation and traffic would be greater than under the Project as the VMT for the City would not be reduced by the 15 percent required for each of the three service populations because there would not be sufficient population added to the area surrounding the transit corridors and employment areas to reduce driving distances. Furthermore, Alternative 1 would not fulfill Project Objective 1 because the continued implementation of the existing 2013- 2021 Housing Element would result in the development of fewer residential units and therefore, would be unable to accommodate employment, housing, and population growth projections forecasted through the planning horizon year of 2029. In addition, Alternative 1 would not fulfill Project Objective 4 because continued implementation of the existing 2013-2021 Housing Element would limit additional affordable housing options throughout the City.
Alternative 2 (City Build-Out) would involve the buildout of 18,600 units, which would result in 8,144 additional units and bring the City residential units up to the limit established by Measure One. This alternative would increase density throughout the City by accommodating the additional units in the Medium Density, High Density and Various Commercial zone districts. Alternative 2 would result in less impacts to transportation and traffic as the reduction in VMT over the SCAG region would be greater than that of the proposed Project. However, impacts relating to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, and recreation would be higher than under the Project due to the 78 percent increase in residential units developed. In addition, the ATTACHMENT 10 -330
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
6-10
increase in residential units would require new connections for water supply, wastewater conveyance and sufficient capacity for wastewater treatment, electricity use, solid waste disposal, and telecommunications and would likely result in the construction of new water, wastewater, electricity, solid waste and telecommunications facilities to serve the expanded population.
Therefore, impacts relating to utilities and service systems under this alternative would be significant and unavoidable, resulting in greater impacts than under the Project. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would not fulfill Objective 2 as it would change the character of existing neighborhoods by increasing the density.
Table 6-3 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Issue
Proposed Project Impact
Classification
Alternative 1:
No Project
Alternative 2:
City Buildout
Air Quality Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
+ -
Biological Resources Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
+ -
Cultural Resources/Tribal
Cultural Resources
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
+ -
Geology/Soils Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
+ -
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than significant + -
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
+ -
Noise Less than significant with
mitigation incorporated
+ -
Population/Housing Less than significant + -
Public Services Less than significant + -
Recreation Less than significant + -
Transportation Significant and
unavoidable
- +
Utilities/Service Systems Less than significant + -
+ Superior to the proposed Project (reduced level of impact) - Inferior to the proposed Project (increased level of impact) = Similar level of impact to the proposed Project
ATTACHMENT 10 -331
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-1
7 References
7.1 Bibliography
Executive Summary
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2021. SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th-cycle-rhna-proposed-final- allocation-plan.pdf?1614023284. Accessed March 2021.
Environmental Setting
California Department of Finance (California DOF). 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State 2011-2021. Available at:
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/. Accessed May 2021.
Project Description
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2020. State Income Limits for 2020. April 30, 2020. Available at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income- limits/state-and-federal-income-limits/docs/income-limits-2020.pdf. Accessed March 2021.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2021. SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan. March 4, 2021. Available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th- cycle-rhna-proposed-final-allocation-plan.pdf?1614911196. Accessed March 2021.
Air Quality
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority. 2016. Environmental Impact Report for a Replacement Airline Passenger Terminal at Burbank Bob Hope Airport SCH 2015121095.
Available at: https://elevatebur.com/documents/. Accessed July 2021.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1998. Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant. June. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/toxics/dieseltac/staffrpt.pdf. Accessed October 2021.
______. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf. Accessed October 2021.
______. 2004. 2004 Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide. July.
Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/co/final_2004_co_plan_update.pdf.
Accessed October 2021.
______. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed July 2021. ______. 2021. “Top 4 Summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area [CARB iADAM Database].” Available at: https://arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed February 2021.
ATTACHMENT 10 -332
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing Element Update
7-2
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide Version 2020.4.0. May 2021.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021a. 2019 Traffic Volumes. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census. Accessed September 2021. ______. 2021b. 2019 Truck Traffic: Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic. http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/. Accessed September 2021. ______. 2021c. 2019-D5 Ramp Average Daily Traffic. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic- operations/census. Accessed September 2021.
Los Angeles, City of. 2016. South Los Angeles and Southeast Los Angeles Community Plans Draft EIR, Air Quality. Available at: https://planning.lacity.org/eir/SouthAndSoutheastLA/DEIR/files/
4.3%20Air%20Quality.pdf. Accessed May 2020.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
November 1993.
______. 2003. Final 2003 AQMP Appendix V Modeling and Attainment Demonstrations, Final 2003 AQMP. August. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality- management-plans/2003-air-quality-management-plan/2003-aqmp-appendix- v.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed June 2021.
______. 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning, Appendix C – Health Effects of Ambient Air Pollutants. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete- guidance-document.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed July 2021.
______. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July 2008. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf. Accessed July 2021. ______. 2009. Appendix C – Mass Rate LST Look-up Tables [Dataset]. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed July 2021. ______. 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf. Accessed July 2021.
______. 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Available at:
https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016-aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15.
Accessed July 2021.
______. 2019. Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. Accessed July 2021. ______. 2021. SCAQMD Webpage “Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).” Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan. Accessed July 2021.
ATTACHMENT 10 -333
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-3
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. May 2020. Available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_0.pdf?1606001176. Accessed July 2021.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Chapter 16 – Activity Factors, Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. September. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/expobox/about-exposure-factors-handbook. Accessed October 2021.
Biological Resources
City of Burbank. 2013a. Burbank2035 General Plan.
https://www.burbankca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=23448. Accessed December 2020.
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
Arnold, Jeanne E., Michael R. Walsh, and Sandra E. Hollimon. 2004. The Archaeology of California.
Journal of Archaeological Research 12(1):1-73.
Bean, Lowell J. and Charles R. Smith. 1978. Gabrielino in California. Volume 8: Handbook of North American Indians. Robert F. Heizer, ed. and William C. Sturtevant, general ed. Pp. 539-549.
Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.
Bean, Walton. 1968. California: An Interpretive History. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab. 2007. Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium in California Prehistory. T.L. Jones and K.A. Klar, eds. Pp. 215-228. New York, New York: Altamira Press.
California Geologic Survey. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces. Note 36. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Note_36.pdf. Accessed June 2021.
California Missions Foundation. N.d. History of Mission San Fernando Rey de España. Electronic document, online at http://californiamissionsfoundation.org/mission-san-fernando/.
Accessed June 2021.
City of Burbank. 1999. City of Burbank Historic Preservation Plan. Electronic document, online at https://www.laconservancy.org/communities/burbank. Accessed May 2021. _____. 2009. City of Burbank Citywide Historic Context Report. Electronic document, online at https://www.laconservancy.org/communities/burbank. Accessed May 2021 _____. 2013. Burbank2035 General Plan. Electronic document, online at http://www.burbankca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/long-range- planning/burbank2035-general-plan. Accessed May 2021.
_____. 2017. Burbank History. Electronic document, online at http://www.burbankca.gov/about- us/burbank-history. Accessed May 2021.
_____. 2018. Department of Community Development. Burbank Municipal Code. Division 6. Historic Preservation Regulations, 10-1-925. Electronic document, online at http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/. Accessed May 2021.
ATTACHMENT 10 -334
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing Element Update
7-4
Couch, Jeffrey S., Joanne S. Couch and Nancy Anastasia Wiley. 2009. Saved by the Well: The Keystone Cache at CA-ORA-83, the Cogged Stone Site. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 21:147-156.
Dibblee, T.W., and Ehrenspeck, H.E. 1991. Geologic map of the Hollywood and Burbank (south 1/2) quadrangles, Los Angeles, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-30, scale 1:24,000
Dillon, Brian D. 2002. California Paleo-Indians: Lack of Evidence, or Evidence of a Lack? in Essays in California Archaeology: A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga. W. J. Wallace and F. A. Riddell, eds.
Pp. 110–128. Paper No. 60. University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.
Dixon, Keith A. 1968. Cogged Stones and Other Ceremonial Cache Artifacts in Stratigraphic Context at ORA-58, a Site in the Lower Santa Ana River Drainage, Orange County. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 4(3):57-65.
Dumke, Glenn S. 1944. The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. San Marino, California:
Huntington Library Publications.
Eberhart, Hal. 1961. The Cogged Stones of Southern California. American Antiquity 26(3):361-370.
Erlandson, Jon M. 1991. Early Maritime Adaptations on the Northern Channel Islands in Hunter- Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Volume 1: Perspectives in California Archaeology. Jon M. Erlandson and R. Colten, eds. Pp. 101-111. Los Angeles, California:
UCLA Institute of Archaeology Press.
Erlandson, Jon M., Theodore Cooley, and Richard Carrico. 1987. A Fluted Projectile Point Fragment from the Southern California Coast: Chronology and Context at CA-SBA-1951. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9(1):120–128.
Flaherty, James. 2016. Kizh Tribal Territory (Gabrieleno Indian Lands) Map. Kizh Tribal Press.
Glassow, Michael A., Larry R. Wilcoxen, and Jon M. Erlandson. 1988. Cultural and Environmental Change during the Early Period of Santa Barbara Channel Prehistory in The Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines. G. Bailey and J. Parkington, eds. Pp. 64–77. New York, New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Guinn, James M. 1977. Gold! Gold! Gold! from San Francisquito! in Los Angeles Biography of a City.
John Caughey and LaRee Caughey, eds. Berkeley, California: University of California, Berkeley Press.
Harrington, John P. 1942. Cultural Element Distributions: XIX Central California Coast. University of California Anthropological Records 7(1):1-46.
Johnson, John R., Thomas W. Stafford, Jr., Henry O. Ajie, and Don P. Morris. 2002. Arlington Springs Revisited in Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium. D. Browne, K. Mitchell and H. Chaney, eds. Pp. 541–545. Santa Barbara, California: USDI Minerals Management Service and the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Jones, Terry L. and Kathryn A. Klar. 2007. California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.
Jones, Terry L., Richard T. Fitzgerald, Douglas J. Kennett, Charles Miksicek, John L. Fagan, John Sharp and Jon M. Erlandson. 2002. The Cross Creek Site (CA-SLO-1797) and Its Implications for New World Colonization. American Antiquity 67(2):213–230.
ATTACHMENT 10 -335
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-5
King, Chester D. 2011. Overview of the History of American Indians in the Santa Monica Mountains.
Topanga Anthropological Consultants. Prepared for the National Park Service Pacific West Region. Topanga, California
Koerper, Henry C., and Christopher E. Drover. 1983. Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County:
The Case from CA-ORA-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1–34.
Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson. 2002. Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County in Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast. Volume 6: Perspectives in California Archaeology. Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, eds. Pp. 63–81. Los Angeles, California: Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kowta, Makoto. 1969. The Sayles Complex, A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from the Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology 6:35–69. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78. Originally published 1925, Smithsonian Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Unabridged reprint 1976, Dover Publications, Inc. New York. 1976. Handbook of the Indians of California. New York, New York: Dover Publications, Inc.
Los Angeles County. 1938. Principal Historic Sites, Old Highways, Battlefields: Spanish, Mexican, Early American in Old Los Angeles County Map. History Department, Los Angeles Public Library.
Mason, Roger D., and Mark L. Peterson. 1994. Newport Coast Archaeological Project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems–Analysis and Discussion, Volume 1, part 1 of 2. Prepared by The Keith Companies. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.
McCawley, William. 1996. The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning, California: Malki Museum, Press.
McCulloh, T.H., and Beyer, L.A. 2004. Mid-Tertiary isopach and lithofacies maps for the Los Angeles region, California – templates for palinspastic reconstruction to 17.4 Ma. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1690, p. 1–32.
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Cambridge University Press.
Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, Inc.
National Park Service (NPS). 1983. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Electronic document, online at http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/Arch_Standards.htm. Accessed May 2021.
NETRonline. 2017. Historic Aerials 777 North Front Street, Burbank, CA. Electronic document, online at https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed June 2021..
Nevin, David. 1978. The Mexican War. Alexandria, Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc.
O’Neil, Stephen. 2002. The Acjachemen in the Franciscan Mission System: Demographic Collapse and Social Change. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.
ATTACHMENT 10 -336
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing Element Update
7-6
Rawls, James J. 1984. Indians of California: The Changing Image. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.
Reinman, Fred M. 1964. Maritime Adaptations on San Nicolas Island, California. University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1963–1964. Pp. 47–80. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Rick, Torben C., Jon M. Erlandson, and René Vellanoweth. 2001. Paleocoastal Marine Fishing on the Pacific Coast of the Americas: Perspectives from Daisy Cave, California. American Antiquity 66(4):595–613.
Rolle, Andrew. 2003. California: A History. Wheeling, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc.
Shipley, William F. 1978 Native Languages of California in California. Volume 8: Handbook of North American Indians. Robert F. Heizer, ed. and William C. Sturtevant, general ed. Pp. 80-90.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.
Shumway, Burgess McK. 2007. California Ranchos: Patented Private Land Grants Listed by County.
Rockville, Maryland: Borgo Publishing Press.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee, 11 p.
http://vertpaleo.org/Membership/Member-Ethics/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx.
Accessed June 2021.
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2018. UCMP Online Database. http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu. Accessed June 2021.
True, Delbert L. 1993. Bedrock Milling Elements as Indicators of Subsistence and Settlement Patterns in Northern San Diego County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(2):1–26.
Wallace, William. 1955. Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214–230.
______. 1978. Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. in California. Volume 8: Handbook of North American Indians. Robert F. Heizer, ed. and William C. Sturtevant, general ed. Pp. 505-508. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.
Warren, Claude N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast in Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States. C. Irwin-Williams, ed. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1–14.
Workman, Boyle. 1935. The City that Grew. Los Angeles, California: Southland Publication Company.
Yerkes, R. F., and R. H. Campbell. 2005. Preliminary geologic map of the Los Angeles 30´ x 60´ quadrangle, southern California: United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-97- 254, scale 1:24,000.
Geology/Soils
Agenbroad, L.D. 2003. New localities, chronology, and comparisons for the pygmy mammoth (Mammuthus exilis). In J. Reumer (ed.): Advances in Mammoth Research, Proceedings of the 2nd International Mammoth Conference, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. DEINSEA 9:1-16.
ATTACHMENT 10 -337
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-7
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2020. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.
Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/App/index.html#. Accessed February 2021.
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36.
Jefferson, G.T. 2010. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Report 7, p. 5-172.
McCulloh, T. H., and L. A. Beyer. 2004. Mid-Tertiary isopach and lithofacies maps for the Los Angeles region, California: templates for palinspastic reconstruction to 17.4 Ma. United States Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1690:1–32. Paleobiology Database. 2021. Online fossil locality database. Available online: https://www.paleobiodb.org/#/. Accessed February 2021.
Savage, D.E., T. Downs, and O.J. Poe. 1954. Cenozoic land life of southern California in R.H. Jahns ed., Geology of Southern California. California Division of Mines and Geology, 170, Ch. III, pp. 43-58.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP). 2021. UCMP online database specimen search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/.
Yerkes, R. F., and R. H. Campbell. 2005. Preliminary geologic map of the Los Angeles 30´ x 60´ quadrangle, southern California. United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-97- 254, scale 1:24,000.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Burbank, City of. 2013. Burbank2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. Available at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/home/showdocument?id=23440. Accessed February 2021.
Burbank Water and Power. 2018. 2019 Integrated Resource Plan. Available at:
https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/images/administrative/downloads/CityCouncilA pproved_2019_Integrated_Resource_Plan_DIGITAL.pdf. Accessed February 2021. ______. 2019. 2018 Power Content Label Burbank Water and Power Version July 2019. Available at:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/2018_PCL_Burbank.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2021a. Magnolia Power Plant. N.d.
https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/images/administrative/downloads/MPP_ReadM ore_02-03-2017.pdf. Accessed September 2021. Accessed September 2021. ______. 2021b. Lake One Power Plant. N.d.
https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/images/administrative/downloads/Newsletter_ Lake06102014_ReadMore.pdf. Accessed September 2021.
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
______. 1998. Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant: Part A. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/dieseltac/part_a.pdf. Accessed September 2021.
ATTACHMENT 10 -338
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing Element Update
7-8
______. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf.
Accessed September 2021.
______. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Accessed September 2021. ______. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2011. Commitment Letter from CARB. Available at:
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/carb- commitment-ltr.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2014. Climate Change Scoping Plan First Update. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/2013_update/discussion _draft.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.
Accessed February 2021.
______. 2020. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions to Account for the SAFE Vehicles Rules Part One and the Final SAFE Rule. June. Available at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_co2_adjustment_factors_06262020- final.pdf . Accessed July 2021.
______. 2021a. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics Top 4 Summary. N.d. [database]. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed October 2021. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/low-carbon-fuel-standard/about. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2021b. HARP AERMOD Meteorological Files. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/harp-aermod-meteorological-files. Accessed July 2021.
______. 2021c. HARP Digital Elevation Model Files. Available at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/harp-digital-elevation-model-files. Accessed July 2021.
California Climate Change Center (CCCC). 2006. Climate Scenarios for California. March. Available at:
https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptation- library/united-states/west-coast-amp-hawaix27i/california---statewide/CCCC.--2006.-- Climate-Scenarios-for-California.pdf. Accessed July 2021.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Conservation. 2020. “California’s Statewide Recycling Rate.” Last modified: March 3, 2020. Available at:
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/75percent/recyclerate. Accessed July 2021.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2021a. 2019 Traffic Volumes. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census. Accessed September 2021. ______. 2021b. 2019 Truck Traffic: Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic. http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/. Accessed September 2021.
ATTACHMENT 10 -339
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-9
______. 2021c. 2019-D5 Ramp Average Daily Traffic. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic- operations/census. Accessed September 2021.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2016. Docket Number 01-AFC-06C, Magnolia Power Project- Compliance, TN #211786. June.
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=01-AFC-06C. Accessed September 2021.
______. 2021. Docket Number 01-AFC-06C, Magnolia Power Project-Compliance, TN #236825.
February. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=01-AFC-06C.
Accessed September 2021.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. 2006. Available at:
http://www.climatestrategies.us/library/library/download/51. Accessed February 2021.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. March.
Available at: http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf.
Accessed July 2021.
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). 2011. Climate Change 101. Available at:
https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2017/10/climate101-fullbook.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
Government Publishing Office (GPO). 2007. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf.
Accessed February 2021.
______. 2010. Vol. 75, No. 101, Presidential Documents, Improving Energy Security, American Competitiveness and Job Creation, and Environmental Protection Through a Transformation of Our Nation's Fleet of Cars and Trucks. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR- 2010-05-26/html/2010-12757.htm. Accessed February 2021. ______. 2011. Vol. 76, No. 153, Proposed Rules, 2017-2025 Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFÉ Standards: Supplemental Notice of Intent. Available at:
http://gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-09/pdf/2011-19905.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-spm-1.pdf. Accessed July 2021. ______. 2018. Summary for Policymakers. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.
Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. Accessed July 2021.
Legislative Council of California. 2006. California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Available at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_0001-
0050/ab_32_bill_20060927_chaptered.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
ATTACHMENT 10 -340
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing Element Update
7-10
______. 2018. SB-100 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: emissions of greenhouse gases. Available at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB100.
Accessed February 2021.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2009. Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Year 2011. Available at:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Rulemaking/Rules/Associated%20Files/CAFE_Updated _Final_Rule_MY2011.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Climate Change. Annual Reviews of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 2006 37:1, 637-669.
SCAQMD. 2010. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15.
September 28, 2010. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance-thresholds/year-2008- 2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-15-minutes.pdf. Accessed July 2021. ______. 2017. Risk Assessment Procedures for Rules 1401, 1401.1, and 212 version 8.1. September.
Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/permitting/rule-1401-risk- assessment/riskassessproc-v8-1.pdf?sfvrsn=12. Accessed October 2021.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2019. Connect SoCal Draft PEIR:
Greenhouse Gases. Available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/dpeir_connectsocal_3_8_greenhousegases.pdf?1606003491. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2020. Sustainable Communities Strategy: Technical Report. Available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_sustainable- communities-strategy.pdf?1606002097. Accessed February 2021.
Singer, B.C., W.W. Delp, D.R. Black, and I.S. Walker. 2016. Measured performance of filtration and ventilation systems for fine and ultrafine particles and ozone in an unoccupied modern California house. Indoor Air. LBNL-1006961. Available at:
https://escholarship.org/content/qt7x86h6ff/qt7x86h6ff.pdf. Accessed October 2021.
University of California Davis-Caltrans Air Quality Project. 2006. Estimating Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions: A Step-By-Step Project Analysis Methodology.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014. Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014). https://www.epa.gov/moves. Accessed October 2021. ______. 2011. Chapter 16 – Activity Factors, Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final).
September. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252. Accessed October 2021.
______. 2020. “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” Last updated 9/10/2020. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings- greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a-clean. Accessed February 2021.
ATTACHMENT 10 -341
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-11
United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and United Stated Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2010. Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-05- 07/pdf/2010-8159.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2012. 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule. Available at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-10-15/pdf/2012-21972.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2016. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy- Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2. Available at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-10-25/pdf/2016-21203.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2018. Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Year 2021 – 2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Available at:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/ld-cafe-co2-nhtsa-2127-al76- epa-pria-180823.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2020. The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks; Final Rule. Available at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-04-30/pdf/2020-06967.pdf. Accessed February 2021.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Burbank Unified School District. 2002. “BUSD Schools.” Available at:
https://www.burbankusd.org/busdschools. Accessed October 2021.
Burbank, City of. 2011. City of Burbank All-Hazard Mitigation Plan. April 2011. ______. 2021. Burbank Fire Department (BFD) Emergency Management Homepage. Available at:
https://www.burbankfire.us/divisions/emergency-management. Accessed May 2021.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2020. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414.
Accessed February 2021.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2020. “HHRA Note 3 - Tables - June 2020.” Available at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/human-health-risk-hero/. Accessed February 2021. ______. 2021. EnviroStor Database. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.
Accessed May 2021.
Hollywood Burbank Airport. 2020. Restated Airport Rules and Regulations. Available at:
http://hollywoodburbankairport.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Airport-Rules- Regulations-Adopted-May-4-2020.pdf. Accessed May 2021.
Los Angeles County. 2004. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan. Last updated on December 1, 2004.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. GeoTracker Database. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/site_type_definitions. Accessed February 2021.
ATTACHMENT 10 -342
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing Element Update
7-12
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017a. “Learn About Asbestos.” Available at: https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/learn-about-asbestos#effects. Accessed February 2021. ______. 2017b. “Learn About Lead.” Available at: https://www.epa.gov/lead/learn-about- lead#effects. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2020. “Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) – Summary Table.” Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-screening-levels-rsls-generic-tables. Accessed February ______. 2021. “Asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).” Last updated on March 22, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/hw/household-hazardous-waste-hhw.
Accessed April 2021.
Noise
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) https://www.dtsc- ssfl.com/files/lib_ceqa/ref_draft_peir/Chap4_10-
Noise/Caltrans_2013a_Tech_Noise_Supplement.pdf. Accessed July 2021. _____. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual CT-HWANP-RT-20- 365.01.01. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. Accessed July 2021.
Carrier. 2011. 38HDR Performance Series Air Conditioner with Puron Refrigerant. 1-1/2 to 5 Nominal Tons. Product Data. https://www.americancoolingandheating.com/wp- content/uploads/carrier-product-data-specifications/38hdr-5pd.pdf. Accessed July 2021.
City of Burbank. 2013. General Plan.
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/13965 6b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d-751642c85b38?t=1616616672474. Accessed July 2021.
Crocker, Malcolm J. Crocker (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN:
978-0-471-39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October.
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 July 2021.
Fehr & Peers (F&P). 2022. Transportation Impact Analysis. January 2022. Document.
Kinsler, Lawrence E. and R. Frey, Austin and B. Coppens, Alan and V. Sanders, James. 1999.
Fundamentals of Acoustics, 4th Edition. ISBN 0-471-84789-5. Wiley-VCH, December 1999.
Los Angeles County. 2004. Airport Land Use Plan.
http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/data/pd_alup.pdf. Accessed July 2021.
Population/Housing
California Department of Finance (California DOF). 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State 2011-2021. Available at:
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. Accessed October 2021.
ATTACHMENT 10 -343
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-13
Burbank, City of. 2014. Burbank 2035 General Plan: Housing Element. Available at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/home/showdocument?id=23868. Accessed February 2021.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. 2020 RTP/SCS. Available at:
https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan. Accessed March 2021. ______. 2021. SCAG 6th Cycles Proposed Final RHNA Allocation. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th-cycle-rhna-proposed-final- allocation-plan.pdf?1614023284. Accessed March 2021.
Public Services
Burbank Fire Department. 2021. Message from Fire Chief Eric Garcia. Available at:
https://www.burbankfire.us/divisions/administration. Accessed January 2022.
Burbank Public Library. 2020. Burbank Public Library 2020-23 Strategic Plan. Available at:
https://burbanklibrary.org/sites/default/files/Burbank%20PL%20Strategic%20Plan%202020 -23.pdf. Accessed January 2022.
Burbank Unified School District (BUSD). 2021. Student Enrollment and Capacity Data. Kukta, Debbie (BUSD). Email to Jason Montague (Rincon). April 20, 2021.
City of Burbank. 2013. Burbank2035 General Plan.
https://www.burbankca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=23448. Accessed December 2021.
Recreation
Burbank, City of. 2013. Burbank2035 General Plan. Available at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=23448. Accessed March 2021.
______. 2021. Burbank Municipal Code (BMC). Available at:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/. Accessed March 2021.
California Department of Finance (California DOF). 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State 2011-2021. Available at:
https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. Accessed October 2021.
Transportation
Burbank, City of. 2020. Complete Streets Plan. Adopted June 16, 2020. Available at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/web/community-development/complete-streets-plan.
Accessed January 2022.
Utilities/Service Systems
Burbank, City of. N.d. Sewage Generation Rates. Available online at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/174714/1196790/Sewage+Generation+Rates.pdf/ 5a6181e4-4f22-906e-bc32-9c29b18cb417?t=1618365964641. Accessed January 2022.
ATTACHMENT 10 -344
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing Element Update
7-14
2008a. United Nations Urban Environmental Accords City of Burbank Sustainability Action Plan.
Available online at: http://www.burbankca.gov/home/showdocument?id=1813. Accessed March 2021.
______.2008b. Zero Waste Policy. Available online at:
http://burbank.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=181&meta_id=18226.
Accessed March 2021.
______. 2013. Burbank2035 General Plan. Environmental Impact Report. Available:
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/The+Burbank2035+General+Plan.pdf/1 39656b0-80e9-3b11-dc6d-
751642c85b38?version=1.2&t=1616616954424&imagePreview=1. Accessed March 2021. ______. 2016. Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion Reference Manual. Available at:
https://www.burbankca.gov/web/community-development/building-codes. Accessed December 2021.
______. 2018a. Burbank Landfill: Breaking New Ground by Using Less Ground. https://www.burbankca.gov/home/showdocument?id=48355. Accessed March 2021. ______.2018b. Burbank Water Reclamation Plant. Available:
http://www.burbankca.gov/departments/public-works/water-reclamation-and- sewer/burbank-water-reclamation-plant. Accessed March 16, 2021. ______. 2020. Trash & Recycling. Available at https://www.burbankca.gov/web/public-works/trash- recycling. Accessed December 2021.
______. 2021. Burbank Municipal Code. Available: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Burbank/.
Accessed March 2021.
Burbank Landfill. 2021. Phone conversation between Rincon Consultants, Inc. and Curtis Jordan, Landfill Supervisor. November 10, 2021.
Burbank Water and Power (BWP). 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Burbank, CA.
Available:
https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/images/water/downloads/2015_UWMP_Final_0 6-24-2016.pdf. Accessed March 2021.
_____. 2019. Integrated Resource Plan. Available:
https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/images/administrative/downloads/CityCouncilA pproved_2019_Integrated_Resource_Plan_DIGITAL.pdf. Accessed March 2021. _____. 2020. 2020 Power Content Label. Available:
https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/electric/power-sources/power-content- information. Accessed December 2021.
_____. 2021a. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Available:
burbankwaterandpower.com/images/administrative/downloads/BWP_2020UWMP_Final.p df. Accessed September 2021.
______. 2021b. Water Supply Sources. Available:
https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/water/water-supply/water-sources. Accessed March 2021.
ATTACHMENT 10 -345
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-15
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery). 2015.Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/reports/jurisdiction/DiversionDisposal.aspx.
Accessed March 2021.
______.2019. SWIS Facility/Site Summary. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/1025. Accessed March 2021. ______.2021. SWIS Facility/Site Inspection Details. Burbank Landfill Site No. 3 (19-AA-0040).
Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteInspection/Details/334457.
Accessed December 2021.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020a. Electricity Consumption by Entity. Available at:
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbyutil.aspx. Accessed December 2021. ______. 2020b. Gas Consumption by Entity. Available at:
http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx. Accessed December 2021.
California Independent System Operator (CAISO). 2019. California Transmission Plan. Available:
http://www.caiso.com/planning/Pages/TransmissionPlanning/2019- 2020TransmissionPlanningProcess.aspx. Accessed March 2021.
Leadership Committee of the GLAC IRWMP (Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management Region). 2014. The Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. February 2014. Available online at:
https://dpw.lacounty.gov/wmd/irwmp/FileList.aspx?path=docs\2014%20Public%20IRWMP %20Update.
Los Angeles County. 2020. Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. Available at:
https://dpw.lacounty.gov/epd/swims/ShowDoc.aspx?id=14372&hp=yes&type=PDF.
Accessed June 2021.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan). 2016a. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. Available online at:
http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDF_About_Your_Water/2.4.2_Regional_Urban_Water_Manage ment_Plan.pdf. Accessed March 2021.
______. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. Available at:
http://www.mwdh2o.com/PDFUWMP/2020%20Urban%20Water%20Management%20Plan %20-%20June%202021.pdf. Accessed June 2021.
Southern California Gas Company (SCG). 2020. 2020 California Gas Report. Available at:
https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/cgr. Accessed December 2021. ______. 2021. Company Profile. Available: https://www.socalgas.com/about-us/company-profile.
Accessed December 2021.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2018. Order Approving Chance in Place of Use, Purpose of Use, and Quantity of Discharge. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/applications/wastew ater_petition_orders/docs/ww0091_order.pdf. Accessed March 2021.
Waste Management. 2018. Kettleman Hills Facility Overview. Available:
http://kettlemanhillslandfill.wm.com/fact-sheets/2011/facility-overview.jsp. Accessed March 2021.
ATTACHMENT 10 -346
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing Element Update
7-16
_____. 2015. Kettleman Hills. Available:
https://www.wmsolutions.com/pdf/brochures/CWM_Kettleman_Hills_Brochure.pdf.
Accessed March 2021.
Other CEQA Considerations
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2020 with 2010 Census Benchmark. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. Accessed June 2021.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. SCAG 6th Cycle Draft RHNA Allocation Based on Final RHNA Methodology & Final Connect SoCal. http://www.scag.ca.gov/programs/Documents/RHNA/RHNA-Draft-Allocations-090320- Updated.pdf. Accessed June 2021.
______. 2021. SCAG Pre-Certified Local Housing Data for the City of Burbank. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/burbank-he-0421.pdf?1620800413.
Accessed December 2021.
7.2 List of Preparers
This EIR was prepared by the City of Burbank, with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Joe Power, Principal
Deanna Hansen, Principal
Susanne Huerta, AICP, Project Manager
Vanesa Villanueva, Assistant Project Manager
Brenna Vredeveld, Supervisor Biologist
Andy Pulcheon, Principal Archeologist
Lexi Journey, Senior Environmental Planer
Aubrey Mescher, Senior Environmental Planner
Bill Vosti, Senior Environmental Planner
Heather Dubois, Senior Environmental Planner
Amanda Harvey, Senior Archaeologist
John Sisser, Environmental Planner
Emily Marino, Environmental Planner
Ryan Glenn, Archaeologist
Mimi McNamara, Environmental Planner
Sarah Toback, Biologist
Jorge Mendieta, Archaeologist
Jason Montague, Environmental Planner
Megan Knight, Environmental Planner
Shannon McAlpine, Environmental Planner
Jacob Cisneros, Environmental Planner
Tess Hooper, Biologist
Jenna Shaw, Environmental Planner
Camila Bobroff, Environmental Planner
ATTACHMENT 10 -347
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report 7-17
Destiny Timms, Environmental Planner
Sarah Howland, Environmental Planner
Hannah Haas, Archaeologist
FEHR & PEERS
John Muggridge, Principal
Drew Heckathorn, Senior Transportation Planner
ATTACHMENT 10 -348
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing Element Update
7-18
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 10 -349
Appendix A
Notice of Preparation - Scoping Comments
ATTACHMENT 10 -350
Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates 1 February 2021 Notice of Preparation
Notice of Preparation
To: Public Agencies and Other Interested Parties
From: City of Burbank
Community Development Department
Planning Division
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting
Project Title: Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates
The City of Burbank will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates (hereafter referred to as “Housing Element Update” or “proposed Project”), which proposes to update the Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period, along with minor updates to the Safety and Mobility Elements, and incorporate environmental justice goals, policies and objectives to the City of Burbank’s 2035 General Plan. The City requests input from affected public agencies and interested members of the public as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the Project.
The Project description and location are described in the attached materials. The City expects that the EIR will include analyses for the following issues that are considered to have potential for significant impacts on the environment in association with the Project:
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Issues that have been determined not to have a significant impact, or any impact, include Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Energy, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire.
Purpose of the Scoping Meeting: The purpose of the scoping meeting is to present the proposed Project in a public setting and provide an opportunity for a full airing of the environmental issues that are important to the community. The meeting will include a presentation of the proposal and the environmental issues to ATTACHMENT 10 -351
Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates 2 February 2021 Notice of Preparation
be analyzed in the Draft EIR will be described. Following the presentation, interested agencies, organizations, and members of the public will be encouraged to present views concerning what environmental issues should be included in the Draft EIR. The oral and written comments made during the scoping meeting will provide an inventory of potential environmental effects of the Project to be addressed by the Draft EIR.
30-Day Comment Period: The City invites all interested members of the public to attend the public scoping meeting. The City also invites written comments on issues related to potential environmental impacts during a 30-day comment period, which starts on February 22, 2021 and will conclude on March 23, 2021. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible time but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice, and no later than 5:00 PM on March 23, 2021 . Please send written/typed comments (including a name, telephone number, and contact information) to the following:
City of Burbank, Community Development Department
Attn: Lisa Frank, Senior Planner
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
You may also email your response to [email protected]. Please provide the name of a contact person at your agency.
For more information about the Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates, please visit: https://www.burbankhousingelement.com/
A Community Meeting/EIR Public Scoping Meeting will be held on February 27, 2021 from 11:00 A.M. to 12:30 P.M. The meeting will be conducted online via zoom through the following link:
https://burbankca.zoom.us/j/99610663018 and will be streamed live through the City of Burbank YouTube channel.
All interested parties are invited to attend the public scoping meeting to assist in identifying issues to be addressed in the EIR. A presentation will begin at 11:00 A.M., then public comments for the EIR will be received and attendees will have an opportunity to provide input to the consultants preparing the EIR.
Date: February 22, 2021 Signature:
Lisa Frank
Title: Senior Planner
Telephone: (818) 238-5250
ATTACHMENT 10 -352
Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates 3 February 2021 Notice of Preparation
Burbank Housing Element Update Project Description
The Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates involves an update to the Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period, along with minor updates to the Safety and Mobility Elements, and incorporate environmental justice goals, policies and objectives to the City of Burbank’s 2035 General Plan. The Project would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank , which encompasses 17.1 square miles . Figure 1 and Figure 2 , below, illustrate the location of the Project in a regi onal and local context. The proposed Housing Element Update establishes programs, policies and actions to further the goal of meeting the existing and projected housing needs of all household income levels of the community, provides evidence of the City’s ability to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation through the year 2029, as established by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and identifies any rezoning program needed to reach the required housing capa city. The Project also includes necessary updates to the Safety Element triggered under State law by an update to the Housing Element , and updates to the Mobility Element to incorporate VMT (vehicle miles traveled) metrics.
The Housing Element Update w ill provide a framework for introducing new housing at all levels of affordability that is within access to transit, Downtown jobs, services, and open spaces. These units may occur anywhere in the City where residential uses are permitted, as well as in areas that may be rezoned in the future to allow for multi-family residential and mixed use of adequate density. Through its identification of sites for future development and implementing housing programs, the updated Housing Element will lay the foundation for achievement of the City’s fair share housing needs for approximately 8,800 additional units.
The purpose of the Safety Element Update is to ensure consistency with the Housing Element Update and to comply with recent State legislation and guidelines ( including Assembly Bill 162, Senate Bill 1241, Senate Bill 99, Assembly Bill 747, Senate Bill 1035 and Senate Bill 379). Technical amendments will be made to the Safety Element to achieve compliance with State, regional , and local policies and guidelines.
The technical amendments will incorporate data and maps, address vulnerability to climate change; incorporate policies and programs from the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, as well as partial or full integration of other City documents and programs (including but not limited to: Ready Burbank and the Emergency Survival Program). The Safety Element amendments will be submitted to the California Geological Survey, California Office of Emergency Services, California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, and Federal Emergency Management Agency for review.
Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000) states that revisions or adoption of two or more elements of a general plan on or after January 1, 2018 trigger a requirement to “adopt or review the Environmental Justice Element, or the environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements.” Environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives must aim to reduce health risks to disadvantaged communities (DACs), promote civil engagement, and prioritize the needs of these communities. There are several designated DACs identified in central, northwest, and southeast Burbank. These seven census tracts have overall scores that meet or exceed the minimum criteria for DAC designa tion based on pollution burden and population characteristics. As mandated under SB 1000, the Safety Element update will consider strategies to reduce pollution exposure, promote public facilities, promote food access, promote safe and sanitary homes, promote physical activity, reduce unique or compounded health risks, promote civic engagement, and prioritize the needs of these disadvantaged communities.
ATTACHMENT 10 -353
Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates 4 February 2021 Notice of Preparation
Figure 1 Regional Location
ATTACHMENT 10 -354
Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates 5 February 2021 Notice of Preparation
Figure 1 Project Location
ATTACHMENT 10 -355
Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates 1 February 2021 Notice of Preparation
Notice of Preparation
To: Public Agencies and Other Interested Parties
From: City of Burbank
Community Development Department
Planning Division
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Public Scoping Meeting
Project Title: Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates
The City of Burbank will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates (hereafter referred to as “Housing Element Update” or “proposed Project”), which proposes to update the Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period, along with minor updates to the Safety and Mobility Elements, and incorporate environmental justice goals, policies and objectives into the City of Burbank’s Burbank2035 General Plan.
The City requests input from affected public agencies and interested members of the public as to the scope and content of the environmental information that is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the Project.
The Project description and location are described in the attached materials. The City expects that the EIR will include analyses for the following issues that are considered to have potential for significant impacts on the environment in association with the Project:
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Land Use and Planning
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems
Issues that have been determined not to have a significant impact, or any impact, include Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Energy, Hydrology and Water Quality, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire.
Purpose of the Scoping Meeting: The purpose of the scoping meeting is to present the proposed Project in a public setting and provide an opportunity for a full airing of the environmental issues that are important to the community. The meeting will include a presentation of the proposal and the environmental issues to ATTACHMENT 10 -356
Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates 2 March 2021 Notice of Preparation
be analyzed in the Draft EIR will be described. Following the presentation, interested agencies, organizations, and members of the public will be encouraged to present views concerning what environmental issues should be included in the Draft EIR. The oral and written comments made during the scoping meeting will provide an inventory of potential environmental effects of the Project to be addressed by the Draft EIR.
30-Day Comment Period: This is a recirculation of the original NOP which stated that the EIR will analyze the addition of 8,800 units under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) that was conducted for the Housing Element Update. However, the EIR will analyze 10,088 units to account for a 15 percent buffer for the RHNA. The City invites all interested members of the public to attend the public scoping meeting.
The City also invites written comments on issues related to potential environmental impacts during the extended 30-day comment period, which started on February 22, 2021 and will conclude on April 15, 2021.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible time but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice, and no later than 5:00 PM on April 15, 2021. Please send written/typed comments (including a name, telephone number, and contact information) to the following:
City of Burbank, Community Development Department
Attn: Lisa Frank, Senior Planner
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
You may also email your response to [email protected]. Please provide the name of a contact person at your agency.
For more information about the Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates, please visit: https://www.burbankhousingelement.com/
An EIR Public Scoping Meeting will be held on March 31, 2021 from 6:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. The meeting will be conducted online via zoom through the following link: https://burbankca.zoom.us/j/96124014316 and will be recorded.
All interested parties are invited to attend the public scoping meeting to assist in identifying issues to be addressed in the EIR. A presentation will begin at 6:00 P.M., then public comments for the EIR will be received and attendees will have an opportunity to provide input to the consultants preparing the EIR.
Date: March 17, 2021 Signature:
Lisa Frank
Title: Senior Planner
Telephone: (818) 238-5250
ATTACHMENT 10 -357
Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates 3 March 2021 Notice of Preparation
Burbank Housing Element Update Project Description
The Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates involves an update to the Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period, along with minor updates to the Safety and Mobility Elements, and incorporate environmental justice goals, policies and objectives to the City of Burbank’s 2035 General Plan. The Project would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank , which encompasses 17.1 square miles . Figure 1 and Figure 2 , below, illustrate the location of the Project in a regional and local context. The proposed Housing Element Update establishes programs, policies and actions to further the goal of meeting the existing and projected housing needs of all household income levels of the community, provides evidence of the City’s ability to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation through the year 2029, as establish ed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and identifies any rezoning program needed to reach the required housing capacity. The Project also includes necessary updates to the Safety Element triggered under State law by an update to the Housing Element, and updates to the Mobility Element to incorporate VMT (vehicle miles traveled) metrics.
The Housing Element Update w ill provide a framework for introducing new housing at all levels of affordability that is within access to transit, D owntown jobs, services, and open spaces. These units may occur anywhere in the City where residential uses are permitted, as well as in areas that may be rezoned in the future to allow for multi-family residential and mixed use of adequate density. Through its identification of sites for future development and implementing housing programs, the updated Housing Element will lay the foundation for achievement of the City’s fair share housing needs for approximately 10,088 additional units.
The purpose of the Safety Element Update is to ensure consistency with the Housing Element Update and to comply with recent State legislation and guidelines ( including Assembly Bill 162, Senate Bill 1241, Senate Bill 99, Assembly Bill 747, Senate Bill 1035 and Senate Bill 379). Technical amendments will be made to the Safety Element to achieve compliance with State, regional , and local policies and guidelines.
The techn ical amendments will incorporate data and maps, address vulnerability to climate change; incorporate policies and programs from the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, as well as partial or full integration of other City documents and programs (including but not limited to: Ready Burbank and the Emergency Survival Program). The Safety Element amendments will be submitted to the California Geological Survey, California Office of Emergency Services, California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, and Federal Emergency Management Agency for review.
Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000) states that revisions or adoption of two or more elements of a general plan on or after January 1, 2018 trigger a requirement to “adopt or review t he Environmental Justice Element, or the environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements.” Environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives must aim to reduce health risks to disadvantaged communities (DACs), promote civil enga gement, and prioritize the needs of these communities. There are several designated DACs identified in central, northwest, and southeast Burbank. These seven census tracts have overall scores that meet or exceed the minimum criteria for DAC designation bas ed on pollution burden and population characteristics. As mandated under SB 1000, the Safety Element update will consider strategies to reduce pollution exposure, promote public facilities, promote food access, promote safe and sanitary homes, promote phys ical activity, reduce unique or compounded health risks, promote civic engagement, and prioritize the needs of these disadvantaged communities.
ATTACHMENT 10 -358
Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates 4 March 2021 Notice of Preparation
Figure 1 Regional Location
ATTACHMENT 10 -359
Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates 5 March 2021 Notice of Preparation
Figure 1 Project Location
ATTACHMENT 10 -360
ATTACHMENT 10 -361
ATTACHMENT 10 -362
ATTACHMENT 10 -363
ATTACHMENT 10 -364
ATTACHMENT 10 -365
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION