Attachment 10 — Burbank City Council, September 27, 2022 (part 3 of 5)

April 6, 2021

Lisa Frank
City of Burbank

Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB18), Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4, as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), Public Resources Codes §21080.1, §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2, Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates Project, Los Angeles County

Dear Ms. Frank:

Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties or projects.

Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans.

Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects.

The law does not preclude local governments and agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.

Best practice for the AB52 process and in accordance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(d), is to do the following:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section.

The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that lead agencies include in their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential affect (APE), such as:

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk

COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache

COMMISSIONER
Julie Tumamait-
Stenslie
Chumash

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

ATTACHMENT 10 -366

Page 2 of 2 ends

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

• A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites;
• Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and
• If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:
• Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures.

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.

3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was positive. Please contact the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians on the attached list for more information.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance we can assure that our consultation list remains current.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst

Attachment

ATTACHMENT 10 -367
Fernandeno Tataviam Band of
Mission Indians
Rudy Ortega, Tribal President
1019 Second Street, Suite 1
San Fernando, CA, 91340
Phone: (818) 837 - 0794
Fax: (818) 837-0796
[email protected]
Tataviam
Fernandeno Tataviam Band of
Mission Indians
Jairo Avila, Tribal Historic and
Cultural Preservation Officer
1019 Second Street, Suite 1
San Fernando, CA, 91340
Phone: (818) 837 - 0794
Fax: (818) 837-0796
[email protected]
Tataviam
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is applicable only for consultation with Native American tribes under Government Code Sections 65352.3, 65352.4 et seq. and Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates Project, Los Angeles County.

PROJ-2021-
001874
04/06/2021 04:10 PM
Native American Heritage Commission
Tribal Consultation List
Los Angeles County
4/6/2021
ATTACHMENT 10 -368

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”

STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 7 – Office of Regional Planning
100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012
PHONE (213) 897-0475
FAX (213) 897-1337
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.

March 8, 2021

Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, CA 91502

RE: Burbank Housing Element Update and
Associated General Plan Updates – Notice
of Preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report (NOP)
SCH # 2021020393
GTS # 07-LA-2021-03505
Vic. LA-5/PM: 29.126

Dear Lisa Frank:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced NOP. The project involves an update to the City of Burbank’s Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period, along with minor updates to the Safety and Mobility Elements, and the incorporation of environmental justice goals, policies and objectives to the City of Burbank’s 2035 General Plan. 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. It will also provide evidence of the City’s ability to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation through the year 2029, as e stablished by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and identifies any rezoning program needed to reach the required housing capacity. In addition, t he project includes necessary updates to the Safety Element triggered under State law by an up date to the Housing Element, a s well as updates to the Mobility Element to incorporate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metrics. The City of Burbank is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The project , which spans th e entire City of Burbank, intersects with State Route 134 (SR-134) and Interstate 5 (I-5), and is located in close proximity to the United States 101 (US-101). From reviewing the NOP, Caltrans has the following comments:

• For information on determining transportation impacts in terms of VMT on the State Highway System, see the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), dated December 2018:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. • The C ity can also refer to Caltrans’ updated Vehicle Miles Traveled -Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG), dated May 2020 and released on Caltrans’ website in July 2020:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb-743/2020- 05-20-approved-vmt-focused-tisg-a11y.pdf. Caltrans’ new TISG is largely based on the OPR 2018 Technical Advisory.

ATTACHMENT 10 -369
Lisa Frank
March 8, 2021

Page 2 of 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”

• Caltrans looks forward to reviewing the VMT analysis for this project. As discussed in Caltrans’ new TISG, Caltrans strongly recommends undertaking project VMT analysis, significance determination, and potential mitigation in a manner consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory. • The updated TISG states, “Additional future guidance will include the basis for requesting transportation impact analysis that is not base d on VMT. This guidance will include a simplified safety analysis approach that reduces risks to all road users and that focuses on multi -modal conflict analysis as well as access management issues.” Since releasing the TISG, Caltrans has released interim safety analysis guidance, dated December 2020 and found here, for the C ity’s reference: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb- 743/2020-12-22-updated-interim-ldigr-safety-review-guidance-a11y.pdf. • Caltrans encourages lead agencies to complete traffic safety impact analysis in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process so that, through partnerships and collaboration, California can reach zero fatalities and serious injuries by 2050.

The following information is included for your consideration.

The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. Furthermore, Caltrans encourages Lead Agencies to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strateg ies that reduce VMT and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. For TDM options to potentially include in the updated Housing, Safety, or Mobility elements, please refer to:

• The 2010 Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures report by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), available at http://www.capcoa.org/wp- content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf, or • Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A Desk Reference (Chapter 8) by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), available at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/index.htm.

If you have any questions about these comments, please contact Emily Gibson, the project coordinator, at [email protected], and refer to GTS # 07-LA-2021-03505.

Sincerely,

MIYA EDMONSON
IGR/CEQA Branch Chief
cc: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse
ATTACHMENT 10 -370
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 467-4201
www.wildlife.ca.gov

Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870

March 11, 2021

Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
150 North Third Street
Burbank, CA 91502
[email protected]

Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates Project, SCH #2021020393, City of Burbank, Los Angeles County

Dear Ms. Frank:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) from the City of Burbank (City; Lead Agency) for the Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates Project (Project). Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife.

Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW’s Role

CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State [Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subdivision (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, § 15386, subdivision (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect State fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take”, as defined by State law, of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), or CESA-listed rare plant pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish & G. Code, §1900 et seq.), CDFW recommends the Project proponent obtain appropriate authorization under the Fish and Game Code.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB821560-E9F9-4FFF-B127-3B9DDA1CB05B ATTACHMENT 10 -371
Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
March 11, 2021

Page 2 of 13 ends

Project Description and Summary

Objective: The Project involves an update to the Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period, along with minor updates to the Safety and Mobility Elements. The Project also incorporates environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives to the City of Burbank’s 2035 General Plan. The proposed Housing Element Update establishes programs, policies, and actions to further the goal of meeting the existing and projected housing needs of all family income levels and provides evidence of the City’s ability to meet the Southern California Association of Government's 2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment. 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. Technical amendments will be made to the Safety Element to incorporate data and map; address vulnerability to climate change; incorporate policies and programs from the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan; and partially or fully integrate other City documents and programs.

Updates to the Mobility Element will incorporate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metrics. The environmental justice updates will include goals, policies, and objectives aimed at reducing health risks to disadvantaged communities, promote civil engagement, and prioritize the needs of these communities.

Location: The Project would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank that encompasses 17.1 square miles in central Los Angeles County.

Comments and Recommendations

CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying, avoiding, and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources.

Specific Comments

1) Adequate Sites Inventory. CDFW recommends the City prepare a map of the following areas if present within or adjacent to the City boundary. In addition, the City should consider the Project’s potential impacts on the following areas if present within or adjacent to the Project boundary:

a) Conservation easements or mitigation lands;
b) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat (USFWS 2020);
c) County of Los Angeles Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs); d) Wildlife corridors, such as those found along the Verdugo Mountains e) Sensitive Natural Communities [see General Comment #3 (Biological Baseline Assessment)];
f) Aquatic and riparian resources including (but not limited to) rivers, channels, streams, wetlands, and vernal pools, and associated natural plant communities; and, g) Urban forests, particularly areas with dense and large trees [see Specific Comment #4 (Loss of Bird and Raptor Nesting Habitat)].

CDFW recommends the City avoid sites that may have a direct or indirect impact on conservation easements or lands set aside as mitigation. CDFW recommends the DEIR DocuSign Envelope ID: EB821560-E9F9-4FFF-B127-3B9DDA1CB05B ATTACHMENT 10 -372
Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
March 11, 2021

Page 3 of 13 ends

include measures where future housing development facilitated by the Project mitigate (avoid if feasible) for impacts on biological resources occurring within SEAs and critical habitat, as well as mitigate for impacts on wildlife corridors, sensitive natural communities, aquatic and riparian resources, and urban forests.

2) Impacts on Wildlife Corridors and Wildlife. CDFW is concerned that the Project would impact wildlife corridors. Additionally, development occurring adjacent to natural habitat areas such as wildlife corridors could have direct or indirect impacts on wildlife. Impacts could result from increased human presence, traffic, noise, and artificial lighting. Increased human- wildlife interactions could lead to injury or mortality of wildlife. For instance, as human population and communities expand into wildland areas, there has been a commensurate increase in direct and indirect interaction between mountain lions and people (CDFW 2013).

As a result, the need to relocate or humanely euthanize mountain lions (depredation kills) may increase for public safety.

CDFW recommends the DEIR include measures where future housing development facilitated by the Project thoroughly analyze whether the project may impact wildlife corridors. Impacts include habitat loss and fragmentation, narrowing of a wildlife corridor, and introduction of barriers to wildlife movement. Additionally, CDFW recommends future development projects thoroughly analyze whether the project may have direct and indirect impacts wildlife resulting from increased human presence, traffic, noise, and artificial lighting.

3) Nesting Birds. CDFW recommends the DEIR include measures where future housing development facilitated by the Project avoids potential impacts to nesting birds. Project activities occurring during the bird and raptor breeding and nesting season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment.

a) Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, § 10.13). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the Federal MBTA). It is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any raptor.

b) CDFW recommends that measures be taken to fully avoid impacts to nesting birds and raptors. Ground-disturbing activities (e.g., mobilizing, staging, drilling, and excavating) and vegetation removal should occur outside of the avian breeding season which generally runs from February 15 through August 31 (as early as January 1 for some raptors) to avoid take of birds, raptors, or their eggs.

c) If impacts to nesting birds and raptors cannot be avoided, CDFW recommends the DEIR include measures where future housing development facilitated by the Project mitigates for impacts. CDFW recommends surveys by a qualified biologist with experience conducting breeding bird and raptor surveys. Surveys are needed to detect protected native birds and raptors occurring in suitable nesting habitat that may be disturbed and any other such habitat within 300 feet of the project disturbance area, to the extent allowable and accessible. For raptors, this radius should be expanded to 500 feet and

0.5 mile for special status species, if feasible. Project personnel, including all contractors DocuSign Envelope ID: EB821560-E9F9-4FFF-B127-3B9DDA1CB05B ATTACHMENT 10 -373
Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
March 11, 2021

Page 4 of 13 ends

working on site, should be instructed on the sensitivity of the area. Reductions in the nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the avian species involved, ambient levels of human activity, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors.

4) Loss of Bird and Raptor Nesting Habitat. The biggest threat to birds is habitat loss and conversion of natural vegetation into another land use such as development (e.g., commercial, residential, industrial). In the greater Los Angeles region, urban forests and street trees, both native and some non-native species, provide habitat for a high diversity of birds (Wood and Esaian 2020). Some species of raptors have adapted to and exploited urban areas for breeding and nesting (Cooper et al. 2020). For example, raptors (Accipitridae, Falconidae) such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii) can nest successfully in urban sites. Red-tailed hawks commonly nest in ornamental vegetation such as eucalyptus (Cooper et al. 2020). According to iNaturalist, there are multiple observations of red-tailed hawks and Copper’s hawks within the City.

a) CDFW recommends the DEIR provide measures where future housing development facilitated by the Project avoids removal of any native trees, large and dense-canopied native and non-native trees, and trees occurring in high density (Wood and Esaian 2020). CDFW also recommends avoiding impacts to trees protected by the City’s Heritage Tree Program and Tree Ordinance. CDFW also recommends avoiding impacts to understory vegetation (e.g., ground cover, subshrubs, shrubs, and trees).

b) If impacts to trees cannot be avoided, trees should be replaced to compensate for the temporal or permanent loss habitat within a project site. Depending on the status of the bird or raptor species impacted, replacement habitat acres should increase with the occurrence of a California Species of Special Concern. Replacement habitat acres should further increase with the occurrence of a CESA-listed threatened or endangered species.

c) CDFW recommends planting native tree species preferred by birds. This includes coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) (Wood and Esaian 2020). CDFW recommends Audubon Society’s Plants for Birds for more information on selecting native plants and trees beneficial to birds (Audubon Society 2020).

5) Bats. Numerous bat species are known to roost in trees and structures throughout Los Angeles County (Remington and Cooper 2014). In urbanized areas, bats use trees and man-made structures for daytime and nighttime roosts. Accordingly, CDFW recommends the DEIR provide measures where future housing development facilitated by the Project avoids potential impacts to bats.

a) Bats are considered non-game mammals and are afforded protection by state law from take and/or harassment (Fish & G. Code, § 4150; Cal. Code of Regs., § 251.1). Project construction and activities, including (but not limited to) ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and any activities leading to increased noise levels may have direct and/or indirect impacts on bats and roosts.

b) CDFW recommends a project-level biological resources survey provide a thorough DocuSign Envelope ID: EB821560-E9F9-4FFF-B127-3B9DDA1CB05B ATTACHMENT 10 -374
Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
March 11, 2021

Page 5 of 13 ends

discussion and adequate disclosure of potential impacts to bats and roosts from project construction and activities including (but not limited to) ground-disturbing activities (e.g., mobilizing, staging, drilling, and excavating) and vegetation removal. If necessary, to reduce impacts to less than significant, a project-level environmental document should provide bat-specific avoidance and/or mitigation measures [CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)].

General Comments

1) Disclosure. An environmental document should provide an adequate, complete, and detailed disclosure about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment (Pub. Resources Code, § 20161; CEQA Guidelines, §15151). Adequate disclosure is necessary so CDFW may provide comments on the adequacy of proposed avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures, as well as to assess the significance of the specific impact relative to the species (e.g., current range, distribution, population trends, and connectivity).

2) Mitigation Measures. Public agencies have a duty under CEQA to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of feasible alternatives or mitigation measures [CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002(a)(3), 15021].

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, an environmental document shall describe feasible measures which could mitigate for impacts below a significant level under CEQA.

a) Level of Detail. Mitigation measures must be feasible, effective, implemented, and fully enforceable/imposed by the lead agency through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, 15041). A public agency shall provide the measures that are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21081.6). CDFW recommends that the City prepare mitigation measures that are specific, detailed (i.e., responsible party, timing, specific actions, location), and clear in order for a measure to be fully enforceable and implemented successfully via a mitigation monitoring and/or reporting program (CEQA Guidelines, § 15097; Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6). Adequate disclosure is necessary so CDFW may provide comments on the adequacy and feasibility of proposed mitigation measures.

b) Disclosure of Impacts. If a proposed mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects, in addition to impacts caused by the Project as proposed, the environmental document should include a discussion of the effects of proposed mitigation measures [CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)]. In that regard, the environmental document should provide an adequate, complete, and detailed disclosure about a project’s proposed mitigation measure(s). Adequate disclosure is necessary so CDFW may assess the potential impacts of proposed mitigation measures.

3) Biological Baseline Assessment. An adequate biological resources assessment should provide a complete assessment and impact analysis of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to a project site and where a project may result in ground disturbance. The assessment and analysis should place emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, sensitive, regionally, and locally unique species, and sensitive habitats. Impact analysis will DocuSign Envelope ID: EB821560-E9F9-4FFF-B127-3B9DDA1CB05B ATTACHMENT 10 -375
Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
March 11, 2021

Page 6 of 13 ends

aid in determining any direct, indirect, and cumulative biological impacts, as well as specific mitigation or avoidance measures necessary to offset those impacts. CDFW recommends avoiding any sensitive natural communities found on or adjacent to a project. CDFW also considers impacts to Species of Special Concern a significant direct and cumulative adverse effect without implementing appropriate avoid and/or mitigation measures. A project-level environmental document should include the following information:

a) Information on the regional setting that is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts, with special emphasis on resources that are rare or unique to the region [CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(c)]. An environmental document should include measures to fully avoid and otherwise protect Sensitive Natural Communities from project-related impacts.

CDFW considers these communities as threatened habitats having both regional and local significance. Plant communities, alliances, and associations with a state-wide ranking of S1, S2, S3 and S4 should be considered sensitive and declining at the local and regional level. These ranks can be obtained by visiting Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program - Natural Communities webpage (CDFW 2020a);

b) A thorough, recent, floristic-based assessment of special status plants and natural communities following CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). Adjoining habitat areas should be included where project construction and activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts off site;

c) Floristic, alliance- and/or association-based mapping and vegetation impact assessments conducted at a project site and within the neighboring vicinity. The Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), second edition, should also be used to inform this mapping and assessment (Sawyer et al. 2009). Adjoining habitat areas should be included in this assessment where project activities could lead to direct or indirect impacts off site. Habitat mapping at the alliance level will help establish baseline vegetation conditions;

d) A complete, recent, assessment of the biological resources associated with each habitat type on site and within adjacent areas that could also be affected by a project. CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) in Sacramento should be contacted to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat (CDFW 2020b). An assessment should include a nine-quadrangle search of the CNDDB to determine a list of species potentially present at a project site. A lack of records in the CNDDB does not mean that rare, threatened, or endangered plants and wildlife do not occur in the project site. Field verification for the presence or absence of sensitive species is necessary to provide a complete biological assessment for adequate CEQA review [CEQA Guidelines, § 15003(i)];

e) A complete, recent, assessment of rare, threatened, and endangered, and other sensitive species on site and within the area of potential effect, including California Species of Special Concern, and California Fully Protected Species (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Seasonal variations in use of a project site should also be addressed such as wintering, roosting, nesting, and foraging habitat. Focused species- DocuSign Envelope ID: EB821560-E9F9-4FFF-B127-3B9DDA1CB05B ATTACHMENT 10 -376
Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
March 11, 2021

Page 7 of 13 ends

specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, may be required if suitable habitat is present. See CDFW’s Survey and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines for established survey protocol for select species (CDFW 2020c). Acceptable species-specific survey procedures may be developed in consultation with CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and,

f) A recent wildlife and rare plant survey. CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of a proposed project may warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if build out could occur over a protracted time frame or in phases.

g) A biological resources survey should include identification and delineation of any rivers, streams, and lakes and their associated natural plant communities/habitats. This includes any culverts, ditches, storm channels that may transport water, sediment, pollutants, and discharge into rivers, streams, and lakes.

4) Data. CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations [Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)]. Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected by completing and submitting CNDDB Field Survey Forms (CDFW 2020d). The City should ensure data collected at a project-level has been properly submitted, with all data fields applicable filled out. The data entry should also list pending development as a threat and then update this occurrence after impacts have occurred.

5) Biological Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts. CDFW recommends providing a thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. The DEIR should address the following:

a) A discussion regarding Project-related indirect impacts on biological resources, including resources in nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, riparian ecosystems, and any designated and/or proposed or existing reserve lands [e.g., preserve lands associated with a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP, Fish & G. Code, § 2800 et. seq.)]. Impacts on, and maintenance of, wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitats in adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated in the DEIR;

b) A discussion of both the short-term and long-term effects to species population distribution and concentration and alterations of the ecosystem supporting the species impacted [CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2(a)];

c) A discussion of potential adverse impacts from lighting, noise, temporary and permanent human activity, and exotic species, and identification of any mitigation measures;

d) A discussion on Project-related changes on drainage patterns; the volume, velocity, and frequency of existing and post-Project surface flows; polluted runoff; soil erosion and/or DocuSign Envelope ID: EB821560-E9F9-4FFF-B127-3B9DDA1CB05B ATTACHMENT 10 -377
Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
March 11, 2021

Page 8 of 13 ends

sedimentation in streams and water bodies; and, post-Project fate of runoff from the Project sites. The discussion should also address the potential water extraction activities and the potential resulting impacts on the habitat (if any) supported by the groundwater.

Mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such Project impacts should be included;

e) An analysis of impacts from proposed changes to land use designations and zoning, and existing land use designation and zoning located nearby or adjacent to natural areas that may inadvertently contribute to wildlife-human interactions. A discussion of possible conflicts and mitigation measures to reduce these conflicts should be included in the DEIR; and,

f) A cumulative effects analysis, as described under CEQA Guidelines section 15130.

General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar plant and wildlife species, habitat, and vegetation communities. If the City determines that the Project would not have a cumulative impact, the environmental document should indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant. The City’s conclusion should be supported by facts and analyses [CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a)(2)].

6) Project Description and Alternatives. To enable CDFW to adequately review and comment on the proposed Project from the standpoint of the protection of plants, fish, and wildlife, we recommend the following information be included in the DEIR:

a) A complete discussion of the purpose and need for, and description of, the proposed Project;

b) CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a) states that an environmental document shall describe a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(2) states if the Lead Agency concludes that no feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion and should include reasons in the environmental document; and,

c) A range of feasible alternatives to Project component location and design features to avoid or otherwise minimize direct and indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources and wildlife movement areas. CDFW recommends the City consider configuring Project construction and activities, as well as the development footprint, in such a way as to fully avoid impacts to sensitive and special status plants and wildlife species, habitat, and sensitive vegetation communities. CDFW also recommends the City consider establishing appropriate setbacks from sensitive and special status biological resources.

Setbacks should not be impacted by ground disturbance or hydrological changes for the duration of the Project and from any future development. As a general rule, CDFW recommends reducing or clustering the development footprint to retain unobstructed spaces for vegetation and wildlife and provide connections for wildlife between properties and minimize obstacles to open space.

Project alternatives should be thoroughly evaluated, even if an alternative would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly (CEQA DocuSign Envelope ID: EB821560-E9F9-4FFF-B127-3B9DDA1CB05B ATTACHMENT 10 -378
Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
March 11, 2021

Page 9 of 13 ends

Guidelines, § 15126.6).

d) Where the Project may impact aquatic and riparian resources, CDFW recommends the City consider alternatives that would fully avoid impacts to such resources. CDFW also recommends alternatives that would allow not impede, alter, or otherwise modify existing surface flow; watercourse and meander; and water-dependent ecosystems and vegetation communities. Project-related designs should consider elevated crossings to avoid channelizing or narrowing of streams. Any modifications to a river, creek, or stream may cause or magnify upstream bank erosion, channel incision, and drop in water level and cause the stream to alter its course of flow.

7) CESA. CDFW considers adverse impacts to a species protected by CESA to be significant without mitigation under CEQA. As to CESA, take of any endangered, threatened, candidate species, or CESA-listed plant species that results from the Project is prohibited, except as authorized by state law (Fish & G. Code §§ 2080, 2085; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §786.9).

Consequently, if the Project or any Project-related activity during the life of the Project will result in take of a species designated as endangered or threatened, or a candidate for listing under CESA, CDFW recommends that the Project proponent seek appropriate take authorization under CESA prior to implementing the Project. Appropriate authorization from CDFW may include an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) or a consistency determination in certain circumstances, among other options [Fish & Game Code, §§ 2080.1, 2081, subds. (b) and (c)]. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to a Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA Permit. Revisions to the Fish and Game Code, effective January 1998, may require that CDFW issue a separate CEQA document for the issuance of an ITP unless the Project CEQA document addresses all Project impacts to CESA-listed species and specifies a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that will meet the requirements of an ITP. For these reasons, biological mitigation monitoring and reporting proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA ITP.

8) Jurisdictional Waters. As a Responsible Agency under CEQA, CDFW has authority over activities in streams and/or lakes that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (including vegetation associated with the stream or lake) of a river or stream, or use material from a streambed. For any such activities, the project applicant (or “entity”) must provide written notification to CDFW pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq.

a) CDFW’s issuance of a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by CDFW as a Responsible Agency. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW may consider the environmental document of the local jurisdiction (Lead Agency) for the project. To minimize additional requirements by CDFW pursuant to section 1600 et seq. and/or under CEQA, the environmental document should fully identify the potential impacts to the stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the LSA Agreement. Please visit CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration Program webpage for information about LSA Notification (CDFW 2020e).

b) In the event the project area may support aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats; a DocuSign Envelope ID: EB821560-E9F9-4FFF-B127-3B9DDA1CB05B ATTACHMENT 10 -379
Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
March 11, 2021

Page 10 of 13 ends

preliminary delineation of the streams and their associated riparian habitats should be included in the environmental document. The delineation should be conducted pursuant to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wetland definition adopted by CDFW (Cowardin et al. 1970). Be advised that some wetland and riparian habitats subject to CDFW’s authority may extend beyond the jurisdictional limits of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Section 404 permit and Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Certification.

c) In project areas which may support ephemeral or episodic streams, herbaceous vegetation, woody vegetation, and woodlands also serve to protect the integrity of these resources and help maintain natural sedimentation processes; therefore, CDFW recommends effective setbacks be established to maintain appropriately sized vegetated buffer areas adjoining ephemeral drainages.

d) Project-related changes in upstream and downstream drainage patterns, runoff, and sedimentation should be included and evaluated in the environmental document.

e) As part of the LSA Notification process, CDFW requests a hydrological evaluation of the 100, 50, 25, 10, 5, and 2-year frequency storm event for existing and proposed conditions. CDFW recommends the environmental document evaluate the results and address avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures that may be necessary to reduce potential significant impacts.

9) Wetland Resources. CDFW, as described in Fish and Game Code section 703(a), is guided by the Fish and Game Commission’s (Commission) policies. The Wetlands Resources policy the Commission “…seek[s] to provide for the protection, preservation, restoration, enhancement and expansion of wetland habitat in California (CFGC 2020). Further, it is the policy of the Fish and Game Commission to strongly discourage development in or conversion of wetlands. It opposes, consistent with its legal authority, any development or conversion that would result in a reduction of wetland acreage or wetland habitat values. To that end, the Commission opposes wetland development proposals unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be ‘no net loss’ of either wetland habitat values or acreage. The Commission strongly prefers mitigation which would achieve expansion of wetland acreage and enhancement of wetland habitat values.”

a) The Wetlands Resources policy provides a framework for maintaining wetland resources and establishes mitigation guidance. CDFW encourages avoidance of wetland resources as a primary mitigation measure and discourages the development or type conversion of wetlands to uplands. CDFW encourages activities that would avoid the reduction of wetland acreage, function, or habitat values. Once avoidance and minimization measures have been exhausted, a project must include mitigation measures to assure a “no net loss” of either wetland habitat values, or acreage, for unavoidable impacts to wetland resources. Conversions include, but are not limited to, conversion to subsurface drains, placement of fill or building of structures within the wetland, and channelization or removal of materials from the streambed. All wetlands and watercourses, whether ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial, should be retained and provided with substantial setbacks, which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and functions for the benefit to on-site and off-site wildlife populations. CDFW recommends mitigation measures to compensate for unavoidable impacts be included in an environmental document and DocuSign Envelope ID: EB821560-E9F9-4FFF-B127-3B9DDA1CB05B ATTACHMENT 10 -380
Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
March 11, 2021

Page 11 of 13 ends

these measures should compensate for the loss of function and value.

b) The Fish and Game Commission’s Water policy guides CDFW on the quantity and quality of the waters of this State that should be apportioned and maintained respectively so as to produce and sustain maximum numbers of fish and wildlife; to provide maximum protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife and their habitat; encourage and support programs to maintain or restore a high quality of the waters of this State; prevent the degradation thereof caused by pollution and contamination; and, endeavor to keep as much water as possible open and accessible to the public for the use and enjoyment of fish and wildlife. CDFW recommends avoidance of water practices and structures that use excessive amounts of water, and minimization of impacts that negatively affect water quality, to the extent feasible (Fish & G. Code, § 5650).

10) Translocation/Salvage of Plants and Animal Species. Translocation and transplantation is the process of moving an individual from a project site and permanently moving it to a new location. CDFW generally does not support the use of, translocation or transplantation as the primary mitigation strategy for unavoidable impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species. Studies have shown that these efforts are experimental and the outcome unreliable. CDFW has found that permanent preservation and management of habitat capable of supporting these species is often a more effective long-term strategy for conserving sensitive plants and animals and their habitats.

11) Compensatory Mitigation. An environmental document should include mitigation measures for adverse Project related direct or indirect impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats. Mitigation measures should emphasize avoidance and reduction of project-related impacts. For unavoidable impacts, on-site habitat restoration or enhancement should be discussed in detail. If on-site mitigation is not feasible or would not be biologically viable and therefore not adequately mitigate the loss of biological functions and values, off-site mitigation through habitat creation and/or acquisition and preservation in perpetuity should be addressed. Areas proposed as mitigation lands should be protected in perpetuity with a conservation easement, financial assurance and dedicated to a qualified entity for long-term management and monitoring. Under Government Code, section 65967, the Lead Agency must exercise due diligence in reviewing the qualifications of a governmental entity, special district, or nonprofit organization to effectively manage and steward land, water, or natural resources on mitigation lands it approves.

12) Long-term Management of Mitigation Lands. For proposed preservation and/or restoration, an environmental document should include measures to protect the targeted habitat values from direct and indirect negative impacts in perpetuity. The objective should be to offset the project-induced qualitative and quantitative losses of wildlife habitat values. Issues that should be addressed include (but are not limited to) restrictions on access, proposed land dedications, monitoring and management programs, control of illegal dumping, water pollution, and increased human intrusion. An appropriate non-wasting endowment should be set aside to provide for long-term management of mitigation lands.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB821560-E9F9-4FFF-B127-3B9DDA1CB05B ATTACHMENT 10 -381
Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
March 11, 2021

Page 12 of 13 ends

Conclusion

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the NOP for the Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates Project to assist the City of Burbank in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact Andrew Valand, Environmental Scientist, at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Erinn Wilson-Olgin
Environmental Program Manager I
South Coast Region

ec: CDFW
Erinn Wilson-Olgin, Los Alamitos – [email protected] Victoria Tang, Los Alamitos – [email protected] Ruby Kwan-Davis, Los Alamitos – [email protected] Felicia Silva, Los Alamitos – [email protected] Susan Howell, San Diego – [email protected]
CEQA Program Coordinator, Sacramento – [email protected]

State Clearinghouse, Sacramento – [email protected]

References

Audubon Society. 2020. Plants for Birds. Available from:
https://www.audubon.org/PLANTSFORBIRDS

[CDFWa] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. Natural Communities. Accessed at:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities.

[CDFWb] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. California Natural Diversity Database. Available from: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB

[CDFWc] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. Survey and Monitoring Protocols and Guidelines. Available from: https://wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/survey-protocols

[CDFWd] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. Submitting Data to the CNDDB.

Available from: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data

[CDFWe] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. Available from: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB821560-E9F9-4FFF-B127-3B9DDA1CB05B ATTACHMENT 10 -382
Lisa Frank
City of Burbank
March 11, 2021

Page 13 of 13 ends

[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. Accessed at:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline.

[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. CDFW Departmental Bulletin.

Human/Wildlife Interactions in California: Mountain Lion Depredation, Public Safety, and Animal Welfare. Available from:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68271&inline

[CFGC] California Fish and Game Commission. 2020. Policies. Retention of Wetland Acreage and Habitat Values. Accessed: https://fgc.ca.gov/About/Policies/Miscellaneous.

[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2020. Rare Plant ranks. Available from:
https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-rare-plant-ranks.

Cooper D.S., Yeh, P.J., and D.T. Blumstein. 2020. Tolerance and avoidance of urban cover in a southern California suburban raptor community over five decades. Urban Ecosystems. doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-01035-w

[LACDRP] Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. 2019. Significant Ecological Areas Program. Maps. Available from: https://planning.lacounty.gov/site/sea/maps/

Sawyer, J. O., Keeler-Wolf, T., and Evens J.M. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed.

ISBN 978-0-943460-49-9.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. USFWS Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Online Mapper. Available from:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html

Wood, E.M. and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna. Ecological Applications 30(7): e02149.

DocuSign Envelope ID: EB821560-E9F9-4FFF-B127-3B9DDA1CB05B ATTACHMENT 10 -383
Ph: (626) 381-9248
Fx: (626) 389-5414
Em: [email protected]

Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
155 South El Molino Avenue
Suite 104
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA ELECTRONIC & U.S. MAIL
March 19, 2021
Zizette Mullins,
City Clerk
City of Burbank
275 East Olive Avenue, P.O. Box 6459
Burbank, CA 91510
Em: [email protected]
Lisa Frank
Senior Planner
City of Burbank
150 North Third Street
Burbank, CA 91502
Em: [email protected]
RE: Public Records Act and Mailing List Request Regarding Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates (SCH #: 2021020393).

Dear Ms. Mullins and Ms. Frank,
On behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“SWRCC”) and its members, this Office requests that the City of Burbank (“City”) provide any and all information referring or related to the Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates (“Project”) pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“PRA”), Cal. Government (“Gov’t”) Code §§ 6250–6270 from on or after <Date Range> (collectively “PRA Request”).

Moreover, the SWRCC requests that City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and ATTACHMENT 10 -384
City of Burbank – Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates March 19, 2021

Page 2 of 7 ends

Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

The Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters is a labor union representing 50,000 union carpenters in six states, including in southern California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects, such as the Project.

I. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST.

SWRCC is requesting any and all information referring or related to the Project.

The Public Records Act defines the term “public record” broadly as “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business . . . regardless of physical form and characteristics.” Gov’t Code § 6252(d). “Records” includes all communications relating to public business regardless of physical form or characteristics, including but not limited to any writing, picture, sound, or symbol, whether paper, magnetic, electronic, text, other media, or written verification of any oral communication. Included in this request are any references in any appointment calendars and applications, phone records, or text records. These “records” are to include, but are not limited to correspondences, e-mails, reports, letters, memorandums, and communications by any employee or elected official of City concerning the Project.

Please include in your response to this request the following examples of “records,” as well as any similar physical or electronic forms of communication: any form of writing such as correspondence, electronic mail records (“email”), legal and factual memoranda, facsimiles, photographs, maps, videotapes, film, data, reports, notes, audiotapes, or drawings. Cal. Government Code § 6252(g) (defining a writing to including “any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored”). Responsive correspondence should include, inter alia, emails, text messages, or any other form of communication regardless of whether they were sent or received on public or privately-owned electronic devices “relating to the conduct of the public’s business.” Cal. Government Code § 6252(e); Citizens for Ceres v. Super. Ct. (“Ceres”) (2013) 217 Cal. App. 4th 889, 909; Citizens for Open Gov’t v. City of Lodi (“Lodi”) (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 307, 311; City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal. 5th 608, 625 (finding that a public employee or officer’s “writings about public ATTACHMENT 10 -385
City of Burbank – Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates March 19, 2021

Page 3 of 7 ends

business are not excluded” from the California Public Records Act “simply because they have been sent, received, or stored in a personal account.”) .

This Office requests any and all information referring or related to the Project, including but not limited to:
(1) All Project application materials;
(2) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the City with respect to its compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, title 14, California Code of Regulations, § 15000 et seq. (collectively “CEQA”) and with respect to the action on the Project;
(3) All staff reports and related documents prepared by the City and written testimony or documents submitted by any person relevant to any findings or statement of overriding considerations adopted by the agency pursuant to CEQA;
(4) Any transcript or minutes of the proceedings at which the decisionmaking body of the City heard testimony on, or considered any environmental document on, the Project, and any transcript or minutes of proceedings before any advisory body to the public agency that were presented to the decisionmaking body prior to action on the environmental documents or on the Project;
(5) All notices issued by the City to comply with CEQA or with any other law governing the processing and approval of the Project; (6) All written comments received in response to, or in connection with, environmental documents prepared for the Project, including responses to the notice of preparation;
(7) All written evidence or correspondence submitted to, or transferred from, the City with respect to compliance with CEQA or with respect to the Project;
(8) Any proposed decisions or findings submitted to the decisionmaking ATTACHMENT 10 -386
City of Burbank – Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates March 19, 2021

Page 4 of 7 ends

body of the City by its staff, or the Project proponent, Project opponents, or other persons;
(9) The documentation of the final City decision and approvals, including the final environmental impact report, mitigated negative declaration, negative declaration, or notice of exemption, and all documents, in addition to those referenced in paragraph (3), cited or relied on in the findings or in a statement of overriding considerations adopted pursuant to CEQA;
(10) Any other written materials relevant to the public agency's compliance with CEQA or to its decision on the merits of the Project, including the initial study, any drafts of any environmental document, or portions thereof, that have been released for public review, and copies of studies or other documents relied upon in any environmental document prepared for the Project and either made available to the public during the public review period or included in the City 's files on the Project, and all internal agency communications, including staff notes and memoranda related to the Project or to compliance with CEQA; and (11) The full written record before any inferior administrative decisionmaking body whose decision was appealed to a superior administrative decisionmaking body prior to the filing of any litigation.

Please respond within 10 days from the date you receive this request as to whether this request specifies identifiable records not exempt from disclosure under the PRA or otherwise privileged or confidential, and are therefore subject to disclosure. This Office understands that this time may be extended up to 14 days for unusual circumstances as provided by Cal. Government Code § 6253(c), and that we will be notified of any extension and the reasons justifying it.

We request that you provide all documents in electronic format and waive any and all fees associated with this Request. SWRCC is a community-based organization. Please notify and obtain express approval from this Office before incurring any duplication costs.

If any of the above requested documents are available online, please provide us with the URL web address at which the documents may be downloaded. If any of the ATTACHMENT 10 -387
City of Burbank – Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates March 19, 2021

Page 5 of 7 ends

requested documents are retained by the City in electronic computer-readable format such as PDF (portable document format), please provide us with pdf copies of the documents via email, or inform us of the location at which we can copy these documents electronically.

In preparing your response, please bear in mind that you have an obligation under Government Code section 6253.1 to (1) identify all records and information responsive to our request or the purpose of our request; (2) describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist; and (3) provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying access to the records or information sought.

In responding to this request, please bear in mind that any exemptions from disclosure you may believe to be applicable are to be narrowly construed. Marken v. Santa Monica- Malibu Unif. Sch. Dist. (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1250,1262; and may be further narrowed or eliminated by the adoption of Proposition 59, which amended article I, section 3(b)(2) of the California Constitution to direct that any “statute ... or other authority ... [that] limits the right of access” to “information concerning the conduct of the people’s business” must be “narrowly construed.”
As for any records that you nonetheless decline to produce on the grounds of an exemption, please bear in mind that the case law under the Public Records Act imposes a duty on you to distinguish between the exempt and the non-exempt portion of any such records, and to attempt in good faith to redact the exempt portion and to disclose the balance of such documents.

Please bear in mind further that should you choose to withhold any document from disclosure, you have a duty under Government Code section 6255, subd. (a) to “justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions” of the Public Records Act or that “the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.”
Finally, please note that you must retain and not destroy any and all records, notwithstanding any local record retention or document destruction policies. As the Court noted in Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733 that a public agency “must retain ‘[a]ll written evidence or ATTACHMENT 10 -388
City of Burbank – Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates March 19, 2021

Page 6 of 7 ends

correspondence submitted to, or transferred from’ . . . with respect to” CEQA compliance or “with respect to the project.”
II. NOTICE LIST REQUEST.

We also ask that you put this Office on its notice list for any and all notices issued under the CEQA and the Planning and Zoning Law.

In particular, we request that City send by mail or electronic mail notice of any and all actions or hearings related to activities undertaken, authorized, approved, permitted, licensed, or certified by the City and any of its subdivision for the Project, or supported, in whole or in part, through permits, contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of approvals, actions or assistance, including but not limited to the following:
• Notices of any public hearing held in connection with the Project; as well as
• Any and all notices prepared pursuant to CEQA, including but not limited to:
• Notices of determination that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) or supplemental EIR is required for a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4;
• Notices of availability of an EIR or a negative declaration for a project prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and Section 15087 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; • Notices of approval or determination to carry out a project, prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law;
• Notice of approval or certification of any EIR or negative declaration prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 or any other provision of law;
• Notice of exemption from CEQA prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21152 or any other provision of law; and • Notice of any Final EIR prepared pursuant to CEQA.

ATTACHMENT 10 -389
City of Burbank – Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates March 19, 2021

Page 7 of 7 ends

This Office is requesting notices of any approvals or public hearings under CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law. This request is filed pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 requiring agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

Please send notice by regular and electronic mail to:

Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney At Law
155 South El Molino Avenue
Suite 104
Pasadena, California 91101
Em: [email protected]

Em: [email protected]
Em: [email protected]
We look forward to working with you. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact our Office.

Sincerely,

_______________________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council
of Carpenters

ATTACHMENT 10 -390

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”

STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor

March 22, 2021

Lisa Frank
City of Burbank, Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, CA 91502

RE: Burbank Housing Element Update and
Associated General Plan Updates –
Recirculated Notice of Preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (NOP)
SCH # 2021020393
GTS # 07-LA-2021-03528
Vic. LA-5/PM: 29.126

Dear Lisa Frank:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for th e above referenced recirculated NOP. The project involves an update to the City of Burbank’s Housing Element for the 2021- 2029 planning period, along with minor updates to the Safety and Mobility Elements, and the incorporation of environmental justice goals and objectives to the City of Burbank’s 2035 General Plan. The proposed Housing Element Update establishes programs and actions to further the goal of meeting the existing and projected housing needs of all household income levels of the community. It will also provide 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, and identifies any rezoning needed to reach the required housing capacity.

In addition, the project includes updates to the Safety Element triggered under State law by an update to the Housing Element, as well as updates to the Mobility Element to incorporate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metrics. The NOP has been recirculated because the forthcoming EIR will now analyze the impacts of 10,088 housing units, rather than 8,800 units as originally planned, to account for a 15% buffer for the RHNA. The City of Burbank is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The project, which spans the entire City of Burbank, intersects with State Route 134 (SR -134) and Interstate 5 (I-5), and is located in close proximity to the United States 101 (US-101). From reviewing the recirculated NOP, Caltrans has the same comments as it did on the original NOP, which are the following:

• For information on determining transportation impacts in terms of VMT on the State Hig hway System, see the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), dated December 2018:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf .
• The C ity can also refer to Caltrans’ updated Vehicle Miles Traveled- Focused Transportation Impact Study Guide (TISG), dated May 2020 and released on Caltrans’ website in July 2020:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb-743/2020- 05-20-approved-vmt-focused-tisg-a11y.pdf. Caltrans’ new TISG is largely based on the OPR 2018 Technical Advisory.

Lisa Frank
March 22, 2021

Page 2 of 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.”

• Caltrans looks forward to reviewing the VMT analysis for this project. As discussed in Caltrans’ new TISG, Caltrans strongly recommends undertaking project VMT analysis, si gnificance determination, and potential mitigation in a manner consistent with OPR’s Technical Advisory. • The updated TISG states, “Additional future guidance will include the basis for requesting transportation impact analysis that is not based on VMT. This guidance will include a simplified safety analysis approach that reduces risks to all road users and that focuses on multi -modal conflict analysis as well as access management issues.” Since releasing the TISG, Caltrans has released interim safety analysis guidance, dated December 2020 and found here, for the Ci ty’s reference:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb- 743/2020-12-22-updated-interim-ldigr-safety-review-guidance-a11y.pdf. • Caltrans encourages lead agencies to complete traffic safety impact analysis in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process so that, through partnerships and collaboration, California can reach zero fatalities and serious injuries by 2050.

The following information is included for your consideration.

The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. Furthermore, Caltrans encourages Lead Agencies to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies that reduce VMT and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. For TDM options to potentially include in the updated Housing, Safety, or Mobility elements, please refer to:

If you have any questions about these comments, please contact Emily Gibson, the project coordinator, at [email protected], and refer to GTS # 07-LA-2021-03528.

Sincerely,

MIYA EDMONSON
IGR/CEQA Branch Chief
cc: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse
ATTACHMENT 10 -392

SENT VIA E-MAIL: March 25, 2021
[email protected]
Lisa Frank, Senior Planner
City of Burbank, Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502

Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates (Proposed Project)

South Coast Air Qualit y Management District ( South Coast AQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above -mentioned document. Our comments are recommendations on the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the Proposed Project that should be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Please send a copy of the Draft EIR upon its completion and public release directly to South Coast AQMD as copies of the Draft EIR submitted to the State Clearinghouse are not forwarded.

In addition, please send a ll appendices and technical documents related to the air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas analyses and electronic versions of all emission calculation spreadsheets, and air quality modeling and health risk assessment input and output files ( not PDF files). Any delays in providing all supporting documentation for our review will require additional review time beyond the end of the comment period.

CEQA Air Quality Analysis
Staff recommends that the Lead Agency use South Coast AQMD ’s CEQA Air Quality Handboo k and website1 as guidance when preparing the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses. It is also recommended that the Lead Agency use the CalEEMod 2 land use emissions software , which can estimate pollutant emissions from typical land use development and is the only software model maintained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

South Coast AQMD has developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency quantify criteri a pollutant emissions and compare the emissions to South Coast AQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds 3 and localized significance thresholds (LSTs) 4 to determine the Proposed Project’s air quality impacts. The localized analysis can be conducted by either using the LST screening tables or performing dispersion modeling.

The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the Proposed Project and all air pollutant sources r elated to the Proposed Project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated.

Construction-related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to, emissions from the use of

1 South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Handbook and other resources for preparing air quality analyses can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook. 2 CalEEMod is available free of charge at: www.caleemod.com. 3 South Coast AQMD’s CEQA regional pollutant emissions significance thresholds can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 4 South Coast AQMD’s guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds.

ATTACHMENT 10 -393
Lisa Frank 2 March 25, 2021

heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth -loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heavy -duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g., construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips, and hauling trips). Operation-related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to, emissions from stationary sources (e.g., boilers and air pollution control devices), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on - and off -road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, such as sources that generate or attract vehicular trips, should be included in the analysis. Furthermore, emissions from the overlap ping construction and operational activities should be combined and compared to South Coast AQMD ’s regional air quality CEQA operational thresholds to determine the level of significance.

If the Proposed Project generates diesel emissions f rom long-term construction or attracts diesel-fueled vehicular trips, especially heavy -duty diesel -fueled vehicles, it is recommended that the Lead Agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment5.

The South Coast AQMD’s Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning 6 includes suggested policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. It is recommended that the Lead Agency review this Guidance Document as a tool when making local planning and land use decisions.

Mitigation Measures
In the event that the Proposed Project results in significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized to minimize these impacts. Any impacts resulting from m itigation measures must also be analyzed. Several resources t o assist the Lead Agency with identifying potential mitigation measures for the Proposed Project include South Coast AQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook 1, South Coast AQMD’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 2016 A ir Quality Management Plan 7, and Southern California Association of Government’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the 20 20-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy8.

South Coast AQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that air quality, greenhouse gas, and health risk impacts from the Proposed Project are accurately evaluated and mitigated where feasible. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Lijin Sun
Lijin Sun, J.D.

Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources

LS
LAC210325-01
Control Number

5 South Coast AQMD’s guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment can be found at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis. 6 South Coast AQMD. 2005. Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning.

Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/planning/air-quality-guidance/complete-guidance-document.pdf. 7 South Coast AQMD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan can be found at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2017/2017-mar3-035.pdf (starting on page 86). 8 Southern California Association of Governments’ 2020-2045 RTP/SCS can be found at:
https://www.connectsocal.org/Documents/PEIR/certified/Exhibit-A_ConnectSoCal_PEIR.pdf.

ATTACHMENT 10 -394

April 15, 2021

Ms. Lisa Frank, Senior Planner
City of Burbank, Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Phone: (818) 238-5250
E-mail: [email protected]

RE: SCAG Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Burbank Housing Element Update [SCAG NO. IGR10359]

Dear Ms. Frank,

Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Burbank Housing Element Update (“proposed project”) to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for review and comment. SCAG is responsible for providing informational resources to regionally significant plans, projects, and programs per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to facilitate the consistency of these projects with SCAG’s adopted regional plans, to be determined by the lead agencies.1

Pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375 , SCAG is the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency under state law and is responsible for preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) including the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).

SCAG’s feedback is intended to assist local jurisdictions and project proponents to implement projects that have the potential to contribute to attainment of Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) goals and align with RTP/SCS policies . Finally, SCAG is also the authorized regional agency for Inter - Governmental Review (IGR) of programs proposed for Federal financial assistance and direct Federal development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12372.

SCAG staff has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Burbank Housing Element Update in Los Angeles County. The proposed project includes updates to the Housing Element for the 2021 -2029 planning period , minor updates to the Safety and Mobility Elements, and incorporate s environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives into the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan.

When available, please email environmental documentation to [email protected] providing, at a minimum, the full public comment period for review.

If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact the Inter - Governmental Review (IGR) Program, attn.: Anita Au, Senior Regional Planner, at (213) 236-1874 or [email protected]. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Rongsheng Luo
Acting Manager, Compliance and Performance Monitoring

1 Lead agencies such as local jurisdictions have the sole discretion in determining a local project’s consistency with the 2020 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) for the purpose of determining consistency for CEQA.

ATTACHMENT 10 -395
April 15, 2021 SCAG No. IGR10359
Ms. Frank Page 2

COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
BURBANK HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE [SCAG NO. IGR10359]

CONSISTENCY WITH CONNECT SOCAL

SCAG provides informational resources to facilitate the consistency of the proposed project with the adopted 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS or Connect SoCal).

For the purpose of determining consistency with CEQA, lead agencies such as local jurisdictions have the sole discretion in determining a local project’s consistency with Connect SoCal.

CONNECT SOCAL GOALS

The SCAG Regional Council fully adopted Connect SoCal in September 2020. Connect SoCal, also known as the 2020 – 2045 RTP/SCS, builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies established over several planning cycles to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. The long-range visioning plan balances future mobility and housing needs with goals for the environment, the regional economy, social equity and environmental justice, and public health. The goals included in Connect SoCal may be pertinent to the proposed project. These goals are meant to provide guidance for considering the proposed project. Among the relevant goals of Connect SoCal are the following:

SCAG CONNECT SOCAL GOALS
Goal #1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness Goal #2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability and travel safety for people and goods Goal #3: Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience of the regional transportation system Goal #4: Increase person and goods movement and travel choices within the transportation system Goal #5: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality Goal #6: Support healthy and equitable communities
Goal #7: Adapt to a changing climate and support an integrated regional development pattern and transportation network
Goal #8: Leverage new transportation technologies and data-driven solutions that result in more efficient travel
Goal #9: Encourage development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation options
Goal #10: Promote conservation of natural and agricultural lands and restoration of habitats

For ease of review, we encourage the use of a side -by-side comparison of SCAG goals with discussions of the consistency, non -consistency or no n-applicability of the goals and supportive analysis in a table format. Suggested format is as follows:

ATTACHMENT 10 -396
April 15, 2021 SCAG No. IGR10359
Ms. Frank Page 3

SCAG CONNECT SOCAL GOALS
Goal Analysis
Goal #1: Encourage regional economic prosperity and global competitiveness
Consistent: Statement as to why;
Not-Consistent: Statement as to why;
Or
Not Applicable: Statement as to why;
DEIR page number reference
Goal #2: Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability and travel safety for people and goods
Consistent: Statement as to why;
Not-Consistent: Statement as to why;
Or
Not Applicable: Statement as to why;
DEIR page number reference
etc. etc.

Connect SoCal Strategies

To achieve the goals of Connect SoCal, a wide range of land use and transportation strategies are included in the accompanying twenty (20) technical reports. To view Connect SoCal and the accompanying technical reports, please visit the Connect SoCal webpage. Connect SoCal builds upon the progress from previous RTP/SCS cycles and continues to focus on integrated, coordinated, and balanced planning for land use and transportation that helps the SCAG region strive towards a more sustainable region, while meeting statutory requirements pertinent to RTP/SCSs. T hese strategies within the regional context are provided as guidance f or lead agencies such as local jurisdictions when the proposed project is under consideration.

DEMOGRAPHICS AND GROWTH FORECASTS

A key, formative st ep in projecting future population, households, and employment through 2045 for Connect SoCal was the generation of a forecast of regional and county level growth in collaboration with expert demographers and economists on Southern California. From there, jurisdictional level forecasts were ground -truthed by subregions and local agencies, which helped SCAG identify opportunities and barriers to future development. This forecast helps the region understand, in a very general sense, where we are expected to grow, and allows SCAG to focus attention on areas that are experiencing change and may have increased transportation needs. After a year -long engagement effort with all 197 jurisdictions one-on-one, 82 percent of SCAG’s 197 jurisdictions provided feedback on the forecast of future growth for Connect SoCal. SCAG also sought feedback on potential sustainable growth strategies from a broad range of stakeholder groups – including local jurisdictions, county transportation commissions, other partner agencies, industry groups, community-based organizations, and the general public. Connect SoCal utilizes a bottom-up approach in that total projected growth for each jurisdiction reflects feedback received from jurisdiction staff, including city managers, community dev elopment/planning directors, and local staff.

Growth at the neighborhood level (i.e. , transportation analysis zone (TAZ) reflects entitled projects and adheres to current general and specific plan maximum densities as conveyed by jurisdictions (except in cases where entitled projects and development agreements exceed these capacities as calculated by SCAG). Neighborhood level growth projections also feature strategies that help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from automobiles and light trucks to achieve Southern California’s GHG reduction target, approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in accordance with state planning law. Connect SoCal’s Forecasted Development Pattern is utilized for long range modeling purposes and does not supersede actions taken by elected bodies on future development, including entitlements and development agreements. SCAG does not have the authority to implement the plan -- neither through decisions about what type of development is built where, nor what transportation projects are ultimately built, as Connect SoCal is adopted at the jurisdictional level. Achieving a sustained regional outcome depends upon informed and intentional local action. To access jurisdictional level growth estimates and forecasts for years 2016 and 2045, please refer to the Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast Technical Report . The growth forecasts for the region and applicable jurisdictions are below.

ATTACHMENT 10 -397
April 15, 2021 SCAG No. IGR10359
Ms. Frank Page 4
Adopted SCAG Region Wide Forecasts Adopted City of Burbank Forecasts Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2045 Year 2020 Year 2030 Year 2035 Year 2045 Population 19,517,731 20,821,171 21,443,006 22,503,899 106,026 109,539 111,459 115,430 Households 6,333,458 6,902,821 7,170,110 7,633,451 42,764 45,219 46,370 48,640 Employment 8,695,427 9,303,627 9,566,384 10,048,822 116,547 128,658 134,780 138,711

MITIGATION MEASURES

SCAG staff recommends that you review the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR) for Connect SoCal for guidance, as appropriate. SCAG’s Regional Council certified the PEIR and adopted the associated Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (FOF/SOC) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) on May 7, 2020 and also adopted a PEIR Addendum and amended the MMRP on September 3, 2020 (please see the PEIR webpage and scroll to the bottom of the page for the PEIR Addendum). The PEIR includes a list of project-level performance standards -based mitigation measures that may be considered for adoption and implementation by lead, responsible, or trustee agencies in the region, as applicable and feasible . Project-level mitigation measures are within responsibility, authority, and/or jurisdiction of project -implementing agency or other public agency serving as lead agency under CEQA in subsequent project- and site- specific design, CEQA review, and decision- making processes, to meet the performance standards for each of the CEQA resource categories.

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION

On March 4, 2021 SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 6th cycle Final Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Allocation Plan which covers the planning period October 2021 through October 2029.

The 6th cycle Final RHNA allocation for the applicable jurisdiction is below.

SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation for City of Burbank Very low income 2,553
Low income 1,418
Moderate income 1,409
Above moderate income 3,392
Total RHNA Allocation 8,772

Sixth cycle housing elements are due to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) by October 15, 2021. SCAG encourages jurisdictions to prepare the draft housing element in advance of the due date to ensure adequate time to address HCD comments and adopt a final housing element. Jurisdictions that do not have a compliant housing element may be ineligible for certain State funding and grant opportunities and may be at risk for legal action from stakeholders or HCD.

ATTACHMENT 10 -398
Appendix B
Initial Study
ATTACHMENT 10 -399

Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
Initial Study
State Clearinghouse #2021020393
prepared by
City of Burbank
Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Contact: Lisa Frank, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
January 2022
ATTACHMENT 10 -400

ATTACHMENT 10 -401

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

ATTACHMENT 10 -402
Table of Contents

Initial Study i
Table of Contents
Initial Study .............................................................................................................................................1

1. Project Title .........................................................................................................................1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address .........................................................................................1

3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................1

4. Project Location ..................................................................................................................1

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address .................................................................................1

6. General Plan Designations ..................................................................................................4

7. Zoning..................................................................................................................................4

8. Description of Project .........................................................................................................4

9. Required Approvals .............................................................................................................8

10. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? ..............................................................................................................8 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................................ 11 Determination ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Environmental Checklist ...................................................................................................................... 13 1 Aesthetics ......................................................................................................................... 13 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 17 3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 19 4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 21 5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 27 6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 29 7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 33 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 39 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 41 10 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 45 11 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 51 12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 53 13 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 55 14 P opulation and Housing ................................................................................................... 57 15 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 59 16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 63 17 Transportation ................................................................................................................. 65 18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 67 19 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................................... 69 ATTACHMENT 10 -403
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

ii
20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................ 73 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................. 77 References ........................................................................................................................................... 79 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 79 List of Preparers ........................................................................................................................... 81 Tables
Table 1 RHNA Percentage of Income Distribution ..........................................................................5 Table 2 Estimated Net Housing Units for the City of Burbank ........................................................5 Table 3 Projected Specific Plan Units ..............................................................................................6 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Specific Plan and Housing Opportunity Locations ..............................................................7 Figure 4 CalEnviroScreen – Disadvantaged Communities ................................................................9

ATTACHMENT 10 -404
Initial Study

Initial Study 1
Initial Study

1. Project Title
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Burbank - Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Lisa Frank, Senior Planner
(818) 238-5250
[email protected]

4. Project Location
The Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update (hereafter referred to as “Housing and Safety Element Update” or “proposed Project”) would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank (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 City is generally bounded by the Verdugo Mountains to the northeast, the City of Glendale to the southeast, the City of Los Angeles to the south and west. The City is bisected by the Interstate 5 (I-5) Freeway and the Metrolink Commuter Rail. Figure 1 and Figure 2, below, illustrate the location of the City in a regional and local context.

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
City of Burbank - Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502

1 The proposed Project will also include updates to the Safety Element and the various other elements of the General Plan to incorporate the goals, policies and objectives related to Environmental Justice. These updates are required for compliance with State law and to ensure consistency with the updated Housing Element. The title of the proposed Project is “Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update.”
ATTACHMENT 10 -405
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

2 Figure 1 Regional Location

ATTACHMENT 10 -406
Initial Study

Initial Study 3
Figure 2 Project Location

ATTACHMENT 10 -407
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4 6. General Plan Designations
The Burbank2035 General Plan includes a variety of land use designations including: Low, Medium, and High Density Residential; Corridor and Regional Commercial; four specific commercial areas and two commercial/industrial areas; Open Space; Institutional; and Airport. Land uses in Burbank’s various neighborhoods and commercial areas include single-family and multi-family residential housing, mixed-use development, public spaces like parks and playgrounds, and some industrial land uses.

7. Zoning
The Zoning Code includes various zones that correspond to the GP land uses, including residential, commercial, media district, business, auto dealership, industrial, airport, railroad, cemetery, and open space.

8. Description of Project
The proposed Project would involve an update to the Housing Element of the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan for the 2021-2029 planning period, along with minor updates to the Safety and Mobility Elements, and incorporation of environmental justice goals, policies and objectives into the Burbank2035 General Plan. The proposed Housing and Safety 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 capacity. The Safety Element update is triggered by various new provisions of state law, the Mobility Element update would incorporate VMT (vehicle miles traveled) metrics per SB 743, and the environmental justice policies would be added pursuant to the requirements of SB 1000.

Housing Element Update
The Housing Element is comprised of the following major components:
 Review of effectiveness of the existing Housing Element  Assessment of existing and projected housing needs
 Identification of resources – financial, land, administrative  Evaluation of constraints to housing
 Housing Plan – goals, policies, and programs
The Housing Element Update will provide a framework for accommodating new housing at all levels of affordability that is within access to transit, Downtown jobs, services, and open spaces. New housing 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 to meet affordability targets.

ATTACHMENT 10 -408
Initial Study

Initial Study 5
RHNA Allocation
SCAG has allocated the region’s 1,341,827 housing unit growth needs to each city and county through a process called the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). As shown in Table 1, Burbank’s draft RHNA for the 2021-2029 planning period (6th RHNA cycle) is 8,772 housing units, distributed among the four income categories (HCD 2020).

Table 1 RHNA Percentage of Income Distribution
Income Level Percent of Area Median Income (AMI) Units Percent Very Low 0-50% 2,553 29%
Low 51-80% 1,418 16%
Moderate 81-120% 1,409 16%
Above Moderate >120% 3,392 39%
Total – 8,772 100%
Source: SCAG 2021
The RHNA represents the minimum number of housing units that the City is required to plan for in its housing element by providing “adequate sites” through the Burbank2035 General Plan and zoning.

Table 2 shows the estimated units for projects that are entitled and pending entitlement, the net housing units for the various opportunity sites based on the General Plan, the number of accessory dwelling units that can be expected over the course of the planning period, and the number of units that can be expected through the City’s committed assistance program. As shown in the table, the City would fall short of the RHNA allocation by 2,391 units.

Table 2 Estimated Net Housing Units for the City of Burbank Sites/Projects Total Net Units
Income Distribution
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
2021 – 2029 RHNA Targets 8,772 2,553 1,418 1,409 3,392
Entitled Projects 935 7 6 83 838
Pending Entitlement 1,245 109 21 0 1,116
Opportunity Sites (Zoning in place) 2,591 944 354 625 668 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)1 1,600 384 704 32 480
Committed Assistance2 10 10 0 0 0
Total Site Capacity 6,381 2,539 740 3,102
RHNA Surplus/(Shortfall) (2,391) (1,432) (669) (290)
1 ADUs are small backyard units that are either attached or detached from a single-family home. 2 Committed Assistance units are units that the City has provided a legally enforceable agreement to provide. This is through an ongoing partnership with the Burbank Housing Corporation. See the Housing Element for further discussion.

ATTACHMENT 10 -409
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

6 To make up for this shortfall of 2,391 units, the Housing Element includes a housing program to amend the General Plan and adopt the Downtown Transit-Oriented-Development Specific Plan (Downtown TOD) and the Golden State Specific Plan (GSSP) (see Figure 3). Adoption of these Specific Plans will provide the necessary zoning, development standards, and processing procedures to facilitate the production of housing required to accommodate the City’s housing needs during the Housing Element 2021-2029 planning period. The zone changes required by these Specific Plans will be adopted in 2022-2024. Table 3 shows the number of units expected from the rezoning of the Specific Plan areas. See Figure 3 for the locations of the Specific Plan locations and the rezone areas.

The City would exceed the RHNA requirement by 1,270 units with the rezoning of the Specific Plan areas. The State requires jurisdictions to create a sufficient buffer in the Housing Element sites inventory beyond that required by the RHNA to ensure that adequate site capacity exists throughout the eight-year planning period. With the inclusion of the Specific Plan units, the City will exceed the RHNA allocation by 14 percent.

Table 3 Projected Specific Plan Units
Specific Plan Total Net Units
Downtown TOD sites 871
Golden State Specific Plan sites 2,690
Total 3,561
Existing GP Units (from Table 2) 6,381
New Total with Specific Plans 9,942
RHNA Surplus/(Shortfall) 1,270
Rezoning
The opportunity sites include 19 locations that have the greatest potential to accommodate the RHNA’s housing growth allocated for Burbank. Twelve of the opportunity sites are located in the proposed Downtown TOD Specific Plan area and seven sites are located in the proposed Golden State Specific Plan area. The locations of these sites of shown in Figure 3.

Safety Element Update
The Safety Element Update will ensure consistency with the Housing Element Update and will 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). Amendments 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). Key areas of the Burbank Safety Element to be updated include flooding and fire hazards as well as emergency response and preparedness, especially as they relate to the City’s projected climate change exposure, and vulnerability. The Safety Element amendments will be submitted to the California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) for review.

As mandated under Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000), the Safety Element Update would 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 DACs.

ATTACHMENT 10 -410
Initial Study

Initial Study 7
Figure 3 Specific Plan and Housing Opportunity Locations ATTACHMENT 10 -411
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

8 Environmental Justice Update
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. These updates focus on the inclusion of disadvantaged communities in decision making procedures as well as increasing protections for these communities. Figure 4 provided below, displays CalEnviroScreen results for Burbank. 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 based on pollution burden and population characteristics.

9. Required Approvals
The Project would require the following discretionary approvals:
 Certification of this EIR prepared for the proposed Project  Adoption of the Housing Element Update for the 2021-2029 planning period  Adoption of the General Plan Land Use Map to re-designate land uses for certain selected housing sites
 Adoption of updates to the Safety Element
 Adoption of updates to other General Plan elements to incorporate environmental justice goals, objectives and policies
 Adoption of updates to the Mobility Element to incorporate VMT.  Rezoning of opportunity sites within the Specific Plan areas After adoption, by the City Council, the updated Housing Element will be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for certification. The Safety Element updates will be submitted to CalFire for their review and approval.

10. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area
Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.3.1?
As discussed in Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the proposed Project could potentially result in the disturbance of intact tribal cultural resources. Native American consultation between the City of Burbank and Native American tribes under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 is underway.

ATTACHMENT 10 -412
Initial Study

Initial Study 9
Figure 4 CalEnviroScreen – Disadvantaged Communities

ATTACHMENT 10 -413
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

10 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 10 -414
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

Initial Study 11
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
■ Geology/Soils ■ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
■ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
■ Hydrology/Water Quality ■ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources ■ Noise ■ Population/Housing ■ Public Services
■ Recreation ■ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources ■ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

ATTACHMENT 10 -415
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
12 □ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Federico G. Ramirez
Assistant Community Development
Director – Planning Division
1/20/2022
ATTACHMENT 10 -416
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics

Initial Study 13
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
□ □ □ ■
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
□ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light
or glare that would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in the area?
□ □ ■ □
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Scenic views generally refer to visual access to, or the visibility of, a particular natural or man-made visual resource from a given vantage point or corridor. Focal views focus on a particular object, scene, setting, or feature of visual interest. Panoramic views, or vistas, provide visual access to a large geographic area for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance.

Panoramic views are usually associated with vantage points looking out over urban or natural areas that provide a geographic orientation and view not commonly available. Examples of panoramic views might include an urban skyline, a valley, a mountain range, the ocean, or other water bodies.

The Burbank2035 General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element defines scenic vistas as viewpoints that provide expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public (City of Burbank 2013a).

Scenic vistas in Burbank include views of the Verdugo Mountains to the northeast and views of the eastern Santa Monica Mountains to the south. Downslope views from hillside development in the Verdugo Mountains toward the City and the Santa Monica Mountains beyond are also considered to ATTACHMENT 10 -417
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

14 be a valued resource by the City’s General Plan. In more urban areas, the character of neighborhoods, architecture, vegetation, and landscaping all provide visual character. Scenic resources in Burbank include public parks and open space, such as Wildwood Canyon Park, Stough Park, Johnny Carson Park, and Brace Canyon Park. The architecture of historic structures, such as Burbank City Hall, the Portal of the Folded Wings Shrine to Aviation in Valhalla Memorial Park, and commercial signs throughout the City, such as the Bob’s Big Boy and Safari Inn signs, are also scenic resources that represent aspects of the City’s history (City of Burbank 2013a).

Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would have the potential to affect scenic vistas if new or intensified development blocked the vistas noted above. Potential impacts could include obstructing views of scenic resources such as Verdugo and Santa Monica Mountains or the unique urban or historic structures found throughout urbanized areas of Burbank. However, future project developments would be required to comply with General Plan goals and policies intended to protect scenic vistas and visual resources. These include the following goal and policies under the Land Use Element and Open Space and Conservation Element:

Goal 8 Low Density Residential Land Use
Policy 8.8 Ensure that new development is compatible with the topography and geology of the hillside area and is incorporated into the natural setting.

Policy 8.9 Require that new development or expansion of existing homes be subject to discretionary review when a possibility exists that the project may affect the character of the hillside area.

Policy 8.10 Consider and address the p preservation of scenic views in the hillside areas.

Goal 7 Visual and Aesthetic Resources
Policy 7.2 Minimize the visual intrusion of development in the hillside area In addition, development under the proposed Project would primarily occur in already developed and urbanized areas of the City where scenic vistas are not present and would not be affected. Thus, potential development under the Housing Element Update would not result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas, and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create aesthetic impacts. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The California State Scenic Highway System Map indicates that no existing or proposed State scenic highways are located in Burbank (Caltrans 2020). The nearest designated scenic highway is State Route 210, located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the City. Therefore, the updates associated with the Housing Element, Safety Element and Environmental Justice under the proposed Project would not result in substantial damage to scenic resources in a State scenic highway. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -418
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics

Initial Study 15
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The proposed Housing Element Update would facilitate the development of up to 10,456 new housing units in Burbank, primarily in areas with access to transit, Downtown jobs, services, and open spaces. This would allow for higher densities than what currently exists in some areas. This could alter the visual character of portions of the City, including changes to building heights and massing. However, reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would be subject to the City’s development standards, such as floor area ratio (FAR), building heights and setbacks, and transitional height requirements for properties abutting residential zones.

Furthermore, the multiple Specific Plans throughout Burbank include objective design standards that enhance streetscapes, buildings, and public places. Compliance with existing standards and plans would be required for all future housing developers. Therefore, reasonably foreseeable developments would be consistent with applicable zoning and other regulations and the overall pattern of development in the City would be generally maintained. Further, the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create aesthetic impacts. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Lighting associated with reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update (security lighting, parking lot lighting, ornamental lighting, pedestrian scale lights, lighting from ground floor storefronts and signs) would increase overall lighting levels.

However, the City is urbanized and areas where new housing is anticipated primarily already have high ambient levels of nighttime lighting; thus, additional lighting from new housing development would be incremental. Furthermore, reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would be required to comply with the following lighting provisions of the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) to reduce potential impacts from light:
 Chapter 10.1.628.W(2). Outdoor lighting fixtures must be positioned and directed so as not to shine or cause glare onto adjacent properties or public rights-of-way.  Chapter 10.1.628.W(3). Free-standing lighting fixtures must be no taller than eight (8) feet as measured from the abutting ground surface or floor level.  Chapter 10.1.1153.A. Building Elevations facing a residential zone with 50 percent or more of the building surface in glass shall be limited to a maximum of 15 percent reflectivity for those materials. Building elevations facing a residential zone with less than 50 percent of surface glass shall be limited to a maximum of 20 percent reflectivity for those materials.  Glare is a common phenomenon throughout Burbank primarily due to the occurrence of a high number of days per year with direct sunlight and the urbanized nature of the City. Daytime glare can result from sunlight reflecting off glass, other structural fixtures of buildings, and windshields of parked and moving vehicles within the roadways in the City. Reasonably ATTACHMENT 10 -419
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

16 foreseeable development under the proposed Project would be required to comply with BMC standards and regulations for lighting and glare affecting sensitive residential uses.

Light and glare associated with development would incrementally increase daytime and nighttime light and glare in portions of Burbank. However, due to the urbanized nature of the City where high levels of light and glare are already present and compliance with applicable regulations in the BMC, impacts would be less than significant; and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create aesthetic impacts. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 10 -420
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Initial Study 17
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
□ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?
□ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))?
□ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
□ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
□ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? The California Important Farmland Finder Map indicates that none of the land in the City is mapped as Important Farmland (California Department of Conservation [DOC] 2020). Likewise, according to the DOC, there are no Williamson Act contracts in the City (DOC 2016). Burbank’s Zoning Map indicates that no areas are currently zoned for agricultural use. The Housing Element, Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates under the proposed Project would have no effect on ATTACHMENT 10 -421
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

18 the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Burbank is urbanized with no forest land in the majority of the City, and no land in the City is zoned for forest land or timberland. The northeastern part of the City is located along the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains which is designated open space that includes forest lands. However, reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would be primarily concentrated in urbanized areas of the City, and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create impacts to forest or timberland resources. Therefore, no impact to forest lands would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As discussed under Impact a. through d., there would be no impacts associated with agricultural lands, and potential impacts associated with forest lands would be less than significant. The Housing Element, Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates under the proposed Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 10 -422
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality

Initial Study 19
3 Air Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? ■ □ □ □
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard?
■ □ □ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
■ □ □ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
□ □ ■ □
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Burbank is located in the South Coast Air Basin (the Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The local air quality management agency is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that applicable air quality standards are met, and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. The SCAQMD has adopted an Air Quality Management Plan that provides a strategy for the attainment of State and Federal air quality standards. Emissions generated by reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Housing and Safety Element Update would include temporary construction emissions and long-term operational emissions.

Construction activities such as the operation of construction vehicles and equipment over unpaved areas, grading, trenching, and disturbance of stockpiled soils have the potential to generate fugitive dust (PM
10) through the exposure of soil to wind erosion and dust entrainment. In addition, exhaust emissions associated with heavy construction equipment would potentially degrade air quality.

Construction emissions from individual housing developments could potentially exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds.

Long-term emissions associated with operation of reasonably foreseeable housing developments would include emissions from vehicle trips, natural gas and electricity use, landscape maintenance equipment, and consumer products and architectural coating. Emissions associated with individual housing developments could exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Long-term vehicular ATTACHMENT 10 -423
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

20 emissions could also result in elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) at congested intersections in the City.

Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, are considered particularly sensitive to air pollution. Sensitive receptors include health care facilities, retirement homes, school and playground facilities, and residential areas.

Impacts related to both temporary construction-related air pollutant emissions and long-term emissions under the Housing and Safety Element Update may be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depends on a number of factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; the wind speeds and direction; and the sensitivity of the receiving location, each contribute to the intensity of the impact. Although offensive odors seldom cause physical harm, they can be annoying and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints.

Construction activities associated with reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update may produce temporary odors. Potential odors produced during construction would be attributable to concentrations of unburned hydrocarbons from tailpipes of construction equipment, and architectural coatings. Such odors would disperse rapidly from the individual construction sites, generally occur at magnitudes that would not affect substantial numbers of people and would be limited to the construction period. Furthermore, construction would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which regulates nuisance odors. Accordingly, the construction associated with reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people and impacts would be less than significant.

SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) identifies land uses associated with odor complaints as agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, chemical and food processing plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would include residential and mixed-use developments, which are not major sources of odors and would not create objectionable odors to surrounding sensitive land uses. In addition, the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create odor impacts. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -424
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Initial Study 21
4 Biological Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
■ □ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
□ □ ■ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
□ □ ■ □
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
□ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
□ □ ■ □
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
□ □ □ ■
ATTACHMENT 10 -425
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

22 a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Special Status Species
Special status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as Threatened or Endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); those considered “Species of Concern” by the USFWS; those listed or candidates for listing as Rare, Threatened, or Endangered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as “Fully Protected” by the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC); animals listed as “Species of Special Concern” (SSC) by the CDFW; CDFW Special Plants, specifically those with California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) of 1B, 2, 3, and 4 in the CNPS’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2020); and birds identified as sensitive or watch list species by the Los Angeles County Sensitive Bird Species Working Group (2009).

Burbank contains approximately 732 acres of parks, not including landscape areas such as street medians, parkways, and other green areas throughout the City that provide wildlife habitat (City of Burbank 2013a). A majority of those park acres, approximately 603, are on the edge of the City, near the Verdugo Mountains. Urbanization in the City has substantially reduced the abundance and diversity of biological resources. In addition, Burbank is surrounded by other developed areas in Glendale and Los Angeles.

The Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize development on infill sites in urbanized areas of the City. Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would be primarily concentrated on underutilized sites that have been previously developed and disturbed.

Given the lack of suitable habitat to support special status species in urbanized and disturbed areas where new housing is to be concentrated, reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would not result in significant adverse impacts to special status species or the habitats that support them. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

Nesting Birds
While common birds are not designated as special status species, destruction of their eggs, nests, and nestlings is prohibited by Federal and State law. Nesting birds are protected under the CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 as well as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Violation of these provisions would be considered a potentially significant impact.

Development under the proposed Project could directly and indirectly affect nesting birds.

Construction of reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project could occur during the bird nesting season, which is generally from March 1 through August 31 and begins as early as February 1 for raptors. As such, potential construction impacts resulting in vegetation trimming or removal during the nesting season would have the potential to disturb active nests, either directly (e.g., injury, mortality, or disruption of normal nesting behaviors) or indirectly (e.g., construction noise, dust, and vibration from equipment). Therefore, although unlikely, construction activities have the potential to disturb nesting birds and raptors.

The Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create impacts to biological resources. Therefore, these components would not result in impacts to ATTACHMENT 10 -426
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Initial Study 23
special status species or nesting birds. However, impacts to nesting birds and raptors under the Housing Element Update may be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Plant communities are considered sensitive biological resources if they have limited distributions, high wildlife value, include sensitive species, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance. CDFW maintains a list of sensitive plant communities (CDFW 2020). Although Burbank is urbanized, the communities along the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains are located near a number of sensitive plant communities such as Coast Live Oak and Coastal Mixed Hardwood Alliances (City of Burbank 2013b). In addition, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) there are no riparian habitats or Federally protected wetlands located within the developed areas of the City. However, the Verdugo Mountains contain a number of creeks and streams, classified as riverine wetlands, that flow into freshwater ponds in the foothills (NWI 2020).

Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would occur in urbanized areas of the City, and therefore, would not directly or indirectly impact sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat. In addition, the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create impacts to biological resources. As a result, impacts to sensitive natural communities or riparian habitats would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
In accordance with Section 1602 of the CFGC, the CDFW has jurisdiction over lakes and streambeds (including adjacent riparian resources). CDFW regulates wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has authority to regulate activities that discharge dredge or fill material into wetlands or other “waters of the United States” through issuance of a Section 404 Permit. Finally, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has jurisdiction over “waters of the State” pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and has the responsibility for review of water quality certification per Section 401 of the federal CWA for proposed development projects.

The approximately six-mile long Burbank Western Channel trends north to south through the center of City and flows into the Los Angeles River approximately half a mile south of the City’s southern boundary and then out to the Pacific Ocean. The National Wetlands Inventory classifies this system as an intermittent riverine system, with flowing water only part of the year. The system falls under the class of streambed, is seasonally flooded, and is lined with concrete (NWI 2020).

Construction and operation of reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would not result in the direct modifications or interruptions of State or Federally protected wetlands, and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in ATTACHMENT 10 -427
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

24 development that would create impacts to biological resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and further analysis in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Wildlife corridors are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature, allowing movement across the landscape. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return.

Examples of barriers or impediments to movement include housing and other urban development, roads, fencing, unsuitable habitat, or open areas with little vegetative cover. Regional and local wildlife movements are expected to be concentrated near topographic features that allow convenient passage, including roads, drainages, and ridgelines.

Habitat fragmentation occurs when a proposed action results in a single, unified habitat area being divided into two or more areas in such a way that the division isolates the two new areas from each other. Isolation of habitat occurs when wildlife cannot move freely from one portion of the habitat to another or from one habitat type to another, as in the fragmentation of habitats within and around “checkerboard” residential development. Habitat fragmentation also can occur when a portion of one or more habitats is converted into another habitat, as when annual burning converts scrub habitats to grassland habitats.

Much of the land in Burbank has been converted from open space to various urban uses, resulting in habitat fragmentation. There are no regional wildlife habitat linkages or described wildlife movement in the City outside of the Verdugo Mountains. While there are small fragments of open space and approximately 732 acres of parkland in Burbank it is unlikely for wildlife movement to occur in the remaining 127 acres due to the patchwork of remaining parks, their small size, and existence in a highly urbanized area. Outside of the Verdugo Mountains, Burbank is surrounded by residential and commercial development and its existing urbanized area is not situated to form a link between blocks of intact habitat.

Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would be concentrated in urbanized areas and on sites that have been previously developed and disturbed, and not within the Verdugo Mountains. Development in such areas would not result in substantial impacts to potential local wildlife movement. In addition, the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create impacts to biological resources. Therefore, potential impacts to wildlife corridors or nursery sites due to development under the proposed Project would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -428
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources

Initial Study 25
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Section 7-4-108 of the BMC provides for the protection of landmark trees, trees of outstanding size and beauty, and dedicated trees; and Section 7-4-115 of the BMC states that it is unlawful to remove or destroy trees on public property without approval and permits from the Director of Public Works.

If future development resulting from the implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update includes the removal of trees on City property (including street trees), the plans will be reviewed by the City and required to comply with the tree ordinances. In addition, the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create impacts to biological resources. Therefore, impacts related to potential conflicts with local policies or ordinances would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No adopted local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans apply to any portion of Burbank (CDFW 2019). Therefore, no impact would occur under the proposed Project and further analysis of this issue is not warranted.

NO IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 10 -429
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

26 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 10 -430
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources

Initial Study 27
5 Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
■ □ □ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
■ □ □ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
■ □ □ □
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Notable historic structures in Burbank include City Hall and the Portal of the Folded Wings Shrine to Aviation in Valhalla Memorial Park. Burbank’s residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhoods also contain numerous examples of historic architectural styles including Craftsman, Colonial, Mediterranean, Prairie, Googie, Art Deco, and Mission Revival. (City of Burbank 2013a) The sites of reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update could potentially contain historic structures or resources eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, the demolition or alteration of which could constitute a significant impact.

Therefore, reasonably foreseeable future development under the Housing and Safety Element Update has the potential to impact historical resources and this issue will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would occur primarily in areas that have previously been developed and disturbed. Therefore, it is likely that prior grading, construction, and modern use of the potential housing sites would have either removed or destroyed archaeological resources in surficial soils. Nonetheless, previously undiscovered archaeological resources could potentially be present below the ground surface throughout the City and such resources could be disturbed by grading and excavation activities associated with development. Therefore, reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing ATTACHMENT 10 -431
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

28 and Safety Element Update has the potential to adversely archaeological resources. This issue will be discussed further in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 10 -432
Environmental Checklist
Energy

Initial Study 29
6 Energy

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
□ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ ■ □
California is one of the lowest per capita energy users in the United States, ranked 48th in among states, due to its energy efficiency programs and mild climate. In 2018, California consumed 681 million barrels of petroleum, 2,137 billion cubic feet of natural gas, and one million short tons of coal in 2018 (United States Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2020). The single largest end- use sector for energy consumption in California is transportation (39.1 percent), followed by industrial (23.5 percent), commercial (19.2 percent), and residential (18.3 percent) (EIA 2020).

Most of California’s electricity is generated in-state with approximately 30 percent imported from the northwest and southwest in 2018. In addition, approximately 30 percent of California’s electricity supply comes from renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar photovoltaic, geothermal, and biomass (California Energy Commission 2019). Adopted on September 10, 2018, Senate Bill (SB) 100 accelerates the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standards Program by requiring electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

To reduce statewide vehicle emissions, California requires all motorists use California Reformulated Gasoline, which is sourced almost exclusively from in-state refineries. Gasoline is the most used transportation fuel in California with 15.3 billion gallons sold in 2019 and is used by light-duty cars, pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, and aviation (California Department of Tax and Fee Administration 2020). Diesel is the second most used fuel in California with 4.2 billion gallons sold in 2015 and is used primarily by heavy duty-trucks, delivery vehicles, buses, trains, ships, boats and barges, farm equipment, and heavy-duty construction and military vehicles (California Energy Commission 2016).
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would consume energy during construction and operation through the use of petroleum fuel, natural gas, and electricity, as further addressed below.

ATTACHMENT 10 -433
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

30 Construction
Energy use during construction associated with reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would be in the form of fuel consumption (e.g., gasoline and diesel fuel) to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators for lighting.

In addition, temporary grid power may also be provided to construction trailers or electric construction equipment. Energy use during the construction of individual projects would be temporary in nature, and equipment used would be typical of construction projects in the region. In addition, construction contractors would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable California Air Resources Board regulations that restrict the idling of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles and govern the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment.

Construction activities associated with reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would be required to utilize fuel-efficient equipment consistent with State and Federal regulations and would comply with State measures to reduce the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, individual projects would be required to comply with construction waste management practices to divert 80 percent of construction and demolition debris. Developers would be required to complete the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan Form and use City-approved haulers to remove mixed construction debris in accordance with the standards set by the Department of Public Works.

These practices would result in efficient use of energy during construction of future development under the proposed Project. Furthermore, in the interest of both environmental awareness and cost efficiency, construction contractors would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. Therefore, future construction activities associated with reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Long-term operation of new projects developed in accordance with the Housing and Safety Element Update would require permanent grid connections for electricity and natural gas service to power internal and exterior building lighting, and heating and cooling systems. As previously discussed, the Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize development in previously developed areas of Burbank that are already served by energy providers. Electricity service in the City is provided by Burbank Water and Power. Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) provides natural gas services to residents and businesses in the City.

Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety 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). 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, ATTACHMENT 10 -434
Environmental Checklist
Energy

Initial Study 31
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.

In addition, the Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize future development projects in close proximity to high quality transit areas and existing commercial/retail, recreational, and institutional land uses, which would reduce trip distances and encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation such as bicycling and walking. These factors would minimize the potential of the proposed Project to result in the wasteful or unnecessary consumption of vehicle fuels. As a result, operation of reasonably foreseeable development projects under the Housing Element Update would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant; the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create energy impacts. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
In January 2008, the City Council integrated the City’s environmental programs by adopting the Sustainability Action Plan. This plan is based on the United National Environmental Accords which provide a series of goals or “action items” that can be adopted at the local level to achieve urban sustainability, promote healthy economies, advance social equity, and protect the world’s ecosystem. The plan includes both renewable energy and energy efficiency goals, as well as the expansion of public transportation throughout the City (City of Burbank 2008). In addition, Burbank Water and Power (BWP) will continue to implement programs to emphasize water conservation consistent with the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and renewable energy generation. This includes the increased use of recycled water and stormwater capture for groundwater recharge, as well as potential development of a compressed air energy storage facility (BWP 2016; BWP 2018).

Construction activity associated with individual projects under the Housing and Safety Element Update would be required to comply with applicable City and State energy efficiency regulations and standards, which would ensure that the proposed Project would not conflict with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans adopted by the City. As such, reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would not conflict with or obstruct a plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create energy impacts. Impacts would be less than significant and Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -435
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

32 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 10 -436
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Initial Study 33
7 Geology and Soils

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault?
□ □ ■ □

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □

3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ ■ □

4. Landslides? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
□ □ ■ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
□ □ ■ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
□ □ ■ □
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
□ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
■ □ □ □
ATTACHMENT 10 -437
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

34 a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Burbank is located in a seismically active region of southern California. Moderate to strong earthquakes can occur on numerous local faults. Southern California faults are classified as “active,” “potentially active,” or “inactive.” Faults from past geologic periods of mountain building that do not display any evidence of recent offset are considered “potentially active” or “inactive.” Faults that have historically produced earthquakes or show evidence of movement in the past 11,000 years are known as “active faults.”
The active Verdugo Fault runs through the northeastern side of the City and is capable of producing surface fault rupture during a future earthquake (City of Burbank 2013a). According to the DOC, the Verdugo Fault runs east to west for approximately seven miles through the eastern portion of the City (DOC 2020b). Therefore, reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update could occur in areas with the potential for fault rupture and associated risk of loss, injury, or death. However, such development would not directly or indirectly cause or exacerbate potential substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create geologic impacts. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? The Verdugo Fault runs through the City and would be capable of producing strong seismic ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. In addition, the City is located in the highly seismic Southern California region where several fault systems are considered to be active or potentially active.

Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update may be subject to ground shaking in the event of an earthquake originating along one of the faults designated as active or potentially active in the vicinity of Burbank. Nearby active faults include the Verdugo Fault, the Santa Monica Fault, the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, the Raymond Fault, the Hollywood Fault, the Sierra Madre Fault, and the San Fernando Fault.

Development in Burbank is required to adhere to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and California Building Code (CBC). The UBC and CBC regulate the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of seismic shaking. Compliance with applicable standards would minimize the potential for property damage and loss of life and reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would not increase the frequency or severity of ground shaking; and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create geologic impacts.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -438
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Initial Study 35
a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: shallow groundwater; low density, fine, clean sandy soils; and strong ground motion.

Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, amplified ground oscillations, lateral spreading, and flow failures.

According to the DOC Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map, portions of the City are at risk of seismically induced liquefaction (DOC 2020c). As mentioned above, development in Burbank is required to adhere to the UBC and CBC. Compliance with City and State building codes would reduce impacts associated with liquefaction from seismic ground shaking with current engineering practices and the proposed Project would not exacerbate liquefaction potential in the area. As such, reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would not directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects from liquefaction risk, and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create geologic impacts.

Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
The geologic character of an area determines its potential for landslides. Steep slopes, the extent of erosion, and the rock composition of a hillside all contribute to the potential for slope failure and landslide events. In order to fail, unstable slopes need to be disturbed; common triggering mechanisms of slope failure include undercutting slopes by erosion or grading, saturation of marginally stable slopes by rainfall or irrigation; and, shaking of marginally stable slopes during earthquakes. The topography of the City of Burbank is generally flat, although the northeastern portion of development in the City is situated along the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains.

According to the DOC Earthquake Zones of Required investigation map, several single-family residential parcels located north of Bel Aire Drive in the northeast portion of the City have been identified as potential areas for landslides, but the majority of the City is not located in a landslide zone (DOC 2020c) and housing sites identified in the Housing Element Update are not located along the foothills. In addition, the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create geologic impacts. Therefore, development under the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause impacts related to landslides. Potential impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Soil erosion or the loss of topsoil may occur when soils are disturbed but not secured or restored, such that wind or rain events may mobilize disturbed soils, resulting in their transport offsite. The Housing and Safety Element Update would emphasize the reasonably foreseeable development on previously disturbed, infill areas. Ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of development would have the potential to result in the removal and erosion of topsoil during grading and excavation.

ATTACHMENT 10 -439
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

36 Because the Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize development in areas that are already built out, the potential for erosion would primarily be limited to temporary effects of possible topsoil loss at future project construction sites. Standard construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented in order to avoid or minimize soil erosion associated with ground-disturbing activities. Implementation of erosion control measures required by BMC Chapter

9.3.407, Standard Urban Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management Programs, would be designed to capture and treat runoff from construction sites such as through stabilization of construction entrance roadways and on-site retention of eroded sediments and pollutants.

Construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land are subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit process, which would require development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that outlines project-specific BMPs to control erosion, sediment release, and otherwise reduce the potential for discharge of pollutants from construction into stormwater. Typical BMPs include, but are not limited to, installation of silt fences, erosion control blankets, and anti-tracking pads at site exits to prevent off- site transport of soil material. Construction activities would also be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which are designed to ensure implementation of appropriate measures during grading and construction to control erosion and storm water pollution.

With implementation of the requirements described above, erosion from demolition and construction activities associated with reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would be controlled through implementation of the requirements and BMPs contained in existing regulations, including the NPDES Construction General Permit and BMC.

Furthermore, BMPs for post-construction erosion and sediment control would remain in effect, which would improve future erosion conditions. Compliance with the regulations discussed above would reduce the risk of soil erosion from construction activities such that there would be minimal change in risk compared to current conditions. In addition, the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create erosion impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Impacts related to landslides and liquefaction are addressed under Impacts a.3. and a.4.; therefore, this discussion focuses on impacts related to unstable soils as a result of lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Lateral spreading occurs as a result of liquefaction; accordingly, liquefaction-prone areas would also be susceptible to lateral spreading. Subsidence occurs at great depths below the surface when subsurface pressure is reduced by the withdrawal of fluids (e.g., groundwater, natural gas, or oil) resulting in sinking of the ground. The City of Burbank may be susceptible to subsidence from groundwater withdrawal as a result of drought conditions and declining groundwater levels.

The Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize development of housing on infill sites that may contain underlying unstable soils. Because reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would primarily involve infill development, development under the proposed Project would not affect existing conditions related to unstable soils, unless improperly constructed.

Future development would be required to comply with the CBC’s minimum standards for structural design and site development. The CBC provides standards for excavation, grading, and earthwork construction; fills and embankments; expansive soils; foundation investigations; and liquefaction ATTACHMENT 10 -440
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils

Initial Study 37
potential and soils strength loss. Thus, CBC-required incorporation of soil treatment programs (replacement, grouting, compaction, drainage control, etc.) in the excavation and construction plans can achieve an acceptable degree of soil stability to address site-specific soil conditions. Adherence to these requirements would achieve accepted safety standards relative to unstable geologic units or soils. In addition, although reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would potentially be subject to these hazards, it would not increase the potential for lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse; and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create geologic impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Soils that volumetrically increase (swell) or expand when exposed to water and contract when dry (shrink) are considered expansive soils. A soil’s potential to shrink and swell depends on the amount and types of clay in the soil. Highly expansive soils can cause structural damage to foundations and roads without proper structural engineering and are generally less suitable or desirable for development than non-expansive soils because of the necessity for detailed geologic investigations and costlier grading applications.

The Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize development of housing on infill sites in the City that may contain underlying expansive soils. Because reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would primarily involve infill development, new development would not substantially increase the potential exposure to or extent of expansive soils within the City. Furthermore, future projects under the Housing Element would be subject to BMC regulations that require the submission of a soils report and all appropriate recommendations by a registered civic engineer before the issuance of building permits within liquefaction susceptibility zones. The CBC, which is based on the UBC, has been modified for California conditions with numerous more detailed and/or more stringent regulations. If expansive soils are detected based on a preliminary soil report, the CBC requires the preparation of a soil investigation prior to construction and incorporation of appropriate corrective actions to prevent structural damage, to be determined on a project-by-project basis. Consequently, there would be minimal change in the exposure of people or structures to risks associated with expansive soils and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create impacts to soils. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The Housing and Safety Element Update would emphasize reasonably foreseeable development in urban infill sites that are served by existing infrastructure. Future development under the proposed Project is not anticipated to include the use of septic systems. Therefore, there would be no impact related to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -441
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

38 f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize reasonably foreseeable development on infill sites in the City that have previously been developed and disturbed. Nonetheless, there is the potential for as yet undiscovered paleontological resources to be present below the ground surface throughout the City. Such resources could be disturbed by grading and excavation activities associated with future development. Therefore, reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update has the potential to adversely affect paleontological resources and this issue will be discussed further in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -442
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Initial Study 39
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
■ □ □ □
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
■ □ □ □
Overview of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs), which are the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO 2) is used
to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the GHG emissions, referred to as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. CO2 has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, CH4 has a GWP of 28, meaning its global warming effect is 28 times greater than that of CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2014a).2
The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates Earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHGs, the Earth’s surface would be about 60 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than present (USEPA 2021). However, emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations.

2 The IPCC’s (2014a) Fifth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 28. However, modeling of GHG emissions was completed using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2, which uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the IPCC’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report.

ATTACHMENT 10 -443
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

40 a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would generate GHG emissions during construction through the use of petroleum-fueled construction equipment and worker vehicle trips to and from construction sites. Operation of development under the Housing Element Update would generate GHG emissions through the use of electricity and natural gas, vehicle trips of occupants, waste generation, water use, and wastewater generation.

Emissions could potentially create a significant impact on the environment and/or conflict with local and regional plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, including the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and the goals and policies of the Air Quality and Climate Change and Open Space and Conservation Elements in the Burbank2035 General Plan. Impacts related to GHG emissions would be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -444
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Initial Study 41
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

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

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school?
■ □ □ □
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create
a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
■ □ □ □
e. For a project located in an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
■ □ □ □
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
■ □ □ □
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires?
□ □ ■ □
ATTACHMENT 10 -445
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

42 a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Construction activity associated with reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials, such as vehicle fuels and fluids, that could be released should a leak or spill occur. However, contractors would be required to implement standard construction best management practices (BMPs) for the use and handling of such materials to avoid or reduce the potential for such conditions to occur. Any use of potentially hazardous materials during construction of future development would be required to comply with all local, State, and Federal regulations regarding the handling of potentially hazardous materials.

Likewise, the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during future construction would be required to comply with applicable State and Federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and California Code of Regulations Title 22.

Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would primarily include mixed- use commercial and housing, which are not land uses typically associated with the use, transportation, storage, or generation of significant quantities of hazardous materials. Operation of future developments under the proposed Project would likely involve an incremental increase in the use of common household hazardous materials, such as cleaning and degreasing solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and other materials used in regular property and landscaping maintenance. Use of these materials would be subject to compliance with existing regulations, standards, and guidelines established by local, State, and Federal agencies related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, upon compliance with all applicable laws and regulations relating to environmental protection and the management of hazardous materials, potential impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation of development projects under the Housing Element Update would be less than significant; and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create hazardous impacts. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
As described under Impact a., above, the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during the construction of future development under the proposed Project would be conducted in accordance with applicable local, State and Federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and California Code of Regulations Title 22. However, there is the potential for future construction to involve the demolition or alteration of structures that may contain asbestos and/or lead-based paint (LBP), which could pose hazards to receptors at adjacent land uses.

Furthermore, because the Housing and Safety Element Update would emphasize development on infill sites within urban areas, there is the potential for future development to occur on sites where hazardous materials were once used or stored and have the potential to contain contaminated soils, the disturbance of which could pose hazards to receptors at adjacent land uses. Therefore, impacts ATTACHMENT 10 -446
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Initial Study 43
related to the release of hazardous materials would be potentially significant and will be studied further in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The Burbank Unified School District (BUSD) oversees 22 schools in the City, including 11 elementary schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and five alternative schools (BUSD 2002). There are also numerous day cares, charter schools and private schools located throughout the City. As discussed above, future development under the proposed Project would not involve the use or transport of large quantities of hazardous materials. However, due to the potential for schools to be located within 0.25 miles of future construction sites and the potential for release of contamination during the construction period, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project could potentially occur on hazardous materials sites listed in Government Code Section 66962.5. Construction of future development under the Housing and Safety Element Update could potentially result in a significant hazard to the public or environment through the release of hazardous materials during site grading and exposure of future residents to potential contamination if contaminants are not properly identified and remediated as appropriate. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant and will be further discussed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The Hollywood Burbank Airport is located near the northwestern edge of the City and has an associated airport land use plan (Los Angeles County 2003). The Housing and Safety Element Update would accommodate development in the Golden State District, which surrounds a portion of the airport. Because reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project may occur in the Airport Influence Area, impacts would be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The Safety Element of the Burbank2035 General Plan identifies the evacuation routes in the City.

These routes are typically parallel major north-south and east-west corridors, such as North San Fernando Boulevard and West Burbank Boulevard (City of Burbank 2013a). Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would be required to comply with ATTACHMENT 10 -447
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

44 applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency response and evacuation plans maintained by the City’s police and fire departments, including all updates under the Safety Element. However, construction activities associated with reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update could interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans as a result of temporary construction activities within rights-of-way, due to temporary construction barricades or other obstructions that could impede emergency access. In addition, increased development density under the Housing and Safety Element Update could result in additional traffic on area roadways. Therefore, impacts related to emergency response plans and emergency evacuation plans would be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The northeastern portion of the City that is in the Verdugo Mountains is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) as mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire 2020). Also, a portion of the City between the 134 Freeway and Forest Lawn Drive are within the VHFHSZ. However, the Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize future development in the urbanized areas of the City that are not in the VHFHSZ. In addition, reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would be required to be constructed according to the UBC requirements for fire-protection and would be subject to review and approval by the Burbank Fire Department. Therefore, development under the proposed Project would not pose a substantial risk to people or structures due to wildland fires or exacerbate existing wildland fire hazards. In addition, the Safety Element Update is intended to improve policies and regulations associated with wildland fires, which therefore aim to reduce potential wildland fire risks, and the Environmental Justice Update would not result in development that would create impacts related to wildland fires. Potential impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -448
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Initial Study 45
10 Hydrology and Water Quality

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality?
□ □ ■ □
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
■ □ □ □
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
□ □ ■ □
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
□ □ ■ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
off-site;
□ □ ■ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
□ □ ■ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
□ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
□ □ ■ □
ATTACHMENT 10 -449
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

46 a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Burbank is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which is responsible for the preparation and implementation of the water quality control plan for the Los Angeles Region. Section 90 of WHMC Chapter 15.56., Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control, requires owners or developers to implement stormwater pollution control requirements for construction activities. In addition, Regulations under the Federal Clean Water Act require compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit for projects disturbing more than one acre during construction. Operators of a construction site would be responsible for preparing and implementing a SWPPP that outlines project specific BMPs to control erosion, sediment release, and otherwise reduce the potential for discharge of pollutants in stormwater. Typical BMPs include covering stockpiled soils, installation of silt fences and erosion control blankets, and proper handling and disposal of wastes. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would minimize impacts to water quality during the construction of future projects under the Housing and Safety Element Update.

Construction of reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update could potentially impact surface or ground water quality due to erosion resulting from exposed soils and the generation of water pollutants, including trash, construction materials, and equipment fluids. However, compliance with the regulations described above would reduce impacts resulting from reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the Housing Element Update would not introduce any features that would preclude implementation of or alter these policies and procedures, and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates
would not result in development that would create
impacts related to water quality. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would utilize water for construction, operations, and landscape maintenance. Water supply requirements for development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would be met by Burbank Water and Power (BWP). BWP’s sources of water include water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), stored groundwater, and groundwater credits. Because a portion of BWP’s water supply is from groundwater resources, groundwater could potentially be a source in supplying water to future project sites. Water demand could be met in a number of ways other than increasing groundwater withdrawal, such as increasing the amount of water purchased from the MWD of Southern California, implementing water conservation measures, increasing use of recycled water, and/or implementing groundwater recharge projects.

Reasonably foreseeable development would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface in the City because the Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize development on infill areas that are already urbanized and largely covered with impervious surfaces; therefore, the proposed Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Implementation of the Housing and Safety Element Update may provide some benefits to groundwater recharge by ATTACHMENT 10 -450
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Initial Study 47
replacing older development with new development subject to open space, landscaping, and stormwater BMP requirements that would increase pervious surfaces associated with new development.

Potential construction activities associated with future development under the Housing and Safety Element Update, such as excavation for subterranean parking lots and foundation-laying for tall buildings, could potentially extend into the underlying groundwater table. Construction activities overlying areas with shallower groundwater depth could expose groundwater resources to contamination. However, the risk of groundwater contamination during construction is minimal and would most likely occur due to spills or leaks from equipment or materials used in construction.

Developers of individual project sites one acre or more in size are also required to prepare a SWPPP, which includes BMPs to prevent contamination of stormwater and runoff during construction.

Typical construction BMPs to prevent stormwater contamination would also prevent contamination of groundwater resources, as exemplified by the following BMPs:
 Construction equipment and vehicles shall be properly maintained.  All materials shall be properly stored and transported.  Fuels will be stored in secure areas.

With implementation of appropriate construction BMPs, the impact of reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update on groundwater resources would be minimized and impacts related to infiltration/contamination would be less than significant.

However, impacts related to groundwater supplies and sustainable groundwater management are potentially significant. The impact analysis will be provided in the Utilities and Service Systems section of the EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Under existing conditions, infill sites that would be the focus of reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project are primarily paved and/or developed with structures.

Therefore, development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would not be anticipated to substantially alter drainage patterns, or alter drainage patterns to an extent that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. Residential uses that would be accommodated by the Housing and Safety Element Update are not sources of high levels of stormwater pollution.

ATTACHMENT 10 -451
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

48 As discussed under Impact a. of this section, future construction activities would be required to include BMPs to prevent stormwater contamination and reduce runoff, pursuant to WHMC Chapter

15.56.090, and potentially the NPDES General Construction Permit depending on the size of future development projects. BMPs and implementation of a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) would be required for future projects to reduce polluted runoff from by retaining, treating, or infiltrating polluted runoff onsite, and integrate post-construction BMPs into a site’s overall drainage system. These construction and erosion control practices would reduce the potential for adverse effects caused by excavation and general construction. Therefore, reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would not introduce substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Because development under the Housing Element Update would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern and development and construction of future projects would be required to implement stormwater BMPs, development under the proposed Project would not generate a substantial increase in runoff that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, flooding on- or off- site, or increased polluted runoff. The Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create drainage impacts. Therefore, impacts related to drainage and runoff would be less than significant and further analysis of these issues in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), the City of Burbank contains a strip of Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA), areas subject to 100-year and 500-year floods, along the northern edge of U.S. Highway 5 in the center of the City.

New developments are required to comply with Section 1612 (Flood Loads) and Appendix G (Flood- Resistant Construction) of the CBC, which have also been adopted under Chapter 1 of the BMC. In addition, as discussed under Impact c(i), c (ii), and c(iii), above, the Housing and Safety Element Update would emphasize new development of on infill sites in urbanized areas that are already primarily paved and/or developed with structures. Therefore, reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would not substantially alter drainage patterns, and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create drainage impacts. Consequently, growth under the proposed Project would not alter the drainage pattern of the Plan Area to an extent that would redirect or impede flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Seiches are large waves generated by ground shaking effects within enclosed bodies of water. Four reservoirs or dams surround Burbank: Devil’s Gate Dam, Reservoir 1, Reservoir 4, and Reservoir 5.

The northwest portion of the City is subject to Dam inundation by the three reservoirs (Burbank Fire Department 2011). However, these reservoirs impound more than 50 acre-feet of water in order to reduce the risk of flooding, and they are not large enough to result in considerable risk of inundation ATTACHMENT 10 -452
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality

Initial Study 49
in Burbank that would result from failure of any of the facilities (Burbank 2013). Therefore, potential impacts associated with flooding from a seismically induced seiche would not be significant.

Tsunamis are tidal waves generated by fault displacement or major ground movement. Since Burbank is landlocked and located over 15 miles from the Pacific Ocean, tsunamis are not considered a hazard.

As discussed under Impact c.(iv), above, a central portion of the City lies in a flood hazard zones subject to 100-year and 500-year floods. Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would be concentrated on infill sites and would not substantially alter the overall development patterns in the City. The Housing and Safety Element Update would increase development capacity, thereby potentially increasing the number of people and structures exposed to potential flooding. However, this condition already exists, and the proposed Project would not exacerbate existing flood hazards. Further, while there is the potential for flooding to impact portions of the City, as discussed under Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, future developments under the proposed Project would not involve the storage or use of significant quantities of hazardous materials, and construction of new structures would be required to comply with CBC regulations for flooding. Therefore, risks related to the release of hazardous materials due to inundation are minimal. The Housing Element Update would have a less than significant impact.

In addition, the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create impacts related to seiches, tsunamis or flood hazards. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Potential water quality and groundwater impacts associated with the Housing and Safety Element Update are discussed above under Impacts a. and b. The Housing Element Update would not contain any policies that would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Furthermore, development under the proposed Project would be required to comply with the existing regulations discussed under Impacts a. and b of this section, including during construction and operation, and would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. In addition, the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would conflict with applicable water management plans. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -453
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

50 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 10 -454
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning

Initial Study 51
11 Land Use and Planning

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
□ □ ■ □
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? Implementation of the Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize future development on infill sites in already urbanized areas of the City. Therefore, reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would not involve the construction of new roads, railroads, or other features that may physically divide established communities in the City. As discussed in the Description of the Project, above, goals, policies and objectives under the Housing Element Update would put a greater emphasis on preventing displacement and promoting housing stability to maintain and preserve the quality of the City’s existing neighborhoods. Consequently, there would be no impact associated with the physical division of an established community. In addition, the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would divide an established community. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The proposed Project is the 2021-2029 Burbank Housing Element Update, Safety Element Update, and Environmental Justice Updates, which examines the City’s housing needs, as they exist today, and projects future housing needs. The Housing and Safety Element Update focuses on addressing the City’s housing needs by providing goals, policies and programs associated with fair housing, the prevention of displacement, promoting housing stability, and the prevention of homelessness. The proposed Project includes actions the City is undertaking to achieve its housing RHNA targets and also would implement SCAG’s land use goals and policies by primarily placing development in areas with access to transit and services, thus minimizing vehicle trips and GHG emissions.

Upon its adoption by the City, the Housing and Safety Element Update would serve as a comprehensive statement of the City’s housing policies and as a specific guide for program actions to be taken in support of those policies. As a part of the General Plan, development with adherence to the Housing Element Update would comply with the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan. In addition, the Safety Element Update will be made to achieve compliance with State, regional and ATTACHMENT 10 -455
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

52 local policies, and guidelines; and the Environmental Justice Updates will reduce health risks to DACs, promote civic engagement, and prioritize the needs of these communities.

The Housing and Safety Element Update is a policy document that encourages development on infill sites, but would not grant entitlements for any specific projects. Future development proposals that are intended to assist in meeting the City’s projected housing need would be reviewed by the City for consistency with all adopted local and State laws, regulations, standards, and policies. Impacts related to conflicts with land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -456
Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources

Initial Study 53
12 Mineral Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
□ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
□ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would primarily occur in existing commercial and residential areas, which are not compatible with or used for mineral extraction. It is not anticipated that development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would occur on lands presently in use for mineral extraction. Furthermore, the proposed Housing Element, Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates do not include any policies that related to mineral resources or conflict with existing General Plan policies and City ordinances regulating the conservation and use of mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a loss of availability of a known mineral resource. There would be no impact and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) was enacted to promote conservation and protection of significant mineral deposits. SMARA requires the State to identify and classify mineral deposits within the State as either: (1) containing little or no mineral deposits (MRZ-1), (2) significant deposits (MRZ-2) or (3) deposits identified but further evaluation needed (MRZ-3 and MRZ-4).

As discussed under Impact a. of this section, the Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize reasonably foreseeable development on infill sites in urban areas that primarily consist of residential, commercial and mixed-use development, which are not considered compatible with mineral extraction. According to the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Burbank2035 General Plan, portions of the City are categorized as MRZ-2 and MRZ-3 (City of Burbank 2013a).

However, due to the extensive urban development of the City and historical land use changes, mining activities are no longer feasible. In addition, the proposed Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create environmental impacts.

ATTACHMENT 10 -457
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

54 Therefore, the proposed Project would not further the loss of available mineral resources. No impact would occur and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

NO IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -458
Environmental Checklist
Noise

Initial Study 55
13 Noise

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
■ □ □ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
■ □ □ □
c. For a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
■ □ □ □
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction of reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update could generate temporary noise levels in excess of the ambient noise levels in the City. Operation of reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update has the potential to generate vehicle trips to and from individual projects and include operational noise sources, including, but not limited to, heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment and hauling/delivery vehicles. Development may also generate traffic increases along the local transportation network. Operation of reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project may have the potential to exceed operational thresholds for receiving land uses and sensitive receivers, if located nearby. Potential noise impacts related to substantial temporary or permanent increases in noise, in excess of City standards, could occur. Impacts would be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -459
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

56 b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration depending on the equipment and methods employed. Operation of construction equipment causes vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update may result in excessive short- and/or long-term ground borne vibration or noise from construction or operation activities if located near sensitive receivers, such as residences, hospitals, schools, libraries, churches, or fragile buildings where vibration damage can occur. Impacts related to ground borne vibration and ground borne noise would be potentially significant and will be evaluated in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, a portion of Burbank is within the Airport Influence Area of the Hollywood Burbank Airport on the northwestern edge of the City.

Although overflight of aircrafts has the potential to expose people residing or working in the City to aircraft noise, this type of noise is common in urban areas. In addition, aircraft noise is intermittent and temporary. Nevertheless, because the Housing and Safety Element Update would accommodate housing development in the Golden State District that surrounds the eastern portion of the airport, future development under the proposed Project may occur within the Airport Influence Area. Impacts would be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -460
Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing

Initial Study 57
14 Population and Housing

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
■ □ □ □
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
□ □ ■ □
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
As described in Section 2.5.2, RHNA Allocation, the estimated net housing units for the City of Burbank 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 which will provide the necessary zoning, development standards, and processing procedures to facilitate the production of housing required to accommodate the City’s housing needs during the Housing Element 2021-2029 planning period. The zone changes required by these Specific Plans will be adopted in 2022-24. The City would exceed the RHNA requirement for a total of 10,456 new residential units. 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 (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. Implementation of the Housing and Safety Element Update would contribute to population growth in the City. Impacts related to population growth are potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would involve development projects on infill sites. However, goals, policies, and objectives included in the Housing and Safety Element Update aim to prevent displacement and promote housing stability. In addition, the Housing and Safety Element Update would provide additional opportunities for housing by expanding areas where housing is allowed. The Housing Element Update would accommodate up to 10,456 residential units throughout the planning period, and it is anticipated that any replacement housing need created by displacement of existing housing would be more than offset through ATTACHMENT 10 -461
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

58 implementation of the Housing Element Update. In addition, the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would displace people or housing. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

ATTACHMENT 10 -462
Environmental Checklist
Public Services

Initial Study 59
15 Public Services

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:

1 Fire protection? ■ □ □ □
2 Police protection? ■ □ □ □
3 Schools? ■ □ □ □
4 Parks? ■ □ □ □
5 Other public facilities? ■ □ □ □
a.1. 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? Fire protection in the City is provided by the Burbank Fire Department (BFD). The BFD, in conjunction with the City’s Community Development Department Building & Safety Division, reviews site plans, construction plans, and architectural plans prior to occupancy to ensure the 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 BFD has established the Fire Department Headquarters (Station 11) at 311 East Orange Grove Avenue and operates five other fire stations distributed throughout the City (City of Burbank 2013a).

Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project may increase the need for fire services in areas where development would be concentrated. Potential impacts of the Housing and Safety Element Update, such as placing an unanticipated burden on fire protection services or ATTACHMENT 10 -463
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

60 affecting response times or service ratios, such that new or expanded fire protection facilities would be needed, will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.2. 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?
The Burbank Police Department (BPD) provides police protection services in the City. Services include emergency and non-emergency police response, routine police patrols, investigative services, traffic enforcement, traffic investigation, and parking code enforcement. The BPD has established the Police Headquarters at 200 North Third Street, and operates the local animal shelter, a police pistol range, the City Jail, and a heliport in Sun Valley (City of Burbank 2013a). BPD has mutual aid agreements with the City of Los Angeles, San Fernando, Glendale, and Pasadena police departments (City of Burbank 2013a). BPD uses 11 patrol beats to service the City and surrounding areas if needed, and has an average emergency response time of less than four minutes, and an average response time for non-emergency calls of 16 minutes (City of Burbank 2013a).

Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project may increase the need for police services in areas where development would be concentrated. Potential impacts of the Housing and Safety Element Update, such as placing an unanticipated burden on police protection services or affecting response times or service ratios, such that new or expanded police protection facilities would be needed, will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. 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? The Burbank Unified School District (BUSD) provides public school services to Burbank residents for grades kindergarten through 12 and oversees 22 schools. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the net increase of 10,456 units would generate an increase of approximately 25,617 new residents, some of whom would be school-aged children. The Housing and Safety Element Update would not directly affect local schools, but may generate new students entering the BUSD.

Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update could create the need for new or physically altered school facilities if student population increases beyond existing capacity. This impact would be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -464
Environmental Checklist
Public Services

Initial Study 61
a.4. 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?
As identified in the Burbank2035 General Plan, the City contains 26 parks that total approximately 731.85 acres of parkland within the City (City of Burbank 2013a). 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.

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 or 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. The proposed Project may include large developments that would need to comply with this requirement. Therefore, development under the proposed Project may result in construction of new parks and recreation facilities. Impacts would be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for other new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The Housing and Safety Element Update would emphasize the creation of reasonably foreseeable development in urban infill areas of the City that could increase demand for other public facilities.

Impacts related to increased demand for other public facilities such as stormwater, wastewater, and utility facilities are discussed in Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems. Development projects can affect the need for new or physically altered public facilities and demand increases beyond existing capacity. A significant impact may occur if a project includes substantial employment or population growth that could generate a demand for other public facilities, which would exceed the capacity available to serve the City, necessitating a new or physically altered building, the construction of which would have significant physical impacts on the environment.

Adoption of the Housing and Safety Element Update may cause an exceedance of capacity at existing facilities, such as local libraries, or generate a substantial demand for them. Therefore, expansion or construction of new facilities may be required. Impacts would be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -465
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

62 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 10 -466
Environmental Checklist
Recreation

Initial Study 63
16 Recreation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
□ □ ■ □
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
■ □ □ □
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
As discussed in Section 15, Public Services, recreational amenities in Burbank include 26 parks, totaling 731.85 acres of parkland (City of Burbank 2013a). According to the DOF there are an estimated 103,969 residents in the City of Burbank (DOF 2021). With the 731.85 acres of public parkland in the City, there are approximately seven acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the Burbank2035 General Plan establishes a citywide parkland level of service goal of five acres of improved parkland per 1,000 residents, and a requirement applicable to new development of three acres of new parkland per 1,000 new residents.

Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update could increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks. As discussed in the Description of Project, the proposed Project would accommodate up to 10,456 new residential units in the City, which would generate a population increase of approximately 25,617 residents. The population increase would result in a total of approximately 129,586 residents, which would increase demand for parks and recreational facilities. With the 731.85 acres of public parkland in the City, there would be approximately 5.6 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents with all forecast growth under the proposed Project. As such, the City would meet the standard of five acres per 1,000 residents. Furthermore, applicants for development projects under the proposed Project would be required to either provide parkland or pay community facilities fees to meet the standard of three acres of new parkland per 1,000 new residents. Therefore, development under the Housing Element Update would not result in substantial deterioration of existing recreation facilities, and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create impacts to recreational resources. Potential impacts to existing parks would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -467
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

64 b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As discussed in Section 15, Public Services, the Housing and Safety Element Update does not include goals or policies to develop additional park space. 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 or 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. The proposed Project may include large developments that would need to comply with this requirement. Therefore, reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project may result in construction of new parks and recreation facilities. Impacts would be potentially significant and will be discussed further in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -468
Environmental Checklist
Transportation

Initial Study 65
17 Transportation

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
■ □ □ □
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
■ □ □ □
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
■ □ □ □
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ■ □ □ □
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The Housing and Safety Element Update would accommodate up to 10,456 new residential units in Burbank, which may allow for development of currently undeveloped parcels and for alteration, intensification, or redistribution of existing land uses. This could result in increased traffic compared to existing conditions. Trips generated as a result of increased density or reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project have the potential to impact intersection and roadway segments throughout the City and contribute to cumulative traffic increases. The proposed Project could also conflict with applicable plans and policies addressing the circulation system. Potential impacts related to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 pertaining to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and compliance with plans and policies that establish measures of effective performance of the circulation system will be evaluated in an EIR. In addition, reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project result in construction activities that may temporarily alter traffic patterns, and also result in long-term alterations of existing traffic patterns that may result in transportation related impacts associated with traffic hazards, incompatible uses, and emergency access. Impacts would be potentially significant and will be discussed further in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -469
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

66 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 10 -470
Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources

Initial Study 67
18 Tribal Cultural Resources

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
■ □ □ □
b. A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Cod Section 2024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significant of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
■ □ □ □
As of July 1, 2015, AB 52 of 2014 was enacted to expand CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) define tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applyin g these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified or adopted.

Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American ATTACHMENT 10 -471
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

68 tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed Project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, there is potential for reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project to disturb as yet undiscovered intact cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources. Although the likelihood of encountering resources is low since development would emphasize urbanized infill sites that are already disturbed, impacts would be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -472
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Initial Study 69
19 Utilities and Service Systems

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
■ □ □ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
■ □ □ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?
■ □ □ □
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
■ □ □ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
□ □ ■ □
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
ATTACHMENT 10 -473
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

70 Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would occur in urbanized areas that are served by existing utilities infrastructure, including potable water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, electrical power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities.

Water Supply
The Housing and Safety Element Update would accommodate reasonably foreseeable development that would require water for a variety of activities such as landscaping, controlling fugitive dust, and providing potable water to workers during construction and residents and commercial occupants of future developments. In addition, as discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts related to groundwater supplies and sustainable groundwater management are potentially significant. Therefore, these issues will be studied further in an EIR.

Furthermore, as development occurs throughout the City, upgrades to water conveyance facilities may be required. The precise location and connection would need to be determined at the time development is proposed. Any future line size modifications or connections would be designed in accordance with applicable provisions of the Burbank Municipal Code and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. However, increased development density has the potential to impact the capacities of local utilities infrastructure, which may require the expansion or construction of new facilities. In addition, under the Safety Element, expanded resiliency policy could potentially result in the relocation of critical infrastructure out of disaster-prone areas, and/or the expansion of utilities and infrastructure to improve resilience. Therefore, this issue will be studied further in an EIR.

Wastewater Generation
Wastewater treatment would be provided by existing infrastructure in the City. However, the amount of wastewater generated by project development is not known at this time and may exceed existing capacity. Similar to water supply, development has the potential to impact the capacities of the City’s wastewater treatment conveyance systems that may require the expansion or construction of new infrastructure or facilities. In addition, the updates under the Safety Element could result in relocation of critical infrastructure. Therefore, this issue will be studied further in an EIR.

Stormwater
New infill development would be located in an urban area that is served by existing stormwater drainage systems. However, increased development density has the potential to impact the capacities of local utilities infrastructure that may require the expansion or construction of new wastewater treatment and storm water drainage facilities. In addition, the updates under the Safety Element could result in relocation of critical infrastructure. Therefore, this issue will be studied further in an EIR.

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Telecommunications services are provided by ONE Burbank, AT&T, EarthLink, Spectrum or other providers, at the discretion of future residents. Telecommunications are generally available in the City and facility upgrades would not likely be necessary.

Electricity is currently provided to the City by BWP and natural gas service is provided by Southern California Gas Company. Operation and occupancy of reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would increase demand for electricity and natural gas compared to existing conditions. Increased development density has the potential to impact the capacities of local ATTACHMENT 10 -474
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems

Initial Study 71
utilities infrastructure that may require the expansion or construction of new facilities, and updates under the Safety Element could result in relocation of critical infrastructure. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant and this issue will be studied further in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
The City of Burbank Street and Solid Waste Division collects, transports, and disposes of solid waste for all single-family residences, 60 percent of multi-family residences, and approximately ten percent of the City's commercial/industrial refuse customers. (City of Burbank 2009b). Solid waste from Burbank is collected by the Public Works Department and taken to either the Burbank Landfill or Burbank Recycle Center (City of Burbank 2013a). Green waste is processed and delivered to a compost facility outside of the City (City of Burbank 2009c).

Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would generate both construction and operational solid waste that would be disposed of at the aforementioned facilities and other collection centers. Solid waste generated by up to 10,456 new residential units could potentially exceed the capacity of these facilities. Impacts would be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
A significant impact could occur if the Housing and Safety Element Update would conflict with any statutes and regulations governing solid waste. In compliance with State legislation, any development project under the Housing and Safety Element Update would be required to implement a Solid Waste Diversion Program and divert at least 75 percent of the solid waste generated from the applicable landfill site. Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, such as the California Waste Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939), mandatory commercial recycling (AB 341, AB 1826), and the City’s recycling program. Since development projects under the Housing Element Update would comply with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations involving solid waste, impacts related to conflict with statutes and regulations governing solid waste would be less than significant. In addition, the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create impacts related to solid waste. Further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -475
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

72 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 10 -476
Environmental Checklist
Wildfire

Initial Study 73
20 Wildfire

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
□ □ ■ □
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
□ □ ■ □
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
□ □ ■ □
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes?
□ □ ■ □
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Based on the California Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) map, there are two areas at risk for wildfire in the City. The northeastern boundary of the City along the Verdugo Mountain range is within the FHSZ, as well as the area between the 134 Freeway and Forest Lawn Drive (CalFire 2020). The northeastern area is primarily developed with single-family residential uses, while the southern area consists of residential and commercial development and the Disney and Warner Brothers studios.

The Housing and Safety Element Update would emphasize development in urbanized areas of the City that are not subject to significant wildfire risks. Such development would not conflict with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In addition, the transportation analysis will address potential traffic hazards associated with the proposed Project.

As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, construction activities could interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans as a result of temporary construction ATTACHMENT 10 -477
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

74 activities within rights-of-way. However, temporary construction barricades or other obstructions used for project development that could impede emergency access would be subject to the City’s permitting process, which requires a traffic control and mitigation plan subject to City review and approval. Implementation of these plans would ensure that future development under the proposed Project would not impair or physically interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation procedures.

Increased density in urban areas of the City under the proposed Project could result in additional traffic within area roadways. However, in the event of a wildfire, implementation of the County’s 2012 Emergency Response Plan (ERP) would coordinate all the facilities and personnel of County government, along with the jurisdictional resources of the cities and special districts within the County, into an efficient organization capable of managing emergency evacuation for affected areas. In addition, the BFD’s Emergency Management Division would coordinate all the facilities and personnel of the City, along with the jurisdictional resources of the surrounding cities.

The BFD would be responsible for ensuring that future development does not impair adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. As part of standard development procedures, future development plans would be submitted for review and approval to ensure that reasonably foreseeable development has adequate emergency access and escape routes in compliance with existing City regulations. Furthermore, the Housing Element Update would not introduce features or policies that would preclude implementation of or alter these policies or procedures or encourage development in VHFHSZ; the Safety Element Update would improve policies and regulations associated with emergency response or evacuation plans and wildland fires; and the Environmental Justice Updates would not result in development that would create impacts related to wildland fires. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Portions of the City are subject to wildland fire risk, primarily areas to the north where single-family residential development abuts the Verdugo Mountain hillsides, and at the southwestern portion of the City. Properties located within VHFHSZ as mapped by CalFire are required to minimize fire risks during the high fire season through vegetation clearance, maintenance of landscape vegetation to minimize fuel supply that would spread the intensity of a fire, compliance with provisions for emergency vehicle access, use of approved building materials and design, and compliance with the BFD’s Fire Hazard Reduction Program (Burbank Fire Department 2021). The undeveloped portions of the Verdugo Mountains are generally designated for open space with no opportunities for development. Development opportunities in the hillside areas may include accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs on existing single-family residential sites.

ATTACHMENT 10 -478
Environmental Checklist
Wildfire

Initial Study 75
The Housing and Safety Element Update would incentivize development on urban infill sites within areas well served by high quality public transit. However, it is anticipated that the proposed Project would include development of ADUs and junior ADUs in hillside areas on existing single-family residential sites. Since single-family homes have existing sufficient access for fire services, construction of any ADU or junior ADU behind these homes would be provided the same access.

Therefore, development is not likely to expose project occupants to the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire or other associated risks including, but not limited to, flooding, landslides, and instability.

Nonetheless, all development would be subject to applicable response plans and would be required to comply with all existing City regulations. In the event of a wildfire, the County’s ERP and BFD’s Emergency Management Division would coordinate all the facilities and personnel, along with the jurisdictional resources of the surrounding cities, into an efficient organization capable of managing emergency evacuation for affected areas. Furthermore, project development would be required to be constructed according to the UBC requirements for fire-protection and would be subject to review and approval by the BFD. The BFD provides several fire developments services to the City related to enforcing codes concerning new construction and remodeling, including Fire Life Safety Plan Checks and Fire Life Safety Inspections. In addition, the updates to the Safety Element specifically aim at reducing wildfire risks, and no development would occur under the Environmental Justice Updates.

Because the Housing and Safety Element Update would generally direct development away from the hillside areas with fire hazards and reasonably foreseeable development would be required to comply with fire safety provisions established by the Burbank Municipal Code, development under the proposed Project would not pose a substantial risk to people or structures due to wildland fires.

Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize reasonably foreseeable development in urban areas of the City near existing high-quality public transit infrastructure. As such, the proposed Project would not encourage development in the residential areas subject to wildfire risk, and development would occur in areas that are well-served by existing roadways and utilities infrastructure. Therefore, development under the Housing Element Update would not require additional roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities that would exacerbate fire risk; and the Safety Element and Environmental Justice updates would not result in development that would create impacts related to fire risks. Impacts would be less than significant and further analysis of this issue in an EIR is not warranted.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -479
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

76 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 10 -480
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Initial Study 77
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
■ □ □ □
b. Have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
■ □ □ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ■ □ □ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update may involve alteration, intensification, and redistribution of land uses in the City of Burbank. While proposed changes could have the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, the proposed Project focuses on infill development and not on the hillsides or slopes of the Verdugo Mountains. As such, proposed changes are in fact unlikely to have any significant impact. As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, Section 7, Geology and Soils, and Section 18, Tribal ATTACHMENT 10 -481
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

78 Cultural Resources, development under the Housing and Safety Element Update have the potential to impact historical, archaeological, paleontological, and tribal cultural resources. Since the Housing and Safety Element Update has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, including plants, animals, and potential cultural and historical resources, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As discussed in Sections 1 through 20, implementation of the Housing and Safety Element Update and could result in significant impacts to air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Potential cumulative impacts in these issue areas, for which potentially significant impacts have been identified, will be further analyzed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, operation of reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project could potentially generate criteria pollutant emissions exceeding the SCAQMD regional thresholds for operation and construction activities under the Housing and Safety Element Update may expose sensitive receptors in the City to substantial pollutant concentrations. As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there is the potential for future construction to involve the demolition or alteration of structures that may contain asbestos and/or LBP, and residential construction under the Housing and Safety Element Update could lead to a significant hazard to the public or environment by exposing future residents to potential on-site contamination if not properly identified. As discussed in Section 13, Noise, construction of developments under the Housing and Safety Element Update could generate temporary noise levels in excess of allowable City standards and potentially exceed operational thresholds for receiving land uses and sensitive receivers, if located nearby. Because implementation of the Housing and Safety Element Update could potentially have harmful environmental effects that could affect humans either directly or indirectly, impacts would be potentially significant and these issues will be discussed in an EIR.

POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
ATTACHMENT 10 -482
References
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Initial Study 79
References
Bibliography
Burbank Unified School District. 2002. “Burbank Unified School District.” Burbank Water and Power (BWP). 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/images/administrative/downloads/2015_UWM P_Final_06-24-2016.pdf. Accessed January 2021.
______. 2018. 2019 Integrated Resource Plan.
https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/images/administrative/downloads/CityCouncilA pproved_2019_Integrated_Resource_Plan_DIGITAL.pdf. Accessed January 2021.

Burbank Fire Department. 2011. Hazard Mitigation Plan 2011. https://www.burbankfire.us/divisions/emergency-management/hazard-mitigation-plan- 2011. Accessed January 2021.
______. 2021. “Fire Hazard Reduction Program (Brush Clearance).” https://www.burbankfire.us/divisions/fire-prevention-bureau/fire-hazard-reduction- program-brush-clearance-. Accessed February 2021.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2016. State of California Williamson Act Contract Land.
https://planning.lacity.org/eir/HollywoodCenter/Deir/ELDP/(E)%20Initial%20Study/Initial%2 0Study/Attachment%20B%20References/California%20Department%20of%20Conservation %20Williamson%20Map%202016.pdf. Accessed January 2021.
______. 2020a. Important Farmland Finder Map. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/.

Accessed January 2021.
______. 2020b. Fault Activity Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/.

Accessed January 2021.
______. 2020c. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/App/index.html#. Accessed January 2021.

California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/. Accessed May 2021.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDWF). 2019. California Natural Community Conservation Plans. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline.

Accessed January 2021.
______. 2020. California Sensitive Natural Communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline. Accessed January 2021.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire). 2020. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414.

Accessed January 2021.

ATTACHMENT 10 -483
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

80 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.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. 2020. “Fuel Taxes Statistics & Reports.” https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/spftrpts.htm. Accessed January 2021.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. California Scenic Highway Mapping System.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000df cc19983. Accessed December 2020.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2016. Diesel Fuel Data, Facts, and Statistics. https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/diesel.html. Accessed January 2021.
______. 2019. “2018 Total System Electric Generation.”
https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html. Accessed January 2021.

City of Burbank. 2008. Sustainability Action Plan.
https://www.burbankca.gov/home/showdocument?id=1813. Accessed February 2021. ______. 2009a. “Historic Properties in Burbank.” City of Burbank. https://www.burbankca.gov/about-us/burbank-history/historic-properties-in-burbank.

Accessed January 2021.
______. 2009b. “Street and Solid Waste Division.” City of Burbank. https://www.burbankca.gov/departments/public-works/solid-waste. Accessed January 2021.
______. 2009c. “Composting.” https://www.burbankca.gov/departments/public-works/street-and- sanitation/automated-collection/green-container/composting. Accessed January 2021. ______. 2013a. Burbank2035 General Plan.
https://www.burbankca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=23448. Accessed December 2020.
______. 2013b. Burbank2035 Technical Background Report – Biological Resources. https://www.burbankca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=23550. Accessed February 2021.
______. 2019. Zone Map. https://www.burbankca.gov/departments/community- development/planning/zoning-information. Accessed January 2021.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Letter of Map Revision Determination Document. https://map1.msc.fema.gov/data/06/L/11-09-3187P- 065018.pdf?LOC=82d1d9246cbce11d07e703c9ffe18b1f. Accessed January 2021. ______. 2015. Letter of Map Revision Determination Document. https://map1.msc.fema.gov/data/06/L/15-09-0591P-
065018.pdf?LOC=cdc235d526e3fc7da54bfa26fe831e7b. Accessed January 2021.

Los Angeles County. 2003. “Burbank/Glendale/Pasadena Airport.” May 13, 2003. https://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/aluc_airport-burbank.pdf. Accessed January 2021.

ATTACHMENT 10 -484
References
Mandatory Findings of Significance

Initial Study 81
Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning. 2019. Significant Ecological Areas and Coastal Resource Areas Policy Map. Department of Regional Planning. https://planning.lacounty.gov/site/sea/maps/. Accessed January 2021.

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). 2020. US Fish and Wildlife Services NWI Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. Accessed January 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.

United States Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2020. “California - Profile Overview.” Last modified: January 16, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA. Accessed October 2020.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2019. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/draft-inventory- us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2019. Accessed April 2021.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Habitat Conservation Plans: Overview. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/hcp-overview.html. Accessed January 2021.

List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Initial Study under contract to the City of Burbank. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.

RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Joe Power, Principal-in-Charge
Susanne Huerta, Supervising Planner, Project Manager
Daphne Virlar-Knight, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENT 10 -485
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

82 This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 10 -486
Appendix C
Health Risk Assessment Calcu lations
(Due to the large files, modeling outputs are only available upon request) ATTACHMENT 10 -487
*HARP - HRACalc v21081 10/13/2021 3:47:52 PM - Cancer Risk - Input File: C:\Users\mmcnamara\OneDrive - Rincon Consultants\Desktop\HARP Projects\BURBANK HE SR134\hra\Cancer_Res_HRAInput.hra REC GRP NETID Description X Y
RISK_SU
M
MERV-13
Filtration
I-5
MAX
NChronic
MAX
NAcute
401 SENSITIV SR R SR-1 Floor 1 376431 3779890 7.56E-06 2.53 0.01 0.03 402 SENSITIV SR R SR-1 Floor 2 376431 3779890 7.37E-06 2.46 0.01 0.03 403 SENSITIV SR R SR-1 Floor 3 376431 3779890 6.09E-06 2.04 0.01 0.03 404 SENSITIV SR R SR-1 Floor 4 376431 3779890 4.29E-06 1.43 0.00 0.02 405 SENSITIV SR R SR-1 Floor 5 376431 3779890 2.65E-06 0.89 0.00 0.02 406 SENSITIV SR R SR-1 Floor 6 376431 3779890 1.53E-06 0.51 0.00 0.01 407 SENSITIV SR R SR-1 Floor 7 376431 3779890 8.96E-07 0.30 0.00 0.01 408 SENSITIV SR R SR-2 Floor 1 376462 3779901 8.59E-06 2.87 0.01 0.03 409 SENSITIV SR R SR-2 Floor 2 376462 3779901 8.38E-06 2.80 0.01 0.03 410 SENSITIV SR R SR-2 Floor 3 376462 3779901 6.81E-06 2.27 0.01 0.03 411 SENSITIV SR R SR-2 Floor 4 376462 3779901 4.65E-06 1.56 0.01 0.02 412 SENSITIV SR R SR-2 Floor 5 376462 3779901 2.78E-06 0.93 0.00 0.02 413 SENSITIV SR R SR-2 Floor 6 376462 3779901 1.58E-06 0.53 0.00 0.01 414 SENSITIV SR R SR-2 Floor 7 376462 3779901 9.29E-07 0.31 0.00 0.01 415 SENSITIV SR R SR-3 Floor 1 376484 3779902 8.87E-06 2.97 0.01 0.03 416 SENSITIV SR R SR-3 Floor 2 376484 3779902 8.67E-06 2.90 0.01 0.03 417 SENSITIV SR R SR-3 Floor 3 376484 3779902 7.02E-06 2.35 0.01 0.03 418 SENSITIV SR R SR-3 Floor 4 376484 3779902 4.77E-06 1.59 0.01 0.02 419 SENSITIV SR R SR-3 Floor 5 376484 3779902 2.83E-06 0.94 0.00 0.02 420 SENSITIV SR R SR-3 Floor 6 376484 3779902 1.60E-06 0.54 0.00 0.01 421 SENSITIV SR R SR-3 Floor 7 376484 3779902 9.42E-07 0.31 0.00 0.01 422 SENSITIV SR R SR-4 Floor 1 376490 3779887 7.87E-06 2.63 0.01 0.03 423 SENSITIV SR R SR-4 Floor 2 376490 3779887 7.71E-06 2.58 0.01 0.03 424 SENSITIV SR R SR-4 Floor 3 376490 3779887 6.41E-06 2.14 0.01 0.03 425 SENSITIV SR R SR-4 Floor 4 376490 3779887 4.51E-06 1.51 0.01 0.02 426 SENSITIV SR R SR-4 Floor 5 376490 3779887 2.76E-06 0.92 0.00 0.02 427 SENSITIV SR R SR-4 Floor 6 376490 3779887 1.58E-06 0.53 0.00 0.01 428 SENSITIV SR R SR-4 Floor 7 376490 3779887 9.22E-07 0.31 0.00 0.01 429 SENSITIV SR R SR-5 Floor 1 376477 3779874 7.03E-06 2.35 0.01 0.03 430 SENSITIV SR R SR-5 Floor 2 376477 3779874 6.89E-06 2.30 0.01 0.03 431 SENSITIV SR R SR-5 Floor 3 376477 3779874 5.85E-06 1.95 0.01 0.03 432 SENSITIV SR R SR-5 Floor 4 376477 3779874 4.23E-06 1.42 0.00 0.02 433 SENSITIV SR R SR-5 Floor 5 376477 3779874 2.66E-06 0.89 0.00 0.02 434 SENSITIV SR R SR-5 Floor 6 376477 3779874 1.54E-06 0.52 0.00 0.01 435 SENSITIV SR R SR-5 Floor 7 376477 3779874 8.99E-07 0.30 0.00 0.01 436 SENSITIV SR R SR-6 Floor 1 376455 3779865 6.44E-06 2.15 0.01 0.02 437 SENSITIV SR R SR-6 Floor 2 376455 3779865 6.32E-06 2.11 0.01 0.02 438 SENSITIV SR R SR-6 Floor 3 376455 3779865 5.44E-06 1.82 0.01 0.03 439 SENSITIV SR R SR-6 Floor 4 376455 3779865 4.02E-06 1.34 0.00 0.02 440 SENSITIV SR R SR-6 Floor 5 376455 3779865 1.52E-06 0.51 0.00 0.01 441 SENSITIV SR R SR-6 Floor 6 376455 3779865 8.85E-07 0.30 0.00 0.01 442 SENSITIV SR R SR-6 Floor 7 376455 3779865 6.44E-06 2.15 0.01 0.02 443 SENSITIV SR R SR-7 Floor 1 376433 3779865 6.16E-06 2.06 0.01 0.02 444 SENSITIV SR R SR-7 Floor 2 376433 3779865 5.29E-06 1.77 0.01 0.03 445 SENSITIV SR R SR-7 Floor 3 376433 3779865 3.92E-06 1.31 0.00 0.02 446 SENSITIV SR R SR-7 Floor 4 376433 3779865 2.54E-06 0.85 0.00 0.02 447 SENSITIV SR R SR-7 Floor 5 376433 3779865 1.50E-06 0.50 0.00 0.01 448 SENSITIV SR R SR-7 Floor 6 376433 3779865 8.74E-07 0.29 0.00 0.01 449 SENSITIV SR R SR-7 Floor 7 376433 3779865 6.27E-06 2.10 0.01 0.02 450 SENSITIV SR R SR-8 Floor 1 376427 3779881 6.83E-06 2.28 0.01 0.02 451 SENSITIV SR R SR-8 Floor 2 376427 3779881 5.74E-06 1.92 0.01 0.03 452 SENSITIV SR R SR-8 Floor 3 376427 3779881 4.13E-06 1.38 0.00 0.02 453 SENSITIV SR R SR-8 Floor 4 376427 3779881 2.59E-06 0.87 0.00 0.02 454 SENSITIV SR R SR-8 Floor 5 376427 3779881 1.51E-06 0.50 0.00 0.01 455 SENSITIV SR R SR-8 Floor 6 376427 3779881 8.82E-07 0.29 0.00 0.01 456 SENSITIV SR R SR-8 Floor 7 376427 3779881 7.00E-06 2.34 0.01 0.03 ATTACHMENT 10 -488
GRP NETID X Y Description I-5
MERV-13
Filtration
I-5 BWP_lvl1 BWP_lvl2 BWP_lvl3 BWP_lvl4 BWP_lvl5 BWP_lvl6 BWP_lvl7 BWP_lvl8 TOTAL
CANCER
SUM
MAX
NChronic I-5
MAX
NAcute I-5
MAX
NChronic
BWP
MAX
NAcute
BWP
SENSITIV SR 378572.5 3783633 TOD3 SR-1 Floor 1 1.17E-05 3.90 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.91 4.80 0.011 0.032 0.001 0.002 SENSITIV SR 378593 3783654 TOD3 SR-2 Floor 1 8.94E-06 2.99 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 3.90 0.008 0.030 0.001 0.002 SENSITIV SR 378610.2 3783671 TOD3 SR-3 Floor 1 7.37E-06 2.46 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.94 3.38 0.007 0.028 0.001 0.002 SENSITIV SR 378661.5 3783628 TOD3 SR-4 Floor 1 7.32E-06 2.45 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.04 3.45 0.007 0.030 0.001 0.002 SENSITIV SR 378701.1 3783591 TOD3 SR-5 Floor 1 7.35E-06 2.46 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.10 1.11 1.12 3.53 0.007 0.031 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378678.1 3783572 TOD3 SR-6 Floor 1 9.61E-06 3.21 1.08 1.08 1.09 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.12 4.29 0.009 0.032 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378649.3 3783560 TOD3 SR-7 Floor 1 9.57E-06 3.20 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.07 1.08 1.08 1.09 1.10 4.25 0.009 0.031 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378641.2 3783579 TOD3 SR-8 Floor 1 8.85E-06 2.96 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.07 3.99 0.009 0.030 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378631.7 3783604 TOD3 SR-9 Floor 1 1.07E-05 3.59 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.02 1.03 4.59 0.010 0.032 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378614.2 3783626 TOD3 SR-10 Floor 1 1.01E-05 3.37 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.98 4.32 0.010 0.031 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378808.1 3783487 TOD4 SR-1 Floor 1 6.85E-06 2.29 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.24 3.45 0.006 0.030 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378853 3783449 TOD4 SR-2 Floor 1 6.32E-06 2.11 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.18 1.19 3.22 0.006 0.030 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378881.8 3783408 TOD4 SR-3 Floor 1 6.57E-06 2.19 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.10 1.11 1.13 1.14 3.25 0.006 0.029 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378924.8 3783385 TOD4 SR-4 Floor 1 5.76E-06 1.92 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.98 2.83 0.005 0.028 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378896.2 3783345 TOD4 SR-5 Floor 1 7.69E-06 2.57 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.09 1.11 1.13 3.59 0.007 0.030 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378870.3 3783316 TOD4 SR-6 Floor 1 1.02E-05 3.42 1.13 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.20 1.23 1.25 1.28 4.55 0.010 0.032 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378830 3783284 TOD4 SR-7 Floor 1 1.19E-05 3.99 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.35 1.38 1.41 1.45 1.49 5.27 0.011 0.030 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378812.8 3783325 TOD4 SR-8 Floor 1 1.52E-05 5.08 1.31 1.33 1.34 1.37 1.39 1.42 1.45 1.49 6.39 0.014 0.035 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378793.7 3783373 TOD4 SR-9 Floor 1 1.06E-05 3.53 1.31 1.32 1.33 1.35 1.37 1.39 1.42 1.44 4.84 0.010 0.031 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378775.6 3783426 TOD4 SR-10 Floor 1 9.17E-06 3.06 1.27 1.28 1.29 1.31 1.32 1.34 1.36 1.38 4.33 0.009 0.031 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378785.3 3783463 TOD4 SR-11 Floor 1 9.44E-06 3.16 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.28 1.29 1.31 4.38 0.009 0.032 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378846 3783181 TOD5 SR-1 Floor 1 1.16E-05 3.88 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.26 1.31 1.37 1.43 1.50 5.04 0.011 0.027 0.001 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378829 3783223 TOD5 SR-2 Floor 1 1.56E-05 5.22 1.27 1.30 1.33 1.36 1.41 1.46 1.51 1.57 6.49 0.015 0.031 0.001 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378849 3783222 TOD5 SR-3 Floor 1 1.30E-05 4.36 1.19 1.21 1.24 1.27 1.31 1.36 1.41 1.46 5.55 0.012 0.030 0.001 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378876 3783197 TOD5 SR-4 Floor 1 1.19E-05 3.97 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.12 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 5.01 0.011 0.029 0.001 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378902 3783173 TOD5 SR-5 Floor 1 1.52E-05 5.08 0.87 0.88 0.91 0.93 0.97 1.01 1.05 1.10 5.95 0.014 0.033 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378930 3783142 TOD5 SR-6 Floor 1 1.43E-05 4.77 0.67 0.68 0.70 0.72 0.75 0.78 0.82 0.86 5.44 0.013 0.032 0.001 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378957 3783118 TOD5 SR-7 Floor 1 9.99E-06 3.34 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.63 0.66 3.86 0.009 0.028 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378962 3783080 TOD5 SR-8 Floor 1 1.09E-05 3.63 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.57 4.08 0.010 0.029 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378937 3783053 TOD5 SR-9 Floor 1 1.45E-05 4.84 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.51 0.53 0.56 0.59 0.63 5.30 0.013 0.031 0.001 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378917 3783050 TOD5 SR-10 Floor 1 1.19E-05 3.98 0.52 0.53 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.65 0.69 0.75 4.51 0.011 0.027 0.001 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378900 3783073 TOD5 SR-11 Floor 1 1.75E-05 5.85 0.65 0.66 0.69 0.72 0.76 0.81 0.87 0.94 6.50 0.016 0.031 0.001 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378884 3783095 TOD5 SR-12 Floor 1 1.22E-05 4.09 0.79 0.80 0.83 0.87 0.92 0.98 1.05 1.13 4.88 0.011 0.027 0.001 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378867 3783127 TOD5 SR-13 Floor 1 1.39E-05 4.66 0.96 0.98 1.01 1.06 1.11 1.17 1.25 1.33 5.62 0.013 0.028 0.001 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378856 3783154 TOD5 SR-14 Floor 1 1.75E-05 5.84 1.07 1.10 1.13 1.17 1.23 1.29 1.36 1.43 6.91 0.016 0.032 0.001 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378841.4 3783279 TOD6 SR-1 Floor 1 1.11E-05 3.72 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.31 1.34 1.38 1.41 1.45 4.97 0.010 0.030 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378931.6 3783377 TOD6 SR-2 Floor 1 5.74E-06 1.92 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.96 2.80 0.005 0.028 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378819.4 3783491 TOD6 SR-3 Floor 1 6.29E-06 2.10 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 3.24 0.006 0.030 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378884.2 3783456 TOD6 SR-4 Floor 1 5.34E-06 1.78 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.09 2.80 0.005 0.028 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378963.8 3783411 TOD6 SR-5 Floor 1 4.51E-06 1.51 0.77 0.77 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.81 0.82 2.27 0.004 0.026 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 379050.2 3783500 TOD6 SR-6 Floor 1 2.68E-06 0.90 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 1.42 0.002 0.022 0.000 0.003 SENSITIV SR 379002.7 3783424 TOD6 SR-7 Floor 1 3.82E-06 1.28 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.68 1.92 0.004 0.026 0.001 0.003 SENSITIV SR 379079.6 3783354 TOD6 SR-8 Floor 1 3.63E-06 1.21 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.44 1.63 0.003 0.025 0.000 0.003 SENSITIV SR 379148.6 3783422 TOD6 SR-9 Floor 1 2.50E-06 0.84 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.34 1.16 0.002 0.021 0.000 0.003 SENSITIV SR 379070.3 3783325 TOD6 SR-10 Floor 1 4.00E-06 1.34 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.44 0.45 1.76 0.004 0.025 0.000 0.003 SENSITIV SR 379012.6 3783327 TOD6 SR-11 Floor 1 4.77E-06 1.59 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 2.16 0.004 0.026 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379022 3783271 TOD6 SR-12 Floor 1 5.42E-06 1.81 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.53 0.53 0.54 0.55 2.31 0.005 0.027 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378981.7 3783227 TOD6 SR-13 Floor 1 7.30E-06 2.44 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.63 0.64 0.66 0.68 3.03 0.007 0.029 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379046.9 3783168 TOD6 SR-14 Floor 1 6.55E-06 2.19 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 2.55 0.006 0.029 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378997.4 3783125 TOD6 SR-15 Floor 1 9.80E-06 3.28 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.51 3.70 0.009 0.031 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378959.1 3783155 TOD6 SR-16 Floor 1 1.10E-05 3.67 0.58 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.63 0.66 0.68 0.71 4.24 0.010 0.031 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378909.6 3783200 TOD6 SR-17 Floor 1 1.30E-05 4.33 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.93 0.96 0.99 1.03 1.07 5.20 0.012 0.032 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 378844.5 3783260 TOD6 SR-18 Floor 1 1.15E-05 3.85 1.23 1.25 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.37 1.42 1.46 5.08 0.011 0.030 0.001 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379232 3782792 TOD10a SR-1 Floor 1 1.17E-05 3.92 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.27 4.16 0.011 0.028 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 379256 3782818 TOD10a SR-2 Floor 1 8.79E-06 2.94 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 3.18 0.008 0.027 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379289 3782823 TOD10a SR-3 Floor 1 1.02E-05 3.42 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 3.65 0.010 0.029 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379314 3782801 TOD10a SR-4 Floor 1 1.01E-05 3.39 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 3.61 0.009 0.029 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379342 3782777 TOD10a SR-5 Floor 1 1.03E-05 3.43 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 3.64 0.010 0.029 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379344 3782748 TOD10a SR-6 Floor 1 1.31E-05 4.39 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.23 4.61 0.012 0.030 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379325 3782727 TOD10a SR-7 Floor 1 1.18E-05 3.95 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.23 4.17 0.011 0.027 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379289 3782727 TOD10a SR-8 Floor 1 1.49E-05 4.99 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 5.21 0.014 0.029 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379269 3782742 TOD10a SR-9 Floor 1 1.37E-05 4.58 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 4.81 0.013 0.028 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379240 3782764 TOD10a SR-10 Floor 1 9.75E-06 3.26 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 3.50 0.009 0.024 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 379333.8 3782699 TOD10b SR-1 Floor 1 1.33E-05 4.43 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 4.64 0.013 0.028 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379348.8 3782726 TOD10b SR-2 Floor 1 9.90E-06 3.31 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 3.52 0.009 0.026 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379370.7 3782748 TOD10b SR-3 Floor 1 1.12E-05 3.73 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 3.94 0.010 0.029 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379413.5 3782710 TOD10b SR-4 Floor 1 7.90E-06 2.64 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 2.84 0.007 0.024 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379450.3 3782677 TOD10b SR-5 Floor 1 7.90E-06 2.64 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 2.83 0.007 0.023 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379428.7 3782653 TOD10b SR-6 Floor 1 9.94E-06 3.32 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 3.51 0.009 0.025 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379408.6 3782631 TOD10b SR-7 Floor 1 1.27E-05 4.23 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 4.42 0.012 0.027 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379389.5 3782643 TOD10b SR-8 Floor 1 1.24E-05 4.15 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 4.34 0.012 0.027 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379369 3782661 TOD10b SR-9 Floor 1 1.24E-05 4.14 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 4.34 0.012 0.027 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379347.3 3782687 TOD10b SR-10 Floor 1 1.27E-05 4.24 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.22 4.46 0.012 0.028 0.000 0.004 SENSITIV SR 379523 3782649 PF SR-1 Floor 1 7.82E-06 2.61 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 2.79 0.007 0.023 0.000 0.003 SENSITIV SR 379519 3782661 PF SR-2 Floor 1 7.55E-06 2.52 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 2.70 0.007 0.023 0.000 0.003 SENSITIV SR 379532 3782658 PF SR-3 Floor 1 7.12E-06 2.38 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 2.56 0.007 0.023 0.000 0.003 SENSITIV SR 379547 3782644 PF SR-4 Floor 1 6.99E-06 2.33 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 2.51 0.006 0.022 0.000 0.003 SENSITIV SR 379552 3782632 PF SR-5 Floor 1 7.17E-06 2.40 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 2.57 0.007 0.023 0.000 0.003 SENSITIV SR 379542 3782632 PF SR-6 Floor 1 7.61E-06 2.54 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 2.72 0.007 0.023 0.000 0.003 SENSITIV SR 378686 3782175 TOD 11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378706 3782197 TOD 11 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378727 3782219 TOD 11 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378747 3782242 TOD 11 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.000 0.006 SENSITIV SR 378767 3782264 TOD 11 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.000 0.007 SENSITIV SR 378783 3782281 TOD 11 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.000 0.007 SENSITIV SR 378805 3782261 TOD 11 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.000 0.007 SENSITIV SR 378828 3782242 TOD 11 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.000 0.006 SENSITIV SR 378849 3782224 TOD 11 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378840 3782213 TOD 11 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378831 3782195 TOD 11 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378820 3782168 TOD 11 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378806 3782145 TOD 11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378785 3782124 TOD 11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378764 3782102 TOD 11 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378744 3782080 TOD 11 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378728 3782064 TOD 11 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378718 3782092 TOD 11 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378707 3782120 TOD 11 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.000 0.005 SENSITIV SR 378697 3782148 TOD 11 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.000 0.005 ATTACHMENT 10 -489
Adjusted Potential Carcinogenic Health Risks Within the Project Site Calculation
Factor
EF = Exposure frequency in days per year 350
EFa = Exp. Freq adjusted outside; only 2.1 hours/day outside 30.6 USEPA Exposure Factors Handbook EFai = Exp. Freq adjusted inside; 16.4 hours/day inside 239.2 USEPA Exposure Factors Handbook FE = Filter Efficiency 90%
DPM = Percent of risk associated with DPM 71%
Equation = Mitigated Risk = ([Unmitigated Risk]/EF*Efa)+((1-(FE*DPM))*([Unmitigated Risk]/EF*Efai)) Time Spent Indoors
Age GroupMean (min/day) Age Group Mean (min/day)
Birth to 1 year 0 Birth to 1 year 1,108
1 to 2 years 36 1 to 2 years 1,065
2 to 3 years 76 2 to 3 years 979
3 to 6 years 107 3 to 6 years 957
6 to 11 years 132 6 to 11 years 893
11 to 16 years 100 11 to 16 years 889
16 to 21 years 102 16 to 21 years 833
18 to 64 years 281 18 to 64 years 948
>64 years 298 >64 years 1,175
Average 126 Average 983
Hours Per Day 2.1 Hours Per Day 16.4
Time Spent Outdoors Time Spent Indoors at Residence
ATTACHMENT 10 -490
AADT AADT per direction Caltrans Truck % Number daily trucks Diesel Truck * Gas Truck * LD Vehicles LD Diesel ** All Gas 214,500 107,250 4.70% 5,041 552 4,489 102,209 201 106,497 Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2019 AADT and 2019 Truck Traffic . Traffic and truck percentage represent average of back and ahead counts.Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2018 AADT and Truck Traffic 2018 ** Light Duty Diesel proportion based on vehicle miles traveled for LDA, LDT1, and LDT2 for Year 2024, South Coast AQMD, EMFAC2017.

Diesel Proportion: 11.0%
Non-Diesel Proportion: 89.0%
Source: Portion of Diesel Truck Vehicles vs. Non-Diesel Truck Vehicles based on EMFAC2021 aggregate VMT All Gas Vehicles
Speed
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
(miles/hour) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) 50 mph for trucks (TOG), 65
mph for trucks (PM), 50 mph
for light duty (TOG), 65 mph
for light duty (PM), 65 for gas
(TOG) 0.0248 0.0248 0.0061 0.0124 0.0157
Source: EMFAC2021 Emissions Database
benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde 2029 0.007320 0.002292 0.034383 0.006088 0.082668 0.034539 0.002295 0.009056 0.000602 0.014238 Total Daily Emissions, g/mi 0.12 0.04 0.56 0.00 1.34 57.61 3.83 15.11 1.00 23.75 Derivation of Emission Rates for SR 134 Sources
Freeway width, one way 76.8 feet 23.4 m
Each direction segment at 393.7 feet long 120 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 14.9 57.73 3.86 15.66 1.00 25.09
lbs/hour/segment 0.000102 0.000395 0.000026 0.000107 0.000007 0.000172 lbs/day/segment 0.002448 0.009489 0.000635 0.002575 0.0001651 0.004124 lbs/year/segment *** 0.893528 3.463627 0.231893 0.939733 0.060258 1.505154 Segment 14
Freeway width, one way 76.8 feet 23.4 m
Each direction segment at 198.8 feet long 60.6 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 14.9 57.73 3.86 15.66 1.00 25.09
lbs/hour/segment 0.000052 0.00020 0.000013 0.00005 0.000003 0.00009 lbs/day/segment 0.0012 0.0048 0.0003 0.0013 0.0001 0.0021 lbs/year/segment *** 0.451232 1.749132 0.117106 0.474565 0.030430 0.760103 ** Total emissions per mile calculated using the above speciation factors. *** Based on 365 day/year
HARP ID: 9901 71432 106990 75070 107028 50000
Emissions
Speciation Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014).

Emissions
Emissions Calculations - SR 134
Truck Diesel Vehicles Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Analysis Year
Diesel
Hot Stabilized Exhaust Hot Stabilized Exhaust
Non-Diesel
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Speciation Factors Based on Proportion In TOG ATTACHMENT 10 -491
AADT AADT per direction Caltrans Truck % Number daily trucks Diesel Truck * Gas Truck * LD Vehicles LD Diesel ** All Gas 219,500 109,750 6.57% 7,205 789 6,416 102,545 169 108,792 Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2019 AADT and 2019 Truck Traffic . Traffic and truck percentage represent average of back and ahead counts. ** Light Duty Diesel proportion based on vehicle miles traveled for LDA, LDT1, and LDT2 for Year 2024, South Coast AQMD, EMFAC2017.

Diesel Proportion: 10.9%
Non-Diesel Proportion: 89.1%
Source: Portion of Diesel Truck Vehicles vs. Non-Diesel Truck Vehicles based on EMFAC2021 aggregate VMT All Gas Vehicles
Speed
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
(miles/hour) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) 50 mph for trucks (TOG), 65
mph for trucks (PM), 50 mph
for light duty (TOG), 65 mph
for light duty (PM), 65 for gas
(TOG) 0.0248 0.0248 0.0057 0.0124 0.0157
Source: EMFAC2021 Emissions Database
benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde 2029 0.007320 0.002292 0.034383 0.006088 0.082668 0.034539 0.002295 0.009056 0.000602 0.014238 Total Daily Emissions, g/mi 0.16 0.05 0.75 0.00 1.79 58.85 3.91 15.43 1.03 24.26 Derivation of Emission Rates for I-5 Sources

NORTHBOUND SEGMENTS
Freeway width, one way 80.7 feet 24.6 m
Each direction segment at 656.2 feet long 200 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 20.5 59.01 3.96 16.18 1.03 26.05
lbs/hour/segment 0.000234 0.000674 0.000045 0.000185 0.000012 0.000297 lbs/day/segment 0.005617 0.016167 0.001085 0.004432 0.0002811 0.007137 lbs/year/segment *** 2.050302 5.900872 0.395993 1.617613 0.102594 2.605063 Freeway width, one way 69.9 feet 21.3 m
Each direction segment at 656.2 feet long 200 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 20.5 59.01 3.96 16.18 1.03 26.05
lbs/hour/segment 0.000234 0.00067 0.000045 0.00018 0.000012 0.00030 lbs/day/segment 0.0056 0.0162 0.0011 0.0044 0.0003 0.0071 lbs/year/segment *** 2.050302 5.900872 0.395993 1.617613 0.102594 2.605063 Freeway width, one way 86 feet 26.1 m
Each direction segment at 656.2 feet long 200 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 20.5 59.01 3.96 16.2 1.03 26.05
Emissions Calculations - I-5
Truck Diesel Vehicles Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Analysis Year
Diesel
Hot Stabilized Exhaust Hot Stabilized Exhaust
Non-Diesel
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Speciation Factors Based on Proportion of VOC Emissions
Speciation Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014).

Emissions
Emissions
ATTACHMENT 10 -492
lbs/hour/segment 0.000234 0.000674 0.000045 0.000185 0.000012 0.000297 lbs/day/segment 0.005617 0.016167 0.0011 0.0044 0.0003 0.0071 lbs/year/segment *** 2.050302 5.900872 0.395993 1.617613 0.102594 2.605063

SOUTHBOUND SEGMENTS
Freeway width, one way 81 feet 24.6 m
Each direction segment at 328.1 feet long 100 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 20.5 59.01 3.96 16.2 1.03 26.05
lbs/hour/segment 0.000117 0.000337 0.000023 0.000092 0.000006 0.000149 lbs/day/segment 0.002809 0.008083 0.0005 0.0022 0.0001 0.0036 lbs/year/segment *** 1.025151 2.950436 0.197996 0.808807 0.051297 1.302531 Freeway width, one way 70 feet 21.3 m
Each direction segment at 328.1 feet long 100 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 20.5 59.01 3.96 16.2 1.03 26.05
lbs/hour/segment 0.000117 0.000337 0.000023 0.000092 0.000006 0.000149 lbs/day/segment 0.002809 0.008083 0.0005 0.0022 0.0001 0.0036 lbs/year/segment *** 1.025151 2.950436 0.197996 0.808807 0.051297 1.302531 Freeway width, one way 86 feet 26.1 m
Each direction segment at 328.1 feet long 100 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 20.5 59.01 3.96 16.2 1.03 26.05
lbs/hour/segment 0.000117 0.000337 0.000023 0.000092 0.000006 0.000149 lbs/day/segment 0.002809 0.008083 0.0005 0.0022 0.0001 0.0036 lbs/year/segment *** 1.025151 2.950436 0.197996 0.808807 0.051297 1.302531 ** Total emissions per mile calculated using the above speciation factors. *** Based on 365 day/year
HARP ID: 9901 71432 106990 75070 107028 50000
Emissions
Emissions
Emissions
ATTACHMENT 10 -493
AADT AADT per direction Caltrans Truck % Number daily trucks Diesel Truck * Gas Truck * LD Vehicles LD Diesel ** All Gas 5,600 5,600 6.93% 388 42 346 5,212 43 5,515
Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2014 Ramp AADT and Truck Traffic 2017 (Percentage from I-10 west of I-110) * "Translation Factors" (the fractions below identify % of trucks that are diesel-powered; they translate Caltrans truck data into an estimate of diesel vehicles) Diesel Proportion: 10.9%
Non-Diesel Proportion: 89.1%
Source: Portion of Diesel Truck Vehicles vs. Non-Diesel Truck Vehicles based on EMFAC2021 aggregate VMT All Gas Vehicles
Speed
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
(miles/hour) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) 35 0.0104 0.0441 0.0068 0.0185 0.0164
Source: EMFAC2021 Emissions Database
benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde 2029 0.007320 0.002292 0.034383 0.006088 0.082668 0.034539 0.002295 0.009056 0.000602 0.014238 Total Daily Emissions, g/mi 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.22 3.12 0.21 0.82 0.05 1.29 Derivation of Emission Rates for Sources: Ramp #1 (Seg 5 NB off to EB Burbank Blvd.) Ramp width, one way 42.3 feet 12.9 m 2 lanes
Each direction segment at 295.3 feet long 90 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 0.7 3.14 0.21 0.91 0.05 1.51
lbs/hour/segment 0.000004 0.00002 0.000001 0.000005 0.0000003 0.000008 lbs/day/segment 0.0001 0.0004 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002 lbs/year/segment *** 0.032873 0.141278 0.009602 0.040913 0.002448 0.067730 Speciation Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014).

Emissions
Emissions Calculations - Ramp #1 (Seg 5 NB off to EB Burbank Blvd.) Truck Diesel Vehicles Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Analysis Year
Diesel
Hot Stabilized Exhaust Hot Stabilized Exhaust
Non-Diesel
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Speciation Factors Based on Proportion In TOG ATTACHMENT 10 -494
AADT AADT per direction Caltrans Truck % Number daily trucks Diesel Truck * Gas Truck * LD Vehicles LD Diesel ** All Gas 7,260 7,260 3.46% 251 27 224 7,009 58 7,175
Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2008 Ramp AADT and Truck Traffic 2017 (Percentage from I-10 east of I-110) * "Translation Factors" (the fractions below identify % of trucks that are diesel-powered; they translate Caltrans truck data into an estimate of diesel vehicles) Diesel Proportion: 10.9%
Non-Diesel Proportion: 89.1%
Source: Portion of Diesel Truck Vehicles vs. Non-Diesel Truck Vehicles based on EMFAC2021 aggregate VMT All Gas Vehicles
Speed
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
(miles/hour) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) 35 0.0104 0.0441 0.0068 0.0185 0.0164
Source: EMFAC2021 Emissions Database
benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde 2029 0.007320 0.002292 0.034383 0.006088 0.082668 0.034539 0.002295 0.009056 0.000602 0.014238 Total Daily Emissions, g/mi 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.19 4.06 0.27 1.06 0.07 1.67 Derivation of Emission Rates for Sources: Ramp #2 (Seg 5 NB off to WB Burbank Blvd.) Ramp width, one way 44.9 feet 13.7 m 2 lanes
Each direction segment at 328.1 feet long 100 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 0.7 4.08 0.27 1.14 0.07 1.86
lbs/hour/segment 0.000004 0.00002 0.000002 0.000007 0.0000004 0.00001 lbs/day/segment 0.0001 0.0006 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0003 lbs/year/segment *** 0.03380 0.203796 0.013745 0.057107 0.003538 0.093012 Speciation Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014).

Emissions
Emissions Calculations - Ramp #2 (Seg 5 NB off to WB Burbank Blvd.) Truck Diesel Vehicles Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Speciation Factors Based on Proportion In TOG Analysis Year
Diesel Non-Diesel
Hot Stabilized Exhaust Hot Stabilized Exhaust
ATTACHMENT 10 -495
AADT AADT per direction Caltrans Truck % Number daily trucks Diesel Truck * Gas Truck * LD Vehicles LD Diesel ** All Gas 6,859 6,859 8.01% 549 60 489 6,310 52 6,747
Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2014 Ramp AADT and Truck Traffic 2017 (Percentage from weighted average of I-10 east of I-110 and west of I-110 based on WB and EB contribution) * "Translation Factors" (the fractions below identify % of trucks that are diesel-powered; they translate Caltrans truck data into an estimate of diesel vehicles) Diesel Proportion: 10.9%
Non-Diesel Proportion: 89.1%
Source: Portion of Diesel Truck Vehicles vs. Non-Diesel Truck Vehicles based on EMFAC2021 aggregate VMT All Gas Vehicles
Speed
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
(miles/hour) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) 35 0.0104 0.0441 0.0068 0.0185 0.0164
Source: EMFAC2021 Emissions Database
benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde 2029 0.007320 0.002292 0.034383 0.006088 0.082668 0.034539 0.002295 0.009056 0.000602 0.014238 Total Daily Emissions, g/mi 0.03 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.30 3.82 0.25 1.00 0.07 1.57 Derivation of Emission Rates for Sources: Ramp #3 (Seg 5 SB off to Burbank Blvd.) Ramp width, one way 64.6 feet 19.7 m 3 lane
Each direction segment at 262.5 feet long 80 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 1.0 3.84 0.26 1.12 0.07 1.87
lbs/hour/segment 0.00000 0.00002 0.000001 0.000005 0.0000003 0.00001 lbs/day/segment 0.0001 0.0004 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002 lbs/year/segment *** 0.039181 0.153741 0.010476 0.045000 0.002662 0.074876 Speciation Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014).

Emissions
Emissions Calculations - Ramp #3 (Seg 5 SB off to Burbank Blvd.) Truck Diesel Vehicles Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Speciation Factors Based on Proportion In TOG Analysis Year
Diesel Non-Diesel
Hot Stabilized Exhaust Hot Stabilized Exhaust
ATTACHMENT 10 -496
AADT AADT per direction Caltrans Truck % Number daily trucks Diesel Truck * Gas Truck * LD Vehicles LD Diesel ** All Gas 15,468 15,468 6.93% 1,072 117 955 14,396 119 15,232
Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2014 Ramp AADT and Truck Traffic 2017 (Percentage from I-110 north of I-10) * "Translation Factors" (the fractions below identify % of trucks that are diesel-powered; they translate Caltrans truck data into an estimate of diesel vehicles) Diesel Proportion: 10.9%
Non-Diesel Proportion: 89.1%
Source: Portion of Diesel Truck Vehicles vs. Non-Diesel Truck Vehicles based on EMFAC2021 aggregate VMT All Gas Vehicles
Speed
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
(miles/hour) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) 50 0.0133 0.0248 0.0057 0.0124 0.0128
Source: EMFAC2021 Emissions Database
benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde 2029 0.007320 0.002292 0.034383 0.006088 0.082668 0.034539 0.002295 0.009056 0.000602 0.014238 Total Daily Emissions, g/mi 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.36 6.75 0.45 1.77 0.12 2.78 Derivation of Emission Rates for Sources: Ramp #4 (SB on from EB Burbank Blvd.) Ramp width, one way 37.7 feet 11.5 m 2 lane
Each direction segment at 131.2 feet long 40 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 2.2 6.78 0.46 1.92 0.12 3.15
lbs/hour/segment 0.000005 0.00002 0.000001 0.00000 0.0000003 0.00001 lbs/day/segment 0.0001 0.0004 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002 lbs/year/segment *** 0.044736 0.135672 0.009173 0.038418 0.002354 0.062903 Speciation Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014).

Emissions
Emissions Calculations - Ramp #4 (SB on from EB Burbank Blvd.) Truck Diesel Vehicles Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Speciation Factors Based on Proportion In TOG Analysis Year
Diesel Non-Diesel
Hot Stabilized Exhaust Hot Stabilized Exhaust
ATTACHMENT 10 -497
AADT AADT per direction Caltrans Truck % Number daily trucks Diesel Truck * Gas Truck * LD Vehicles LD Diesel ** All Gas 7,882 7,882 6.93% 546 60 486 7,336 61 7,761
Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2014 Ramp AADT and Truck Traffic 2017 (Percentage from I-110 south of I-10) * "Translation Factors" (the fractions below identify % of trucks that are diesel-powered; they translate Caltrans truck data into an estimate of diesel vehicles) Diesel Proportion: 10.9%
Non-Diesel Proportion: 89.1%
Source: Portion of Diesel Truck Vehicles vs. Non-Diesel Truck Vehicles based on EMFAC2021 aggregate VMT All Gas Vehicles
Speed
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
(miles/hour) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) 50 0.0133 0.0248 0.0057 0.0124 0.0128
Source: EMFAC2021 Emissions Database
benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde 2029 0.007320 0.002292 0.034383 0.006088 0.082668 0.034539 0.002295 0.009056 0.000602 0.014238 Total Daily Emissions, g/mi 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.19 3.44 0.23 0.90 0.06 1.42 Derivation of Emission Rates for Sources: Ramp #5 (SB on from WB Burbank Blvd.) Ramp width, one way 48.2 feet 14.7 m 2 lane
Each direction segment at 328.1 feet long 100 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 1.1 3.46 0.23 0.98 0.06 1.60
lbs/hour/segment 0.00001 0.00002 0.000001 0.000006 0.0000003 0.00001 lbs/day/segment 0.0002 0.0005 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002 lbs/year/segment *** 0.057455 0.172817 0.011686 0.048967 0.002998 0.080200 Speciation Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014).

Emissions
Emissions Calculations - Ramp #5 (SB on from WB Burbank Blvd.) Truck Diesel Vehicles Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Speciation Factors Based on Proportion In TOG Analysis Year
Diesel Non-Diesel
Hot Stabilized Exhaust Hot Stabilized Exhaust
ATTACHMENT 10 -498
AADT AADT per direction Caltrans Truck % Number daily trucks Diesel Truck * Gas Truck * LD Vehicles LD Diesel ** All Gas 8,619 8,619 6.93% 597 65 532 8,022 67 8,487
Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2014 Ramp AADT and Truck Traffic 2017 (Percentage from I-110 south of I-10) * "Translation Factors" (the fractions below identify % of trucks that are diesel-powered; they translate Caltrans truck data into an estimate of diesel vehicles) Diesel Proportion: 10.9%
Non-Diesel Proportion: 89.1%
Source: Portion of Diesel Truck Vehicles vs. Non-Diesel Truck Vehicles based on EMFAC2021 aggregate VMT All Gas Vehicles
Speed
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
(miles/hour) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) 50 0.0133 0.0248 0.0057 0.0124 0.0128
Source: EMFAC2021 Emissions Database
benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde 2029 0.007320 0.002292 0.034383 0.006088 0.082668 0.034539 0.002295 0.009056 0.000602 0.014238 Total Daily Emissions, g/mi 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.20 3.76 0.25 0.99 0.07 1.55 Derivation of Emission Rates for Sources: Ramp #6 (Seg 5 NB on from Olive Ave.) Ramp width, one way 40.0 feet 12.2 m 1 lane
Each direction segment at 262.5 feet long 80 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 1.2 3.78 0.26 1.07 0.07 1.75
lbs/hour/segment 0.000006 0.00002 0.000001 0.000005 0.0000003 0.00001 lbs/day/segment 0.0001 0.0004 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0002 lbs/year/segment *** 0.049937 0.151188 0.010222 0.042818 0.002623 0.070114 Speciation Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014).

Emissions
Emissions Calculations - Ramp #6 (Seg 5 NB on from Olive Ave.) Truck Diesel Vehicles Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Speciation Factors Based on Proportion In TOG Analysis Year
Diesel Non-Diesel
Hot Stabilized Exhaust Hot Stabilized Exhaust
ATTACHMENT 10 -499
AADT AADT per direction Caltrans Truck % Number daily trucks Diesel Truck * Gas Truck * LD Vehicles LD Diesel ** All Gas 3,880 3,880 6.93% 269 29 240 3,611 30 3,821
Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2014 Ramp AADT and Truck Traffic 2017 (Percentage from I-110 south of I-10) * "Translation Factors" (the fractions below identify % of trucks that are diesel-powered; they translate Caltrans truck data into an estimate of diesel vehicles) Diesel Proportion: 10.9%
Non-Diesel Proportion: 89.1%
Source: Portion of Diesel Truck Vehicles vs. Non-Diesel Truck Vehicles based on EMFAC2021 aggregate VMT All Gas Vehicles
Speed
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
(miles/hour) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) 35 0.0104 0.0441 0.0068 0.0185 0.0164
Source: EMFAC2021 Emissions Database
benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde 2029 0.007320 0.002292 0.034383 0.006088 0.082668 0.034539 0.002295 0.009056 0.000602 0.014238 Total Daily Emissions, g/mi 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.15 2.16 0.14 0.57 0.04 0.89 Derivation of Emission Rates for Sources: Ramp #7 (Seg 5 NB off to Verdugo Ave.) Ramp width, one way 39.4 feet 12 m 1 lane
Each direction segment at 328.1 feet long 100 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 0.5 2.18 0.15 0.63 0.04 1.04
lbs/hour/segment 0.000003 0.00001 0.0000008 0.000004 0.0000002 0.000006 lbs/day/segment 0.0001 0.0003 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 lbs/year/segment *** 0.025379 0.108755 0.007392 0.031499 0.001884 0.052147 Speciation Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014).

Emissions
Emissions Calculations - Ramp #7 (Seg 5 SB off to Verdugo Ave.) Truck Diesel Vehicles Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Speciation Factors Based on Proportion In TOG Analysis Year
Diesel Non-Diesel
Hot Stabilized Exhaust Hot Stabilized Exhaust
ATTACHMENT 10 -500
AADT AADT per direction Caltrans Truck % Number daily trucks Diesel Truck * Gas Truck * LD Vehicles LD Diesel ** All Gas 8,619 8,619 6.93% 597 65 532 8,022 67 8,487
Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2014 Ramp AADT and Truck Traffic 2017 (Percentage from I-110 south of I-10) * "Translation Factors" (the fractions below identify % of trucks that are diesel-powered; they translate Caltrans truck data into an estimate of diesel vehicles) Diesel Proportion: 10.9%
Non-Diesel Proportion: 89.1%
Source: Portion of Diesel Truck Vehicles vs. Non-Diesel Truck Vehicles based on EMFAC2021 aggregate VMT All Gas Vehicles
Speed
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
(miles/hour) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) 50 0.0133 0.0248 0.0057 0.0124 0.0128
Source: EMFAC2021 Emissions Database
benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde 2029 0.007320 0.002292 0.034383 0.006088 0.082668 0.034539 0.002295 0.009056 0.000602 0.014238 Total Daily Emissions, g/mi 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.20 3.76 0.25 0.99 0.07 1.55 Derivation of Emission Rates for Sources: Ramp #8 (Seg 5 NB on from Verdugo Ave.) Ramp width, one way 49.5 feet 15.1 m 1 lane
Each direction segment at 98.4 feet long 30 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 1.2 3.78 0.26 1.07 0.07 1.75
lbs/hour/segment 0.000002 0.000006 0.0000004 0.000002 0.0000001 0.000003 lbs/day/segment 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 lbs/year/segment *** 0.018726 0.056695 0.003833 0.016057 0.000984 0.026293 Speciation Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014).

Emissions
Emissions Calculations - Ramp #8 (Seg 5 SB on from Verdugo Ave.) Truck Diesel Vehicles Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Speciation Factors Based on Proportion In TOG Analysis Year
Diesel Non-Diesel
Hot Stabilized Exhaust Hot Stabilized Exhaust
ATTACHMENT 10 -501
AADT AADT per direction Caltrans Truck % Number daily trucks Diesel Truck * Gas Truck * LD Vehicles LD Diesel ** All Gas 10,913 10,913 6.93% 756 83 673 10,157 85 10,745
Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2014 Ramp AADT and Truck Traffic 2017 (Percentage from I-110 south of I-10) * "Translation Factors" (the fractions below identify % of trucks that are diesel-powered; they translate Caltrans truck data into an estimate of diesel vehicles) Diesel Proportion: 10.9%
Non-Diesel Proportion: 89.1%
Source: Portion of Diesel Truck Vehicles vs. Non-Diesel Truck Vehicles based on EMFAC2021 aggregate VMT All Gas Vehicles
Speed
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
(miles/hour) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) 35 0.0104 0.0441 0.0068 0.0185 0.0164
Source: EMFAC2021 Emissions Database
benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde 2029 0.007320 0.002292 0.034383 0.006088 0.082668 0.034539 0.002295 0.009056 0.000602 0.014238 Total Daily Emissions, g/mi 0.04 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.43 6.08 0.40 1.59 0.11 2.51 Derivation of Emission Rates for Sources: Ramp #9 (Seg 5 NB off to Olive Ave.) Ramp width, one way 33.8 feet 10.3 m 1 lane
Each direction segment at 98.4 feet long 30 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 1.4 6.12 0.42 1.77 0.11 2.94
lbs/hour/segment 0.000002 0.00001 0.0000007 0.000003 0.0000002 0.000005 lbs/day/segment 0.0001 0.0003 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 lbs/year/segment *** 0.021639 0.091761 0.006239 0.026608 0.001590 0.044075 Speciation Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014).

Emissions
Emissions Calculations - Ramp #9 (Seg 5 NB off to Olive Ave.) Truck Diesel Vehicles Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Speciation Factors Based on Proportion In TOG Analysis Year
Diesel Non-Diesel
Hot Stabilized Exhaust Hot Stabilized Exhaust
ATTACHMENT 10 -502
AADT AADT per direction Caltrans Truck % Number daily trucks Diesel Truck * Gas Truck * LD Vehicles LD Diesel ** All Gas 1,001 1,001 6.93% 69 18 51 932 8 975
Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2014 Ramp AADT and Truck Traffic 2017 (Percentage from I-110 south of I-10) * "Translation Factors" (the fractions below identify % of trucks that are diesel-powered; they translate Caltrans truck data into an estimate of diesel vehicles) Diesel Proportion: 25.8%
Non-Diesel Proportion: 74.2%
Source: Portion of Diesel Truck Vehicles vs. Non-Diesel Truck Vehicles based on EMFAC2021 aggregate VMT All Gas Vehicles
Speed
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
(miles/hour) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) 50 0.0133 0.0248 0.0057 0.0124 0.0128
Source: EMFAC2021 Emissions Database
benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde 2029 0.007320 0.002292 0.034383 0.006088 0.082668 0.034539 0.002295 0.009056 0.000602 0.014238 Total Daily Emissions, g/mi 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.43 0.03 0.11 0.01 0.18 Derivation of Emission Rates for Sources: Ramp #10 (Seg 134 WB on from W Alameda Dr.) Ramp width, one way 60.7 feet 18.5 m 2 lanes
Each direction segment at 98.4 feet long 30 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 0.3 0.44 0.03 0.13 0.01 0.22
lbs/hour/segment 0.0000005 0.000001 0.00000005 0.0000002 0.00000001 0.0000004 lbs/day/segment 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 lbs/year/segment *** 0.004266 0.006543 0.000449 0.001980 0.000113 0.003346 Speciation Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014).

Emissions
Emissions Calculations - Ramp #10 (Seg 134 WB on from W Alameda Dr.) Truck Diesel Vehicles Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Speciation Factors Based on Proportion In TOG Analysis Year
Diesel Non-Diesel
Hot Stabilized Exhaust Hot Stabilized Exhaust
ATTACHMENT 10 -503
AADT AADT per direction Caltrans Truck % Number daily trucks Diesel Truck * Gas Truck * LD Vehicles LD Diesel ** All Gas 7,821 7,821 6.93% 542 140 402 7,279 61 7,620
Source: Caltrans Traffic Data Branch, 2014 Ramp AADT and Truck Traffic 2017 (Percentage from I-110 south of I-10) * "Translation Factors" (the fractions below identify % of trucks that are diesel-powered; they translate Caltrans truck data into an estimate of diesel vehicles) Diesel Proportion: 25.8%
Non-Diesel Proportion: 74.2%
Source: Portion of Diesel Truck Vehicles vs. Non-Diesel Truck Vehicles based on EMFAC2021 aggregate VMT All Gas Vehicles
Speed
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized exhaust
PM
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
hot stabilized
exhaust TOG
(miles/hour) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) (grams/mile) 50 0.0133 0.0248 0.0057 0.0124 0.0128
Source: EMFAC2021 Emissions Database
benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde benzene 1,3-butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde 2029 0.007320 0.002292 0.034383 0.006088 0.082668 0.034539 0.002295 0.009056 0.000602 0.014238 Total Daily Emissions, g/mi 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.35 3.38 0.22 0.89 0.06 1.39 Derivation of Emission Rates for Sources: Ramp #11 (Seg 134 EB on from Riverside Dr.) Ramp width, one way 45.9 feet 14 m 1 lane
Each direction segment at 98.4 feet long 30 m
Diesel PM Benzene 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Formaldehyde grams/mi/day ** 2.2 3.41 0.23 1.03 0.06 1.74
lbs/hour/segment 0.000004 0.000006 0.0000004 0.000002 0.0000001 0.000003 lbs/day/segment 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 lbs/year/segment *** 0.033203 0.051128 0.003512 0.015465 0.000883 0.026127 Speciation Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES2014).

Emissions
Emissions Calculations - Ramp #11 (Seg 134 EB on from Riverside Dr.) Truck Diesel Vehicles Light Duty Diesel Vehicles
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) Speciation Factors Based on Proportion In TOG Analysis Year
Diesel Non-Diesel
Hot Stabilized Exhaust Hot Stabilized Exhaust
ATTACHMENT 10 -504
Appendix E
Transportation Assessment
ATTACHMENT 10 -505

Burbank Housing Element Update
Transportation Assessment

Prepared for:

City of Burbank

November 8, 2021

LA20-3200

ATTACHMENT 10 -506
Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Study Scope ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5

1.2 Organization of Report ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Transportation Environmental Setting ................................................................................... 7

2.1 Existing Street and Highway System ............................................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Existing Transit System ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 8

3. Future Analysis Scenarios ....................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Housing Element Update Project .................................................................................................................................11

3.2 Baseline (2021) Scenario ..................................................................................................................................................11

3.3 Future With Project (2029) Scenario ...........................................................................................................................11

4. Transportation Impact Analysis ............................................................................................. 14

4.1 Background on VMT ..........................................................................................................................................................14

4.2 VMT Significance Thresholds .........................................................................................................................................14

4.2.1 Threshold 1: VMT per Capita ..............................................................................................................................15

4.2.2 Threshold 2: VMT per Employee .......................................................................................................................15

4.2.3 Threshold 3: Total VMT per Service Population..........................................................................................15

4.3 VMT Calculation Methodology and Estimation ......................................................................................................15

4.4 Project VMT Impact Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................16

4.4.1 Project Comparison to Significance Thresholds .........................................................................................16

4.5 Mitigation Measures ..........................................................................................................................................................18

4.6 Plans, Programs, Ordinances, and Policies and Hazards Review .....................................................................18

4.6.1 Geometric Design Hazards ..................................................................................................................................19

4.6.2 Emergency Access ..................................................................................................................................................19

4.6.3 Transit System Project Impacts..........................................................................................................................19

4.6.4 Bicycle Network Project Impacts .......................................................................................................................21

4.6.5 Pedestrian Network Project Impacts ...............................................................................................................22

5. Project Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 23

5.1 Impact Analysis of Project Alternatives ......................................................................................................................23

6. Non-CEQA Local Transportation Assessment ...................................................................... 25

6.1 Study Intersections .............................................................................................................................................................25 ATTACHMENT 10 -507

6.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and Level of Service..........................................................................................................26

6.2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................................................26

6.2.2 Level of Service Methodology ...........................................................................................................................26

6.2.3 Existing (2019) Levels of Service .......................................................................................................................26

6.3 Project Traffic ........................................................................................................................................................................32

6.4 Future (2029) With Project Traffic Level of Service ................................................................................................32 References .................................................................................................................................... 33

ATTACHMENT 10 -508
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Existing Roadway Network .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2 – Burbank2035 Future (Top Priority) Bikeway Network.................................................................................... 10 Figure 3 – Future (2029) With Project Change in Households........................................................................................ 12 Figure 4 – Future (2029) With Project Change in Employment ...................................................................................... 13 Figure 5 – Study Intersections ...................................................................................................................................................... 28 List of Tables
Table 1 – Future (2029) Land Use and Population Assumptions .................................................................................... 11 Table 2 – Burbank Housing Element Update Summary of Vehicle Miles Traveled ................................................. 17 Table 3 – Summary of Impacts for Project Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 24 Table 4 - HCM Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections .................................................................... 29 Table 5 – Existing (2019) and Future (2029) With Project Intersection Levels of Service ..................................... 30 ATTACHMENT 10 -509
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
5 1. Introduction
This study was completed in support of the 2021 Housing Element Update for the City of Burbank. This transportation assessment provides the background and analysis to inform the City-required Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for consideration of the Housing Element Update. This transportation assessment is not a general analysis of transportation in Burbank. It is a project-specific assessment performed in compliance with the rules and regulations of CEQA and the City of Burbank.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has established that the 6th Cycle of the Housing Element for jurisdictions in the Southern California (SCAG) region will plan for the period of October 15, 2021 – October 15, 2029. The City must demonstrate that it has the policies and strategies as well as the land capacity necessary to meet the City’s housing needs. The proposed update to the Burbank Housing Element (Project) has been prepared in response to the State’s requirements. As part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City has prepared a Suitable Sites Inventory (SSI) which identifies potential sites that could be redeveloped with housing. A detailed land use analysis based on existing land use throughout the City, current development activity, adopted plans, and the SSI was conducted by City staff. Land use data for the 2029 With Project scenario was provided by the City for use in this study.

This report describes the City’s existing transportation and circulation system and mobility options, describes where housing can potentially be accommodated in the City per the Housing Element Update SSI, the assumptions and methodologies for the analysis, and the results of the transportation assessment.

1.1 Study Scope
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City transportation assessment requirements, this study analyzes the Project’s effect on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the primary metric of assessing the potential for the Project to result in significant transportation impacts. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines was added by the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on December 28, 2018, and states that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the appropriate measure of transportation impacts for projects subject to CEQA. Section 15064.3(c) also states that the provisions of this section shall apply prospectively (i.e., only applicable to new projects after the date of adoption) and must be implemented statewide by July 1, 2020. Since the City of Burbank has not yet adopted its own VMT metrics and thresholds, this study is consistent with the approach provided in the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) and interim City guidance based on discussions with City staff.

Because Section 15064.3 requires that intersection level of service (LOS) cannot be used to assess the potential significance of transportation impacts under CEQA, the intersection LOS contained in this report is provided as a local transportation assessment outside of the CEQA process to aid the community and decisionmakers in understanding the Project’s potential effect on the City’s roadway system.

ATTACHMENT 10 -510
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
6 As required by State CEQA guidance, a programmatic and qualitative assessment of the potential for the Project to increase hazards due to a geometric design feature, inadequate emergency access or inconsistency with plans, programs, ordinances, and policies is also included. This study also assesses the potential for transportation impacts of one alternative to the proposed Project.

1.2 Organization of Report
This report is divided into five chapters, including this introduction. Chapter 2 – Transportation Environmental Setting describes the existing transportation system and mobility options in Burbank (including the roadway network, public transit, bicycle/pedestrian facilities). Chapter 3 – Future Analysis Scenarios describes the scenarios analyzed for this Project. Chapter 4 – Transportation Impact Analysis provides the VMT impact analysis, identifies potential mitigation measures and presents other CEQA- required transportation analyses conducted for the Project. Chapter 5 – Local Transportation Assessment provides the local roadway intersection LOS analysis conducted for the Project. Appendices contain supporting technical documentation and data.

ATTACHMENT 10 -511
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
7 2. Transportation Environmental
Setting
This section describes the existing and future (2029) transportation environmental setting for the City of Burbank. The transportation environmental setting includes the existing transportation network, including automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and planned and funded transportation improvements.

2.1 Existing Street and Highway System
The roadway network serving the City consists of the roadway classifications listed below. The functional classification of streets, as defined in the Mobility Element of the Burbank General Plan, is illustrated in Figure 1.
 Freeways are major regional connectors designed to accommodate longer, regional trips with limited local access. The freeway system in the City of Burbank is owned and operated by Caltrans and is limited to Interstate 5 and State Route 134.
 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.

2.2 Existing Transit System
Transit service is provided by multiple transit operators, including LA Metro, Burbank Bus, and Metrolink:
 LA Metro is the primary transit operator in Los Angeles County, providing bus, light rail, and subway services. LA Metro provides Rapid, Express and Local bus lines within the City of Burbank.

Headways for Rapid buses are typically 10 minutes during peak hours, and 20 minutes during off- peak times. Express buses operate during peak commute hours only.  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 Bob Hope Airport.

ATTACHMENT 10 -512
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
8  Metrolink provides commuter rail service throughout the greater Southern California 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.

2.3 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The City’s commitment to providing safe and comfortable bicycle infrastructure is laid out in the City of Burbank Bicycle Master Plan (City of Burbank, 2009).

Bicycle infrastructure in the City includes a network of on-street bicycle lanes and routes, as well as off- street paths, intended to increase access to citywide destinations, cyclist safety and citywide ridership. The bicycle network in the City is made up of the following facility types:
 Class I Bike Paths provide a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use by people walking and biking.
 Class II Bike Lanes are striped lanes that provide dedicated space for people biking on the roadway adjacent to auto and bus traffic.
 Class III Bike Routes are shared-use roadways where autos and bikes mix in the travel lane.

The City’s bicycle network is mainly comprised of Class II and Class III facilities. The primary Class I facility in the City is the Chandler Bikeway. The network of existing and planned bicycle facilities in the City is shown in Figure 2.

Pedestrian infrastructure includes a nearly citywide network of sidewalks and marked crosswalks that improve the safety, comfort and visibility of people walking. Pedestrian facilities in the City include sidewalks, crosswalks, and multi-use paths.

ATTACHMENT 10 -513
N:\Jobs\Active\3200s\3200_Burbank Housing & Safety EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Circulation.mxd Existing Roadway Network
Figure 1
Source: Burbank 2035 General Plan
ATTACHMENT 10 -514
N:\Jobs\Active\3200s\3200_Burbank Housing & Safety EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\BikewayNetwork.mxd Burbank2035 Future (Top Priority) Bikeway Network
Figure 2
Source: Burbank 2035 General Plan
ATTACHMENT 10 -515
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
11 3. Future Analysis Scenarios

3.1 Housing Element Update Project
The proposed Housing Element lays out the strategic plan for the development of housing to meet the City’s state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). This transportation study analyzes an increase in population of 21,103 and an increase in employment of 12,420 resulting from the Project’s increase of 10,456 households and supporting commercial space.

3.2 Baseline (2021) Scenario
For this study, a Baseline (2021) scenario was created1 and modeled using the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS SCAG travel demand model2. The land use and socio-economic data in the 2016 base year model was updated to represent the Baseline (2021) scenario using a straight-line interpolation of the forecasted population and employment growth between the 2016 base year and the 2040 horizon year from the SCAG model.

3.3 Future With Project (2029) Scenario
Table 1 presents the land use and socio-economic assumptions for the Future With Project (2029) scenario that was provided by the City for use in this study. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the projected changes in households and commercial space across the City under the Future With Project scenario relative to the Baseline scenario.

Table 1 – Future (2029) Land Use and Population Assumptions Category Baseline Future
With Project
Percent Change
from Baseline
Population 108,347 129,450 19%
Employment 119,073 131,493 10%
Total Households 44,471 53,028 19%
Source: 2016-2040 RTP/SCS SCAG Model, Fehr & Peers, 2021.

1 Household growth for the Housing Element project was determined in consultation with City staff and is based on a linear interpolation of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS SCAG model socioeconomic data between the 2016 base year model scenario and the 2040 horizon year model scenario. The household growth the City attributed to the 2016-2029 period was 10,456 households. For CEQA compliance, the VMT analysis is required to adjust the baseline to the year of the NOP release, in this case 2021. Therefore, the household growth for the 2021-2029 period, adjusted using the linear interpolation approach, is 8,557 households.
2 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 -516
Wildwood
Canyon Park
City of Burbank
OS Mtn. Reserve
Verdugo
Mtn. Park
Griffith Park
Henderson
Canyon OS
La Tuna
Canyon Park
Stough
Canyon
Nature Ctr.

Stough
Canyon Park

BURBANK GLENDALE

LOS ANGELES
3101
Moorpark Street
Cohasset Street
Magnolia Boulevard
Burbank Boulevard
Lankershim
Bl
Victory Boulevard
San Fernando Bl
Camarillo St
Victory Boulevard
Oxnard St
SanFernandoBoulevard
Vanowen Street
RiversideDrive
Riverside Drive
Clybourn Avenue
Front Street
Empire Av
Orange Grove Av
West M agnolia Boulevard
North Pass Av WestOliveAvenue
Sonora Avenue
Cahuenga Boulevard
Victory Place
Magnolia Boulevard
Sherm an Wy
West Alameda Avenue
North Buena Vista Street
OliveAv
Campo De Cahuenga
Roscoe Boulevard
Western Avenue
Winona Avenue
Main StVerdugo Av
Forest Lawn Dr
Hollywood Wy
Bob Hope Drive
Clyborne Avenue
Zoo Drive
Glenoaks BoulevardBuena Vista Street
South Victory Bl
West Verdugo Avenue
North Hollywood Wy
Glenoaks Boulevard
Saticoy Street
San Fernando Road
Vineland Avenue
Victory Bl
Strathern Street
Vineland Av
Glenoaks Boulevard
Barham
Bl
Flower Street
Olive Avenue
Scott Rd
ZooDriveNorth
South Lake Street
North California Street
Ledge Av
West Chandler Boulevard South
·134
!"5
1 1
6 62
33 3
12 3
27 69
328
31 621
17 319
123
30 54
28 9
3 15
1457
407
158
8 3
477
1 288
410
2249
6 9
11 17
107
9 138
4 21
87 5
68 91
1 14
119
83 253
20 482
29 277
24 95
N:\Jobs\Active\3200s\3200_Burbank Housing & Safety EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Change_HH.mxd Future (2029) with Project Change in Households
0 1 - 10
10 - 25
25 - 50
50 - 75
75 - 100
100 - 200
200 - 500
500+
Figure 3
Net Change in Households
ATTACHMENT 10 -517
Wildwood
Canyon Park
City of Burbank
OS Mtn. Reserve
Verdugo
Mtn. Park
Griffith Park
Henderson
Canyon OS
La Tuna
Canyon Park
Stough
Canyon
Nature Ctr.

Stough
Canyon Park

BURBANK

GLENDALE

LOS ANGELES
3101
Moorpark Street
GlenoaksBoulevard
Cohasset Street
Magnolia Boulevard
Burbank Boulevard
Lankershim
Bl
Victory Boulevard
San Fernando Bl
Camarillo St
Victory Boulevard
Oxnard St
SanFernandoBoulevard
Vanowen Street
RiversideDrive
FirstStreet
Riverside Drive
Clybourn Avenue FrontSt
Empire Av
Orange Grove Avenue
West M agnolia Boulevard
North Pass Av WestOliveAv
Sonora Avenue
Cahuenga Boulevard
Victory Place
Magnolia Boulevard
Sherm an Wy
West Alameda Avenue
North Buena Vista Street
OliveAv
Campo De Cahuenga
Roscoe Boulevard
Western Avenue
Winona Avenue
Main StVerdugo Av
Cypress Av
Forest Lawn Dr
Hollywood Wy
Bob Hope Drive
Clyborne Avenue
Zoo Drive
Glenoaks BoulevardBuena Vista Street
South Victory Bl
West Verdugo Avenue
North Hollywood Wy
Saticoy Street
San Fernando Road
Vineland Avenue
Victory Bl
Strathern Street
Vineland Av
Glenoaks Boulevard
Barham
Bl
Flower Street
Olive Av
Scott Rd
ZooDriveNorth
South Lake Street
North California Street
Ledge Av
West Chandler Boulevard South
·134
!"5
1 106
940
55 400
54 113
650
676
769
500
319
181
810
34 204
278
417
94 2140
88 35803
689
1690
374
N:\Jobs\Active\3200s\3200_Burbank Housing & Safety EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Change_EMP .mxd Future (2029) with Project Change in Employment
0 1 - 10
10 - 50
50 - 100
100 - 250
250 - 500
500 - 750
750 - 1000
1000 - 2500
Figure 4
Net Change in Number of Employees
ATTACHMENT 10 -518
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
14 4. Transportation Impact Analysis
This chapter documents the transportation impact analysis conducted to determine the potential for the proposed Project, implementation of the Housing Element Update, to result in significant transportation impacts under CEQA. The methodologies and threshold criteria were determined in consultation with City staff and based on standard OPR guidance.

Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines was added by the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) on December 28, 2018, and states that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the appropriate measure of transportation impacts for projects subject to CEQA. Section 15064.3(c) also states that the provisions of the section shall apply prospectively (i.e., only applicable to new projects after the date of adoption) and must be implemented statewide by July 1, 2020. Since the City of Burbank has not yet adopted its own VMT metrics and thresholds, this study is consistent with the approach provided in the OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) and interim City guidance based on discussions with City staff. The analytical methods and significance thresholds, which are outlined as follows, are applied to the proposed Project. As required by CEQA, the potential for the Project to result in significant transportation impacts related to geometric design features, inadequate emergency access or inconsistency with plans, programs, ordinances, and policies was also assessed.

4.1 Background on VMT
VMT measures the cumulative distance of automobile travel, considering the origin and destination of a particular trip. Typically, development located at a greater distance from other land uses and in areas without transit and active transportation options generates more VMT than development near other land uses with more robust transportation options. As noted by OPR, mitigation to reduce VMT can include designing projects with a mix of uses, building transportation demand management (TDM) features into the project, locating the project in neighborhoods that have transit or active transportation opportunities, or contributing to the creation of such opportunities. Since VMT is sensitive to regional location, it can also be mitigated by choosing a more central location for the project. Used as a transportation metric under CEQA, VMT can encourage reductions in motor vehicle travel, increases in transit and active transportation use, and increase infill development opportunities.

For many years, VMT information has been utilized to help measure other CEQA impacts, including air quality and greenhouse gas emissions for individual projects. This is the first long-range plan analyzed by the City since the adoption of new VMT-based CEQA transportation impact methods and metrics in 2020.

4.2 VMT Significance Thresholds
City staff have determined a set of three VMT significance thresholds to apply to the Project, consistent with standard OPR guidance.

ATTACHMENT 10 -519
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
15 4.2.1 Threshold 1: VMT per Capita
The Project’s VMT per capita must not exceed 15 percent below the baseline regional average VMT per capita. The baseline regional average VMT per capita is calculated using the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS SCAG model, interpolated to the baseline year (2021).

4.2.2 Threshold 2: VMT per Employee
The Project’s VMT per employee must not exceed 15 percent below the baseline regional average VMT per employee. The baseline regional average VMT per employee is calculated using the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS SCAG model, interpolated to the baseline year (2021).

4.2.3 Threshold 3: Total VMT per Service Population
The Project’s total VMT per service population3 must not exceed 15 percent below the baseline regional average total VMT per service population. The baseline regional average total VMT per service population is calculated using the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS SCAG model, interpolated to the baseline year (2021).

If the Project exceeds any of these thresholds it is considered to have a significant transportation impact on the environment. City staff decided to include all three thresholds to provide a comprehensive understanding of potential VMT impacts caused by the Project.

4.3 VMT Calculation Methodology and Estimation
The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS SCAG model is calibrated to represent trip generation by various land use types, traffic volumes on local roadways, trip lengths, and the overall distribution and origin-destination patterns for the various trip purposes in the region. The SCAG model is the best available tool to estimate VMT for the current study. The model represents the following trip purposes:
 Residential trips generated by residential units (Home-based trips)  Employee trips generated by residential units (Home-based work trips)  Non-residential trips generated at other places beside home and work (Non-home-based trips) Each of the above trip purposes have specific trip lengths, trip distribution and time-of-day patterns.

Given the significant increase in housing supply in the City under the Future With Project scenario, the proportion of commute trips from Burbank residents to Burbank job locations (i.e., internal trips) increased compared to the Baseline scenario. The Future With Project scenario also includes a 7% reduction in single occupant vehicle commute trips to reflect various transportation demand management policies planned within the SCAG region and City.

3 Total VMT includes all resident and employee VMT plus other trip types including visitor and freight trips. Service population is the combined total of resident population and employees within a defined area.

ATTACHMENT 10 -520
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
16 4.4 Project VMT Impact Analysis

4.4.1 Project Comparison to Significance Thresholds
Based on the most recent data available from the SCAG model, the baseline regional average daily residential VMT per capita is 14.9, the baseline regional average daily work VMT per employee is 18.1, and the baseline regional total daily VMT per service population is 34.5. Therefore, these are the current thresholds applied to the Project.

Table 2 presents results from the SCAG model run for the Project for the Baseline (2021) and Future (2029) With Project scenarios. Under Future With Project conditions, the future City population of 129,450 is estimated to produce a total of 147,932 daily trips and 1,187,371 daily residential VMT, with an average of 9.2 miles per capita. The 131,493 future employees in the City are estimated to generate a total of 142,510 commute trips and 2,198,215 commute VMT, with an average of 16.7 miles per employee. The total 260,943 service population in the City is estimated to generate a total of 788,283 trips and 8,737,133 total trips, with an average of 33.5 miles per service population. Thus, the Project’s daily VMT per capita would not exceed the City’s VMT Significance Threshold 1. However, the Project’s daily VMT per employee and total daily VMT per service population would exceed the City’s VMT Significance Thresholds 2 and 3, respectively.

ATTACHMENT 10 -521
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
17 Table 2 – Burbank Housing Element Update Summary of Vehicle Miles Traveled VMT Metrics Regional
Baseline (2021)
Future (2029)
With Project Alternative 2
Socio-
Economic
Data (SED)
Population 19,544,863 129,450 149,239
Employment 8,202,739 131,493 131,493
Service Population 27,747,602 260,943 280,732
Vehicle Trips
(VT)
Total Vehicle Trips (includes Auto and Trucks) 83,351,242 788,283 811,746 Home-Based Vehicle Trips (Production) 26,889,647 147,932 161,512 Home-Based Work Vehicle Trips (Attraction) 9,530,040 142,510 142,260 Total Vehicle Trips per Service Population 3.0 3.0 2.9
Home-Based Vehicle Trips per Capita 1.4 1.1 1.1
Home-Based Work Vehicle Trips per Employee 1.2 1.1 1.1
Average
Trip Length
Average Trip Length (Total Trip) 11.5 11.1 11.0
Average Trip Length (Home-Based Trip
Production) 10.9 8.0 8.0
Average Trip Length (Home-Based Work Trip
Attraction) 15.5 15.4 15.3
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
(VMT)
Total VMT (includes Auto and Trucks) 957,259,947 8,737,133 8,896,566 Home-Based VMT (Production) 291,776,899 1,187,371 1,292,861 Home-Based Work VMT (Attraction) 148,170,588 2,198,215 2,169,489 Total VMT per Service Population 34.5 33.5 31.7
Home-Based VMT per Capita 14.9 9.2 8.7
Home-Based Work VMT per Employee 18.1 16.7 16.5
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.

ATTACHMENT 10 -522
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
18 4.5 Mitigation Measures
Potential mitigation measures to reduce the average VMT per employee and average total VMT per service population significant impacts include the following:
 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
Additionally, the City may evaluate the feasibility of a local or regional VMT impact bank or exchange.

Such an offset program, if determined feasible, would be administered by the City or a regional agency, and would offer demonstrated VMT reduction strategies through transportation demand management programs, impact fee programs, mitigation banks or exchange programs, in-lieu fee programs, or other land use project conditions that reduce VMT in a manner consistent with state guidance on VMT reduction. If, through land use changes, a subject project cannot demonstrate consistency with state guidance on VMT reduction, the project can contribute on a pro-rata basis to a local or regional VMT reduction bank or exchange, as necessary, to reduce net VMT impacts.

However, these potential mitigation measures to reduce the significant impact are generally beyond the scope of the Housing Element Update. For example, average VMT per employee could be reduced by enacting transportation demand management (TDM) measures or participation in a VMT reduction bank or exchange at employer locations, but enacting TDM measures or a VMT reduction program at employer locations falls beyond the scope of the Housing Element. Similarly, average total VMT per service population could be reduced by changing visitor trip behavior to and from the Bob Hope Airport or freight trips throughout the City, but airport operations and freight distribution also fall beyond the scope of the Housing Element. Therefore, feasible measures do not exist to mitigate average VMT per employee and average total VMT per service population and the VMT impact for the Housing Element is significant and unavoidable.

4.6 Plans, Programs, Ordinances, and Policies and Hazards Review The purpose of this section is to determine the potential for an increase of hazards due to a geometric design feature, emergency access, and whether the Project conflicts with a transportation-related City plan, ordinance, or policy that was adopted to protect the environment. A project would not be shown to result in an impact merely based on whether a project would not implement an adopted plan, ordinance, or policy. Rather, it is the intention of this threshold test to ensure that proposed development does not conflict with nor preclude the City from implementing adopted plans, ordinances, or policies. This evaluation was conducted by reviewing City documents such as the Burbank2035 General Plan, the Citywide Complete Streets Plan, and municipal code sections.

ATTACHMENT 10 -523
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
19 4.6.1 Geometric Design Hazards

4.6.1.1 Threshold
Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

4.6.1.2 Impact Statement
Adoption of the Housing Element Update does not grant entitlements for any specific project or future development. All future developments would be reviewed by the appropriate City staff to ensure consistency with all applicable City design standards, including standards on driveway number, location, design, sight lines, and roadway modifications. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not result in increased hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use and the impact is less than significant and mitigation is not required.

4.6.2 Emergency Access

4.6.2.1 Threshold
Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?

4.6.2.2 Impact Statement
Adoption of the Housing Element Update does not grant entitlements for any specific project or future development. All future developments would be reviewed by the appropriate City staff to ensure consistency with all applicable City design standards. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not result in inadequate emergency access and the impact is less than significant and mitigation is not required.

4.6.3 Transit System Project Impacts

4.6.3.1 Disruptions to Existing Transit Service

4.6.3.1.1 Threshold
A significant impact would occur if a project or project-related mitigation disrupts existing transit services or facilities. This includes disruptions on transit streets caused by proposed project driveways, impacts to transit stops/shelters, and impacts to transit operations from traffic improvements proposed or resulting from a project.

4.6.3.1.2 Impact Statement
The Project is not anticipated to impact citywide transit circulation and the existing ADA-accessible sidewalks and curb ramps that provide access to bus stops will be maintained. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 10 -524
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
20 4.6.3.2 Interference with Planned Transit Services

4.6.3.2.1 Threshold
A significant impact occurs if a project interferes with planned transit services or facilities.

4.6.3.2.2 Impact Statement
Major planned transit improvements in the City include the California High Speed Rail Burbank Station, the North Hollywood to Pasadena bus rapid transit route, and increased Metrolink service. The Project will not prevent any of these improvements. Since there are no planned transit services that would be impacted by the development of the Project, the impact is less than significant.

4.6.3.3 Inconsistencies with Adopted Transit System Plans, Guidelines, Policies, or Standards

4.6.3.3.1 Threshold
A significant impact occurs if a project conflicts or creates inconsistencies with adopted transit system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

4.6.3.3.2 Impact Statement
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.  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 transit use by people of all ages and abilities and improve the experience for transit riders.

In addition, increased transit 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 the adopted transit system plans, guidelines, policies or standards. Also, by encouraging development on infill sites or development of existing parcels with greater density in ATTACHMENT 10 -525
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
21 high-resource areas around the city already service by public transit, the Project will improve residential transit access and possibly increase transit mode share. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

4.6.4 Bicycle Network Project Impacts

4.6.4.1 Disruptions to Existing Facilities

4.6.4.1.1 Threshold
A significant impact occurs if a project disrupts existing bicycle facilities.

4.6.4.1.2 Impact Statement
No Project features or physical mitigation measures have been proposed that would disrupt existing bicycle facilities. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

4.6.4.2 Interference with Planned Bicycle Facilities

4.6.4.2.1 Threshold
A significant impact occurs if a project interferes with planned bicycle facilities. This includes failure to dedicate rights-of-way for planned on- and off-street bicycle facilities included in an adopted bicycle specific plan or to contribute towards construction of planned bicycle facilities along the project frontage.

4.6.4.2.2 Impact Statement
The Project would not interfere with planned bicycle facilities. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

4.6.4.3 Conflicts with Adopted Bicycle Plans, Guidelines, Policies, or Standards

4.6.4.3.1 Threshold
A significant impact occurs if the project conflicts or creates inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

4.6.4.3.2 Impact Statement
The Citywide Complete Streets Plan and City of Burbank Bicycle Master Plan recognize the importance of bicycling as a viable means of transportation and provide prioritized recommendations for facilities and programs. The Project does not conflict with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. Also, by encouraging development on infill sites or development of existing parcels with greater density in high-resource areas around the city, the Project will facilitate the completion of household errands on bike, rather than in a car, which further supports state and local transportation- related climate and congestion goals. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 10 -526
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
22 4.6.5 Pedestrian Network Project Impacts

4.6.5.1 Disruptions to Existing Facilities

4.6.5.1.1 Threshold
A significant impact occurs if a project disrupts existing pedestrian facilities.

4.6.5.1.2 Impact Statement
No Project features or physical mitigation measures have been proposed that would disrupt existing pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

4.6.5.2 Interference with Planned Pedestrian Facilities

4.6.5.2.1 Threshold
A significant impact occurs if a project interferes with planned pedestrian facilities. In existing or planned urbanized areas, main streets, or pedestrian districts, this can include impacts to the quality of the walking environment.

4.6.5.2.2 Impact Statement
The Project would not interfere with planned pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.

4.6.5.3 Conflicts with Adopted Pedestrian Plans, Guidelines, Policies, or Standards

4.6.5.3.1 Threshold
A significant impact occurs if a project conflicts or creates inconsistencies with adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

4.6.5.3.2 Impact Statement
The Complete Streets Plan outlines policy goals for future pedestrian improvements. The plan sets goals to encourage walkability and improve pedestrian safety. The Project does not conflict with adopted pedestrian system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards. Also, by encouraging development on infill sites or development of existing parcels with greater density in high-resource areas around the city, the Project will facilitate the completion of household errands on 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.

ATTACHMENT 10 -527
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
23 5. Project Alternatives
Potential transportation impacts for the Project alternatives were evaluated as part of the study. As permitted under CEQA, Project alternatives were evaluated to a lesser level of detail than the proposed Project. A qualitative assessment of the first alternative to the Project was conducted to determine its potential VMT impacts as compared to the proposed Project. A quantitative assessment using the 2016- 2040 RTP/SCS SCAG model was conducted for the second alternative to the Project to determine its potential VMT impacts as compared to the proposed Project. The alternatives to the proposed Project are described below:
 Alternative 1 – No Project. The No Project Alternative assumes that the Housing Element Update is not implemented. Growth would continue to occur in accordance with adopted plans and regulations. By 2029, it is estimated that a total of approximately 3,500 new households would be added to the Baseline amount. This is less than half as many as are anticipated under the Project.  Alternative 2 – Adding More Housing. Alternative 2 would add an additional 8,144 households beyond what is proposed in the Project. The additional households would be dispersed proportionally citywide with the same distribution as the Project.

5.1 Impact Analysis of Project Alternatives
Alternative 1 assumes no additional housing growth beyond what is already expected in accordance with adopted plans and regulations. Since the baseline citywide average VMT per capita is already well under 15 percent below the baseline regional average VMT per capita, it is reasonable to expect that the No Project alternative, even with a smaller household increase, would also result in average VMT per capita for the City to be less than 15 percent below the baseline regional average VMT per capita. However, adding fewer houses than the Project would likely result in fewer internal trips and therefore it is reasonable to expect that the No Project alternative would result in average VMT per employee and average total VMT per service population for the City to be greater than the Project’s result for these metrics and by extension greater than 15 percent below the baseline regional averages for these metrics.

Therefore, Alternative 1 would still have two significant and unavoidable VMT impacts.

Alternative 2 was fully analyzed as part of this study and the results are presented above in Table 2. As shown, under Alternative 2 average VMT per capita would reduce further to 8.7, average VMT per employee would reduce further to 16.5, and average total VMT per service population would reduce further to 31.7. Since the results for Thresholds 2 and 3 are still greater than 15 percent below the baseline regional averages for these metrics, Alternative 2 would still have two significant and unavoidable VMT impacts.

The results of the VMT impact analysis for the proposed Project and alternatives is presented in Table 3.

ATTACHMENT 10 -528
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
24 Table 3 – Summary of Impacts for Project Alternatives Scenario Threshold Criteria 1
(VMT per Capita)
Threshold Criteria 2
(VMT per Employee)
Threshold Criteria 3
(Total VMT per Service
Population)
Proposed Project LTS SUI SUI
Alternative 1: No Project LTS SUI SUI
Alternative 2: Adding More Housing LTS SUI SUI
Notes: LTS = Less Than Significant Impa ct SUI = Significant an d Unavoidable Impact

ATTACHMENT 10 -529
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
25 6. Non‐CEQA Local Transportation
Assessment

6.1 Study Intersections
The same 35 study intersections selected for the most recent Burbank General Plan Update study have also been analyzed for the Project study. All 35 intersections are signalized in both the Existing and Future With Project scenarios and are illustrated in Figure 5.

The following 35 study intersections were identified in conjunction with the City of Burbank to be analyzed as part of the scope of work for this Project:

1. Winona Avenue & Hollywood Way

2. Thornton Avenue & Hollywood Way

3. Victory Boulevard & Hollywood Way

4. Burbank Boulevard & Hollywood Way

5. Magnolia Boulevard & Hollywood Way

6. Verdugo Avenue & Hollywood Way

7. Riverside Drive & Alameda Avenue

8. Pass Avenue & Alameda Avenue

9. Pass Avenue & Olive Avenue

10. Alameda Avenue & Hollywood Way

11. Riverside Drive & Hollywood Way

12. Olive Avenue & Hollywood Way

13. Olive Avenue & Riverside Drive

14. Olive Avenue & Alameda Avenue & Ontario Street

15. Gleanoaks Boulevard & Buena Vista Street

16. San Fernando Boulevard & Buena Vista Street

17. Empire Avenue & Buena Vista Street

18. Vanowen Street & Buena Vista Street

19. Victory Boulevard & Buena Vista Street

20. Burbank Boulevard & Buena Vista Street

21. Magnolia Boulevard & Buena Vista Street

22. Olive Avenue & Buena Vista Street

23. Alameda Avenue & Buena Vista Street

24. Riverside Drive & State Route 134 Ramps & Buena Vista Street

25. Burbank Boulevard & Victory Boulevard & Victory Place

26. Magnolia Boulevard & Victory Boulevard

27. Olive Avenue & Victory Boulevard
ATTACHMENT 10 -530
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
26 28. Alameda Avenue & Victory Boulevard

29. Burbank Boulevard & San Fernando Boulevard

30. Magnolia Boulevard & First Street

31. Olive Avenue & First Street

32. Alameda Avenue & San Fernando Boulevard

33. Magnolia Boulevard & Glenoaks Boulevard

34. Olive Avenue & Glenoaks Boulevard

35. Alameda Avenue & Glenoaks Boulevard

6.2 Existing Traffic Volumes and Level of Service
This section presents existing peak hour traffic volumes, describes the methodology used to assess the traffic conditions at each study intersection, and analyzes the resulting operating conditions at each, indicating seconds of delay and levels of service (LOS).

6.2.1 Existing Traffic Volumes
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has substantially affected local and regional travel patterns and traffic volumes, existing traffic counts could not be collected in the Baseline (2021) scenario year.

Therefore, previously collected traffic volumes from 2017-2019 were used. Counts were collected for each study intersection on a weekday during both AM and PM peak commute hours. Since most of the counts used were from 2019, a growth factor was applied to the 2017 and 2018 counts to represent an Existing (2019) scenario. The growth factor was applied using the same methodology as described in the Future With Project Traffic Volumes section.

6.2.2 Level of Service Methodology
Study intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition methodology.

The HCM, 6th Edition analysis methodology describes the operation of an intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A (free flow) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on a range of delay in seconds experienced per vehicle, as shown in Table 4. Signalized study intersections are considered adversely affected if the Project’s traffic results in a change in level of service from LOS D or better to LOS E or F.

6.2.3 Existing (2019) Levels of Service
Existing traffic volumes, included in the Appendix, were analyzed using the methodologies described above to determine the existing operating conditions at the study intersections. Table 5 summarizes the results of the analysis of the existing weekday AM and PM peak hour seconds of delay and corresponding LOS at each of the study intersections. Of the 35 study intersections, 26 operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours.

The following 9 study intersections are currently operating at poor levels of service, i.e., LOS E or F during one or both peak hours:

ATTACHMENT 10 -531
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
27 4. Burbank Boulevard & Hollywood Way (AM Peak Hour)

6. Verdugo Avenue & Hollywood Way (AM Peak Hour)

16. San Fernando Boulevard & Buena Vista Street (PM Peak Hour)

22. Olive Avenue & Buena Vista Street (AM Peak Hour)

24. Riverside Drive & State Route 134 Ramps & Buena Vista Street (AM & PM Peak Hours)

25. Burbank Boulevard & Victory Boulevard & Victory Place (PM Peak Hour)

26. Magnolia Boulevard & Victory Boulevard (PM Peak Hour)

27. Olive Avenue & Victory Boulevard (AM Peak Hour)

34. Olive Avenue & Glenoaks Boulevard (AM & PM Peak Hours) Detailed LOS results are provided in the Appendix.

ATTACHMENT 10 -532
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Wildwood
Canyon Park
City of Glendale
Verdugo Mtns. OS
City of Burbank
OS Mtn. Reserve
Brand
Canyon OS
Griffith Park

BURBANK

GLENDALE
LOS ANGELESMoorpark Street
Cohasset Street
Fulton Avenue
W
hitsettAvenue
LankershimBl
San Fernando Bl
Victory Boulevard
Whitsett Av
Oxnard Street
Burbank Boulevard
W Colorado Street
Vanowen St
Riverside Drive Brand Boulevard
Laurel Canyon Boulevard
Clybourn Avenue
ColfaxAv
Riverside Drive
Orange Grove Av
West M agnolia Bl
Sonora Avenue
SanFernandoRoadWest
Cahuenga Boulevard
Bellaire Av
Victory Place
Magnolia Bl
N Pacific Av
Tujunga Avenue
West Alameda Av
Roscoe Boulevard
Western Avenue
Winona Av
Main Street
Verdugo Avenue
Cypress Avenue
Hollywood Wy
Bob Hope Drive
Clyborne Avenue
Zoo Drive
Glenoaks Boulevard
Coldwater Canyon Avenue
FultonAvenue
SanFernandoBl
Victory Boulevard
N Central Avenue
San Fernando Road
Lankershim Boulevard
Vineland Avenue
Coldwater Canyon Av
Sherm an Wy
Vanowen St
Vineland Avenue
Glenoaks Bl
Ventura Bl
Roscoe Boulevard
Stra thern St
Flower Street
Saticoy Street
Magnolia Boulevard
W Broadway
Tujunga Avenue
Cha ndler Bouleva rd
N Brand Boulevard
Kittridge St
South Lake Street
Ethel Avenue
Ledge Avenue
West Chandler Boulevard South
1 2
3 4
5 6
10 14
23 22
21 87
9 121113
20 19
18 17
16 15
25 35
29 30
33 34
31 32
28 27
26 24
W:\Los Angeles N Drive\Jobs\Active\3200s\3200_Burbank Housing & Safety EIR\Graphics\GIS\MXD\StudyIntersections.mxd Study Intersections
City Boundary ! Analyzed Intersections Primary T ransit Stations Metrolink Figure 5
!
!
!!
!
!
! !
9 7
8 1311
12 14
10 ·134
North Pass Avenue
North California Street
Riverside Drive
Olive Avenue
ATTACHMENT 10 -533
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
29 Table 4 - HCM Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections LOS Description Signalized Delay
(Seconds)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. ≤ 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. > 10.0 to 20.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 to 35.0 D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 35.0 to 55.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
> 55.0 to 80.0
F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016).

ATTACHMENT 10 -534
Table 5 - Existing (2019) and Future (2029) With Project Intersection Levels of Service Delay LOS Delay LOS
AM 9 A 10 A
PM 25 C 33 C
AM 27 C 29 C
PM 26 C 27 C
AM 44 D 49 D
PM 42 D 46 D
AM 59 E 66 E
PM 45 D 48 D
AM 36 D 39 D
PM 37 D 41 D
AM 59 E 90 F
PM 44 D 53 D
AM 11 B 11 B
PM 20 B 21 C
AM 37 D 45 D
PM 43 D 52 D
AM 18 B 18 B
PM 23 C 24 C
AM 40 D 44 D
PM 48 D 57 E
AM 29 C 33 C
PM 31 C 36 D
AM 18 B 18 B
PM 18 B 20 B
AM 37 D 39 D
PM 35 D 38 D
AM 32 C 33 C
PM 38 D 40 D
AM 26 C 34 C
PM 20 B 21 C
AM 36 D 39 D
PM 70 E 87 F
AM 30 C 31 C
PM 37 D 40 D
AM 29 C 31 C
PM 30 C 33 C
AM 42 D 45 D
PM 41 D 46 D
AM 39 D 44 D
PM 37 D 39 D
AM 46 D 59 E
PM 44 D 51 D
AM 57 E 66 E
PM 52 D 55 D
Baseline 2019 2029 with Project
2 Thornton Ave & Hollywood Way
3 Victory Blvd & Hollywood Way
1 Winona Ave & Hollywood Way
# Study Intersection Peak Hour
4 Burbank Blvd & Hollywood Way
5 Magnolia Blvd & Hollywood Way
6 Hollywood Way & Verdugo Ave
7 Riverside Dr & Alameda Ave
8 Pass Ave & Alameda Ave
10 Alameda Ave & Hollywood Way
11 Hollywood Way & Riverside Dr
17 Buena Vista St & Empire Ave
19 Victory Blvd & Buena Vista St
12 Hollywood Way & Olive Ave
13 Riverside Dr & Olive Ave
15 Buena Vista St & Glenoaks Blvd
14 Alameda Ave & Ontario St & Olive Ave
18 Vanowen St/Driveway & Buena Vista St
9 Olive Ave & Pass Ave
22 Olive Ave & Buena Vista St
16 San Fernando Blvd & Buena Vista St
20 Burbank Blvd & Buena Vista St
21 Magnolia Blvd & Buena Vista St
ATTACHMENT 10 -535
AM 41 D 42 D
PM 48 D 50 D
AM 63 E 68 E
PM 63 E 74 E
AM 53 D 56 E
PM 59 E 61 E
AM 50 D 57 E
PM 85 F 98 F
AM 56 E 58 E
PM 42 D 43 D
AM 30 C 30 C
PM 37 D 41 D
AM 33 C 36 D
PM 30 C 31 C
AM 24 C 25 C
PM 30 C 36 D
AM 26 C 26 C
PM 33 C 34 C
AM 51 D 54 D
PM 48 D 52 D
AM 24 C 52 D
PM 26 C 34 C
AM 75 E 100 F
PM 99 F 117 F
AM 41 D 57 E
PM 39 D 46 D
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
31 Olive Ave & First St
32 Alameda Ave & San Fernando Blvd
28 Alameda Ave & Victory Blvd
29 Burbank Blvd & San Fernando Blvd
30 Magnolia Blvd & First St
23 Alameda Ave & Buena Vista St
26 Victory Blvd & Magnolia Blvd
34 Olive Ave & Glenoaks Blvd
35 Alameda Ave & Glenoaks Blvd
33 Magnolia Blvd & Glenoaks Blvd
27 Olive Ave & Victory Blvd
25 Burbank Blvd & Victory Blvd/Victory Pl
24 Riverside Dr & SR 134 Ramps/Buena Vista St & SR 134 WB On Ramp ATTACHMENT 10 -536
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
32 6.3 Project Traffic
As indicated in Chapter 3, the Project includes the addition of 21,103 residents and 12,420 employees to the City of Burbank by the year 2029. The same 2016-2040 RTP/SCS SCAG model run used to estimate the Project’s VMT was also utilized to estimate traffic growth at the 35 study intersections in the Future (2029) With Project scenario. Intersection growth rates for each of the study intersections was calculated using the SCAG model and applied to the Existing (2019) traffic volumes to estimate the Future (2029) With Project traffic volumes. The intersection growth rates for each study intersection are shown in the Appendix.

6.4 Future (2029) With Project Traffic Level of Service The resulting Future (2029) With Project peak hour traffic volumes were analyzed to determine the projected future operating conditions with the addition of the Project traffic. The results of the Future (2029) With Project analysis are also presented in Table 5 above. Of the 35 study intersections, 23 are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours under Future (2029) With Project conditions.

The following 12 intersections are projected to operate at poor levels of service, i.e., LOS E or F:

5. Burbank Boulevard & Hollywood Way (AM Peak Hour)

7. Verdugo Avenue & Hollywood Way (AM Peak Hour)

10. Alameda Avenue & Hollywood Way (PM Peak Hour)

17. San Fernando Boulevard & Buena Vista Street (PM Peak Hour)

21. Magnolia Boulevard & Buena Vista Street (AM Peak Hour)

22. Olive Avenue & Buena Vista Street (AM Peak Hour)

24. Riverside Drive & State Route 134 Ramps & Buena Vista Street (AM & PM Peak Hours)

25. Burbank Boulevard & Victory Boulevard & Victory Place (AM & PM Peak Hours)

26. Magnolia Boulevard & Victory Boulevard (AM & PM Peak Hours)

27. Olive Avenue & Victory Boulevard (AM Peak Hour)

34. Olive Avenue & Glenoaks Boulevard (AM & PM Peak Hours)

35. Alameda Avenue & Glenoaks Boulevard (AM Peak Hour)
Details of the analysis are included in the Appendix.

ATTACHMENT 10 -537
Burbank Housing Element Update | Transportation Assessment November 8, 2021
33 References
 Burbank2035 General Plan (City of Burbank, 2013)
 Burbank Citywide Complete Streets Plan (City of Burbank, 2020)  City of Burbank Bicycle Master Plan (City of Burbank, 2009)  Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, 2016)

ATTACHMENT 10 -538
APPENDIX:

Intersection
Growth Rates
ATTACHMENT 10 -539

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
1 ‐ Hollywood Way & Winona Avenue 2,409 2,878 2,732 3,309 323 431 13% 15% 2 ‐ Hollywood Way & Thornton Avenue 2,747 2,960 2,996 3,220 249 260 9% 9% 3 ‐ Hollywood Way & Victory Boulevard 3,682 4,394 3,956 4,812 274 418 7% 10% 4 ‐ Hollywood Way & Burbank Boulevard 3,094 3,665 3,267 4,006 173 341 6% 9% 5 ‐ Hollywood Way & Magnolia Boulevard 2,044 2,479 2,216 2,925 172 446 8% 18% 6 ‐ Hollywood Way & Verdugo Avenue 2,264 2,720 2,526 3,146 262 426 12% 16% 7 ‐ Riverside Drive & Alameda Avenue 1,786 2,134 2,003 2,550 217 416 12% 19% 8 ‐ Pass Avenue & Alameda Avenue 2,557 2,673 2,839 3,020 282 347 11% 13% 9 ‐ Pass Avenue & Olive Avenue 4,890 5,290 5,012 5,457 122 167 2% 3% 10 ‐ Hollywood Way & Alameda Avenue 4,467 4,885 4,867 5,605 400 720 9% 15% 11 ‐ Hollywood Way & Riverside Drive 2,384 2,464 2,576 3,028 192 564 8% 23% 12 ‐ Hollywood Way & Olive Avenue 3,206 3,539 3,230 3,689 24 150 1% 4% 13 ‐ Olive Avenue & Riverside Drive 2,821 3,347 3,113 3,839 292 492 10% 15% 14 ‐ Olive Avenue & Alameda Avenue 3,971 4,555 4,182 4,864 211 309 5% 7% 15 ‐ Buena Vista Street & Glenoaks Boulevard 1,363 1,510 1,529 1,687 166 177 12% 12% 16 ‐ Buena Vista Street & San Fernando Boulevard 3,257 3,878 3,453 4,237 196 359 6% 9% 17 ‐ Buena Vista Street & Empire Avenue 5,210 6,182 5,924 7,121 714 939 14% 15% 18 ‐ Buena Vista Street & Vanowen Street 2,848 2,989 3,223 3,454 375 465 13% 16% 19 ‐ Buena Vista Street & Victory Boulevard 4,024 4,550 4,338 5,016 314 466 8% 10% 20 ‐ Buena Vista Street & Burbank Boulevard 2,722 3,177 2,956 3,511 234 334 9% 11% 21 ‐ Buena Vista Street & Magnolia Boulevard 2,069 2,614 2,288 2,926 219 312 11% 12% 22 ‐ Buena Vista Street & Olive Avenue 2,738 3,273 3,002 3,604 264 331 10% 10% 23 ‐ Buena Vista Street & Alameda Avenue 3,186 3,370 3,331 3,522 145 152 5% 5% 24 ‐ Buena Vista Street/State Route 134 & Riverside Drive 1,936 1,798 2,064 1,948 128 150 7% 8% 25 ‐ Victory Boulevard/Victory Place & Burbank Boulevard 4,385 4,761 4,588 5,006 203 245 5% 5% 26 ‐ Victory Boulevard & Magnolia Boulevard 3,232 3,931 3,579 4,322 347 391 11% 10% 27 ‐ Victory Boulevard & Olive Avenue 3,004 3,666 3,092 3,893 88 227 3% 6% 28 ‐ Victory Boulevard & Alameda Avenue 3,474 4,401 3,794 4,892 320 491 9% 11% 29 ‐ San Fernando Boulevard & Burbank Boulevard 3,359 3,964 3,510 4,026 151 62 4% 2% 30 ‐ First Street & Magnolia Boulevard 1,998 2,441 2,373 2,911 375 470 19% 19% 31 ‐ First Street & Olive Avenue 2,391 2,545 2,398 2,734 7 189 0% 7% 32 ‐ San Fernando Boulevard & Alameda Avenue 2,924 3,952 3,448 4,494 524 542 18% 14% 33 ‐ Glenoaks Boulevard & Magnolia Boulevard 1,758 2,326 2,211 2,645 453 319 26% 14% 34 ‐ Glenoaks Boulevard & Olive Avenue 2,393 2,911 2,761 3,149 368 238 15% 8% 35 ‐ Glenoaks Boulevard & Alameda Avenue 3,277 4,086 3,743 4,498 466 412 14% 10% Total 9,250 12,758 9% 11%
Annual Growth Rate 0.7% 0.8%
Table: Growth Rate by Intersections
Intersections
Base Future with Project Model Model
Volume Volume Difference Ratio
ATTACHMENT 10 -540
APPENDIX:

Intersection Lane
Configurations and Turning
Movement Volumes
ATTACHMENT 10 -541
Existing (2019) Conditions
Traffic Volumes & Lane Configurations AM(PM)
Burbank Housing Element Update
FIGURE 1
29 (29)
857 (1,639)
82 (58)
0 (20)
0 (4)
20 (24)
20 (7)
1,853 (1,161)
210 (59)
35 (238)
1 (3)
35 (98)

1. Hollywood Way/Winona Ave
122 (134)
760 (1,317)
168 (122)
156 (222)
49 (28)
157 (122)
248 (117)
1,508 (1,085)
101 (48)
44 (148)
120 (112)
101 (162)

2. Hollywood Way/Thornton Ave
87 (161)
738 (935)
89 (92)
229 (230)
1,000 (806)
192 (93)
161 (315)
1,098 (809)
230 (191)
122 (151)
525 (935)
111 (102)

3. Hollywood Way/Victory Blvd
62 (107)
616 (1,005)
83 (104)
147 (180)
761 (694)
95 (27)
79 (137)
1,211 (718)
186 (127)
77 (106)
499 (767)
171 (151)

4. Hollywood Way/Burbank Blvd
76 (157)
492 (964)
102 (123)
130 (177)
670 (588)
131 (95)
152 (269)
1,375 (619)
206 (184)
84 (185)
370 (692)
124 (111)

5. Hollywood Way/Magnolia Blvd
24 (94)
470 (989)
59 (102)
141 (222)
574 (517)
163 (35)
117 (121)
1,302 (526)
92 (78)
64 (56)
264 (460)
192 (101)

6. Hollywood Way/Verdugo Ave
127 (763)
21 (8)
9 (26)
37 (2)
826 (551)
748 (349)
17 (31)
18 (16)
40 (36)
64 (21)
465 (936)
10 (12)

7. Riverside Dr/Alameda Ave
29 (113)
104 (352)
56 (34)
91 (139)
774 (474)
34 (12)
137 (188)
934 (381)
421 (236)
79 (145)
353 (661)
29 (39)

8. Pass Ave/Alameda Ave
Winona Ave
Hollywood Way
Victory Blvd
Hollywood Way
Burbank Blvd
Hollywood Way
Magnolia Blvd
Hollywood Way
Verdugo Ave
Hollywood Way
Alameda Ave
Riverside Dr
Alameda Ave
Pass Ave
190 (491)
1,494 (1,363)
743 (410)
89 (29)
36 (105)
1,435 (1,419)

9. Pass Ave/Olive Ave
Olive Ave
Pass Ave
57 (283)
233 (637)
49 (277)
72 (200)
648 (818)
141 (70)
520 (262)
1,289 (389)
186 (111)
257 (383)
853 (907)
154 (31)

10. Hollywood Way/Alameda Ave
Alameda Ave
Hollywood Way
10 (87)
214 (656)
5 (21)
44 (113)
441 (260)
128 (28)
408 (182)
737 (225)
378 (82)
80 (437)
156 (442)
12 (6)

11. Hollywood Way/Riverside Dr
14 (43)
13 (198)
13 (27)
200 (407)
1,053 (933)
80 (26)
455 (220)
201 (18)
76 (28)
62 (57)
1,024 (1,048)
55 (7)

12. Hollywood Way/Olive Ave
146 (309)
151 (633)
45 (68)
16 (47)
726 (856)
310 (127)
21 (16)
717 (268)
83 (72)
90 (188)
972 (772)
64 (24)

13. Riverside Dr/Olive Ave 14. Olive Ave/Alameda Ave
145 (224)
107 (177)
91 (94)
21 (26)
1,200 (827)
111 (128)
9 (11)
157 (98)
35 (20)
9 (22)
570 (813)
101 (105)

15. Buena Vista St/Glenoaks Blvd
Riverside Dr
Hollywood Way
Olive Ave
Riverside Dr
Glenoaks Blvd
Buena Vista St
22 (63)
616 (1,090)
17 (26)
94 (161)
582 (301)
175 (61)
219 (113)
1,144 (745)
236 (195)
164 (502)
135 (317)
35 (50)

16. Buena Vista St/San Fernando Blvd
145 (181)
465 (808)
356 (423)
68 (129)
252 (171)
168 (190)
93 (86)
874 (540)
114 (99)
55 (141)
120 (273)
167 (377)

17. Buena Vista St/Empire Ave
151 (230)
791 (1,000)
299 (392)
0 (0)
534 (342)
216 (285)
917 (918)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)

18. Buena Vista St/Vanowen St/Driveway
200 (273)
599 (858)
42 (70)
142 (200)
776 (766)
292 (160)
59 (107)
1,121 (851)
393 (320)
207 (211)
544 (127)
92 (123)

19. Buena Vista St/Victory Blvd
197 (206)
747 (974)
91 (120)
94 (147)
521 (578)
306 (188)
92 (208)
1,212 (888)
153 (142)
85 (123)
443 (550)
153 (145)

20. Buena Vista St/Burbank Blvd
San Fernando Blvd
Buena Vista St
Vanowen St Driveway
Buena Vista St
Victory Blvd
Buena Vista St
Burbank Blvd
Buena Vista St
Olive Ave
Hollywood Way
Empire Ave
Buena Vista St
Thornton Ave
Hollywood Way
122 (149)
553 (930)
83 (187)
110 (175)
649 (762)
137 (92)
110 (129)
1,302 (647)
404 (263)
211 (217)
519 (785)
133 (107)

21. Buena Vista St/Magnolia Blvd
97 (101)
355 (801)
113 (156)
171 (339)
468 (951)
108 (96)
450 (186)
1,045 (397)
100 (95)
48 (57)
914 (615)
168 (124)

22. Buena Vista St/Olive Ave
213 (107)
302 (693)
219 (134)
202 (225)
616 (987)
123 (133)
188 (61)
687 (320)
271 (269)
117 (215)
590 (545)
234 (231)

23. Buena Vista St/Alameda Ave
Magnolia Blvd
Buena Vista St
Olive Ave
Buena Vista St
Alameda Ave
Buena Vista St

24. Buena Vista St/SR 134 Ramps/
SR 134 WB On Ramp/Riverside Dr
233 (455)
233 (508)
112 (228)
40 (142)
1,406 (1,214)
313 (246)
52 (146)
527 (487)
636 (735)
485 (578)
1,255 (1,493)
379 (252)

25. Victory Blvd/Burbank Blvd
139 (219)
455 (832)
72 (147)
115 (159)
515 (852)
205 (211)
129 (140)
931 (884)
199 (266)
111 (179)
534 (607)
178 (144)

26. Victory Blvd/Magnolia Blvd
119 (82)
490 (761)
91 (165)
160 (226)
452 (934)
54 (41)
285 (244)
925 (798)
176 (159)
72 (198)
890 (679)
135 (113)

27. Victory Blvd/Olive Ave
84 (120)
217 (442)
64 (132)
47 (72)
563 (1,365)
93 (135)
66 (42)
528 (538)
317 (367)
228 (256)
1,092 (578)
101 (111)

28. Victory Blvd/Alameda Ave
Burbank Blvd
Victory Blvd
Olive Ave
Victory Blvd
Alameda Ave
Victory Blvd
Magnolia Blvd
Victory Pl Victory Blvd
66 (246)
99 (366)
4 (20)
489 (836)
464 (649)
282 (576)
634 (446)
201 (170)
50 (71)
71 (87)
322 (412)
19 (21)

29. San Fernando Blvd/Burbank Blvd
148 (258)
115 (417)
37 (128)
94 (296)
492 (788)
154 (325)
205 (231)
284 (369)
28 (152)
19 (93)
653 (563)
42 (64)

30. First St/Magnolia Blvd
263 (188)
173 (344)
47 (70)
97 (338)
376 (780)
104 (235)
109 (133)
176 (358)
51 (63)
93 (134)
681 (492)
36 (55)

31. First St/Olive Ave
255 (410)
218 (585)
86 (93)
150 (351)
380 (852)
132 (249)
249 (185)
416 (471)
134 (133)
68 (67)
494 (467)
70 (60)

32. San Fernando Blvd/Alameda Ave
158 (175)
633 (1,212)
17 (62)
80 (186)
129 (275)
132 (208)
194 (146)
1,304 (983)
49 (85)
55 (45)
321 (238)
91 (35)

33. Glenoaks Blvd/Magnolia Blvd
148 (115)
506 (1,048)
31 (77)
95 (188)
127 (351)
83 (164)
181 (98)
895 (985)
47 (86)
35 (65)
431 (212)
104 (66)

34. Glenoaks Blvd/Olive Ave
213 (208)
533 (1,052)
14 (43)
187 (391)
114 (318)
119 (235)
321 (176)
966 (916)
53 (76)
15 (27)
403 (203)
91 (59)

35. Glenoaks Blvd/Alameda Ave
Burbank Blvd
San Fernando Blvd
Olive Ave
First St
Alameda Ave
San Fernando Blvd
Magnolia Blvd
Glenoaks Blvd
Olive Ave
Glenoaks Blvd
Alameda Ave
Glenoaks Blvd
Magnolia Blvd
First St
ace
acf
acce
ace
accf
aacf
accf
ace
accf
accf
accf
accf
ace
ace
ace
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
acf
accf
acf
ad
accf
d
ace
ace
ace
ace
ace
accc
aff
cce
accf
acce
aaccf
acccf
ace
ace
accf
ace
be
acce
acff
acce
ace
accf
accf
accf
ae
ace
d
ace
ace
ace
accf
accf
accf
accf
aace
aace
acc
abf
ccf
d
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
ace
accf
ace
accf
aaccf
accf
aaccf
aaccf
aacccf
aabcf
aacccf
accf
ace
accf
accf
accf
ace
accf
accf
ace
accf
aace
accf
aace
aaccf
acff
accf
accf
acef
accf
accf
ace
ace
accf
accf
aace
aace
accf
ace
ace
acf
ace
ace
ace
ace
ace
ace
acccf
acf
acce
ae
# Study Intersection
Lane Configuration
acf
Peak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM)
STOP
Stop Sign
Signalized
Traffic Circle
LEGEND
Please refer to Synchro
reports for volumes and
lane configurations.

Please refer to Synchro
reports for volumes and
lane configurations.

ATTACHMENT 10 -542
Future Plus Project (2029) Conditions
Traffic Volumes & Lane Configurations AM(PM)
Burbank Housing Element Update
FIGURE 2
32 (33)
946 (1,828)
91 (65)
0 (23)
0 (5)
23 (27)
23 (8)
2,045 (1,295)
232 (66)
39 (266)
2 (4)
39 (110)

1. Hollywood Way/Winona Ave
131 (144)
813 (1,406)
180 (131)
167 (237)
53 (30)
168 (131)
266 (125)
1,614 (1,159)
109 (52)
48 (158)
129 (120)
109 (173)

2. Hollywood Way/Thornton Ave
92 (173)
781 (1,004)
95 (99)
243 (247)
1,058 (865)
203 (100)
171 (339)
1,161 (869)
244 (205)
129 (163)
556 (1,004)
118 (110)

3. Hollywood Way/Victory Blvd
65 (115)
643 (1,077)
87 (112)
154 (193)
794 (744)
100 (29)
83 (147)
1,264 (770)
195 (137)
81 (114)
521 (822)
179 (162)

4. Hollywood Way/Burbank Blvd
81 (179)
524 (1,098)
109 (141)
139 (202)
714 (670)
140 (109)
162 (307)
1,465 (705)
220 (210)
90 (211)
394 (788)
133 (127)

5. Hollywood Way/Magnolia Blvd
27 (106)
512 (1,109)
65 (115)
154 (249)
626 (580)
178 (40)
128 (136)
1,418 (590)
101 (88)
70 (63)
288 (516)
210 (114)

6. Hollywood Way/Verdugo Ave
139 (878)
23 (10)
10 (30)
41 (3)
904 (634)
818 (402)
19 (36)
20 (19)
44 (42)
70 (25)
509 (1,077)
11 (14)

7. Riverside Dr/Alameda Ave
32 (125)
113 (388)
61 (38)
99 (153)
840 (522)
37 (14)
149 (207)
1,014 (420)
457 (260)
86 (160)
383 (728)
32 (43)

8. Pass Ave/Alameda Ave
Winona Ave
Hollywood Way
Victory Blvd
Hollywood Way
Burbank Blvd
Hollywood Way
Magnolia Blvd
Hollywood Way
Verdugo Ave
Hollywood Way
Alameda Ave
Riverside Dr
Alameda Ave
Pass Ave
194 (503)
1,523 (1,397)
758 (420)
91 (30)
37 (108)
1,463 (1,454)

9. Pass Ave/Olive Ave
Olive Ave
Pass Ave
61 (316)
250 (710)
53 (309)
77 (223)
693 (911)
151 (78)
556 (292)
1,378 (434)
199 (124)
275 (427)
912 (1,010)
165 (35)

10. Hollywood Way/Alameda Ave
Alameda Ave
Hollywood Way
11 (103)
228 (772)
6 (25)
47 (133)
469 (306)
136 (33)
434 (215)
783 (265)
402 (97)
85 (514)
166 (520)
13 (8)

11. Hollywood Way/Riverside Dr
15 (45)
14 (205)
14 (28)
202 (421)
1,060 (964)
81 (27)
458 (228)
203 (19)
77 (29)
63 (59)
1,030 (1,083)
56 (8)

12. Hollywood Way/Olive Ave
158 (344)
164 (705)
49 (76)
18 (53)
784 (953)
335 (142)
23 (18)
775 (299)
90 (81)
98 (210)
1,050 (860)
70 (27)

13. Riverside Dr/Olive Ave 14. Olive Ave/Alameda Ave
159 (245)
118 (193)
100 (103)
23 (29)
1,313 (902)
122 (140)
10 (12)
172 (107)
39 (22)
10 (24)
624 (887)
111 (115)

15. Buena Vista St/Glenoaks Blvd
Riverside Dr
Hollywood Way
Olive Ave
Riverside Dr
Glenoaks Blvd
Buena Vista St
24 (68)
645 (1,168)
18 (28)
99 (173)
609 (323)
184 (66)
230 (122)
1,197 (799)
247 (209)
172 (538)
142 (340)
37 (54)

16. Buena Vista St/San Fernando Blvd
161 (203)
515 (903)
394 (473)
76 (145)
279 (191)
186 (213)
103 (97)
967 (604)
127 (111)
61 (158)
133 (305)
185 (422)

17. Buena Vista St/Empire Ave
167 (258)
872 (1,120)
330 (439)
0 (0)
589 (383)
238 (320)
1,010 (1,028)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)

18. Buena Vista St/Vanowen St/Driveway
213 (295)
635 (926)
45 (76)
151 (216)
823 (827)
310 (173)
63 (116)
1,189 (919)
417 (346)
220 (228)
577 (138)
98 (133)

19. Buena Vista St/Victory Blvd
211 (223)
797 (1,053)
98 (130)
101 (159)
556 (625)
327 (204)
99 (225)
1,293 (960)
164 (154)
91 (133)
473 (595)
164 (157)

20. Buena Vista St/Burbank Blvd
San Fernando Blvd
Buena Vista St
Vanowen St Driveway
Buena Vista St
Victory Blvd
Buena Vista St
Burbank Blvd
Buena Vista St
Olive Ave
Hollywood Way
Empire Ave
Buena Vista St
Thornton Ave
Hollywood Way
132 (163)
599 (1,016)
90 (205)
119 (192)
702 (832)
149 (101)
119 (141)
1,409 (707)
437 (288)
229 (237)
562 (858)
144 (117)

21. Buena Vista St/Magnolia Blvd
105 (109)
382 (864)
122 (169)
184 (366)
503 (1,025)
117 (104)
484 (201)
1,123 (428)
108 (103)
52 (62)
982 (663)
181 (134)

22. Buena Vista St/Olive Ave
221 (111)
313 (718)
227 (139)
210 (233)
638 (1,022)
128 (138)
195 (64)
712 (332)
281 (279)
122 (223)
611 (564)
243 (240)

23. Buena Vista St/Alameda Ave
Magnolia Blvd
Buena Vista St
Olive Ave
Buena Vista St
Alameda Ave
Buena Vista St

24. Buena Vista St/SR 134 Ramps/
SR 134 WB On Ramp/Riverside Dr
242 (474)
242 (529)
116 (238)
42 (148)
1,457 (1,263)
325 (256)
54 (152)
546 (507)
659 (765)
503 (601)
1,300 (1,553)
393 (262)

25. Victory Blvd/Burbank Blvd
151 (236)
493 (896)
78 (159)
125 (172)
558 (918)
222 (228)
140 (151)
1,008 (952)
216 (287)
121 (193)
579 (654)
193 (156)

26. Victory Blvd/Magnolia Blvd
122 (86)
502 (798)
94 (173)
164 (237)
463 (979)
56 (43)
292 (256)
946 (837)
180 (167)
74 (208)
911 (712)
139 (119)

27. Victory Blvd/Olive Ave
90 (131)
233 (480)
69 (144)
51 (79)
603 (1,483)
100 (147)
71 (46)
566 (585)
340 (399)
245 (278)
1,170 (628)
109 (121)

28. Victory Blvd/Alameda Ave
Burbank Blvd
Victory Blvd
Olive Ave
Victory Blvd
Alameda Ave
Victory Blvd
Magnolia Blvd
Victory Pl Victory Blvd
69 (249)
103 (371)
5 (21)
506 (847)
481 (657)
292 (583)
656 (452)
208 (173)
52 (72)
74 (89)
334 (417)
20 (22)

29. San Fernando Blvd/Burbank Blvd
170 (297)
132 (479)
43 (147)
108 (340)
564 (905)
177 (374)
235 (266)
326 (424)
33 (175)
22 (107)
748 (647)
49 (74)

30. First St/Magnolia Blvd
264 (199)
174 (364)
48 (74)
98 (358)
377 (825)
105 (249)
110 (141)
177 (379)
52 (67)
94 (142)
683 (521)
37 (59)

31. First St/Olive Ave
291 (454)
249 (647)
98 (103)
171 (389)
433 (942)
151 (276)
284 (205)
474 (521)
153 (148)
78 (75)
563 (517)
80 (67)

32. San Fernando Blvd/Alameda Ave
190 (194)
759 (1,340)
21 (69)
96 (206)
155 (305)
159 (230)
233 (162)
1,563 (1,087)
59 (94)
66 (50)
385 (264)
110 (39)

33. Glenoaks Blvd/Magnolia Blvd
166 (123)
566 (1,114)
35 (82)
107 (200)
143 (374)
93 (175)
203 (105)
1,001 (1,047)
53 (92)
40 (70)
482 (226)
117 (71)

34. Glenoaks Blvd/Olive Ave
237 (225)
592 (1,134)
16 (47)
208 (422)
127 (343)
133 (254)
357 (190)
1,072 (988)
59 (82)
17 (30)
448 (219)
101 (64)

35. Glenoaks Blvd/Alameda Ave
Burbank Blvd
San Fernando Blvd
Olive Ave
First St
Alameda Ave
San Fernando Blvd
Magnolia Blvd
Glenoaks Blvd
Olive Ave
Glenoaks Blvd
Alameda Ave
Glenoaks Blvd
Magnolia Blvd
First St
ace
acf
acce
ace
accf
aacf
accf
ace
accf
accf
accf
accf
ace
ace
ace
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
acf
accf
acf
ad
accf
d
ace
ace
ace
ace
ace
accc
aff
cce
accf
acce
aaccf
acccf
ace
ace
accf
accf
be
acce
acff
acce
ace
accf
accf
accf
ae
ace
d
ace
ace
ace
accf
accf
accf
accf
aace
aace
acc
abf
ccf
d
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
accf
ace
accf
ace
accf
aaccf
accf
aaccf
aaccf
aacccf
aabcf
aacccf
accf
ace
accf
accf
accf
ace
accf
accf
ace
accf
aace
accf
aace
aaccf
acff
accf
accf
acef
accf
accf
ace
ace
accf
accf
aace
aace
accf
ace
ace
acf
ace
ace
ace
ace
ace
ace
acccf
acf
acce
ae
# Study Intersection
Lane Configuration
acf
Peak Hour Traffic VolumeAM (PM)
STOP
Stop Sign
Signalized
Traffic Circle
LEGEND
Please refer to Synchro
reports for volumes and
lane configurations.

Please refer to Synchro
reports for volumes and
lane configurations.

ATTACHMENT 10 -543
APPENDIX:

Existing Traffic
Counts
ATTACHMENT 10 -544
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-05223-002 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 20 1853 209 1 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 7 1161 59 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 3 1 0 0 238 0 35
2 3 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 98 0 35
0 0 20 1 TEV 3142 0 3340 0 0 0 0
0 0 4 1 PHF 0.97 0.92
20 0 24 1 0 1 2 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 4 25 1639 58 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 1 28 857 82 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
1287
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
N Hollywood Way & Winona Ave
Tuesday
04/23/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
291

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)

PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
893
1897
0 Signalized
Winona Ave

EASTBOUND
N Hollywood Way
1909
0 N Hollywood Way

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
121
0 Winona Ave
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
49 0 35
NOONAM PM1
1 4
1 0
0 4
0 0 0
0 1
0 0
0 3
0 3
1 0
3 0
0 3
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 4
1 0
3 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
35 1
35 20
0 0
20 1853
209
28 857
82 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
98 3
238
24 4
20 7
1161
59 25
1639
58 2
0 2
0 0
0 0
7 0
0 6
0 NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -545
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-05223-003 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 248 1508 101 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 117 1085 48 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 2 1 0 0.5 148 0 44

1.5 112 0 120
0 0 0 0 1 162 0 101
156 0 222 2 TEV 3534 0 3617 0 0 0 0
49 0 28 1 PHF 0.95 0.93
157 0 122 1 0 1 2 1

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 2 132 1317 122 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 122 760 168 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
1371
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
N Hollywood Way & Thornton Ave
Tuesday
04/23/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
318

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)

PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
960
1687
0 Signalized
Thornton Ave

EASTBOUND
N Hollywood Way
1766
0 N Hollywood Way

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
198
0 Thornton Ave
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
490 0 361
NOONAM PM8
8 1
6 5
0 8
0 6 0
1 14
0 6
0 9
0 7
3 0
14 5
0 8
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 2
0 0
4 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
101
120
44 157
49 156
248
1508
101
122
760
168
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
162
112
148
122
28 222
117
1085
48 132
1317
122
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 6
0 0
6 0
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -546
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-05223-009 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 161 1098 230 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 315 809 191 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 2 1 0 1 151 0 122
2 935 0 525
0 0 0 0 1 102 0 111
229 0 230 1 TEV 4582 0 4820 0 0 0 0
1000 0 806 2 PHF 0.91 0.98
192 0 93 1 0 1 2 1

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 161 935 92 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 87 738 89 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
1004
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
N Hollywood Way & W Victory Blvd
Tuesday
04/23/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
1319

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)

PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
1089
1316
0 Signalized
W Victory Blvd

EASTBOUND
N Hollywood Way
1401
0 N Hollywood Way

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
1089
0 W Victory Blvd
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
773 0 1411
NOONAM PM3
6 9
3 8
0 0
0 2 0
5 2
0 6
0 5
0 7
4 0
1 3
0 7
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 1
0 1
2 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
111
525
122
192
1000
229
161
1098
230
87 738
89 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
102
935
151
93 806
230
315
809
191
161
935
92 0
2 0
0 1
0 0
4 1
0 2
0 NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -547
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-05223-010 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 79 1211 186 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 137 718 127 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 2 1 0 1 106 0 77
2 767 0 499
0 0 1 0 1 151 0 171
147 0 179 1 TEV 3987 0 4123 0 0 0 0
761 0 694 2 PHF 0.93 0.98
95 0 27 0 0 1 2 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 107 1005 104 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 62 616 83 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
896
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
N Hollywood Way & W Burbank Blvd
Tuesday
04/23/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
1030

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)

PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
840
1290
0 Signalized
W Burbank Blvd

EASTBOUND
N Hollywood Way
1477
0 N Hollywood Way

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
925
0 W Burbank Blvd
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
640 0 1012
NOONAM PM6
13 10
6 3
0 9
0 11 0
3 2
0 2
0 5
0 3
2 0
4 5
0 6
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 1
0 1
0 0
4 1
0 0
2 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
171
499
77 95
761
147
79 1211
186
62 616
83 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
151
767
106
27 694
179
137
718
127
107
1005
104
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 3
0 0
1 0
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -548
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-05223-011 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 152 1375 206 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 269 619 184 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 2 1 0 1 185 0 84
2 692 0 370
1 0 0 0 1 110 0 124
129 0 177 1 TEV 3912 0 4164 0 1 0 0
670 0 588 2 PHF 0.98 0.98
131 0 95 1 0 1 2 1

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 1 156 964 123 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 76 492 102 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
825
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
N Hollywood Way & Magnolia Blvd
Tuesday
04/23/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
08:15 AM - 09:15 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
978

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)

PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
705
1326
0 Signalized
Magnolia Blvd

EASTBOUND
N Hollywood Way
1630
0 N Hollywood Way

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
896
0 Magnolia Blvd
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
599 0 1117
NOONAM PM23
23 14
4 15
0 9
0 14 0
30 55
0 34
0 24
0 15
6 0
31 14
0 7
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 1
0 0
1 0
0 4
0 0
0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
124
370
84 131
670
129
152
1375
206
76 492
102
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
110
692
185
95 588
177
269
619
184
156
964
123
0 1
0 1
3 0
0 0
1 0
2 0
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -549
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: N Hollywood Way & W Verdugo Ave
City: Burbank Project ID: 19-05223-012
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 3 88 2 0 7 238 25 0 27 25 16 0 34 50 10 0 525
7:15 AM 2 83 14 0 5 244 40 0 31 49 9 0 30 50 8 0 565
7:30 AM 11 96 3 0 13 323 33 0 42 75 18 0 29 53 9 0 705
7:45 AM 5 128 15 0 17 315 31 0 52 90 22 0 39 82 15 0 811 8:00 AM 7 133 12 0 22 331 24 0 35 106 26 0 43 70 13 0 822 8:15 AM 7 103 14 0 37 282 34 0 33 190 40 0 36 71 11 0 858 8:30 AM 5 127 14 0 22 361 29 0 27 156 39 0 58 70 25 0 933 8:45 AM 5 107 19 0 11 328 30 0 46 122 58 0 55 53 15 0 849 9:00 AM 8 102 6 0 4 344 18 0 43 119 58 0 51 56 12 0 821 9:15 AM 7 118 8 0 15 349 25 0 44 101 47 0 35 55 10 0 814 9:30 AM 6 115 15 0 11 260 31 0 40 90 42 0 32 60 12 0 714 9:45 AM 4 136 12 0 9 276 28 0 56 89 20 0 34 57 13 0 734

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 70 1336 134 0 173 3651 348 0 476 1212 395 0 476 727 153 0 9151 APPROACH %'s : 4.55% 86.75% 8.70% 0.00% 4.15% 87.51% 8.34% 0.00% 22.85% 58.19% 18.96% 0.00% 35.10% 53.61% 11.28% 0.00% PEAK HR : 08:00 AM 41 37 48 08:30 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 24 470 59 0 92 1302 117 0 141 574 163 0 192 264 64 0 3462 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.857 0.883 0.776 0.000 0.622 0.902 0.860 0.000 0.766 0.755 0.703 0.000 0.828 0.930 0.640 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:30 PM 13 203 11 0 11 164 30 0 55 83 9 0 26 84 9 0 698 4:45 PM 16 193 19 0 23 146 35 0 47 99 9 0 27 86 17 0 717 5:00 PM 21 249 16 0 23 141 31 0 53 107 9 0 26 104 16 0 796 5:15 PM 18 241 10 0 29 170 30 0 59 117 10 0 27 88 17 0 816 5:30 PM 20 217 22 0 15 123 36 0 50 140 10 0 27 125 22 0 807 5:45 PM 28 274 30 0 17 135 32 0 55 126 6 0 14 113 10 0 840 6:00 PM 18 210 27 0 24 130 20 0 55 121 7 0 31 110 15 0 768 6:15 PM 28 288 23 0 22 138 33 0 62 130 12 0 29 112 9 0 886 6:30 PM 29 205 33 0 17 110 35 0 53 104 13 0 34 117 16 0 766 6:45 PM 20 187 16 0 12 129 25 0 66 117 18 0 21 82 10 0 703 7:00 PM 27 205 24 0 12 140 16 0 64 106 8 0 24 81 14 0 721 7:15 PM 15 191 14 0 12 162 16 0 61 86 9 0 24 74 14 0 678

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 253 2663 245 0 217 1688 339 0 680 1336 120 0 310 1176 169 0 9196 APPROACH %'s : 8.00% 84.25% 7.75% 0.00% 9.67% 75.22% 15.11% 0.00% 31.84% 62.55% 5.62% 0.00% 18.73% 71.06% 10.21% 0.00% PEAK HR : 05:30 PM 295 291 302 06:15 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 94 989 102 0 78 526 121 0 222 517 35 0 101 460 56 0 3301 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.839 0.859 0.850 0.000 0.813 0.953 0.840 0.000 0.895 0.923 0.729 0.000 0.815 0.920 0.636 0.000 W Verdugo Ave

NORTHBOUND
W Verdugo Ave

0.850

WESTBOUND
N Hollywood Way N Hollywood Way

SOUTHBOUND

0.917 0.835

EASTBOUND

EASTBOUND
PM
AM
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.910
4/23/2019
Total

0.9310.949

WESTBOUND

0.886

0.928

SOUTHBOUND

0.874 0.939
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
ATTACHMENT 10 -550
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Evergreen St/Riverside Dr & Riverside Dr/Alameda Ave City: Burbank Project ID: 19-05221-003
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:

1.3 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL NT NR NU NU2 SL ST SR SU ST2 EL ET ER EU ER2 WL WT WR WU WL2 N2L N2U N2L2 N2T2 N2R2 N2U2 TOTAL 7:00 AM 13 1 0 0 4 2 5 2 0 0 0 42 31 0 0 1 75 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 184 7:15 AM 20 2 0 0 2 3 2 2 0 0 1 42 39 0 0 0 57 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 182 7:30 AM 20 3 1 0 1 5 4 2 0 1 1 65 66 0 0 2 93 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 6 277 7:45 AM 24 5 1 0 3 10 1 0 0 0 4 81 67 1 0 2 109 15 0 0 0 3 0 0 6 332 8:00 AM 20 5 1 0 5 7 6 4 0 0 5 141 108 0 0 2 102 7 0 3 0 3 0 0 4 423 8:15 AM 32 4 2 0 4 7 4 2 0 1 10 190 204 0 0 2 127 13 0 0 0 7 0 0 9 618 8:30 AM 30 8 2 0 8 14 7 7 0 0 7 218 193 0 6 2 115 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 638 8:45 AM 31 5 3 0 6 9 4 4 0 0 6 197 189 0 5 3 118 19 1 2 0 0 0 0 12 614 9:00 AM 34 4 2 0 5 10 3 4 0 2 14 221 162 0 5 2 105 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 603 9:15 AM 38 5 1 0 4 5 5 0 0 1 7 231 174 0 4 2 92 25 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 602 9:30 AM 43 5 4 0 7 5 2 4 0 1 6 135 129 0 7 4 120 19 0 3 0 1 0 1 9 505 9:45 AM 40 6 1 0 3 8 6 1 0 0 10 154 129 0 9 3 114 17 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 507 NL NT NR NU NU2 SL ST SR SU ST2 EL ET ER EU ER2 WL WT WR WU WL2 N2L N2U N2L2 N2T2 N2R2 N2U2 TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 345 53 18 0 52 85 49 32 0 6 71 1717 1491 1 36 25 1227 161 2 16 0 0 18 0 2 78 5485 APPROACH %'s : 73.72% 11.32% 3.85% 0.00% 11.11% 49.42% 28.49% 18.60% 0.00% 3.49% 2.14% 51.78% 44.96% 0.03% 1.09% 1.75% 85.74% 11.25% 0.14% 1.12% 0.00% 0.00% 18.37% 0.00% 2.04% 79.59% PEAK HR : 08:15 AM 42 37 48 08:30 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 127 21 9 0 23 40 18 17 0 3 37 826 748 0 16 9 465 64 1 5 0 0 7 0 0 37 2473 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.934 0.656 0.750 0.000 0.719 0.714 0.643 0.607 0.000 0.375 0.661 0.934 0.917 0.000 0.667 0.750 0.915 0.842 0.250 0.625 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.771 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU NBU2 SBL SBT SBR SBU SBT2 EBL EBT EBR EBU EBR2 WBL WBT WBR WBU WBL2 NB2L NB2U NB2L2 NB2T2 NB2R2 NB2U2

1.3 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL NT NR NU NU2 SL ST SR SU ST2 EL ET ER EU ER2 WL WT WR WU WL2 N2L N2U N2L2 N2T2 N2R2 N2U2 TOTAL 4:30 PM 93 2 7 0 1 0 6 2 0 0 1 107 59 0 2 2 190 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 11 493 4:45 PM 93 1 1 0 7 4 2 5 0 0 2 119 76 0 3 2 157 7 0 1 0 5 0 0 15 500 5:00 PM 151 3 11 0 8 3 4 8 0 0 2 129 92 0 2 8 196 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 8 630 5:15 PM 132 4 3 0 3 4 3 11 0 0 1 157 89 0 4 0 226 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 10 653 5:30 PM 181 3 3 0 5 10 7 14 0 0 1 141 82 0 2 4 206 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 673 5:45 PM 170 1 5 0 3 8 2 4 0 0 0 141 84 0 3 4 219 4 0 2 0 1 0 0 10 661 6:00 PM 194 1 7 0 2 9 4 15 0 0 0 147 86 0 3 0 237 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 10 723 6:15 PM 223 6 5 0 6 7 4 6 0 0 2 120 93 0 5 5 246 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 741 6:30 PM 176 0 9 0 6 12 6 6 0 0 0 143 86 0 2 3 234 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 14 705 6:45 PM 126 4 7 0 10 6 1 15 0 0 0 129 87 0 2 1 187 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 586 7:00 PM 95 1 5 0 3 5 6 6 0 0 0 119 76 0 1 1 190 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 522 7:15 PM 103 1 4 0 3 6 3 6 0 0 1 97 60 0 3 0 151 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 449 NL NT NR NU NU2 SL ST SR SU ST2 EL ET ER EU ER2 WL WT WR WU WL2 N2L N2U N2L2 N2T2 N2R2 N2U2 TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 1737 27 67 0 57 74 48 98 0 0 10 1549 970 0 32 30 2439 55 2 20 0 0 11 0 0 110 7336 APPROACH %'s : 92.00% 1.43% 3.55% 0.00% 3.02% 33.64% 21.82% 44.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.39% 60.48% 37.88% 0.00% 1.25% 1.18% 95.80% 2.16% 0.08% 0.79% 0.00% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 0.00% 90.91% PEAK HR : 05:45 PM 296 291 302 06:15 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 763 8 26 0 17 36 16 31 0 0 2 551 349 0 13 12 936 21 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 40 2830 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.855 0.333 0.722 0.000 0.708 0.750 0.667 0.517 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.937 0.938 0.000 0.650 0.600 0.951 0.875 0.000 0.875 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.714 Riverside Dr/Alameda Ave

NORTHBOUND
Riverside Dr/Alameda Ave

0.951

WESTBOUND
Evergreen St/Riverside Dr Evergreen St/Riverside Dr

0.696 0.959

EASTBOUND SOUTHBOUND

0.848 0.741
05:45 PM - 06:45 PM

SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND
PM
AM
08:15 AM - 09:15 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.938
4/23/2019
Total

0.955
NORTHBOUND2

0.969

WESTBOUND

0.946 0.750

0.969
NORTHBOUND2

0.688
ATTACHMENT 10 -551
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Pass Ave & Alameda Ave
City: Burbank Project ID: 19-05221-005
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 3 11 2 0 26 99 19 0 12 31 0 0 2 57 9 0 271
7:15 AM 2 20 4 0 38 109 31 0 10 37 0 0 7 38 10 0 306
7:30 AM 4 14 3 0 53 129 25 0 13 54 3 0 4 69 13 0 384
7:45 AM 5 16 4 0 108 192 41 0 18 71 3 0 5 80 11 0 554
8:00 AM 6 33 8 0 167 200 30 0 19 125 3 0 1 78 9 0 679
8:15 AM 5 27 13 0 129 240 40 0 30 168 7 0 7 93 11 0 770 8:30 AM 8 24 12 0 105 247 37 0 23 178 21 0 9 85 13 0 762 8:45 AM 2 20 11 0 105 249 43 0 16 199 0 0 5 97 24 0 771 9:00 AM 8 33 18 0 84 214 33 0 29 176 6 0 6 87 23 0 717
9:15 AM 11 27 15 0 127 224 24 0 23 221 7 0 9 84 19 0 791 9:30 AM 14 29 21 0 83 164 43 0 18 114 2 0 6 92 22 0 608 9:45 AM 7 26 15 0 93 161 32 0 22 141 5 0 9 88 24 0 623

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 75 280 126 0 1118 2228 398 0 233 1515 57 0 70 948 188 0 7236 APPROACH %'s : 15.59% 58.21% 26.20% 0.00% 29.86% 59.51% 10.63% 0.00% 12.91% 83.93% 3.16% 0.00% 5.80% 78.61% 15.59% 0.00% PEAK HR : 08:30 AM 43 37 48 09:15 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 29 104 56 0 421 934 137 0 91 774 34 0 29 353 79 0 3041 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.659 0.788 0.778 0.000 0.829 0.938 0.797 0.000 0.784 0.876 0.405 0.000 0.806 0.910 0.823 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:30 PM 12 53 8 0 51 99 51 0 22 82 4 0 9 139 37 0 567
4:45 PM 3 51 8 0 45 85 44 0 29 98 3 0 5 126 38 0 535
5:00 PM 10 78 13 0 39 75 47 0 28 101 7 0 9 152 31 0 590 5:15 PM 19 69 9 0 36 86 45 0 41 127 2 0 9 158 38 0 639
5:30 PM 20 72 7 0 61 98 31 0 33 112 1 0 5 164 29 0 633
5:45 PM 30 90 3 0 68 96 49 0 36 119 1 0 8 135 28 0 663
6:00 PM 33 103 11 1 60 98 41 0 34 128 4 0 9 171 31 0 724 6:15 PM 30 91 9 0 57 100 46 0 33 99 2 0 10 182 47 0 706 6:30 PM 19 68 11 0 51 87 52 0 36 128 5 0 12 173 39 0 681 6:45 PM 12 69 11 0 52 84 40 0 26 98 4 0 6 134 38 0 574
7:00 PM 15 70 11 0 59 71 59 0 30 109 3 0 8 126 32 0 593 7:15 PM 13 66 7 0 47 61 43 0 31 78 3 0 9 107 30 0 495

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 216 880 108 1 626 1040 548 0 379 1279 39 0 99 1767 418 0 7400 APPROACH %'s : 17.93% 73.03% 8.96% 0.08% 28.27% 46.97% 24.75% 0.00% 22.33% 75.37% 2.30% 0.00% 4.33% 77.36% 18.30% 0.00% PEAK HR : 05:45 PM 296 291 302 06:00 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 112 352 34 1 236 381 188 0 139 474 12 0 39 661 145 0 2774 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.848 0.854 0.773 0.250 0.868 0.953 0.904 0.000 0.965 0.926 0.600 0.000 0.813 0.908 0.771 0.000 Alameda Ave

NORTHBOUND
Alameda Ave

0.915

WESTBOUND
Pass Ave Pass Ave

SOUTHBOUND

0.940 0.895

EASTBOUND

EASTBOUND
PM
AM
08:30 AM - 09:30 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.801
4/23/2019
Total

0.9580.925

WESTBOUND

0.884

0.961

SOUTHBOUND

0.843 0.945
05:45 PM - 06:45 PM
ATTACHMENT 10 -552
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Pass Ave & Olive Ave
City: Burbank Project ID: 19-05221-007
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 7 0 76 0 12 126 0 0 0 341 5 0 567
7:15 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 83 0 29 167 0 0 0 331 3 0 615
7:30 AM 0 0 0 0 4 0 99 0 22 208 0 0 0 348 1 0 682
7:45 AM 0 0 0 0 10 0 161 0 30 243 0 0 0 325 2 0 771
8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 9 0 142 0 45 308 0 0 0 367 8 0 879
8:15 AM 0 0 0 0 21 0 242 0 42 341 0 0 0 353 6 0 1005
8:30 AM 0 0 0 0 18 0 194 0 50 356 0 0 0 341 7 0 966
8:45 AM 0 0 0 0 28 0 197 0 37 349 0 0 0 411 5 0 1027
9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 18 0 164 0 50 378 0 0 0 356 11 0 977
9:15 AM 0 0 0 0 25 0 188 0 53 411 0 0 0 327 13 0 1017
9:30 AM 0 0 0 0 11 0 156 0 59 367 0 0 0 310 8 0 911
9:45 AM 0 0 0 0 12 0 147 0 64 352 0 1 0 273 10 0 859

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 165 0 1849 0 493 3606 0 1 0 4083 79 0 10276 APPROACH %'s : 8.19% 0.00% 91.81% 0.00% 12.02% 87.95% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 98.10% 1.90% 0.00% PEAK HR : 08:30 AM 43 37 48 08:45 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 89 0 743 0 190 1494 0 0 0 1435 36 0 3987 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.795 0.000 0.943 0.000 0.896 0.909 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.873 0.692 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:30 PM 0 0 0 0 7 0 96 0 86 345 0 0 0 293 7 0 834
4:45 PM 0 0 0 0 9 0 83 0 67 370 0 0 0 275 10 0 814
5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 83 0 89 358 0 0 0 328 18 0 881
5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 5 0 105 0 88 327 0 0 0 343 19 0 887
5:30 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 118 0 102 320 0 0 0 360 21 0 927
5:45 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 103 0 126 379 0 0 0 323 25 0 962
6:00 PM 0 0 0 0 11 0 107 0 156 376 0 0 0 332 29 0 1011
6:15 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 82 0 107 288 0 0 0 404 30 0 917
6:30 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 97 0 90 227 0 0 0 301 26 0 747
6:45 PM 0 0 0 0 12 0 69 0 84 355 0 0 0 285 16 0 821
7:00 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 61 0 93 373 0 0 0 288 13 0 834
7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 6 0 65 0 84 350 0 0 0 271 6 0 782

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 0 0 0 85 0 1069 0 1172 4068 0 0 0 3803 220 0 10417 APPROACH %'s : 7.37% 0.00% 92.63% 0.00% 22.37% 77.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 94.53% 5.47% 0.00% PEAK HR : 05:30 PM 295 291 302 06:00 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 0 0 0 29 0 410 0 491 1363 0 0 0 1419 105 0 3817 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.659 0.000 0.869 0.000 0.787 0.899 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.878 0.875 0.000 4/23/2019
Total

0.9440.871

WESTBOUND

0.878

0.971

SOUTHBOUND

0.885
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
PM
AM
08:30 AM - 09:30 AM

NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND

0.924 0.907

EASTBOUND

EASTBOUND
Olive Ave

NORTHBOUND
Olive Ave

0.884

WESTBOUND
Pass Ave Pass Ave
ATTACHMENT 10 -553
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-05223-013 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 520 1289 186 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 262 389 111 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 2 2 0 1 383 0 257
3 907 0 853
0 0 0 0 1 31 0 154
72 0 200 1 TEV 4459 0 4368 0 0 0 0
648 0 818 3 PHF 0.98 0.91
141 0 70 0 0 1 2 1

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 283 637 277 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 57 233 49 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
490
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
N Hollywood Way & W Alameda Ave
Tuesday
04/23/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
08:30 AM - 09:30 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
883

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)

PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
562
1220
0 Signalized
W Alameda Ave

EASTBOUND
N Hollywood Way
1584
0 N Hollywood Way

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
1206
0 W Alameda Ave
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
1430 0 1452
NOONAM PM2
0 3
4 9
0 15
0 3 0
4 1
0 2
0 12
0 10
10 0
26 4
0 15
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 2
0 0
2 0
0 6
2 0
0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
154
853
257
141
648
72 520
1289
186
57 233
49 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
31 907
383
70 818
200
262
389
111
283
637
277
0 1
0 0
1 2
0 2
0 1
4 0
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -554
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Hollywood Way & Riverside Dr
City: Burbank Project ID: 19-05221-011
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 2 49 1 0 19 142 89 0 7 12 5 0 0 16 13 0 355
7:15 AM 3 42 0 0 22 136 86 0 4 14 9 0 0 16 12 0 344
7:30 AM 3 61 1 0 21 154 133 0 7 14 8 0 3 23 9 0 437
7:45 AM 0 73 2 0 57 168 91 0 7 29 18 0 1 29 16 0 491
8:00 AM 2 89 0 0 67 162 80 0 7 72 18 0 3 29 24 0 553
8:15 AM 2 60 2 0 72 146 67 0 11 153 20 0 2 37 21 0 593
8:30 AM 4 46 0 0 100 207 119 0 13 108 29 0 6 36 22 0 690 8:45 AM 4 58 3 0 86 186 110 0 8 100 47 0 1 44 21 0 668
9:00 AM 0 50 0 0 119 198 112 1 12 80 32 0 3 39 16 0 662 9:15 AM 2 49 2 0 84 157 114 0 12 63 24 0 3 52 23 0 585
9:30 AM 11 78 0 0 51 150 85 0 16 52 30 0 1 34 22 0 530
9:45 AM 9 56 6 0 25 112 80 0 21 75 27 0 2 45 24 0 482

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 42 711 17 0 723 1918 1166 1 125 772 267 0 25 400 223 0 6390 APPROACH %'s : 5.45% 92.34% 2.21% 0.00% 18.99% 50.37% 30.62% 0.03% 10.74% 66.32% 22.94% 0.00% 3.86% 61.73% 34.41% 0.00% PEAK HR : 08:15 AM 42 37 48 08:30 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 10 214 5 0 377 737 408 1 44 441 128 0 12 156 80 0 2613 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.625 0.892 0.417 0.000 0.792 0.890 0.857 0.250 0.846 0.721 0.681 0.000 0.500 0.886 0.909 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:30 PM 7 137 11 0 13 62 55 0 19 47 10 0 1 52 69 0 483
4:45 PM 10 143 8 0 13 73 48 0 39 57 9 0 3 67 67 0 537
5:00 PM 23 149 7 0 17 76 48 1 25 59 9 0 3 82 105 0 604
5:15 PM 20 138 3 0 19 73 52 0 34 63 10 0 3 102 99 0 616 5:30 PM 13 150 5 0 19 65 43 0 28 71 5 0 1 120 99 0 619
5:45 PM 19 132 4 0 24 54 41 0 27 50 7 0 4 90 104 0 556
6:00 PM 24 208 8 0 19 56 40 1 24 73 6 0 0 110 122 0 691 6:15 PM 31 166 4 0 18 50 58 1 34 66 10 0 1 122 112 0 673 6:30 PM 28 123 5 0 14 51 52 0 31 67 6 0 3 103 84 0 567
6:45 PM 18 139 2 0 17 43 53 0 28 55 3 0 1 61 62 0 482
7:00 PM 29 152 3 0 17 43 53 0 29 44 6 1 0 66 70 1 514
7:15 PM 18 129 1 0 6 73 68 0 19 33 4 1 0 64 63 0 479

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 240 1766 61 0 196 719 611 3 337 685 85 2 20 1039 1056 1 6821 APPROACH %'s : 11.61% 85.44% 2.95% 0.00% 12.82% 47.02% 39.96% 0.20% 30.39% 61.77% 7.66% 0.18% 0.95% 49.10% 49.91% 0.05% PEAK HR : 05:30 PM 295 291 302 06:00 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 87 656 21 0 80 225 182 2 113 260 28 0 6 442 437 0 2539 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.702 0.788 0.656 0.000 0.833 0.865 0.784 0.500 0.831 0.890 0.700 0.000 0.375 0.906 0.895 0.000 4/23/2019
Total

0.9190.911

WESTBOUND

0.941

0.947

SOUTHBOUND

0.796 0.963
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
PM
AM
08:15 AM - 09:15 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.881

SOUTHBOUND

0.885 0.833

EASTBOUND

EASTBOUND
Riverside Dr

NORTHBOUND
Riverside Dr

0.939

WESTBOUND
Hollywood Way Hollywood Way
ATTACHMENT 10 -555
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Hollywood Way & Olive Ave
City: Burbank Project ID: 19-05221-012
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 2 0 0 1 1.5 0.5 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 0 0 7 15 117 0 44 66 7 0 2 221 4 0 483
7:15 AM 0 0 1 0 6 9 106 0 45 115 4 0 6 213 8 0 513
7:30 AM 0 5 1 0 2 9 125 0 55 140 1 0 4 213 10 0 565
7:45 AM 0 1 0 0 7 21 140 0 71 157 7 0 5 209 9 1 628
8:00 AM 0 3 0 0 16 19 95 0 89 206 5 0 7 270 11 0 721
8:15 AM 0 1 0 0 11 18 125 0 64 234 13 0 8 242 14 0 730
8:30 AM 2 1 0 0 20 33 110 0 46 282 23 0 9 264 18 0 808
8:45 AM 7 6 9 0 20 57 140 1 58 258 16 0 15 235 13 0 835 9:00 AM 3 4 0 0 14 61 96 0 51 251 22 0 17 286 14 1 820
9:15 AM 2 2 4 0 21 50 109 0 45 262 19 0 12 239 17 1 783 9:30 AM 2 5 2 0 5 30 97 0 76 274 19 0 14 222 15 0 761
9:45 AM 2 5 3 0 10 19 95 0 65 260 17 1 9 191 19 0 696

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 18 33 20 0 139 341 1355 1 709 2505 153 1 108 2805 152 3 8343 APPROACH %'s : 25.35% 46.48% 28.17% 0.00% 7.57% 18.57% 73.80% 0.05% 21.05% 74.38% 4.54% 0.03% 3.52% 91.43% 4.95% 0.10% PEAK HR : 08:30 AM 43 37 48 08:45 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 14 13 13 0 75 201 455 1 200 1053 80 0 53 1024 62 2 3246 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.500 0.542 0.361 0.000 0.893 0.824 0.813 0.250 0.862 0.934 0.870 0.000 0.779 0.895 0.861 0.500 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 0 2 0 0 1 1.5 0.5 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:30 PM 5 17 5 0 4 6 62 0 100 238 4 0 5 210 12 0 668
4:45 PM 2 16 6 0 4 4 64 0 116 245 0 0 3 205 10 0 675
5:00 PM 5 24 8 0 11 4 67 0 102 236 2 0 2 242 10 2 715
5:15 PM 9 31 5 0 7 7 65 0 104 218 0 0 1 261 13 0 721
5:30 PM 5 33 5 0 3 2 62 0 97 228 2 0 0 273 20 0 730
5:45 PM 11 34 4 0 6 5 50 1 99 258 5 0 1 244 10 0 728
6:00 PM 14 64 7 0 6 4 53 1 107 249 6 0 2 273 17 0 803
6:15 PM 13 67 11 0 11 7 55 0 104 198 13 0 4 258 10 0 751 6:30 PM 10 47 5 0 15 7 41 1 69 154 7 0 3 240 6 0 605
6:45 PM 10 47 8 0 4 8 41 0 93 241 7 0 2 223 10 0 694
7:00 PM 18 41 13 0 3 1 48 1 120 261 2 0 0 214 10 1 733
7:15 PM 6 38 2 0 5 0 70 0 102 225 0 0 1 186 7 0 642

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 108 459 79 0 79 55 678 4 1213 2751 48 0 24 2829 135 3 8465 APPROACH %'s : 16.72% 71.05% 12.23% 0.00% 9.68% 6.74% 83.09% 0.49% 30.23% 68.57% 1.20% 0.00% 0.80% 94.58% 4.51% 0.10% PEAK HR : 05:30 PM 295 291 302 06:00 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 43 198 27 0 26 18 220 2 407 933 26 0 7 1048 57 0 3012 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.768 0.739 0.614 0.000 0.591 0.643 0.887 0.500 0.951 0.904 0.500 0.000 0.438 0.960 0.713 0.000 4/23/2019
Total

0.9380.943

WESTBOUND

0.949

0.972

SOUTHBOUND

0.736 0.911
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
PM
AM
08:30 AM - 09:30 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.455

SOUTHBOUND

0.839 0.949

EASTBOUND

EASTBOUND
Olive Ave

NORTHBOUND
Olive Ave

0.897

WESTBOUND
Hollywood Way Hollywood Way
ATTACHMENT 10 -556
Location: Olive Ave & Riverside Dr Project ID: 19-05221-014 City: Burbank Date: 4/23/2019
NS/EW Streets:

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB EB WB TOTAL
7:00 AM 0 0 2 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 9
7:15 AM 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
7:30 AM 1 1 1 2 0 1 5 4 0 0 15
7:45 AM 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 9
8:00 AM 1 5 2 4 1 4 1 2 0 0 20
8:15 AM 0 3 2 2 0 0 1 9 0 0 17
8:30 AM 0 3 1 2 0 2 2 6 0 0 16
8:45 AM 0 2 2 2 1 2 3 8 0 0 20
9:00 AM 3 6 2 9 0 10 1 16 0 0 47
9:15 AM 3 1 2 4 1 0 2 11 0 0 24
9:30 AM 0 4 3 4 0 0 6 10 0 0 27
9:45 AM 0 0 3 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 13

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB EB WB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 9 25 24 40 9 21 23 70 0 0 221
APPROACH %'s : 26.47% 73.53% 37.50% 62.50% 30.00% 70.00% 24.73% 75.27% PEAK HR : 08:15 AM 41 36 47 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 3 14 7 15 1 14 7 39 0 0 100
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.583 0.875 0.417 0.250 0.350 0.583 0.609 Headers NEB NWB SEB SWB ENS ESB WNB WSB DNENB DNESB

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB EB WB TOTAL
4:30 PM 2 2 2 5 0 1 5 0 2 6 25
4:45 PM 3 0 4 1 0 2 4 3 5 2 24
5:00 PM 1 5 1 3 1 2 9 2 0 0 24
5:15 PM 0 0 3 2 3 3 7 4 0 0 22
5:30 PM 4 2 0 3 0 1 11 3 0 0 24
5:45 PM 1 2 4 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 15
6:00 PM 1 1 6 0 1 6 6 0 0 0 21
6:15 PM 4 0 1 2 4 0 6 3 0 0 20
6:30 PM 1 0 3 0 0 2 17 0 0 0 23
6:45 PM 0 3 0 2 2 2 10 2 0 0 21
7:00 PM 3 2 4 0 3 2 13 3 0 0 30
7:15 PM 1 2 2 0 5 0 4 2 0 0 16

EB WB EB WB NB SB NB SB EB WB TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 21 19 30 19 19 21 99 22 7 8 265
APPROACH %'s : 52.50% 47.50% 61.22% 38.78% 47.50% 52.50% 81.82% 18.18% PEAK HR : 05:15 PM 291 288 299 TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 6 5 13 6 4 10 31 7 0 0 82
PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.375 0.625 0.542 0.500 0.333 0.417 0.705 0.438 Pedestrians (Crosswalks)

WEST LEG
08:15 AM - 09:15 AM
Olive AveRiverside Dr Riverside Dr Olive Ave
05:15 PM - 06:15 PM

0.8540.458 0.792 0.500 0.679
NORTH LEG 2 CUT OUT
PM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG WEST LEG

0.5320.472 0.500 0.375 0.676
NORTH LEG 2 CUT OUT
AM

NORTH LEG SOUTH LEG EAST LEG
ATTACHMENT 10 -557
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: Olive Ave & Alameda Ave
City: Burbank Project ID: 19-05221-019
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1.5 0.5 0 0 2 1.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL NT NR NU NT2 SL ST SR SU SU2 EL ET ER EU EL2 WL WT WR WU WR2 S2L S2U S2L2 S2T2 S2R2 S2U2 TOTAL 7:00 AM 0 45 21 0 0 0 148 63 0 0 17 29 2 0 0 55 38 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 424 7:15 AM 0 65 34 0 0 0 165 59 0 2 19 42 5 0 4 45 45 1 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 492 7:30 AM 0 77 42 0 0 0 157 85 0 4 31 50 6 0 2 54 61 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 576 7:45 AM 0 75 53 0 0 0 168 89 0 1 24 99 2 0 1 55 84 5 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 660 8:00 AM 0 71 81 0 0 0 228 120 0 2 32 191 2 0 0 57 62 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 855 8:15 AM 0 120 72 0 0 0 195 85 0 1 44 192 9 0 3 66 80 6 0 4 0 0 0 7 0 884 8:30 AM 0 98 99 0 0 0 229 119 0 1 50 137 5 0 1 65 77 5 0 4 0 0 0 8 0 898 8:45 AM 0 104 76 0 0 0 237 89 0 2 34 127 5 0 4 53 88 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 826 9:00 AM 0 119 63 0 0 0 252 87 0 2 42 120 9 0 3 69 100 3 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 876 9:15 AM 0 118 93 0 0 0 231 125 0 3 45 131 2 0 4 48 93 2 0 4 0 0 0 7 0 906 9:30 AM 0 117 73 0 0 0 172 97 0 3 38 80 6 0 6 63 81 5 0 5 0 0 0 10 0 756 9:45 AM 0 138 59 0 0 1 155 103 0 5 36 101 4 0 3 58 95 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 770 NL NT NR NU NT2 SL ST SR SU SU2 EL ET ER EU EL2 WL WT WR WU WR2 S2L S2U S2L2 S2T2 S2R2 S2U2 TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 1147 766 0 0 1 2337 1121 0 26 412 1299 57 0 31 688 904 43 0 25 0 0 0 0 66 0 8923 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 59.96% 40.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 67.06% 32.17% 0.00% 0.75% 22.90% 72.21% 3.17% 0.00% 1.72% 41.45% 54.46% 2.59% 0.00% 1.51% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% PEAK HR : 08:30 AM 43 37 48 09:15 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 439 331 0 0 0 949 420 0 8 171 515 21 0 12 235 358 13 0 11 0 0 0 0 23 0 3506 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.922 0.836 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.941 0.840 0.000 0.667 0.855 0.940 0.583 0.000 0.750 0.851 0.895 0.650 0.000 0.688 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.719 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU NBT2 SBL SBT SBR SBU SBU2 EBL EBT EBR EBU EBL2 WBL WBT WBR WBU WBR2 SB2L SB2U SB2L2 SB2T2 SB2R2 SB2U2 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1.5 0.5 0 0 2 1.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NL NT NR NU NT2 SL ST SR SU SU2 EL ET ER EU EL2 WL WT WR WU WR2 S2L S2U S2L2 S2T2 S2R2 S2U2 TOTAL 4:30 PM 0 166 54 0 0 0 124 85 0 3 48 61 3 0 1 51 151 9 0 4 0 0 0 9 0 769 4:45 PM 0 214 66 0 0 0 143 79 0 2 48 68 2 0 4 37 149 5 0 3 0 0 0 11 0 831 5:00 PM 0 213 64 0 0 0 136 74 0 2 57 71 1 0 0 65 188 2 0 4 0 0 0 13 0 890 5:15 PM 0 208 59 1 0 0 151 74 0 2 62 85 1 0 2 83 186 4 0 3 0 0 1 15 0 937 5:30 PM 0 210 53 0 0 0 123 60 0 4 78 93 5 0 4 58 170 9 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 881 5:45 PM 0 221 75 0 0 0 139 73 0 2 71 75 4 0 1 44 158 8 0 3 0 0 0 13 0 887 6:00 PM 0 240 61 0 0 0 127 74 0 3 92 87 3 0 3 62 180 4 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 947 6:15 PM 0 187 60 0 0 0 106 63 0 3 74 91 4 0 3 82 175 5 0 2 0 0 0 14 0 869 6:30 PM 0 156 51 0 0 0 136 75 0 4 65 100 2 0 7 49 137 5 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 801 6:45 PM 0 223 59 0 0 0 145 86 1 3 72 73 1 0 1 58 118 8 0 4 0 0 0 13 0 865 7:00 PM 0 216 68 0 0 0 140 80 0 0 65 78 2 0 3 42 123 9 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 842 7:15 PM 0 159 71 0 0 0 109 78 0 0 81 73 3 0 4 51 98 7 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 746 NL NT NR NU NT2 SL ST SR SU SU2 EL ET ER EU EL2 WL WT WR WU WR2 S2L S2U S2L2 S2T2 S2R2 S2U2 TOTAL TOTAL VOLUMES : 0 2413 741 1 0 0 1579 901 1 28 813 955 31 0 33 682 1833 75 0 26 0 0 0 1 152 0 10265 APPROACH %'s : 0.00% 76.48% 23.49% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 62.93% 35.91% 0.04% 1.12% 44.38% 52.13% 1.69% 0.00% 1.80% 26.07% 70.07% 2.87% 0.00% 0.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.65% 99.35% 0.00% PEAK HR : 05:15 PM 294 291 302 06:00 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 0 879 248 1 0 0 540 281 0 11 303 340 13 0 10 247 694 25 0 6 0 0 0 1 53 0 3652 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.000 0.916 0.827 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.894 0.949 0.000 0.688 0.823 0.914 0.650 0.000 0.625 0.744 0.933 0.694 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.883 0.000

WESTBOUND

0.880

0.967
SOUTHBOUND2

0.719

0.844 0.964
SOUTHBOUND2
PM
AM
08:30 AM - 09:30 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.912

SOUTHBOUND

0.937 0.916
05:15 PM - 06:15 PM

SOUTHBOUND

0.959 0.931

EASTBOUND

0.900
4/23/2019
Alameda Ave

NORTHBOUND
Alameda Ave

0.886

WESTBOUND
Olive Ave Olive Ave
Total
ATTACHMENT 10 -558
ITM Peak Hour Summary
Prepared by:

National Data & Surveying Services
Lanes 0 1 0 City:

AM 8 154 34 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 10 96 19 PM
AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes
8 0 21 0
559 0 798 2
1 20 0 25 99 0 103 1
2 1177 0 812
0 108 0 125
Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM 142 105 89 AM
NOON 0 0 0 NOON
PM 220 173 92 PM
1 2 0 Lanes
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
709 0 1028 666 0 922
1305 0 962 1300 0 923

AM NOON PM AM NOON PM
AM AM

NOON NOON
PM PM 809485
196
324
361
0 South Leg
19902014 0
East Leg
North Leg
344
1966
697
0 South Leg
East Leg
336
0 0
219125
West Leg
0 West Leg
1845
End
Total Ins & Outs
North Leg
361
0 324
Northbound Approach
10:00 AM
NONE
329
0 7:30 PM
133
0 Total Volume Per Leg
Count Periods
AM
Start
4:30 PM
17-5030-015
NOON Peak Hour
NOON
PM
7:00 AM
NONE
Day:

Eastbound Approach
Buena Vista St and Glenoaks Blvd , Burbank
PM Peak Hour
923
133
0 219
Signalized

CONTROL
500 PM
709 0 1028
Buena Vista St
AM Peak Hour
Tuesday
Westbound Approach
Burbank
Date:
1300 0
745 AM
Peak Hour Summary
Southbound Approach Project #:1/24/2017
Glenoaks Blvd
ATTACHMENT 10 -559
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement Count
Location: N Buena Vista St & N San Fernando Blvd
City: Burbank Project ID: 19-05223-017
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
1 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
7:00 AM 12 110 2 0 49 261 51 0 17 75 20 0 4 19 35 0 655 7:15 AM 5 116 1 0 50 267 45 0 16 136 26 0 5 18 36 0 721 7:30 AM 10 152 7 0 43 270 62 0 21 153 35 0 6 25 38 0 822 7:45 AM 1 141 6 0 60 269 70 0 31 191 38 0 8 40 41 0 896 8:00 AM 9 146 6 0 64 276 40 0 27 117 40 0 9 26 46 0 806 8:15 AM 6 195 2 0 56 323 42 0 25 128 48 0 7 31 35 0 898 8:30 AM 6 134 3 0 56 276 67 0 11 146 49 0 11 38 42 0 839 8:45 AM 5 133 3 0 63 328 41 0 18 154 37 0 11 30 30 0 853 9:00 AM 10 119 9 0 65 258 44 0 14 181 52 0 12 39 30 0 833 9:15 AM 11 129 6 0 53 252 49 0 16 118 38 0 8 24 33 0 737 9:30 AM 5 110 8 0 61 270 58 0 6 73 25 0 6 24 45 0 691
9:45 AM 11 126 3 0 56 274 61 0 12 79 23 0 7 38 48 0 738

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 91 1611 56 0 676 3324 630 0 214 1551 431 0 94 352 459 0 9489 APPROACH %'s : 5.18% 91.64% 3.19% 0.00% 14.60% 71.79% 13.61% 0.00% 9.74% 70.63% 19.63% 0.00% 10.39% 38.90% 50.72% 0.00% PEAK HR : 07:45 AM 40 37 48 08:15 AM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 22 616 17 0 236 1144 219 0 94 582 175 0 35 135 164 0 3439 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.611 0.790 0.708 0.000 0.922 0.885 0.782 0.000 0.758 0.762 0.893 0.000 0.795 0.844 0.891 0.000 Headers NBL NBT NBR NBU SBL SBT SBR SBU EBL EBT EBR EBU WBL WBT WBR WBU 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:30 PM 15 233 5 0 56 199 48 0 34 60 18 0 15 63 149 0 895 4:45 PM 7 255 5 0 52 189 28 0 46 50 20 0 14 75 94 0 835 5:00 PM 13 265 4 0 47 172 32 0 45 84 16 0 14 89 123 0 904 5:15 PM 19 297 6 0 50 210 34 0 37 74 11 0 13 74 136 0 961 5:30 PM 15 254 12 0 49 178 19 0 43 68 17 0 10 81 113 0 859 5:45 PM 16 274 4 0 49 185 28 0 36 75 17 0 13 73 130 0 900 6:00 PM 14 289 2 0 38 170 27 0 42 62 11 0 16 72 126 0 869 6:15 PM 22 299 4 0 68 191 24 0 24 54 15 0 15 68 130 0 914 6:30 PM 12 273 3 0 52 189 38 0 30 52 8 0 13 54 120 0 844 6:45 PM 18 225 4 0 51 176 26 0 26 55 11 0 11 62 124 0 789 7:00 PM 5 255 4 0 52 163 20 0 26 67 9 0 16 52 114 0 783 7:15 PM 10 241 5 0 51 159 27 0 14 47 12 0 8 49 83 0 706

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 166 3160 58 0 615 2181 351 0 403 748 165 0 158 812 1442 0 10259 APPROACH %'s : 4.91% 93.38% 1.71% 0.00% 19.54% 69.30% 11.15% 0.00% 30.62% 56.84% 12.54% 0.00% 6.55% 33.67% 59.78% 0.00% PEAK HR : 05:00 PM 293 291 302 05:15 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 63 1090 26 0 195 745 113 0 161 301 61 0 50 317 502 0 3624 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.829 0.918 0.542 0.000 0.975 0.887 0.831 0.000 0.894 0.896 0.897 0.000 0.893 0.890 0.923 0.000

EASTBOUND
4/23/2019
N San Fernando Blvd

NORTHBOUND
N San Fernando Blvd

0.918

WESTBOUND
N Buena Vista St N Buena Vista St

0.950 0.818

EASTBOUND
PM
AM
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM

NORTHBOUND

0.807 0.957
Total

0.9430.902

WESTBOUND

0.961

SOUTHBOUND

0.915 0.895
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM

SOUTHBOUND
ATTACHMENT 10 -560
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-05223-020 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 93 874 114 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 86 540 99 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 2 2 0 0 141 0 55
2 273 0 120
0 0 0 0 2 377 0 167
68 0 129 1 TEV 2877 0 3418 0 0 0 0
252 0 171 2 PHF 0.97 0.96
168 0 190 1 0 1 2 1

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 181 808 423 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 145 465 356 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
1107
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
N Buena Vista St & W Empire Ave
Tuesday
04/23/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
08:15 AM - 09:15 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
722

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)

PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:15 PM - 06:15 PM
588
1078
0 Signalized
W Empire Ave

EASTBOUND
N Buena Vista St
1209
0 N Buena Vista St

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
693
0 W Empire Ave
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
358 0 540
NOONAM PM8
2 3
2 4
0 2
0 3 0
2 10
0 8
0 0
0 3
7 0
8 4
0 2
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 1
0 2
1 0
1 3
0 4
0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
167
120
55 168
252
68 93
874
114
145
465
356
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
377
273
141
190
171
129
86 540
99 181
808
423
1 2
0 1
2 1
0 1
0 1
0 0
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -561
WILTEC Phone: (626) 5

INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: DUDEK
PROJECT: BURBANK TRAFFIC COUNTS
DATE: TUESDAY MAY 7, 2019
PERIOD: 4:30 PM TO 7:30 PM
INTERSECTION: N/S BUENA VISTA STREET

E/W VANOWEN STREET
CITY: BURBANK

VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 430-445 65 222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 237 50 0 86
445-500 47 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 231 54 0 77
500-515 80 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 246 46 0 98
515-530 69 218 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 232 78 0 89
530-545 75 261 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 270 62 0 85
545-600 61 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 252 44 0 70
600-615 66 225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 224 50 0 81
615-630 84 262 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 251 53 0 104
630-645 56 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 244 55 0 73
645-700 55 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215 30 0 71
700-715 64 149 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 197 43 0 60
715-730 58 178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187 37 0 63
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 430-530 261 857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 946 228 0 350
445-545 271 896 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 979 240 0 349
500-600 285 918 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000 230 0 342
515-615 271 910 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 978 234 0 325
530-630 286 954 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 997 209 0 340
545-645 267 897 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 971 202 0 328
600-700 261 873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 934 188 0 329
615-715 259 797 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 907 181 0 308
630-730 233 713 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 843 165 0 267

PEAK HOUR
0 0
0 0
285 918 0 0
0 0
0 230 1000 0
392
VANOWEN STREET 734
0 342 BUENA VISTA STREET

PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
430-445 3 3 0 1 7 430-445 0 0 0 0
445-500 3 3 0 0 6 445-500 1 0 0 0
1203
500-600
1230
ATTACHMENT 10 -562
500-515 1 1 0 1 3 500-515 0 0 0 1
515-530 1 1 0 0 2 515-530 1 0 0 2
530-545 2 2 0 0 4 530-545 0 0 0 1
545-600 3 3 0 0 6 545-600 0 0 0 0
600-615 0 0 0 0 0 600-615 0 0 0 0
615-630 1 1 0 0 2 615-630 0 0 0 0
630-645 2 2 0 1 5 630-645 0 0 0 1
645-700 0 0 0 0 0 645-700 0 0 0 0
700-715 0 0 0 0 0 700-715 0 0 1 0
715-730 0 0 0 1 1 715-730 0 0 0 0

HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
430-530 8 8 0 2 18 430-530 2 0 0 3
445-545 7 7 0 1 15 445-545 2 0 0 4
500-600 7 7 0 1 15 500-600 1 0 0 4
515-615 6 6 0 0 12 515-615 1 0 0 3
530-630 6 6 0 0 12 530-630 0 0 0 1
ATTACHMENT 10 -563
564-1944
11 EBTH
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
11 EBTH
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 TOTAL
0 1
ATTACHMENT 10 -564
1 3
1 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
TOTAL
5 6
5 4
1 ATTACHMENT 10 -565
WILTEC Phone: (626) 56

INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: DUDEK
PROJECT: BURBANK TRAFFIC COUNTS
DATE: TUESDAY MAY 7, 2019
PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 10:00 AM
INTERSECTION: N/S BUENA VISTA STREET

E/W VICTORY BOULEVARD
CITY: BURBANK

VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-715 19 243 83 0 43 89 13 0 5 92 19 0 43
715-730 17 242 81 0 41 107 15 0 4 106 17 0 64
730-745 22 282 104 0 38 122 19 0 9 132 36 0 95
745-800 14 243 93 0 62 180 19 0 13 157 61 0 66
800-815 11 272 91 0 50 119 30 0 10 171 58 0 58
815-830 12 324 105 0 57 123 24 0 10 139 45 0 73
830-845 16 298 87 0 48 104 50 0 17 127 42 0 54
845-900 16 292 73 0 56 126 22 0 13 144 46 0 49
900-915 11 306 100 0 64 97 28 0 8 134 42 0 31
915-930 19 239 91 0 58 80 19 0 16 151 44 0 44
930-945 8 201 76 0 52 96 17 0 13 119 26 0 64
945-1000 29 226 58 0 41 96 24 0 20 136 27 0 36
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-800 72 1010 361 0 184 498 66 0 31 487 133 0 268
715-815 64 1039 369 0 191 528 83 0 36 566 172 0 283
730-830 59 1121 393 0 207 544 92 0 42 599 200 0 292
745-845 53 1137 376 0 217 526 123 0 50 594 206 0 251
800-900 55 1186 356 0 211 472 126 0 50 581 191 0 234
815-915 55 1220 365 0 225 450 124 0 48 544 175 0 207
830-930 62 1135 351 0 226 407 119 0 54 556 174 0 178
845-945 54 1038 340 0 230 399 86 0 50 548 158 0 188
900-1000 67 972 325 0 215 369 88 0 57 540 139 0 175

PEAK HOUR
207
544
843
92 59 1121 393 0
0 0
0 200 599 42
142
VICTORY BOULEVARD 1210
776
292 BUENA VISTA STREET

PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-715 3 3 0 2 8 700-715 2 2 1 1
715-730 2 2 0 0 4 715-730 0 0 0 0
1573
730-830
841
ATTACHMENT 10 -566
730-745 0 0 2 3 5 730-745 0 0 0 0
745-800 5 5 3 1 14 745-800 0 0 1 0
800-815 4 4 7 6 21 800-815 2 1 0 0
815-830 4 4 1 7 16 815-830 0 2 0 0
830-845 3 3 6 3 15 830-845 0 1 2 0
845-900 6 6 7 1 20 845-900 0 2 1 0
900-915 6 6 3 3 18 900-915 0 1 0 0
915-930 13 13 2 3 31 915-930 1 0 2 0
930-945 13 13 2 0 28 930-945 2 1 1 1
945-1000 4 4 4 4 16 945-1000 0 0 1 1

HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-800 10 10 5 6 31 700-800 2 2 2 1
715-815 11 11 12 10 44 715-815 2 1 1 0
730-830 13 13 13 17 56 730-830 2 3 1 0
745-845 16 16 17 17 66 745-845 2 4 3 0
800-900 17 17 21 17 72 800-900 2 6 3 0
ATTACHMENT 10 -567
64-1944
11 EBTH
102
152
192
205
218
161
159
126
120
123
173
145
11 EBTH
651
767
776
743
664
566
528
542
561
TOTAL
6 0
ATTACHMENT 10 -568
0 1
3 2
3 3
1 3
5 2
TOTAL
7 4
6 9
11 ATTACHMENT 10 -569
WILTEC Phone: (626) 56

INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: DUDEK
PROJECT: BURBANK TRAFFIC COUNTS
DATE: THURSDAY MAY 23, 2019
PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 10:00 AM
INTERSECTION: N/S BUENA VISTA STREET

E/W BURBANK BOULEVARD
CITY: BURBANK

VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-715 15 210 22 0 11 59 14 0 5 106 18 0 33
715-730 19 290 24 0 24 79 30 0 6 125 27 0 47
730-745 17 328 20 0 11 97 44 1 13 155 50 0 101
745-800 23 296 35 0 27 130 26 0 13 195 52 0 100
800-815 23 276 44 1 27 98 42 0 32 225 60 0 49
815-830 29 312 53 0 20 118 40 0 33 172 35 0 56
830-845 23 293 32 0 25 100 36 0 21 153 20 0 57
845-900 27 291 25 1 20 77 35 0 21 133 29 0 50
900-915 21 238 20 0 12 99 40 0 17 122 32 1 50
915-930 16 239 23 0 17 88 26 0 15 149 28 0 39
930-945 30 227 22 0 16 82 30 0 20 139 25 0 46
945-1000 26 221 21 0 9 98 32 0 25 171 30 0 36
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-800 74 1124 101 0 73 365 114 1 37 581 147 0 281
715-815 82 1190 123 1 89 404 142 1 64 700 189 0 297
730-830 92 1212 152 1 85 443 152 1 91 747 197 0 306
745-845 98 1177 164 1 99 446 144 0 99 745 167 0 262
800-900 102 1172 154 2 92 393 153 0 107 683 144 0 212
815-915 100 1134 130 1 77 394 151 0 92 580 116 1 213
830-930 87 1061 100 1 74 364 137 0 74 557 109 1 196
845-945 94 995 90 1 65 346 131 0 73 543 114 1 185
900-1000 93 925 86 0 54 367 128 0 77 581 115 1 171

PEAK HOUR
85 443
681
152
92 1212 152 1
1 2
0 197 747 91
92 BURBANK BOULEVARD 921
521
306 BUENA VISTA STREET

PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-715 0 0 0 0 0 700-715 0 0 0 0
715-730 0 0 0 1 1 715-730 0 0 0 0
1457
730-830
1035
ATTACHMENT 10 -570
730-745 0 0 0 0 0 730-745 1 0 0 0
745-800 0 0 0 1 1 745-800 0 0 0 0
800-815 4 4 0 2 10 800-815 0 0 0 0
815-830 2 2 0 2 6 815-830 0 0 0 0
830-845 4 4 0 2 10 830-845 0 0 0 0
845-900 0 0 0 0 0 845-900 1 1 0 0
900-915 1 1 0 3 5 900-915 0 0 0 0
915-930 0 0 1 1 2 915-930 0 0 0 0
930-945 2 2 2 4 10 930-945 0 0 0 0
945-1000 1 1 0 0 2 945-1000 0 0 0 0

HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-800 0 0 0 2 2 700-800 1 0 0 0
715-815 4 4 0 4 12 715-815 1 0 0 0
730-830 6 6 0 5 17 730-830 1 0 0 0
745-845 10 10 0 7 27 745-845 0 0 0 0
800-900 10 10 0 6 26 800-900 1 1 0 0
ATTACHMENT 10 -571
64-1944
11 EBTH
66 89
120
159
105
137
129
105
133
101
118
110
11 EBTH
434
473
521
530
476
504
468
457
462
TOTAL
0 0
ATTACHMENT 10 -572
1 0
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 0
TOTAL
1 1
1 0
2 ATTACHMENT 10 -573
WILTEC Phone: (626) 56

INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: DUDEK
PROJECT: BURBANK TRAFFIC COUNTS
DATE: THURSDAY MAY 2, 2019
PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 10:00 AM
INTERSECTION: N/S BUENA VISTA STREET

E/W MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD
CITY: BURBANK

VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-715 12 206 41 0 25 76 35 0 16 81 15 0 20
715-730 15 268 41 0 26 80 31 0 12 65 7 0 25
730-745 19 361 113 0 47 104 23 0 18 107 24 0 46
745-800 29 326 128 0 59 169 45 0 19 194 37 0 24
800-815 25 279 78 0 70 122 30 0 18 128 35 0 27
815-830 37 336 85 0 35 124 35 0 28 124 26 0 40
830-845 21 284 57 0 38 156 37 0 19 117 24 0 36
845-900 39 333 98 0 23 114 38 0 35 108 30 0 38
900-915 19 285 53 0 29 131 38 1 16 109 27 0 25
915-930 33 241 50 0 29 131 32 0 15 108 32 0 39
930-945 23 205 42 0 29 111 27 1 20 131 22 0 -59
945-1000 39 189 48 0 29 99 34 0 30 112 26 0 130
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-800 75 1161 323 0 157 429 134 0 65 447 83 0 115
715-815 88 1234 360 0 202 475 129 0 67 494 103 0 122
730-830 110 1302 404 0 211 519 133 0 83 553 122 0 137
745-845 112 1225 348 0 202 571 147 0 84 563 122 0 127
800-900 122 1232 318 0 166 516 140 0 100 477 115 0 141
815-915 116 1238 293 0 125 525 148 1 98 458 107 0 139
830-930 112 1143 258 0 119 532 145 1 85 442 113 0 138
845-945 114 1064 243 0 110 487 135 2 86 456 111 0 43
900-1000 114 920 193 0 116 472 131 2 81 460 107 0 135

PEAK HOUR
211
519
863
133
110 1302 404 0
0 0
0 122 553 83
110
MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD 896
649
137 BUENA VISTA STREET

PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-715 2 2 1 3 8 700-715 0 1 3 0
715-730 1 1 0 0 2 715-730 0 1 0 0
1816
730-830
758
ATTACHMENT 10 -574
730-745 1 1 1 1 4 730-745 0 0 1 0
745-800 4 4 1 1 10 745-800 1 0 1 5
800-815 1 1 1 3 6 800-815 1 0 3 0
815-830 4 4 4 3 15 815-830 0 0 3 1
830-845 4 4 1 1 10 830-845 1 0 1 0
845-900 6 6 4 3 19 845-900 1 1 3 0
900-915 1 1 3 3 8 900-915 0 0 3 1
915-930 2 2 2 4 10 915-930 0 0 4 1
930-945 3 3 0 1 7 930-945 1 0 1 0
945-1000 2 2 1 4 9 945-1000 0 0 4 1

HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-800 8 8 3 5 24 700-800 1 2 5 5
715-815 7 7 3 5 22 715-815 2 1 5 5
730-830 10 10 7 8 35 730-830 2 0 8 6
745-845 13 13 7 8 41 745-845 3 0 8 6
800-900 15 15 10 10 50 800-900 3 1 10 1
ATTACHMENT 10 -575
64-1944
11 EBTH
66 97
157
198
155
139
143
177
125
114
156
140
11 EBTH
518
607
649
635
614
584
559
572
535
TOTAL
4 1
ATTACHMENT 10 -576
1 7
4 4
2 5
4 5
2 5
TOTAL
13 13
16 17
15 ATTACHMENT 10 -577
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-05221-021 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 450 1045 100 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 186 397 95 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 2 1 0 0 57 0 48
2 615 0 914
1 0 0 0 1 124 0 168
170 0 339 1 TEV 4037 0 3918 0 0 0 0
468 0 951 2 PHF 0.95 0.94
108 0 96 0 0 1 2 1

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 101 801 156 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 97 355 113 AM
Olive Ave
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
1462 0 902
Buena Vista St
1321
0 Buena Vista St

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
1202
0 PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
573
1197
0 Signalized
Olive Ave

EASTBOUND
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
617
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
Buena Vista St & Olive Ave
Tuesday
04/23/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
08:15 AM - 09:15 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
681

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)
NOONAM PM2
11 9
8 8
0 9
0 8 0
19 9
0 6
0 9
0 11
5 0
17 10
0 9
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 2
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
168
914
48 108
468
170
450
1045
100
97 355
113
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
124
615
57 96
951
339
186
397
95 101
801
156
0 3
0 0
3 0
0 0
0 3
0 2
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -578
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-05221-022 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 188 687 271 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 61 320 269 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 2 1 0 1 215 0 117
2 545 0 590
0 0 0 0 2 231 0 234
202 0 225 2 TEV 3762 0 3920 0 0 0 0
616 0 987 2 PHF 0.90 0.94
123 0 133 1 0 1 2 1

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 107 693 134 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 213 302 219 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
684
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
Buena Vista St & Alameda Ave
Tuesday
04/23/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
1106

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)

PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
621
1133
0 Signalized
Alameda Ave

EASTBOUND
Buena Vista St
1044
0 Buena Vista St

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
1390
0 Alameda Ave
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
991 0 713
NOONAM PM9
3 3
10 7
0 18
0 11 0
3 26
0 4
0 12
0 17
17 0
35 34
0 21
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 0
0 0
2 1
1 1
0 0
0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
234
590
117
123
616
202
188
687
271
213
302
219
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
231
545
215
133
987
225
61 320
269
107
693
134
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 1
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -579
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-05221-023 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 46 280 266 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 37 184 108 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM

1.5 1.5 1 0 1 223 0 79
2 274 0 168
0 0 0 0 1 65 0 20
78 0 68 0 TEV 2962 0 2653 0 0 0 0
773 0 856 0 PHF 0.95 0.96
1 0 0 0 0 1 1.5 0.5

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 120 649 69 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 1 367 585 298 AM
SR-134 Ramps/Riverside Dr
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
581 0 431
ena Vista St/SR-134 Ramps/Riverside
302
0 Buena Vista St/SR-134
Ramps/Riverside Dr

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
1033
0 PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
742
940
0 Signalized
SR-134 Ramps/Riverside Dr

EASTBOUND
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
249
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
Buena Vista St/SR-134 Ramps/Riverside Dr & SR-134 Ramps/Riverside Dr Tuesday
04/23/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
08:15 AM - 09:15 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
1337

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)
NOONAM PM2
0 0
1 2
0 4
0 2 0
0 0
0 1
0 2
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 12
0 0
6 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20 168
79 1
773
78 46
280
266
367
585
298
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
65 274
223
0 856
68 37
184
108
120
649
69 0
1 0
0 5
0 2
0 2
0 0
0 NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -580
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 19-05223-024 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 52 527 636 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 146 487 735 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 1.5 2.5 0 1 578 0 485
3 1493 0 1255
4 0 11 0 2 252 0 379
36 0 131 2 TEV 5671 0 6484 0 0 0 0
1406 0 1214 3 PHF 0.93 0.99
313 0 246 1 0 2 2 1

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 455 508 228 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 233 233 112 AM
W Burbank Blvd
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
1544 0 2105
N Victory Blvd
1219
0 N Victory Blvd

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
2177
0 PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:15 PM - 06:15 PM
754
1217
0 Signalized
W Burbank Blvd

EASTBOUND
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
985
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
N Victory Blvd & W Burbank Blvd
Tuesday
04/23/2019

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
2154

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)
NOONAM PM3
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 1 0
0 4
0 4
0 0
0 1
9 0
2 1
0 9
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
379
1255
485
313
1406
36 52
527
636
233
233
112
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
252
1493
578
246
1214
131
146
487
735
455
508
228
0 1
1 0
4 0
0 2
1 0
1 0
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -581
WILTEC Phone: (626) 56

INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: DUDEK
PROJECT: BURBANK TRAFFIC COUNTS
DATE: WEDNESDAY MAY 8, 2019
PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 10:00 AM
INTERSECTION: N/S VICTORY BOULEVARD

E/W MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD
CITY: BURBANK

VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-715 24 131 25 0 22 57 32 0 7 71 14 0 31
715-730 21 208 50 0 28 89 30 0 11 80 32 0 45
730-745 29 184 38 0 24 123 34 1 16 114 31 0 33
745-800 34 247 47 0 26 128 33 0 11 119 41 0 51
800-815 41 266 49 0 23 141 47 0 15 107 41 0 65
815-830 29 213 37 0 25 119 51 0 18 104 36 0 37
830-845 28 226 53 0 28 126 46 0 18 115 30 0 57
845-900 31 226 60 0 35 148 34 0 21 129 32 0 46
900-915 36 195 40 0 38 128 33 0 13 99 11 0 57
915-930 34 216 39 0 44 121 28 0 12 113 29 0 45
930-945 21 125 37 0 38 105 21 0 19 117 30 0 45
945-1000 25 169 39 0 29 136 31 0 23 128 28 0 40
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-800 108 770 160 0 100 397 129 1 45 384 118 0 160
715-815 125 905 184 0 101 481 144 1 53 420 145 0 194
730-830 133 910 171 0 98 511 165 1 60 444 149 0 186
745-845 132 952 186 0 102 514 177 0 62 445 148 0 210
800-900 129 931 199 0 111 534 178 0 72 455 139 0 205
815-915 124 860 190 0 126 521 164 0 70 447 109 0 197
830-930 129 863 192 0 145 523 141 0 64 456 102 0 205
845-945 122 762 176 0 155 502 116 0 65 458 102 0 193
900-1000 116 705 155 0 149 490 113 0 67 457 98 0 187

PEAK HOUR
111
534
823
178
129 931 199 0
0 0
0 139 455 72
115
MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD 835
515
205 VICTORY BOULEVARD

PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-715 1 1 1 2 5 700-715 0 1 0 0
715-730 1 1 0 4 6 715-730 2 0 0 2
1259
800-900
666
ATTACHMENT 10 -582
730-745 2 2 2 1 7 730-745 0 1 2 0
745-800 3 3 4 2 12 745-800 0 1 3 1
800-815 5 5 2 1 13 800-815 0 4 1 1
815-830 2 2 1 1 6 815-830 1 1 2 6
830-845 0 0 1 2 3 830-845 0 1 0 2
845-900 2 2 2 2 8 845-900 1 2 1 4
900-915 3 3 0 2 8 900-915 3 1 2 2
915-930 1 1 2 6 10 915-930 0 2 0 2
930-945 3 3 3 1 10 930-945 0 0 3 0
945-1000 1 1 2 5 9 945-1000 1 0 1 0

HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-800 7 7 7 9 30 700-800 2 3 5 3
715-815 11 11 8 8 38 715-815 2 6 6 4
730-830 12 12 9 5 38 730-830 1 7 8 8
745-845 10 10 8 6 34 745-845 1 7 6 10
800-900 9 9 6 6 30 800-900 2 8 4 13
ATTACHMENT 10 -583
64-1944
11 EBTH
58 79
127
134
143
103
134
135
140
112
101
136
11 EBTH
398
483
507
514
515
512
521
488
489
TOTAL
1 4
ATTACHMENT 10 -584
3 5
6 10
3 8
8 4
3 2
TOTAL
13 18
24 24
27 ATTACHMENT 10 -585
WILTEC Phone: (626) 56

INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: DUDEK
PROJECT: BURBANK TRAFFIC COUNTS
DATE: WEDNESDAY MAY 8, 2019
PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 10:00 AM
INTERSECTION: N/S VICTORY BOULEVARD

E/W OLIVE AVENUE
CITY: BURBANK

VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-715 43 136 21 0 14 119 17 0 9 56 7 0 5
715-730 41 198 30 0 15 141 17 0 15 64 3 0 4
730-745 39 202 20 0 25 180 22 0 19 84 17 0 13
745-800 60 258 39 0 22 252 37 0 28 123 35 0 10
800-815 71 215 41 0 17 215 28 0 18 120 33 0 16
815-830 70 229 37 0 24 221 40 0 29 121 40 0 16
830-845 84 223 59 0 9 202 30 0 16 126 11 0 12
845-900 66 188 37 1 30 241 30 0 16 106 15 0 8
900-915 61 173 46 0 28 243 27 0 26 94 11 0 14
915-930 48 172 29 0 35 169 24 0 20 91 15 0 7
930-945 60 153 36 0 25 190 28 0 36 90 13 0 8
945-1000 51 141 31 0 40 191 26 0 30 136 7 0 12
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-800 183 794 110 0 76 692 93 0 71 327 62 0 32
715-815 211 873 130 0 79 788 104 0 80 391 88 0 43
730-830 240 904 137 0 88 868 127 0 94 448 125 0 55
745-845 285 925 176 0 72 890 135 0 91 490 119 0 54
800-900 291 855 174 1 80 879 128 0 79 473 99 0 52
815-915 281 813 179 1 91 907 127 0 87 447 77 0 50
830-930 259 756 171 1 102 855 111 0 78 417 52 0 41
845-945 235 686 148 1 118 843 109 0 98 381 54 0 37
900-1000 220 639 142 0 128 793 105 0 112 411 46 0 41

PEAK HOUR
72 890
1097
135
285 925 176 0
0 0
0 119 490 91
160
OLIVE AVENUE 666
452
54 VICTORY BOULEVARD

PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-715 2 2 3 0 7 700-715 0 1 0 0
715-730 5 5 2 1 13 715-730 1 0 0 0
1386
745-845
700
ATTACHMENT 10 -586
730-745 4 4 3 9 20 730-745 0 1 0 0
745-800 8 8 5 1 22 745-800 1 1 3 2
800-815 8 8 8 8 32 800-815 1 2 1 1
815-830 6 6 5 6 23 815-830 0 0 1 6
830-845 3 3 0 4 10 830-845 3 2 0 2
845-900 1 1 3 7 12 845-900 4 0 0 2
900-915 3 3 7 2 15 900-915 2 1 1 0
915-930 2 2 2 7 13 915-930 0 1 1 1
930-945 4 4 3 2 13 930-945 0 0 0 0
945-1000 4 4 3 1 12 945-1000 1 1 0 0

HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-800 19 19 13 11 62 700-800 2 3 3 2
715-815 25 25 18 19 87 715-815 3 4 4 3
730-830 26 26 21 24 97 730-830 2 4 5 9
745-845 25 25 18 19 87 745-845 5 5 5 11
800-900 18 18 16 25 77 800-900 8 4 2 11
ATTACHMENT 10 -587
64-1944
11 EBTH
47 77
91 118
104
109
121
153
106
131
124
103
11 EBTH
333
390
422
452
487
489
511
514
464
TOTAL
1 1
ATTACHMENT 10 -588
1 7
5 7
7 6
4 3
0 2
TOTAL
10 14
20 26
25 ATTACHMENT 10 -589
WILTEC Phone: (626) 56

INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: DUDEK
PROJECT: BURBANK TRAFFIC COUNTS
DATE: WEDNESDAY MAY 8, 2019
PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 10:00 AM
INTERSECTION: N/S VICTORY BOULEVARD

E/W ALAMEDA AVENUE
CITY: BURBANK

VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-715 8 87 41 0 31 140 22 0 12 19 16 0 39
715-730 4 85 59 0 35 180 28 0 8 25 10 0 16
730-745 0 88 50 0 66 218 37 0 8 37 18 0 33
745-800 10 125 74 0 65 276 20 0 13 49 18 0 25
800-815 22 116 78 0 57 271 21 0 18 63 28 0 21
815-830 16 106 80 0 67 283 27 0 13 55 18 0 32
830-845 18 181 85 0 39 262 33 0 20 50 20 0 15
845-900 9 104 42 0 72 328 22 0 17 56 18 0 24
900-915 15 100 63 0 53 299 31 0 12 44 20 0 16
915-930 10 78 66 0 56 280 28 0 18 51 24 0 24
930-945 11 78 82 0 55 197 31 0 20 60 16 0 18
945-1000 7 60 78 0 67 200 22 0 19 69 15 0 18
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-800 22 385 224 0 197 814 107 0 41 130 62 0 113
715-815 36 414 261 0 223 945 106 0 47 174 74 0 95
730-830 48 435 282 0 255 1048 105 0 52 204 82 0 111
745-845 66 528 317 0 228 1092 101 0 64 217 84 0 93
800-900 65 507 285 0 235 1144 103 0 68 224 84 0 92
815-915 58 491 270 0 231 1172 113 0 62 205 76 0 87
830-930 52 463 256 0 220 1169 114 0 67 201 82 0 79
845-945 45 360 253 0 236 1104 112 0 67 211 78 0 82
900-1000 43 316 289 0 231 976 112 0 69 224 75 0 76

PEAK HOUR
228
1092
1421
101
66 528 317 0
0 0
0 84 217 64
47 ALAMEDA AVENUE 703
563
93 VICTORY BOULEVARD

PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-715 1 1 2 1 5 700-715 0 0 0 0
715-730 1 1 3 6 11 715-730 0 0 0 0
911
745-845
365
ATTACHMENT 10 -590
730-745 5 5 3 2 15 730-745 1 1 0 1
745-800 0 0 0 1 1 745-800 2 0 0 0
800-815 1 1 1 2 5 800-815 0 2 0 0
815-830 7 7 7 20 41 815-830 0 0 1 1
830-845 1 1 2 5 9 830-845 0 0 1 1
845-900 4 4 3 4 15 845-900 0 0 0 1
900-915 1 1 5 1 8 900-915 0 0 0 0
915-930 0 0 1 2 3 915-930 0 1 0 0
930-945 1 1 0 4 6 930-945 1 0 0 0
945-1000 1 1 2 0 4 945-1000 0 0 0 0

HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-800 7 7 8 10 32 700-800 3 1 0 1
715-815 7 7 7 11 32 715-815 3 3 0 1
730-830 13 13 11 25 62 730-830 3 3 1 2
745-845 9 9 10 28 56 745-845 2 2 2 2
800-900 13 13 13 31 70 800-900 0 2 2 3
ATTACHMENT 10 -591
64-1944
11 EBTH
86 103
121
155
159
127
122
135
112
130
118
160
11 EBTH
465
538
562
563
543
496
499
495
520
TOTAL
0 0
ATTACHMENT 10 -592
3 2
2 2
2 1
0 1
1 0
TOTAL
5 7
9 8
7 ATTACHMENT 10 -593
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 18-05253-004 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 631 200 49 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 445 169 70 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 1 1 0 1 86 0 70
2 411 0 320
0 0 0 0 1 20 0 18
487 0 834 2 TEV 2684 0 3887 0 0 0 0
462 0 648 2 PHF 0.86 0.98
281 0 575 1 0 2 1.5 0.5

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 245 365 19 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 65 98 3 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
764
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
N San Fernando Blvd & Burbank Blvd
Tuesday
04/24/2018

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
514

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)

PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
655
1285
0 Signalized
Burbank Blvd

EASTBOUND
N San Fernando Blvd
499
0 N San Fernando Blvd

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
737
0 Burbank Blvd
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
1016 0 1101
NOONAM PM0
7 11
9 11
0 4
0 7 0
1 13
0 3
0 3
0 15
6 0
5 14
0 17
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
18 320
70 281
462
487
631
200
49 65
98 3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20 411
86 575
648
834
445
169
70 245
365
19 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
0 1
0 NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -594
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 17-05689-015 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 199 276 27 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 224 358 147 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 2 1 0 1 90 0 18
2 546 0 634
0 0 0 0 1 39 0 39
91 0 287 1 TEV 2201 0 3573 0 23 0 1
478 0 765 2 PHF 0.86 0.95
149 0 315 0 0 1 2 1

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 250 405 124 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 143 111 35 AM
E Magnolia Blvd
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
976 0 1020
N 1st St
464
0 N 1st St

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
1059
0 PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:30 PM - 06:30 PM
220
782
0 Signalized
E Magnolia Blvd

EASTBOUND
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
712
Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM)
N 1st St & E Magnolia Blvd
Tuesday
10/17/2017

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
Total Vehicles (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Total Vehicles (NOON)
541

COUNT PERIODS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NOONAM PM0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
`
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -595
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 18-05253-014 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 93 175 50 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 125 355 62 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 2 1 0 1 133 0 92
2 465 0 657
0 0 0 0 1 54 0 35
95 0 335 1 TEV 2153 0 3132 0 0 0 0
375 0 775 2 PHF 0.93 0.94
103 0 233 0 0 1 2 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 184 342 69 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 260 172 46 AM
E Olive Ave/ N Bonnywood Pl
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
1010 0 774
S First St
313
0 S First St

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
906
0 PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
359
810
0 Signalized
E Olive Ave/ N Bonnywood Pl

EASTBOUND
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
642
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
S First St & E Olive Ave/ N Bonnywood Pl
Tuesday
04/24/2018

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
08:45 AM - 09:45 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
471

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)
NOONAM PM4
6 19
10 18
0 8
0 5 0
14 21
0 16
0 15
0 22
5 0
4 1
0 1
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 2
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
35 657
92 103
375
95 93
175
50 260
172
46 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
54 465
133
233
775
335
125
355
62 184
342
69 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
3 0
0 2
1 NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -596
WILTEC Phone: (626) 56

INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: DUDEK
PROJECT: BURBANK TRAFFIC COUNTS
DATE: THURSDAY APRIL 25, 2019
PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 10:00 AM
INTERSECTION: N/S SAN FERNANDO ROAD

E/W ALAMEDA AVENUE
CITY: BURBANK

VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-715 42 93 27 0 12 24 11 0 24 31 48 0 22
715-730 31 103 30 0 4 241 17 0 16 21 39 0 22
730-745 50 106 30 0 9 117 15 0 17 62 42 0 42
745-800 47 134 32 0 11 100 6 0 23 51 62 0 31
800-815 66 105 32 0 16 120 23 0 16 62 43 0 36
815-830 54 115 41 0 15 129 14 0 25 63 62 0 37
830-845 67 107 28 0 25 118 17 0 29 42 82 0 30
845-900 62 89 33 0 12 127 16 0 16 51 68 0 29
900-915 58 111 37 0 6 103 10 0 27 55 76 0 30
915-930 51 83 20 0 18 136 12 0 17 46 64 0 37
930-945 58 73 23 0 9 126 9 0 18 62 70 0 34
945-1000 44 63 28 0 8 115 11 0 13 75 49 0 20
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-800 170 436 119 0 36 482 49 0 80 165 191 0 117
715-815 194 448 124 0 40 578 61 0 72 196 186 0 131
730-830 217 460 135 0 51 466 58 0 81 238 209 0 146
745-845 234 461 133 0 67 467 60 0 93 218 249 0 134
800-900 249 416 134 0 68 494 70 0 86 218 255 0 132
815-915 241 422 139 0 58 477 57 0 97 211 288 0 126
830-930 238 390 118 0 61 484 55 0 89 194 290 0 126
845-945 229 356 113 0 45 492 47 0 78 214 278 0 130
900-1000 211 330 108 0 41 480 42 0 75 238 259 0 121

PEAK HOUR
68 494
632
70 249 416 134 0
0 0
0 255 218 86
150
ALAMEDA AVENUE 662
380
132 SAN FERNANDO ROAD

PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-715 2 2 5 7 16 700-715 1 1 1 0
715-730 9 9 9 4 31 715-730 0 2 0 0
799
800-900
559
ATTACHMENT 10 -597
730-745 18 18 11 1 48 730-745 1 0 1 2
745-800 5 5 2 5 17 745-800 0 2 1 0
800-815 10 10 10 4 34 800-815 1 1 0 1
815-830 3 3 10 1 17 815-830 2 0 0 0
830-845 5 5 11 4 25 830-845 1 1 0 1
845-900 3 3 6 3 15 845-900 0 0 0 0
900-915 11 11 10 7 39 900-915 1 0 0 0
915-930 16 16 12 1 45 915-930 0 0 0 0
930-945 18 18 21 7 64 930-945 0 1 0 1
945-1000 7 7 7 3 24 945-1000 1 1 0 2

HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-800 34 34 27 17 112 700-800 2 5 3 2
715-815 42 42 32 14 130 715-815 2 5 2 3
730-830 36 36 33 11 116 730-830 4 3 2 3
745-845 23 23 33 14 93 745-845 4 4 1 2
800-900 21 21 37 12 91 800-900 4 2 0 2
ATTACHMENT 10 -598
64-1944
11 EBTH
48 53
84 92
98 99
87 96
82 89
96 87
11 EBTH
277
327
373
376
380
364
354
363
354
TOTAL
3 2
ATTACHMENT 10 -599
4 3
3 2
3 0
1 0
2 4
TOTAL
12 12
12 11
8 ATTACHMENT 10 -600
WILTEC Phone: (626) 56

INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: DUDEK
PROJECT: BURBANK TRAFFIC COUNTS
DATE: THURSDAY APRIL 25, 2019
PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 10:00 AM
INTERSECTION: N/S GLENOAKS BOULEVARD

E/W MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD
CITY: BURBANK

VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-715 25 222 6 0 6 46 19 0 2 99 29 0 13
715-730 30 239 6 0 9 57 11 0 1 112 30 0 12
730-745 35 287 10 0 16 59 14 0 4 156 38 0 21
745-800 35 279 15 0 19 105 25 0 3 201 44 0 30
800-815 53 360 20 0 6 65 13 0 2 146 13 0 30
815-830 45 316 10 0 16 77 25 0 7 162 47 0 34
830-845 61 349 4 0 14 74 28 0 5 124 54 0 38
845-900 38 323 9 0 13 80 14 0 6 139 37 1 41
900-915 59 259 5 0 10 46 4 0 9 121 46 0 39
915-930 53 206 7 0 10 67 17 0 6 133 49 0 33
930-945 39 229 7 0 16 61 8 0 0 123 32 0 37
945-1000 39 217 6 0 8 50 8 0 15 163 45 0 33
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U 10

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT EBRT 700-800 125 1027 37 0 50 267 69 0 10 568 141 0 76
715-815 153 1165 51 0 50 286 63 0 10 615 125 0 93
730-830 168 1242 55 0 57 306 77 0 16 665 142 0 115
745-845 194 1304 49 0 55 321 91 0 17 633 158 0 132
800-900 197 1348 43 0 49 296 80 0 20 571 151 1 143
815-915 203 1247 28 0 53 277 71 0 27 546 184 1 152
830-930 211 1137 25 0 47 267 63 0 26 517 186 1 151
845-945 189 1017 28 0 49 254 43 0 21 516 164 1 150
900-1000 190 911 25 0 44 224 37 0 30 540 172 0 142

PEAK HOUR
55 321
467
91 194 1304 49 0
0 1
0 158 633 17
79 MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD 341
129
132 GLENOAKS BOULEVARD

PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-715 5 5 0 0 10 700-715 0 3 0 0
715-730 0 0 6 2 8 715-730 1 0 0 0
1547
745-845
808
ATTACHMENT 10 -601
730-745 2 2 2 3 9 730-745 0 0 0 0
745-800 4 4 8 2 18 745-800 0 0 0 2
800-815 3 3 4 2 12 800-815 10 0 0 0
815-830 2 2 4 3 11 815-830 -10 0 0 1
830-845 5 5 0 9 19 830-845 0 30 0 2
845-900 9 9 10 10 38 845-900 3 -30 0 0
900-915 3 3 5 6 17 900-915 0 1 1 2
915-930 4 4 4 4 16 915-930 0 0 1 0
930-945 5 5 5 6 21 930-945 0 1 0 0
945-1000 10 10 4 4 28 945-1000 0 0 0 0

HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG
700-800 11 11 16 7 45 700-800 1 3 0 2
715-815 9 9 20 9 47 715-815 11 0 0 2
730-830 11 11 18 10 50 730-830 0 0 0 3
745-845 14 14 16 16 60 745-845 0 30 0 5
800-900 19 19 18 24 80 800-900 3 0 0 3
ATTACHMENT 10 -602
64-1944
11 EBTH
14 16
20 40
32 26
31 25
21 30
24 28
11 EBTH
90 108
118
129
114
103
107
100
103
TOTAL
3 1
ATTACHMENT 10 -603
0 2
10 -9
32 -27
4 1
1 0
TOTAL
6 13
3 35
6 ATTACHMENT 10 -604
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 18-05253-027 Day:

City: Burbank Date:

AM 178 884 46 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 97 978 85 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 2 1 0 0 64 0 34
2 210 0 425
0 0 0 0 1 65 0 102
93 0 186 1 TEV 2645 0 3426 0 0 0 0
125 0 348 2 PHF 0.96 0.97
82 0 162 0 0 1 2 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 1 113 1041 76 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 146 500 30 AM
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
1206
Total Vehicles (PM) Bikes (PM)
N Glenoaks Blvd & E Olive Ave
Tuesday
04/24/2018

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
Total Vehicles (Noon)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Bikes (NOON)
201

COUNT PERIODS
Bikes (AM)

PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:15 PM - 06:15 PM
627
1291
0 Signalized
E Olive Ave

EASTBOUND
N Glenoaks Blvd
1068
0 N Glenoaks Blvd

SOUTHBOUND
04:30 PM - 07:30 PM

NORTHBOUND
509
0 E Olive Ave
07:00 AM - 10:00 AM
NONE
749 0 420
NOONAM PM8
6 12
11 10
0 10
0 12 0
9 9
0 9
0 6
0 13
14 0
10 7
0 9
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 4
0 0
3 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
102
425
34 82
125
93 178
884
46 146
500
30 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
65 210
64 162
348
186
97 978
85 113
1041
76 0
1 0
0 2
0 0
4 1
0 3
1 NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
ATTACHMENT 10 -605
WILTEC

INTERSECTION CAR/PED/BIKE TRAFFIC COUNT RESULTS SUMMARY CLIENT: DUDEK
PROJECT: BURBANK TRAFFIC COUNTS
DATE: TUESDAY APRIL 30, 2019
PERIOD: 7:00 AM TO 10:00 AM
INTERSECTION: N/S GLENOAKS BOULEVARD

E/W ALAMEDA AVENUE
CITY: BURBANK

VEHICLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT 700-715 43 150 4 3 4 7 11 0 2 62 30 3
715-730 48 187 3 3 5 168 9 0 0 88 29 0
730-745 65 209 8 6 4 90 20 0 5 104 40 4
745-800 59 209 10 4 3 103 24 0 6 134 51 6
800-815 74 216 10 5 2 117 24 0 5 124 33 7
815-830 69 225 7 5 6 94 22 0 3 164 61 5
830-845 97 267 6 7 4 98 27 0 3 117 54 6
845-900 81 258 7 6 3 94 18 0 3 128 42 5
900-915 82 180 3 7 7 74 14 0 2 144 44 5
915-930 68 164 12 4 5 69 13 0 5 120 29 7
930-945 63 144 6 5 6 65 11 0 5 166 44 3
945-1000 53 157 10 3 5 65 12 0 4 137 51 3
HOUR TOTALS 1 2 3 3U 4 5 6 6U 7 8 9 9U

PERIOD SBRT SBTH SBLT SBUT WBRT WBTH WBLT WBUT NBRT NBTH NBLT NBUT 700-800 215 755 25 16 16 368 64 0 13 388 150 13
715-815 246 821 31 18 14 478 77 0 16 450 153 17
730-830 267 859 35 20 15 404 90 0 19 526 185 22
745-845 299 917 33 21 15 412 97 0 17 539 199 24
800-900 321 966 30 23 15 403 91 0 14 533 190 23
815-915 329 930 23 25 20 360 81 0 11 553 201 21
830-930 328 869 28 24 19 335 72 0 13 509 169 23
845-945 294 746 28 22 21 302 56 0 15 558 159 20
900-1000 266 645 31 19 23 273 50 0 16 567 168 18

PEAK HOUR
15 403
509
91 321 966 30 23
0 0
23 190 533 14
187
ALAMEDA AVENUE 420
114
119 GLENOAKS BOULEVARD

PEDESTRIAN COUNTS BICYCLE COUNTS
15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL 15 MIN COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG
700-715 5 5 2 0 12 700-715 0 0 0
715-730 1 1 2 1 5 715-730 0 1 0
730-745 1 1 1 1 4 730-745 0 0 0
1340
800-900
760
ATTACHMENT 10 -606
745-800 3 3 1 1 8 745-800 0 0 1
800-815 2 2 2 1 7 800-815 0 0 0
815-830 2 2 0 0 4 815-830 0 0 0
830-845 2 2 0 3 7 830-845 0 0 0
845-900 4 4 1 1 10 845-900 0 1 0
900-915 6 6 4 1 17 900-915 0 0 0
915-930 11 11 2 1 25 915-930 0 0 1
930-945 1 1 3 5 10 930-945 0 2 0
945-1000 4 4 4 4 16 945-1000 0 1 0

HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST TOTAL HOUR TOTALS NORTH EAST SOUTH

PERIOD LEG LEG LEG LEG PERIOD LEG LEG LEG
700-800 10 10 6 3 29 700-800 0 1 1
715-815 7 7 6 4 24 715-815 0 1 1
730-830 8 8 4 3 23 730-830 0 0 1
745-845 9 9 3 5 26 745-845 0 0 1
800-900 10 10 3 5 28 800-900 0 1 0
ATTACHMENT 10 -607
Phone: (626) 564-1944
10 11

EBRT EBTH
14 14
19 21
27 25
21 34
32 29
31 39
32 26
24 20
27 26
25 21
31 17
21 25
10 11

EBRT EBTH
81 94
99 109
111 127
116 128
119 114
114 111
108 93
107 84
104 89

WEST TOTAL
LEG
0 0
0 1
0 0
ATTACHMENT 10 -608
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 1
0 2
1 2

WEST TOTAL
LEG
0 2
0 2
0 1
0 1
0 1
ATTACHMENT 10 -609
APPENDIX:

Signal Timing Sheets
ATTACHMENT 10 -610
1_TS-197 Hollywood Way & Winona 05-05-20
Prepared by: RICHARD LOCKYER Date
Checked by: JONATHAN YEE Date
PLAN NUMBER COLUMN E COLUMN F TRANSITION TYPE:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 < C/5 + 1 + 9 > = 0 CYCLE 0 LAG FREE _ 2 _ 4 _ 6 _ 8 0.X = SHORTWAY
1 FORCE 1 1 SYNC Plan 1 _ 2 _ _ _ 6 _ _ LAG PLAN 1 _ 2 _ 4 _ 6 _ 8 1 1.X = DWELL 2 FORCE 2 2 SYNC Plan 2 _ 2 _ _ _ 6 _ _ LAG PLAN 2 _ 2 _ 4 _ 6 _ 8 2 X.1 THRU .X4 = NUMBER OF 3 FORCE 3 3 SYNC Plan 3 _ 2 _ _ _ 6 _ _ LAG PLAN 3 _ 2 _ 4 _ 6 _ 8 3 CYCLES WHEN LENGTHENING 4 FORCE 4 4 SYNC Plan 4 _ 2 _ _ _ 6 _ _ LAG PLAN 4 _ 2 _ 4 _ 6 _ 8 4 LAG HOLD PHASES:
5 FORCE 5 5 SYNC Plan 5 _ 2 _ _ _ 6 _ _ LAG PLAN 5 _ 2 _ 4 _ 6 _ 8 5 < C/5 + 1 + A > = 6 FORCE 6 6 SYNC Plan 6 _ 2 _ _ _ 6 _ _ LAG PLAN 6 _ 2 _ 4 _ 6 _ 8 6 IEN STATUS: ON =/= 0 7 FORCE 7 7 SYNC Plan 7 _ 2 _ _ _ 6 _ _ LAG PLAN 7 _ 2 _ 4 _ 6 _ 8 7 IEN Status < C/5 + 1 + B > = 8 FORCE 8 8 SYNC Plan 8 _ 2 _ _ _ 6 _ _ LAG PLAN 8 _ 2 _ 4 _ 6 _ 8 8 9 RING OFFSET 9 SYNC Plan 9 _ 2 _ _ _ 6 _ _ LAG PLAN 9 _ 2 _ 4 _ 6 _ 8 LOCAL ALARM DISABLE A OFFSET 1 A NEMA SYNC _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ EXT. LAG _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ < C/5 + F + 0 > = B OFFSET 2 B NEMA HOLD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ LAG HOLD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C OFFSET 3 C 7 - Wire Master
D PERM 1 END D Synch Time < C/5 + 1 + C > =
E HOLD RELEASE E COORD EXTRA _ 2 _ _ _ _ _ _
F ZONE OFFSET 0 0 0 0 0 F
< C + 0 + C = 1 > < C + 0 + C = 1 >
ROWPlan # --> 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ROW
0 PED ADJUST 0
1 PERM 2 START 1
2 PERM 2 END 2
3 PERM 3 START 3
4 PERM 3 END 4
5 RSRVC TIME 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 RSRVC PH _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6 <C/5+2+A> 7 7 <C/5+2+B>
8 PRETIMED PH _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8 <C/5+2+C> 9 MAX RECALL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9 <C/5+2+D> A PERM 1 VEH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A Advance Warning Beacon - Sign 1 B PERM 1 PED 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 B Time Before Yellow <F/1+C+E> C PERM 2 VEH _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C Phase Number <F/1+C+F> D PERM 2 PED _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D Advance Warning Beacon - Sign 2 E PERM 3 VEH _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ E Time Before Yellow <F/1+D+E> F PERM 3 PED _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ F Phase Number <F/1+D+F> COORDINATION PAGE 2 < C + 0 + C = 2 >

Page 3 ends

Burbank City CouncilSeptember 27, 2022

Burbank City Council
September 27, 2022