Attachment 10 — Burbank City Council, September 27, 2022 (part 1 of 5)

Burbank Housing and Safety Element
Update
Draft Environmental Impact Report
prepared by
City of Burbank
Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Contact: Shipra Rajesh, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East First Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
January 2022
ATTACHMENT 10 -1
Burbank Housing and Safety Element
Update
Draft Environmental Impact Report
prepared by
City of Burbank
Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Contact: Shipra Rajesh, Associate Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East First Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
January 2022
ATTACHMENT 10 -2
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.

ATTACHMENT 10 -3
Table of Contents
Draft Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Synopsis .........................................................................................................................ES-1 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ES-5 Areas of Known Controversy .....................................................................................................ES-6 Issues to be Resolved .................................................................................................................ES-6 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR .......................................................................................ES-6 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ES-6 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background .................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority ........................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Scope and Content .......................................................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR ............................................................................ 1-4

1.5 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies ....................................................................... 1-6

1.6 Environmental Review Process ....................................................................................... 1-7 2 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Project Proponent ........................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Lead Agency Contact Person ........................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Project Location .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.4 Existing Area Characteristics ........................................................................................... 2-4

2.4.1 Current Land Use Designation and Zoning ..................................................... 2-4

2.4.2 Land Uses in Surrounding Cities ..................................................................... 2-4

2.5 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................... 2-4

2.5.1 Housing Element Update ................................................................................ 2-4

2.5.2 RHNA Allocation ............................................................................................. 2-5

2.5.3 Safety Element Update ................................................................................. 2-13

2.5.4 Environmental Justice Update ...................................................................... 2-13

2.6 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... 2-15

2.7 Required Approvals ....................................................................................................... 2-15 3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Regional Setting .............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2 Project Site Setting .......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................ 3-1 4 E nvironmental Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4.1-1

4.1.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.1-1

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.1-7

4.1.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.1-11

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.1-37

4.2 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 4.2-1

4.2.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.2-1

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.2-2

4.2.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.2-4 ATTACHMENT 10 -4
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
ii

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4.2-7

4.3 Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................. 4.3-1

4.3.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.3-1

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.3-6

4.3.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.3-12

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.3-20

4.4 Geology/Soils ............................................................................................................... 4.4-1

4.4.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.4-1

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.4-4

4.4.3 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................ 4.4-5

4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.4-11

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................... 4.5-1

4.5.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.5-1

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.5-4

4.5.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.5-11

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.5-25

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 4.6-1

4.6.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.6-1

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.6-7

4.6.3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................... 4.6-12

4.6.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.6-19

4.7 Noise ............................................................................................................................ 4.7-1

4.7.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.7-1

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.7-11

4.7.3 Environmental Impacts .............................................................................. 4.7-17

4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.7-32

4.8 Population/Housing ..................................................................................................... 4.8-1

4.8.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.8-1

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.8-2

4.8.3 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................ 4.8-5

4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................... 4.8-7

4.9 Public Services .............................................................................................................. 4.9-1

4.9.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 4.9-1

4.9.2 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 4.9-4

4.9.3 Environmental Impacts .............................................................................. 4.9-11

4.9.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.9-18

4.10 Recreation .................................................................................................................. 4.10-1

4.10.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 4.10-1

4.10.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.10-4

4.10.3 Impacts Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.10-5

4.10.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 4.10-7

4.11 Transportation ........................................................................................................... 4.11-1

4.11.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 4.11-1

4.11.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.11-8

4.11.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.11-11

4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.11-17

4.12 Utilities/Service Systems ............................................................................................ 4.12-1

4.12.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 4.12-1 ATTACHMENT 10 -5
Table of Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Report iii

4.12.2 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 4.12-4

4.12.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................ 4.12-21

4.12.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................. 4.12-38 5 Other CEQA Considerations ........................................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided ............................................ 5-1

5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects ................................................................ 5-1

5.3 Growth Inducing Impacts ................................................................................................ 5-3 6 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative .............................................................................. 6-1

6.1.1 Description ...................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 6-2

6.2 Alt ernative 2: City Build-Out ........................................................................................... 6-4

6.2.1 Description ...................................................................................................... 6-4

6.2.2 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................... 6-5

6.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected ............................................................................ 6-8

6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................................ 6-9 7 References .................................................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................ 7-16 Tables
Table ES-1 RHNA Percentage of Income Distribution ...............................................................ES-2 Table ES-2 Estimated Net Housing Units for the City of Burbank .............................................ES-3 Table ES-3 Projected Specific Plan Units ...................................................................................ES-4 Table ES-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual ImpactsES-7 Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response ........................................................................... 1-2 Table 1-2 Issues Not Studied in the EIR .................................................................................... 1-4 Table 2-1 RHNA Percentage of Income Distribution ................................................................ 2-5 Table 2-2 Estimated Net Housing Units for the City of Burbank .............................................. 2-6 Table 2- 3 Projected Specific Plan Units .................................................................................... 2-6 Table 2-4 Rezoning in Housing Opportunity Sites .................................................................... 2-7 Table 4.1-1 Ambient Air Quality at the Monitoring Station ..................................................... 4.1-6 Table 4.1-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................. 4.1-7 Table 4.1-3 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds ......................................................... 4.1-12 Table 4.1-4 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction Within 25 Meters of Sensitive Receptors (SRA-7) ................................................................................................................. 4.1-13 Table 4.1-5 Vehicle Activity Data (Daily) for the Housing Element Update ........................... 4.1-15 Table 4.1-6 HARP 2 Risk Inputs for Carcinogenic and Non-carcinogenic Risks ...................... 4.1-24 ATTACHMENT 10 -6
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
iv
Table 4.1-7 Construction Scenarios – Daily Emissions ........................................................... 4.1-28 Table 4.1-8 Operational Emissions under the Housing Element Update ............................... 4.1-30 Table 4.1-9 Potential Health Risks from State Route 134 at the MEIR .................................. 4.1-35 Table 4.1-10 Potential Health Risks from Interstate 5 at the MEIR ......................................... 4.1-36 Table 4.1-11 Potential Health Risks from the Burbank Power and Water at the MEIR ........... 4.1-37 Table 4.3-1 Golden State Specific Plan Properties with Buildings over 45 years of age. ....... 4.3-13 Table 4.3-2 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Inventory with Buildings over 45 years of age .... 4.3-14 Table 4.5-1 Vehicle Activity Data for the Housing Element Update ...................................... 4.5-12 Table 4.5-2 Burbank Water and Power Energy Intensity Factors .......................................... 4.5-13 Table 4.5-3 Service Population Emissions Level Target Determination ................................. 4.5-18 Table 4.5-4 Consistency Analysis – SB 32 and 2017 Scoping Plan .......................................... 4.5-20 Table 4.5-5 GHG Emissions under the Housing Element Update ........................................... 4.5-21 Table 4.5-6 Consistency Analysis – Burbank2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan ............. 4.5-23 Table 4.7-1 Building Vibration Damage Potential .................................................................... 4.7-5 Table 4.7-2 Vibration Annoyance Potential ............................................................................. 4.7-5 Table 4.7 3 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Transportation Sources ........................ 4.7-12 Table 4.7-4 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Stationary Sources ................................ 4.7-13 Table 4.7-5 Ambient Noise Base Level ................................................................................... 4.7-16 Table 4.7-6 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ......................................... 4.7-21 Table 4.7-7 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................................. 4.7-22 Table 4.6-8 Typical Construction Noise Level at 50 Feet ........................................................ 4.7-23 Table 4.7-9 Daily Vehicle Trip Summary ................................................................................. 4.7-27 Table 4.7-10 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................................. 4.7-29 Table 4.8-1 2021 Population, Households, and Housing Unit Estimates ................................. 4.8-1 Table 4.8-2 SCAG Population, Housing, and Employment Forecasts ....................................... 4.8-2 Table 4.8-3 Burbank 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Assessment ................................... 4.8-5 Table 4.9-1 BUSD Student Enrollment and Capacity ................................................................ 4.9-3 Table 4.9-2 Burbank2035 General Plan Policies Relating to Public Services .......................... 4.9-10 Table 4.10-1 City of Burbank Parks, Recreation, and Open Space ........................................... 4.10-1 Table 4.10-2 City of Burbank Parkland Ratio ............................................................................ 4.10-3 Table 4.11 1 Project VMT Compared to SCAG Region Baseline ............................................. 4.11-16 Table 4.12-1 Burbank Water Supplies – Current and Projected ............................................ 4.12-31 Table 4.12-2 Metropolitan Wholesale Supply Allocation for Burbank .................................. 4.12-32 ATTACHMENT 10 -7
Table of Contents

Draft Environmental Impact Report v
Table 4.12-3 BWP Normal Year Supply and Demand ............................................................. 4.12-32 Table 4.12-4 BWP Single Dry Year Supply and Demand ......................................................... 4.12-33 Table 4.12-5 LVMWD Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand ............................................... 4.12-33 Table 6-1 Alternative 2 – Measure One Unit Distribution and Conformity ............................. 6-5 Table 6-2 Alternative 2 – VMT Generation .............................................................................. 6-8 Table 6-3 Impact Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................ 6-10 Figures
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process ................................................................................ 1-9 Figure 2-1 Regional Location ..................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 City of Burbank ......................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 Specific Plan and Housing Opportunity Locations .................................................. 2-11 Figure 2-4 CalEnviroSc reen – Disadvantaged Communities .................................................... 2-14 Figure 4.1 1 Burbank Housing Element Development Sites within 500 feet of Interstate 5 and Burbank Water and Power Facility ............................................................... 4.1-17 Figure 4.1 2 Burbank Housing Element Development Sites within 500 Feet of State Route 134 ............................................................................................................ 4.1-18 Figure 4.1 3 Sources and Receptors for State Route 134 ........................................................ 4.1-20 Figure 4.1 4 Sources and Receptors for Interstate 5 ............................................................... 4.1-21 Figure 4.1 5 Sources and Receptors for Burbank Water and Power Facility .......................... 4.1-23 Figure 4.4 1 Geologic Units and Paleontological Sensitivity Within the City of Burbank .......... 4.4-3 Figure 4.6-1 Burbank Hazardous Material Sites ........................................................................ 4.6-4 Figure 4.6-2 Burbank Public School Locations ........................................................................... 4.6-6 Figure 4.7-1 Examples of Typical Noise Levels .......................................................................... 4.7-2 Figure 4.7-2 Baseline Traffic Noise Contours ............................................................................ 4.7-8 Figure 4.7-3 Change in Future (Year 2035) Traffic Noise Contours ........................................... 4.7-9 Figure 4.7-4 Hollywood Burbank Airport (formerly Bob Hope Airport) Noise Contour .......... 4.7-10 Figure 4.10-1 Parks in the City of Burbank ................................................................................ 4.10-2 Figure 4.11 1 Existing Regional and Local Roadway Network ................................................... 4.11-2 Figure 4.11 2 Existing Public Transit Network ........................................................................... 4.11-5 Figure 4.11 3 Existing Bicycle Facilities Network ....................................................................... 4.11-7 ATTACHMENT 10 -8
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

vi
Appendices
Appendix A Notice of Preparation – Scoping Comments
Appendix B Initial Study
Appendix C Health Risk Assessment Calculations
Appendix D CalEEMod Results
Appendix E Transportation Assessment
Appendix F Hazardous Materials Sites
Appendix G Noise and Vibration Calculations
ATTACHMENT 10 -9
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-1
Executive Summary
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzing the environmental effects of the proposed Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update (“Housing and Safety Element Update” or “Project”). This section summarizes the characteristics of the Project, alternatives to the Project, and the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project.

Project Synopsis
Project Applicant
City of Burbank - Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
Lead Agency Contact Person
Shipra Rajesh
City of Burbank
Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
(818) 238-5250
Project Description
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, Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change, Noise, and Mobility Elements, and the 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 Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000) which requires that revisions or adoption of two or more elements of a general plan on or after January 1, 2018 “adopt or review the Environmental Justice Element, or the environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements” to focus on the inclusion of disadvantaged communities (DACs) in decision making procedures as well as increasing protections for these communities.

Project Characteristics
The Housing and Safety Element Update would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank, which encompasses 17.1 square miles. The Project would ATTACHMENT 10 -10
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
ES-2
involve an update to the Housing Element of the City’s 2035General Plan for the 2021-2029 planning period, along with minor updates to the Safety, Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change, Noise, and Mobility Elements, and the incorporation of environmental justice goals, policies and objectives into the 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; 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.

Housing Element
The Housing Element is comprised of the following major components:
 Review of effectiveness of existing Housing Element
 Assessment of existing and projected housing needs
 Identification of resources – financial, land, administrative  Evaluation of constraints to the development of housing  Housing Plan – goals, policies, and programs
The Housing Element Update would provide a framework for accommodating new housing at all levels of affordability that is within access to transit, Downtown jobs, services, and open spaces within the 8-year planning period of October 2021-October 2029. 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 residential of adequate density to meet State-required housing production and affordability targets as discussed below.

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 Allocation (RHNA). 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 residential capacity.

As shown in Table ES-1, Burbank’s RHNA allocation for the 2021-2029 planning period (6 th RHNA
cycle) is 8,772 units, which is distributed among four income categories (HCD 2020). Additionally, the City is required to provide a sufficient buffer beyond that required by the RHNA to ensure that adequate site capacity exists throughout the eight-year planning period.

Table ES-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
ATTACHMENT 10 -11
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-3
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 2035General Plan and zoning.

Table ES-2 shows the estimated number and affordability level of housing units to accommodate the City’s RHNA under the existing General Plan and zoning, including projects that are entitled and pending entitlement, specified housing opportunity sites, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) expected to be developed over the course of the planning period, and the units produced through the City’s committed assistance program. As shown in Table ES-2, these sources total 7,673, which falls short of the RHNA allocation by 1,099 units.

Table ES-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 934 7 6 83 838
Pending Entitlement 1,489 227 31 0 1,202
Opportunity Sites (Zoning in place) 3,640 1,988 1,068 292 292 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)1 1,600 384 704 32 480
Committed Assistance2 10 10 0 0 0
Total Site Capacity 7,673 4,425 436 2,812
RHNA Surplus/(Shortfall) (1,099) +454 (973) (580)
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.

To make up for this shortfall of 1,099 units, the Housing Element includes a housing program to rezone additional opportunity sites through adoption of two specific plan projects: the Downtown Transit-Oriented-Development Specific Plan (Downtown TOD) and the Golden State Specific Plan (GSSP) (see Figure 2-3 in the Project Description for the Specific Plan locations and opportunity sites). Adoption of these Specific Plans will provide the necessary zoning, development standards, and processing procedures to facilitate the production of the shortfall of housing units required to accommodate the City’s RHNA during the Housing Element planning period. The zone changes required by these Specific Plans will be adopted in 2022-2023, or within three years of the start of the planning period as required by State law.

Table ES-3 shows the number of units expected from the rezoning of the Specific Plan areas. With the additional rezone sites the City would exceed the RHNA requirement by 1,343 units with an additional 2,442 units accommodated. 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. The Notice of Preparation that was circulated on March 17, 2021 for the proposed Project included an estimated growth of 10,088 housing units based on the City’s RHNA allocation and 15 percent buffer. However, the estimated growth for the purpose of this analysis was changed to 10,456 housing units to account for the 2029 interpolated housing growth assumed under the two Specific Plans along with the City’s RHNA allocation.

ATTACHMENT 10 -12
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
ES-4
Table ES-3 Projected Specific Plan Units
Specific Plan Total Net Units
Downtown TOD sites 627
Golden State Specific Plan sites 1,815
Total 2,442
Existing GP Units (from Table ES-2) 7,673
New Total with Specific Plans 10,115
RHNA Surplus/(Shortfall) 1,343
Housing Opportunity Sites
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 of the Project Description.

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 Update include updated flooding and fire hazard maps, 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.

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 DACs, promote civil engagement, and prioritize the needs of these communities. Environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives must aim to reduce health risks to DACs, promote civic engagement, and prioritize the needs of these communities. Appendix B includes a list of the updates to policies and implementation measures for the Safety, Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change, Noise, and Mobility Elements of the Burbank2035 General Plan. These updates focus on the inclusion of disadvantaged communities in decision making procedures as well as increasing protections for these communities.

Mobility Element Update
SB 743 requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish new metrics for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas (TPAs) and allows OPR to extend use of the metrics beyond TPAs. OPR selected VMT as the preferred transportation impact metric and applied their discretion to require its use statewide. In order to ATTACHMENT 10 -13
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-5
comply with this requirement, the Mobility Element would be updated to require the use of VMT analysis according to OPR guidelines.

Project Objectives
 Meet the City’s fair share, plus a reasonable buffer, of the regional housing need to accommodate projected population growth within the City and region consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation
 Conserve and enhance the quality of existing housing and neighborhoods  Provide housing sites that accommodate a range of housing types to meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents
 Continue to facilitate the development of housing affordable to all economic segments of the community and make inroads in addressing the City’s jobs-to-housing imbalance  Focus on removing governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing
 Promote non-discrimination and fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons Alternatives
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this EIR examines alternatives to the Housing and Safety Element Update. Studied alternatives include the following two alternatives.

Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 1 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative.
 Alternative 1: No Project
 Alternative 2: City Build-Out
Alternative 1 (No Project) involves continued implementation of the existing 2013-2021 Housing Element and a continued growth rate predicted by SCAG to yield 3,591 units by 2029. The No Project Alternative assumes that the City’s existing plan and policies would continue to accommodate development in accordance with existing land use designations. Ultimately, this alternative would not fulfill the State requirements regarding updates to the Housing Element and SCAG’s RHNA allocation. Due to the limitation placed on development in the city under existing plans and policies, the No Project Alternative would not be consistent with Objective 1, which aims to accommodate employment, housing, and population growth projections forecasted through the planning horizon year of 2029 and Objective 4, which aims to facilitate affordable housing options throughout the city.

Alternative 2 (City Build-Out) involves the buildout of 18,600 units, which would bring the City residential units up to the limit established by Measure One. This would be 8,144 units over the proposed update to the Housing Element. These units would be placed in the Medium Density, High Density and Various Commercial zone districts. No units would be proposed in the Low Density Residential district. This alternative would increase density throughout the city and in order to accommodate this increase in density, housing would be located within the commercial corridors.

Alternative 2 would not fulfill Objective 2 as it would change the character of existing neighborhoods by increasing the density.

Refer to Section 6, Alternatives, for the complete alternatives analysis.

ATTACHMENT 10 -14
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

ES-6
Areas of Known Controversy
The EIR scoping process did not identify any areas of known controversy for the proposed project.

Responses to the Notice of Preparation of a Draft EIR and input received at the EIR scoping meeting held by the City are summarized in Section 1, Introduction.

Issues to be Resolved
The proposed Project would require approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR
As indicated in the Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that significant impacts would occur to the following issue areas: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Energy, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire. Impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use/Planning, Noise, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Hydrology/Utilities were found to be potentially significant and are addressed in this EIR.

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table ES-4 summarizes the environmental impacts of the Project, proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts (the impact after application of mitigation, if required). Although distinct from mitigation measures, project design features (PDFs) are also listed because they will be included as conditions of approval by the City to avoid potential biological and geological impacts. Impacts are categorized as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the project is approved per §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse, but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

ATTACHMENT 10 -15
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-7
Table ES-4 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1. The Housing Element
Update would not conflict with the
growth assumptions or policies of
applicable air quality plans such as
SCAQMD’s 2016 Air Quality
Management Plan. Impacts would be
less than significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

Impact AQ-2. Construction activities
and operation of housing
development under the Housing
Element Update could not result in a
cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the region is a non-attainment
area under applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standards. Air
quality studies and project-specific
emissions reduction measures would
be required for large projects
proposed under the Housing Element
Update. Impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.

AQ-1 Construction Emissions Reduction. For projects that would include any of the following: demolition of more
13,500 square feet of building area, greater than 5,000 cubic yards of soil cut/fill, greater than 5-acres of graded area, or use of more than ten pieces of heavy-duty
construction equipment and 150 truck trips on any given day during demolition, site clearing, or grading, prior to issuance of a permit to construct and at the expense of the project applicant, the City shall retain a qualified air quality analyst to prepare an Air Quality Impact Analysis to analyze construction emissions . The air quality analysis shall demonstrate that project emissions are less than
applicable SCAQMD regional and LST thresholds, and as
applicable may include, but is not limited to, the following mitigations:
 Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment
greater than 50 horsepower shall meet the USEPA Tier
4 emission standards, where available. In the event
that Tier 4 engines are not available for any off-road
equipment larger than 100 horsepower, that
equipment shall be equipped with a Tier 3 engine or
an engine that is equipped with retrofit controls to
reduce exhaust emissions of NO
x and DPM to no more
than Tier 3 levels unless certified by engine
manufacturers or the onsite air quality construction
mitigation manager that the use of such devices is not
practical for specific engine types.
 All construction equipment shall be outfitted with best available control technology (BACT) devices certified
by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the
contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are
no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.
 Consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403, construction
contractors shall identify and implement best available dust control measures during active construction
operations capable of generating dust.

AQ-2 Operations Emissions Reduction. For any project
that would include more than 553 single-family residential units, 710 multi-family residential units, or any equivalent combination thereof, prior to issuance of a permit to
construct, and at the expense of the project applicant, the City shall retain a qualified air quality analyst to prepare Less than
significant with
mitigation.

ATTACHMENT 10 -16
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
ES-8
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
an Air Quality Impact Analysis to analyze operational
emissions The air quality analysis shall demonstrate that project emissions are less than applicable SCAQMD
regional and LST thresholds, and as applicable may
include, but is not limited to, the following mitigation:
 Implementation of a Transportation Demand
Management Plan.
 Installation of additional electric vehicle charging
stations
 Public infrastructure improvements (e.g., bus stop
shelter improvements)
 Carpool or ridesharing programs
 Subsidized transit costs
 Unbundled parking costs
 Bicycle amenities (storage, showers, lockers, etc.)
 Use of all-electric appliances (i.e., elimination of
natural gas service)
 Use solar or low emission water heaters that exceed
Title 24 requirements
 Increased walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24
requirements
 Required use of electric lawnmowers, leaf-blowers,
and chainsaws
Impact AQ-3. The Project would not
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.

Impacts would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1. The project could
result in direct or indirect impacts to
nesting birds through vegetation
removal and construction during the
nesting season. Impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation
incorporated.

BIO-1 Nesting Bird Avoidance. Prior to issuance of
grading permits for individual housing developments that will include disturbance of vegetation, structures, or other areas where bird nests could be present, implement the
following requirements for any construction activities that would occur during the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31):
 Applicant shall submit a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than seven days
prior to initiation of grading or construction activities.

The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be
conducted on foot on the construction site, including a 100-foot buffer, and in inaccessible areas (e.g., private lands) from afar using binoculars to the extent
practical. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian
species known to occur in southern California and a
copy of the study shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department and Building
and Safety Division. The cost to hire a qualified
biologist shall be borne entirely by the
developer/project applicant.
 If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be
demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange
Less than
significant with
mitigation.

ATTACHMENT 10 -17
Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-9
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or
other means to mark the boundary. All construction
personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the
buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone
during the nesting season. No parking, storage of
materials, or construction activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that
breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have
fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall
occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist.  A survey report shall be prepared by the qualified
biologist documenting and verifying compliance with
the above requirements and applicable State and
Federal regulations protecting birds that shall be
submitted to the City of Burbank. The qualified
biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during
those periods when construction activities would
occur near active nest areas to ensure that no
inadvertent impacts on these nests would occur.

Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1. Development
accommodated by the Housing
Element Update could adversely
affect known and previously
unidentified historic-period
resources. Impacts to historic-period
resources would be less than
significant after mitigation.

CUL-1 Historic Resource Protection. The project
proponent shall either:
a) Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of
Burbank Community Development Department
that the project does not contain any historic
resources either due to the site being vacant, age
of the structures on the site, or due to the result of
the Program LU-4 Historic Preservation Plan
determination; or
b) For any structure determined to be eligible for
listing on a federal, State, or local registry, or
currently listed, as a historic resource (typically
determined as a result of the Program LU-4
Historic Preservation Plan process), project
activities shall comply with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties (Standards). During the project planning
phase (prior to any construction activities), input
shall be sought from a qualified architectural
historian or historic architect meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards to ensure project
compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation.

The cost of this assessment shall be borne entirely
by the project applicant. This input will ensure the
avoidance of any direct/indirect physical changes
to historical resources. The findings and
recommendations of the architectural historian or
historic architect shall be documented in a
Standards Project Review Memorandum at the
schematic design phase. This memorandum shall
analyze all project components for compliance
with the Standards for Rehabilitation. Project
components to be analyzed shall include direct and
indirect changes to historical resources and their
Less than
significant with
mitigation.

ATTACHMENT 10 -18
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

ES-10
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
setting. should design modifications be necessary
to bring projects into compliance with the
Standards for Rehabilitation, the memorandum
will document those recommendations, which will
then become conditions of project approval. The
report will be submitted to the City for review and
approval.

Impact CUL-2. Development
accommodated by the Housing
Element Update could adversely
affect identified and previously
unidentified prehistoric cultural
resources. Impacts would be less than
significant with the implementation
of mitigation, as well as the policies
outlined in the Historic Resource
Management Ordinance, Program LU-
4: Historic Preservation Plan.

CUL-2(a) Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological
Resources. Prior to the commencement of any ground-
disturbing activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP) training on archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel. The training shall be
conducted by an archaeologist who meets or exceeds the
Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. Archaeological sensitivity training will include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, and the proper protocol for treatment of the
materials in the event of a find.

Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and
also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the
resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the
resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site
into a permanent conservation easement. In the event
that preservation in place is determined to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources
Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by
the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City that provides for the adequate recovery of the
scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The City shall consult with
appropriate Native American representatives in
determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the
resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered.

CUL-2(b) Archaeological and Native Monitors. During
initial ground disturbing activities related to the proposed project, both a qualified archaeologist and a locally
affiliated Native American monitor shall monitor
Less than
significant with
mitigation.

ATTACHMENT 10 -19
Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-11
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
construction activities within the project site in
accordance with City of Burbank Historic Resource
Management Ordinance, Program LU-4: Historic
Preservation Plan. Initial ground disturbance is defined as disturbance within previously undisturbed native soils. If, during initial ground disturbance, the qualified
archaeologist determines that the construction activities have little or no potential to impact cultural resources (e.g., excavations are within previously disturbed, non- native soils, or within soil formation not expected to yield cultural resources deposits), the qualified archaeologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced or
eliminated, in consultation with the Native American
monitor.

Impact CUL-3. Ground-disturbing
activities associated with
development under the Housing
Element Update could result in
damage to or destruction of human
burials. Impacts would be less than
significant with the implementation
of mitigation, as well as the policies
outlined in the Historic Resource
Management Ordinance, Program LU-
4: Historic Preservation Plan.

CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b). Less than
significant with
mitigation.

Impact CUL-4. Development
accommodated by the Housing
Element Update could adversely
impact tribal cultural resources.

Impacts would be less than significant
with implementation of mitigation
and through consultation conducted
pursuant to the requirements of AB-

52. CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b). Less than
significant with
mitigation.

Geology/Soils
Impact GEO-1. Development
accommodated under the Housing
Element Update could adversely
affect previously unidentified
paleontological resources. Impacts to
paleontological resources would be
less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.

GEO-1(a) Paleontological Resources Management.

Housing development projects that require ground
disturbance (grading, trenching, foundation work, and
other excavations) beyond five feet below ground surface (bgs) on a site located in an area mapped as Quaternary young (Holocene) alluvial fan deposits (Qyf, Qf) where it was not previously excavated beyond five feet bgs, shall comply with the following requirements prior to the
commencement of any construction activities:

The Developer shall retain a qualified professional
paleontologist to review project plans to determine if
underlying paleontologically sensitive units (i.e., early Holocene to Pleistocene age deposits [Qoa]) could be
impacted. If potentially significant impacts are
identified, the qualified professional paleontologist
shall prepare and implement a Paleontological
Resources Mitigation Plan (PRMP). The PRMP shall
describe mitigation recommendations, including
paleontological monitoring procedures;
communication protocols to be followed in the event
Less than
significant with
mitigation.

ATTACHMENT 10 -20
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
ES-12
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
that an unanticipated fossil discovery is made during
project development; and preparation, curation, and
reporting requirements.

As part of a PRMP, require the Qualified Paleontologist or his or her designee to conduct Worker
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training
for the general contractor, subcontractor(s), and all
construction workers participating in earth disturbing
activities, regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should
fossils be discovered by on-site personnel. The WEAP
shall be fulfilled at the time of a preconstruction
meeting. A training acknowledgment form must be
signed by all workers who receive the training and
retained by the City. In the event a fossil is discovered by construction personnel, all work in the immediate
vicinity of the find shall cease and the qualified
paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find
before re-starting work in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the qualified paleontologist shall complete the mitigation
outlined below (GEO-1[b]) to mitigate impacts to
significant fossil resources.

Conduct monitoring during ground construction activities (i.e., grading, trenching, foundation work, and other
excavations). Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who meets the minimum qualifications per standards set
forth by the SVP (2010), which includes a B.S. or B.A.
degree in geology or paleontology with one year of
monitoring experience and knowledge of collection and
salvage of paleontological resources. The duration and
timing of the monitoring shall be determined by the
Qualified Paleontologist and the location and extent of proposed ground disturbance. If the Qualified
Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic
conditions at the surface or at depth, the Qualified
Paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be
limited to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely.

GEO-1(b) Fossil Discovery, Preparation and Curation. If a paleontological resource is discovered at any time during earthmoving activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction activities in the immediate area of the find are halted and diverted, and the City is contacted. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained (if not done so already) to evaluate the discovery. The
paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily
direct, divert or halt construction activity around the find until it is assessed for scientific significance and collected to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner.

Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation- ready condition and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the
ATTACHMENT 10 -21
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-13
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
[NHMLAC]) along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1. The Housing Element
update is consistent with State plans
to meet the GHG reduction target
established by SB 32 (State Scoping
Plan), the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and
the Burbank2035 Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Plan. As the Housing
Element update is consistent with all
State, regional, and local plans to
reduce GHG emissions, impacts
related to GHG emissions would be
less than significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1. Demolition and
construction activities associated with
development accommodated by the
Housing Element Update may result
in the release of potentially
hazardous materials and may occur
within 0.25 mile of a school.

However, compliance with regional
and federal regulations related to
hazardous materials and compliance
with the Safety Element policies
would minimize the risk of releases
and exposure to these materials.

Impacts would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

Impact HAZ-2. Implementation of the
Housing and Safety Element Update
would accommodate development
on or near hazardous materials sites.

However, compliance with applicable
regulations relating to site cleanup
would minimize hazards from
development on contaminated sites.

Impacts would be less than
significant.

HAZ-2 Property Assessment – Phase I and II ESA’s. Prior to the start of construction (demolition or grading), the project applicant will retain a qualified environmental professional (EP), as defined by ASTM E-1527, to complete one of the following:

If the project is not listed in Appendix F, DTSC
(GeoTracker) or SWRCB (EnviroStor) resources, then the
proponent will retain a qualified environmental
consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or
California Professional Engineer (PE), to prepare a Phase I ESA. If the Phase I ESA identifies recognized
environmental conditions or potential concern areas, a
Phase II ESA will be prepared.

If the project is listed in Appendix F, DTSC (GeoTracker) or SWRCB (EnviroStor) resources, then the project
proponent will retain a qualified environmental
consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or
California Professional Engineer (PE), to prepare a Phase II ESA to determine whether the soil, groundwater, and/or
soil vapor has been impacted at concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels for commercial/industrial land uses. Any and all recommended actions included in the
Phase II ESA will be followed. This may include the
Less than
significant with
mitigation.

ATTACHMENT 10 -22
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
ES-14
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
preparation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) for
Impacted Soils (see below) prior to project construction and/or completion of remediation at the proposed project prior to onsite construction.

The completed ESAs will be submitted to the lead agency for review and approval prior to issuance of building or grading permits.

Soil Management Plan Requirements: The SMP, or
equivalent document, will be prepared to address on-site handling and management of impacted soils or other
impacted wastes, and reduce hazards to construction
workers and offsite receptors during construction. The
plan will be submitted to the lead agency, and must
establish remedial measures and/or soil management
practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants from the site. These measures and
practices may include, but are not limited to:
 Stockpile management including stormwater pollution
prevention and the installation of BMPs
 Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials
 Monitoring and reporting
 A health and safety plan for contractors working at the site that addresses the safety and health hazards of
each phase of site construction activities with the
requirements and procedures for employee protection
 The health and safety plan will also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety
requirements to minimize worker and public exposure
to hazardous materials during construction.

The lead agency will review and approve the development site Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils prior to
demolition and grading (construction).

Soil Remediation Requirements: If soil present within the construction envelope at the development site contains
chemicals at concentrations exceeding hazardous waste
screening thresholds for contaminants in soil (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24), the project proponent will retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE), to conduct additional analytical testing and recommend soil disposal recommendations,
or consider other remedial engineering controls, as
necessary.

The qualified environmental consultant will utilize the development site analytical results for waste
characterization purposes prior to offsite transportation or disposal of potentially impacted soils or other impacted wastes. The qualified environmental consultant will
provide disposal recommendations and arrange for
proper disposal of the waste soils or other impacted
wastes (as necessary), and/or provide recommendations
for remedial engineering controls, if appropriate.

The project applicant will review and approve the disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils
ATTACHMENT 10 -23
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-15
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
offsite, and review and approve remedial engineering
controls, prior to construction.

Remediation of impacted soils and/or implementation of
remedial engineering controls, may require additional
delineation of impacts; additional analytical testing per landfill or recycling facility requirements; soil excavation; and offsite disposal or recycling.

The lead agency will review and approve the development site disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite and review and approve remedial
engineering controls, prior to construction.

Impact HAZ-3. The Burbank2035
General Plan includes a Safety
Element Update and policies for the
Burbank Airport Influence Area that
address excessive noise and safety for
the vicinity. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in safety
hazards or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project
area and impacts would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

Impact HAZ-4. The Burbank2035
General Plan and Housing and Safety
Element policy updates address
maintaining a Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan and coordination with adjacent
jurisdictions. Additionally, traffic
created by the proposed rezoning
would not interfere with an
evacuation plan or cause increased
traffic congestion. Therefore, the
proposed project would not result in
interference with these types of
adopted plans. Impacts would be less
than significant.

None required Less than
significant.

Noise
Impact NOI-1. Construction
associated with housing development
accommodated under the Housing
Element Update would be required to
comply with the allowed daytime
construction hours regulated by the
Burbank Municipal Code and,
therefore, would not occur during
nighttime hours when people are
more sensitive to noise. While larger
developments could involve
construction with lengthy durations,
substantial soil movement, use of
large, heavy-duty equipment, and/or
pile driving near noise-sensitive land
uses that would exceed the
applicable FTA daytime noise limits,
implementation of Mitigation
NOI-1(a) Shielding and Silencing. Power construction
equipment (including combustion engines), fixed or
mobile, shall be equipped with noise shielding and
silencing devices consistent with manufacturer’s
standards or the Best Available Control Technology.

Equipment shall be properly maintained, and the project applicant or owner shall require any construction
contractor to keep documentation on-site during any
earthwork or construction activities demonstrating that the equipment has been maintained in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications.

NOI-1(b) Enclosures and Screening. All outdoor fixed
mechanical equipment shall be enclosed or screened from off-site noise-sensitive uses. The equipment enclosure or screen shall be impermeable (i.e., solid material with
minimum weight of 2 pounds per square feet) and break
Less than
significant with
mitigation.

ATTACHMENT 10 -24
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

ES-16
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Measures NOI-1(a) through NOI-1(j)
would reduce construction noise
levels to below thresholds. Therefore,
impacts generated by temporary
construction noise would be less than
significant with mitigation.
the line-of-sight from the equipment and off-site noise- sensitive uses.

NOI-1(c) Construction Staging Areas. Construction staging areas shall be located as far from noise-sensitive uses as reasonably possible and feasible in consideration of site boundaries, topography, intervening roads and uses, and operational constraints.

NOI-1(d) Smart Back-Up Alarms. Mobile construction
equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that
automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in
response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human
spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction
equipment is moving in the reverse direction.

NOI-1(e) Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and
equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.

NOI-1(f) Workers’ Radios. All noise from workers’ radios, including any on-site music, shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at off-site noise-sensitive uses.

NOI-1(g) Use of Driven Pile Systems. Driven (impact),
sonic, or vibratory pile drivers shall not be used, except in locations where the underlying geology renders
alternative methods infeasible, as determined by a soils or geotechnical engineer and documented in a soils report.

NOI-1(h) Temporary Sound Barriers. Temporary sound
barriers, such as walls or sound blankets, shall be
positioned between construction activities and noise-
sensitive uses when construction equipment are located
within a line-of-sight to and within 500 feet of off-site noise-sensitive uses. Sound barriers shall break the line- of-sight between the construction noise source and the
receiver where modeled levels exceed applicable
standards. Placement, orientation, size, and density of acoustical barriers shall be specified by a qualified
acoustical consultant.

NOI-1(i) Noise Complaint Response. Project applicants
shall designate an on-site construction project manager who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. This person shall be responsible for responding to concerns of neighboring properties
about construction noise disturbance and shall be
available for responding to any construction noise
complaints during the hours that construction is to take place. They shall also responsible for determining the
cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad silencer) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to
correct the problem. A toll-free telephone number and
email address shall be posted in a highly visible manner on the construction site at all times and provided in all notices (mailed, online website, and construction site
postings) for receiving questions or complaints during
construction and shall also include procedures requiring that the on-site construction manager to respond to
callers and email messages. The on-site construction
ATTACHMENT 10 -25
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-17
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
project manager shall be required to track complaints
pertaining to construction noise, ongoing throughout
demolition, grading, and/or construction and shall notify the City’s Community Development Director of each
complaint occurrence.

NOI-1(j) Project-Specific Construction Noise Study. A
Construction Noise Study, prepared by a qualified noise expert to meet the requirements herein, shall be required for housing development projects located within 500 feet of noise-sensitive land uses identified in the Burbank2036 General Plan Noise Element (i.e., residences, parks,
motels, hotels, movies studios, school, and hospitals), and that have one or more of the following characteristics:
 Two subterranean levels or more (generally more than
20,000 cubic yards of excavated soil material;
 Construction durations of 18 months or more
(excluding interior finishing);
 Use of large, heavy-duty equipment rated 300
horsepower or greater;
 The potential for pile driving; or
 Located within 1,000 feet of other construction
projects with overlapping construction schedules.

The Construction Noise Study shall characterize sources of construction noise, quantify noise levels at noise-sensitive uses (e.g., residences, parks, motels, hotels, movies
studios, school, and hospitals) and identify measures to reduce noise exposure. The Construction Noise Study shall identify reasonably available noise reduction devices or techniques to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels
and/or durations including through reliance on any
relevant federal, state or local standards or guidelines or accepted industry practices. Noise reduction devices or techniques may include but not be limited to silencers, enclosures, sound barriers, and/or placement of
restrictions on equipment or construction techniques
(e.g., alternative installation methods to pile driving such as cast-in-place systems or pile cushioning). Each measure in the Construction Noise Study shall identify anticipated noise reductions at noise-sensitive land uses.

Project applicants shall be required to comply with all requirements of Mitigation Measures NOI-1a through
NOI-1f in addition to any additional requirements
identified and recommended by the Construction Noise
Study and shall maintain proof that notice of, as well as compliance with, the identified measures have been
included in contractor agreements.

Impact NOI-2. Housing development
accommodated under the Housing
Element Update could include
mechanical equipment (i.e., HVAC),
delivery and trash trucks, and other
noise-generating activities. However,
such activities would be typical of the
urban environment. In addition, on-
site activities would be required to
None required. Less than
significant.

ATTACHMENT 10 -26
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

ES-18
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
comply with applicable noise
standards in the Burbank Municipal
Code. Furthermore, while housing
development would generate vehicle
trips in the City, the increase in
mobile noise would not result in a
perceptible 3-dBA increase.

Therefore, permanent noise increases
due to operation of the Housing
Element Update would be less than
significant.

Impact NOI-3. Housing development
accommodated under the Housing
Element Update is not anticipated to
involve operational activities that
would result in substantial vibration
levels (e.g., use of heavy equipment).

However, construction activities
under the Housing Element Update,
specifically pile driving, could
potentially generate vibration
exceeding thresholds for buildings or
structures susceptible to damage
(e.g., historic structures). However,
temporary-construction related
vibration impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.

NOI-3 Vibration Control Plan. For construction activities involving vibratory rollers within 50 feet of a structure or pile drivers (impact or sonic) within 140 feet of a
structure, the applicant shall prepare a Vibration Control Plan prior to the commencement of construction
activities. The Vibration Control Plan shall be prepared by a licensed structural engineer and shall include methods required to minimize vibration, including, but not limited to:
 Alternative installation methods for pile driving (e.g., pile cushioning, drilled piles, cast-in-place systems)
within 140 feet of a building to reduce impacts
associated with seating the pile
 Vibration monitoring prior to and during pile driving operations occurring within 140 feet of a building
 Use of rubber-tired equipment rather than metal-
tracked equipment
 Avoiding the use of vibrating equipment when allowed
by best engineering practices
The Vibration Control Plan shall include a pre-construction survey letter establishing baseline conditions at
potentially affected extremely fragile buildings/historical resources and/or residential structures. The survey letter shall determine conditions that exist prior to the
commencement of construction activities for use in
evaluating potential damages caused by construction.

Fixtures and finishes susceptible to damage shall be
documented photographically and in writing prior to
construction. The survey letter shall provide a shoring design to protect such buildings and structures from
potential damage. At the conclusion of vibration causing activities, the qualified structural engineer shall issue a follow-up letter describing damage, if any, to impacted buildings and structures. The letter shall include
recommendations for any repair, as may be necessary, in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards.

Repairs shall be undertaken and completed by the
contractor and monitored by a qualified structural
engineer in conformance with all applicable codes
including the California Historical Building Code (Part 8 of Title 24).

A Statement of Compliance signed by the applicant and
owner shall be submitted to the City’ Building and Safety Division at plan check and prior to the issuance of any Less than
significant with
mitigation.

ATTACHMENT 10 -27
Executive Summary
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-19
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
permit. The Vibration Control Plan, prepared as outlined above shall be documented by a qualified structural
engineer, and shall be provided to the City upon request.

Impact NOI-4. Housing developments
accommodated under the Housing
Element Update could be exposed to
intermittent noise levels from
overhead flight patterns from several
airports in the city or its vicinity.

While the project would not
emphasize building housing in the
immediate vicinity of the airport, all
residential development would,
nonetheless, be required to
incorporate noise insulation features
per State and local standards to
reduce interior noise levels to below
45 dBA. Therefore, the impact of
airport or airstrip operations on new
development would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

Cumulative Impacts. NOI-C1 Construction Building Permits. The City’s Community Development Department shall review the
locations and anticipated construction timing for housing development projects with respect to the locations of
other pending development projects. The City shall
stagger the issuance of building permits for development projects with overlapping construction schedules that
meet both of the following criteria:
 The development project is located within 1,000 feet
of another separate development project; and
 The development project is located 500 feet or less
from a sensitive receiver.

In these instances, the Community Development
Department shall review the findings of any site-specific noise and vibration studies pertaining to future
development projects to compare their locations to
sensitive receivers identified therein.

Less than
significant with
mitigation.

Population/Housing
Impact POP-1. Reasonably
foreseeable development under the
Housing Element Update would be
consistent with the 2021-2029 RHNA
and the 2035 General Plan but would
exceed SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS
population forecasts. The Housing
Element Update would update the
2035 General Plan to be consistent
with Burbank’s RHNA, and SCAG’s
next RTP/SCS would incorporate the
City’s General Plan updates. the City
would have adequate housing
capacity to facilitate the 10,456 new
units assumed as part of the Housing
None required. Less than
significant.

ATTACHMENT 10 -28
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update
ES-20
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Element Update and would not
exceed the City’s current capacity of
infrastructure. The Housing Element
Update would not induce unplanned
growth directly or indirectly, and
impacts would be less than
significant.

Public Services
Impact PS-1. Development
accommodated by the Housing
Element Update would result in an
increase in population in the city,
which would increase demand for fire
protection services, resulting in the
need for additional and/or expanded
fire protection facilities. However,
development impact fees and sales
taxes would offset Housing Element
update demand for new fire
protection facilities, the need for
which would be due to cumulative
growth in the area. The locations of
future new or expanded facilities is
not known at this point in time and
environmental impacts would be
speculative. However, compliance
with applicable codes and regulations
and compliance with General Plan
goals and policies would reduce
potential impacts related to fire
protection and emergency medical
services to a less than significant
impact.

None required. Less than
significant.

Impact PS-2. Development
accommodated under the Housing
Element Update would result in an
increase in population in the city,
which would increase demand for
police protection services, resulting in
the need for additional staff and
equipment. However, conformance
with General Plan policies and
programs related to police protection
would require the City to continue to
provide funding and adequate
staffing, facilities, equipment, and
technology to meet existing and
projected service demands and
response times. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

ATTACHMENT 10 -29
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-21
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact PS-3. Development
accommodated by the Housing
Element Update would result in an
increase in population in the planning
area, resulting in the need for
additional and/or expanded school
facilities. However, Government Code
65995 (b) would require funding for
the provision or expansion of new
school facilities to offset impacts
from new residential. Additionally,
accommodating growth pursuant to
the RHNA may require adjustments
to the rate of inter-district permits.

This impact would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

Impact PS-4. Development
accommodated under the Housing
Element Update would result in an
increase in population in the city,
which would increase demand for
parks and recreation services.

However, conformance with General
Plan policies and programs related to
open space would require provision
of new parks and recreation facilities
and ongoing parkland maintenance to
prevent deterioration. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant.

None required Less than
significant
Impact PS-5. Housing development
accommodated under the Housing
Element Update would result in an
increase in population in the city,
which would increase demand for
other public facilities, resulting in the
need for additional and/or expanded
facilities. The Burbank Library would
meet the City’s library needs
projected under the Housing Element
Update. Therefore, impacts related to
the City’s library system would be less
than significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

Recreation
Impact REC-1. Development
facilitated by the Housing and Safety
Element Update may require the
construction or expansion of
additional parks and open space, but
implementation of policies contained
in the Burbank2035 General Plan and
BMC would avoid or adequately
mitigate adverse physical effects on
the environment. This impact would
be less than significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

ATTACHMENT 10 -30
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

ES-22
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Transportation
Impact TRA-1. The Housing Element
Update is consistent with all
applicable program, plan, ordinance,
and policy related to the
transportation system. Therefore,
impacts related to conflicts with
applicable regulations would be less
than significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

Impact TRA-2. The Housing Element
Update would reduce VMT in the
three target populations. However, it
would not reduce VMT more than the
required 15 percent. Therefore,
impacts related to VMT would be
significant and unavoidable.

Potential mitigation measures that would reduce the
average total VMT per service population and average
VMT per employee are generally project specific
mitigation measures such as:
 Provide bicycle parking at employer locations
 Provide parking cash-out programs
 Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing
programs at employer locations
 Provide transit passes to employees
 Improve or increase transit accessibility to employer locations
 Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit
service
 Provide traffic calming features on City roadways
These mitigation measures can be applied at the project specific level but are not feasible at the program level for a housing element as they are beyond the scope of the
document. Therefore, there is no feasible mitigation
available to reduce the impacts.

Significant and
unavoidable.

Impact TRA-3. The Housing Element
Update does not include any
development projects that could
increase hazards due to design
features. Therefore, impacts would
be less than significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

Utilities/Service Systems (includes Hydrology & Water Supply) Impact UTIL-1. Reasonably
foreseeable development under the
proposed Project would require
utility service and connections for
water supply, wastewater
conveyance, and stormwater
conveyance, as well as
telecommunications, electricity, and
natural gas. Existing utility systems
for water, electric power, natural gas,
and telecommunications facilities in
Burbank have sufficient capacity to
serve reasonably foreseeable
development. However, new
connections to existing or expanded
wastewater service systems would be
required, and such connections could
result in potentially significant
UTIL-1 Sewer Service Constraints Analysis.
 The City will conduct an analysis to identify any sewer service constraints to determine if there are any sewer capacity issues and any constraints in the City’s
wastewater system including assessment of system
capacity relative to the locations of opportunity sites identified in the Housing Element Update. The analysis
will identify upgrades necessary to mitigate the
constraints in the system to ensure that individual
housing development projects implemented under the
Housing Element can be completed and that sufficient
capacity and conveyance in the wastewater system
exists. However, if a proposed development has a
construction schedule that the City cannot
accommodate, the developer may be responsible for
performing the necessary sewer infrastructure
upgrades per Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) 8-1-304.

Less than
significant with
mitigation.

ATTACHMENT 10 -31
Executive Summary

Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-23
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
environmental effects. Nonetheless,
impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation.
 Based on the constraints identified in the analysis, the City’s Public Works Department will prepare a nexus
fee study to develop a fair share requirement in the
form of a wastewater connection or similar project
impact fee, which helps to pay for implementation of
upgrades necessary to accommodate future
development, including development of the
opportunity sites where deficiencies in the system are
identified to exist. Through the fee study, subsequent
cost recovery fees applied to individual housing
development projects will be based on a rough
proportionality related to demands on the system
reasonably attributed to the development project.
 In the event it is determined that necessary upgrades to serve a project cannot be completed by the City
prior to project completion, the City may require the
developer to perform the necessary sewer
infrastructure upgrades (Per BMC 8-1-304) at cost to
the developer, or may choose to enter into a
reimbursement agreement so that a developer may
fund and construct the improvements within the
necessary timeframe with subsequent partial
reimbursement. If the City and Developer mutually
agree to enter into reimbursement agreement
(approved as to form by the City Attorney and
approved by the City Council), it would be
administered by the City’s Public Works Director on
behalf of the City.

Impact UTIL-2. Reasonably
foreseeable development under the
proposed Project would require a
temporary recycled water supply
during construction and a long-term
water supply during operation and
maintenance. Water supply would be
provided by the City of Burbank,
which purchases imported surface
water from the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California and
receives groundwater credits to
supplement its purchased water
supply with locally produced
groundwater. Growth under the
proposed Project is accounted for in
the City of Burbank Urban Water
Management Plan, as informed by
the General Plan, and sufficient water
supplies are available to serve
reasonably foreseeable development.

Potential impacts would be less than
significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

ATTACHMENT 10 -32
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

ES-24
Impact Mitigation Measure (s) Residual Impact
Impact UTIL-3. Wastewater
generated in the City of Burbank is
conveyed to and treated at the
Burbank Water Reclamation Plant.

Reasonably foreseeable development
under the proposed project would
increase wastewater generation
commensurate with the increased
population. Significant treatment
capacity is currently available at the
VWRP to treat increased wastewater
generated as a result of the Project.

However, based on the sewer
generation rates that were calculated
for the proposed Project, along with
constraints within the City’s
treatment system, potentially
significant impacts could result on a
project-specific bases with no feasible
mitigation at the current plan level.

Therefore, impacts would be
significant and unavoidable.

None feasible. Significant and
unavoidable.

Impact UTIL-4. Solid waste
conveyance and disposal services in
Burbank are provided by the Street
and Solid Waste Division of Public
Works, which transports solid waste
to the City-owned and operated
Burbank Landfill. Sufficient capacity is
available at the Burbank Landfill to
accommodate solid waste disposal
volumes associated with reasonably
foreseeable development under the
proposed Project. Impacts would be
less than significant.

None required. Less than
significant.

ATTACHMENT 10 -33
Introduction

Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction
This document is an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update (hereafter referred to as the “Housing and Safety Element Update” or “Project”), which would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank, which encompasses 17.1 square miles. The proposed Project involves an update to the Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period, along with minor updates to the Safety, Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change, Noise, and Mobility Elements, and the incorporation of environmental justice policies into the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan. The 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 Project also includes necessary updates to the Safety Element triggered under State law by an update to the Housing Element.

The Housing Element Update would lay the foundation for achievement of the City’s fair share housing needs for approximately 10,456 additional units. Technical amendments would be made to the Safety Element to ensure consistency with the Housing Element Update and to achieve compliance with State, regional, and local policies and guidelines. The Safety Element Update includes measures to consider climate change, update hazard mitigation plans, updated flood hazard requirements. In addition, the Update to the Burbank2035 General Plan would consider environmental justice 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 disadvantaged communities.

This section discusses (1) the Project and EIR background; (2) the legal basis for preparing an EIR; (3) the scope and content of the EIR; (4) issue areas found not to be significant by the Initial Study; (5) the lead, responsible, and trustee agencies; and (6) the environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed Project is described in detail in Section 2, Project Description.

1.1 Environmental Impact Report Background
The City of Burbank distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on February 22, 2021 and concluding on March 23, 2021. In addition, the City held an EIR Scoping Meeting on February 27, 2021. The meeting, held from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM, was aimed at providing information about the proposed Project to members of public agencies, interested stakeholders and residents/community members. The meeting was conducted online via zoom.

In addition, the City of Burbank distributed a recirculated NOP of the EIR for an extended 30-day agency and public review period starting on February 22, 2021 and concluding on April 15, 2021.

The original NOP stated that the EIR would analyze the addition of 8,800 units under the RHNA that was conducted for the Housing Element Update. However, it was determined that the EIR would ATTACHMENT 10 -34
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

1-2
analyze 10,456 units to account for the 2029 interpolated housing growth assumed under the two Specific Plans along with the City’s RHNA allocation. Therefore, the NOP was recirculated on March 17, 2021, with the higher number. In addition, the City held a second EIR Scoping Meeting on March 31, 2021. The meeting, held from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM, was aimed at providing information about the proposed Project to members of public agencies, interested stakeholders and residents/community members. The meeting was conducted online via zoom.

The City received letters from five agencies in response to the NOP and recirculated NOP during the public review period, as well as various verbal comments during the two EIR Scoping Meetings. The NOP and recirculated NOP are presented in Appendix A of this EIR, along with the NOP responses received for both notices, whereas the Initial Study that was prepared for the Project is included in Appendix B of this EIR. Table 1-1 on the following page summarizes the content of the letters and verbal comments and where the issues raised are addressed in the EIR.

1.2 Purpose and Legal Authority
The Housing and Safety Element Update requires the discretionary approval and adoption by the Burbank City Council; therefore, the Project is subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. In accordance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14), the purpose of this EIR is to serve as an informational document that:
“...will inform public agency decision makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project.”
This EIR has been prepared as a program EIR pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. A program EIR is appropriate for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program. As stated in Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines:
“An EIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow.”
This EIR is to serve as an informational document for the public and City of Burbank decision makers. The process will include public hearings before the Planning Board and City Council to consider certification of a Final EIR and approval of the proposed Project.

Table 1-1 NOP Comments and EIR Response
Commenter Comment/Request How and Where It Was Addressed Agency Comments
California Department
of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW)
Requests maps of areas including the
City’s Significant Ecological Areas (SEA),
wildlife corridors, and aquatic and
riparian resources.

Comments are addressed in Section 4.2,
Biological Resources and in Appendix B, Initial
Study
Recommendations for biological impacts,
mitigation measures, and alternatives.

ATTACHMENT 10 -35
Introduction

Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-3
Commenter Comment/Request How and Where It Was Addressed California Department
of Transportation
(Caltrans)
Recommendations for vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) analysis.

Comments are addressed in Section 4.11,
Transportation.

Native American
Heritage Commission
(NAHC)
Recommendations for tribal and cultural
resource impacts, including Senate Bill 18
and Assembly Bill 52 requirements and
mitigation measures.

Comments are addressed in Section 4.3, Cultural
Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources.

Southern California
Association of
Governments (SCAG)
Requests environmental documentation,
when available, and the full public
comment period for review.

Notices are addressed in Section 1, Introduction.

Recommends the use of informational
resources, including the Connect SoCal
Demographics and Growth Forecast
Technical Report, to ensure the proposed
Project is consistent with the adopted
2020-2045 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS).

Comments are addressed in Section 4.8,
Population and Housing.

South Coast Air
Quality Management
District (SCAQMD)
Recommends use of CEQA Air Quality
Handbook and SCAQMD resources for
guidance in preparing air quality and
greenhouse gas analyses. Also
recommends using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
for analysis.

Comments are addressed in Section 4.1, Air
Quality.

Recommendations for air quality impacts
and mitigation measures.

Organization Comments
Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Requests any and all information referring
or related to the Project.

All public records act requests are handled by the
City of Burbank and do not constitute comments
under CEQA.

Requests notice of any and all issued
notices under the CEQA and the Planning
and Zoning Law.

Notices are addressed in Section 1, Introduction.

1.3 Scope and Content
This EIR addresses impacts identified by the Initial Study to be potentially significant. The following issues were found to include potentially significant impacts and have been studied in the EIR:
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
 Geology/Soils
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Noise
 Population/Housing
ATTACHMENT 10 -36
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

1-4
 Public Services
 Recreation
 Transportation
 Utilities/Service Systems
The EIR was prepared using pertinent City policies and guidelines, certified EIRs and adopted CEQA documents, and other background documents. A full reference list is contained in Section 7, References and Preparers.

The alternatives section of the EIR (Section 6) was prepared in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines and focuses on alternatives that are capable of eliminating or reducing significant adverse effects associated with the Project while feasibly attaining most of the basic Project objectives. In addition, the alternatives section identifies the “environmentally superior” alternative among the alternatives assessed. The alternatives evaluated include the CEQA-required “No Project” alternative and two alternative development scenarios for the Project area.

The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with the requirements of CEQA and applicable court decisions. Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines provides the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The Guidelines state:

An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of the proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection, but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.

1.4 Issues Not Studied in Detail in the EIR
Table 1-2 summarizes issues from the environmental checklist that were addressed in the Initial Study (Appendix B). As indicated in the Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that significant impacts would occur in any of these issue areas.

Table 1-2 Issues Not Studied in the EIR
Issue Area Initial Study Findings
Aesthetics Compliance with Burbank2035 General Plan goals and policies intended to protect scenic vistas and visual resources would ensure that the Housing and Safety Element Update does not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas, specifically, protection of the Verdugo Mountains. Furthermore, 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. Impacts would be less than significant.

No existing or proposed State scenic highways are located in Burbank and therefore, development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would not result in substantial damage to scenic resources in a State scenic highway. No impact would occur.

Compliance with the City’s development standards and transitional height requirements, and the objective design standards included in the multiple Specific Plans throughout Burbank would ensure that the Housing and Safety Element Update does not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 10 -37
Introduction

Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-5
Issue Area Initial Study Findings
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.

Agricultural and
Forestry Resources
The Housing and Safety Element Update encompasses the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank, which lacks agricultural lands or forests. No impact to these resources would occur.

Energy Compliance with Federal and State regulations regarding construction activities, and the requirements of the California Energy and California Green Building Standard Codes would prevent environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, the Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize development in areas that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, which would minimize the potential of the proposed Project to result in the wasteful or unnecessary consumption of vehicle fuels. Impacts would be less than significant.

Compliance with applicable local and State energy efficiency regulations and standards would ensure that the Housing and Safety Element Update would not conflict with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans adopted by the City. Impacts would be less than significant.

Hydrology/Water
Quality
Compliance with requirements in the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) and regulations under the Federal Clean Water Act would ensure that the Housing and Safety Element Update does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of appropriate construction Best Management Practices (BMP) would minimize impacts on groundwater resources. In addition, the Housing and Safety Element Update would prioritize development on infill areas that are already urbanized and largely covered with impervious surfaces and therefore would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant.

Development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would be prioritized on infill areas that are primarily paved and/or developed with structures. Therefore, development under the proposed Project 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. In addition, BMPs and implementation of a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan would be required for development to reduce polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.

Compliance with Section 1612 and Appendix G of the California Building Code (CBC) would ensure that the Housing and Safety Element Update does not substantially alter existing drainage patterns to an extent that would redirect or impede flood flows. In addition, the proposed Project would emphasize new development on infill sites in urbanized areas that are already primarily paved and/or developed with structures. Impacts would be less than significant.

While there is the potential for flooding to impact portions of the City, future developments under the Housing and Safety Element Update 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 and impacts would be less than significant.

Mineral Resources Development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would primarily occur in existing commercial and residential areas, which are not compatible with or used for mineral extraction, and 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 Project updates do not include any policies that relate 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 or locally important mineral resource. No impact would occur.

ATTACHMENT 10 -38
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

1-6
Issue Area Initial Study Findings
Wildfire Future development plans under the Housing and Safety Element Update would be submitted for review and approval to the Burbank Fire Department to ensure that reasonably foreseeable development has adequate emergency access and escape routes in compliance with existing City regulations. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not introduce features or policies that would preclude implementation of or alter these policies or procedures or encourage development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ).

Impacts would be less than significant.

Since 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 BMC, 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.

The Housing and Safety Element Update 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 proposed Project would not require additional roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities that would exacerbate fire risk. Impacts would be less than significant.

1.5 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies
The CEQA Guidelines define lead, responsible and trustee agencies. The City of Burbank is the lead agency for the Project because it holds principal responsibility for approving the Project.

A responsible agency refers to a public agency other than the lead agency that has discretionary approval over the Project. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviews and determines whether the proposed Housing Element Update complies with State law. Although no other agencies have direct approval authority over the Housing Element Update, several other agencies potentially have approval authority over individual developments that could be reasonably anticipated under the Housing and Safety Element Update. These agencies include, but are not limited to, California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The EIR will also be submitted to these agencies for review and comment.

A trustee agency refers to a State agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 designates four agencies as trustee agencies: CDFW with regards to fish and wildlife, native plants designated as rare or endangered, game refuges, and ecological reserves; the State Lands Commission with regard to State-owned “sovereign” lands, such as the beds of navigable waters and State school lands; the California Department of Parks and Recreation with regard to units of the State park system; and, the University of California with regard to sites within the Natural Land and Water Reserves System. As a policy level document, implementation of the proposed Project would not directly propose development in areas where trustee agencies have jurisdiction. However, potential future development projects facilitated by the Housing and Safety Element Update could be located on lands under trustee agency jurisdiction, at which time subsequent environmental review would occur.

ATTACHMENT 10 -39
Introduction

Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-7

1.6 Environmental Review Process
The environmental impact review process, as required under CEQA, is summarized below and illustrated in Figure 1-1. The steps are presented in sequential order.

Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study. After deciding that an EIR is required, the lead agency (City of Burbank) must file a NOP soliciting input on the EIR scope to the State Clearinghouse, other concerned agencies, and parties previously requesting notice in writing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; Public Resources Code Section 21092.2). The NOP must be posted in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days. The NOP may be accompanied by an Initial Study that identifies the issue areas for which the project could create significant environmental impacts.

Draft EIR Prepared. The Draft EIR must contain: a) table of contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) discussion of significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth-inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) a discussion of alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) discussion of irreversible changes.

Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion (NOA/NOC). The lead agency must file a NOC with the State Clearinghouse when it completes a Draft EIR and prepare a Public NOA of a Draft EIR.

The lead agency must place the NOA in the County Clerk’s office for 30 days and send a copy of the NOA to anyone requesting it (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087; Public Resources Code Section 21092). Additionally, public notice of Draft EIR availability must be given through at least one of the following procedures: a) publication in a newspaper of general circulation; b) posting on and off the project site; and c) direct mailing to owners and occupants of contiguous properties. The lead agency must solicit input from other agencies and the public and respond in writing to all comments received (CEQA Guidelines Section 15087). The minimum public review period for a Draft EIR is 30 days. When a Draft EIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse for review, the public review period must be 45 days unless the State Clearinghouse approves a shorter period (CEQA Guidelines Section 15105; Public Resources Code 21091).

Final EIR. Upon circulation and receipt of comments on the Draft EIR, the lead agency must prepare a Final EIR. A Final EIR must include: a) the Draft EIR; b) copies of comments received during public review; c) list of persons and entities commenting; and d) responses to comments, including any revisions to the text in the body of the Draft EIR based on comments received, if applicable.

Certification of Final EIR. Prior to making a decision on a proposed project, the lead agency must certify that: a) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; b) the Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency; and c) the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15090).

Lead Agency Project Decision. The lead agency may a) disapprove the project because of its significant environmental effects; b) require changes to the project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or c) approve the project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).

Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations. For each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; b) changes to the project are within another agency’s jurisdiction and such changes have or should ATTACHMENT 10 -40
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

1-8
be adopted; or c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’s decision.

Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. When the lead agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects.

Notice of Determination (NOD). The lead agency must file a NOD after deciding to approve a project for which an EIR is prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094). A local agency must file the NOD with the County Clerk. The NOD must be posted for 30 days and sent to anyone previously requesting notice. Posting of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on CEQA legal challenges (Public Resources Code Section 21167[c]).

ATTACHMENT 10 -41
Introduction

Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-9
Figure 1-1 Environmental Review Process

ATTACHMENT 10 -42
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

1-10

This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 10 -43
Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-1
2 Project Description
This section describes the proposed Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update1 (hereafter referred to as “Housing and Safety Element Update” or “Project”), including the Project applicant, the Project area and existing land uses, major Project characteristics, Project objectives, and the discretionary actions needed for approval.

2.1 Project Proponent
City of Burbank - Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502

2.2 Lead Agency Contact Person
Shipra Rajesh, Associate Planner
City of Burbank
Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, California 91502
(818) 238-5250

2.3 Project Location
The Housing and Safety Element Update would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank, 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 2-1 and Figure 2-2, below, illustrate the location of the City in a regional and local context.

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 -44
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

2-2
Figure 2-1 Regional Location

ATTACHMENT 10 -45
Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-3
Figure 2-2 City of Burbank

ATTACHMENT 10 -46
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

2-4

2.4 Existing Area Characteristics

2.4.1 Current Land Use Designation and Zoning
The Burbank2035 General Plan includes a variety of land use designations, including Low, Medium, and High Density Residential; Corridor and Regional Commercial; four specific plan 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. 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.

2.4.2 Land Uses in Surrounding Cities
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 the west. The Verdugo Mountains consist of largely open space with parks and trails for recreational activities. The City of Glendale is a suburban city with large residential areas and regional commercial sites. Directly south in the City of Los Angeles is the neighborhood of Hollywood with residences, commercial areas, and recreational facilities such as Griffith Park, golf courses, and public parks. To the west is the San Fernando Valley area of the City of Los Angeles. This area consists of suburban neighborhoods with commercial areas and residences.

2.5 Project Characteristics
The Housing and Safety Element Update would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank, which encompasses 17.1 square miles. The 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, Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change, Noise, and Mobility Elements, and the incorporation of environmental justice policies into the Burbank2035 General Plan as required by State law. The proposed Housing Element Update establishes programs, policies and actions to further the goal of meeting the existing and projected housing needs of all household income levels of the community; provides evidence of the City’s ability to accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation through the year 2029, as established by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); and identifies any rezoning program needed to reach the required housing capacity. The Safety Element update is triggered by various new provisions of State law, and the environmental justice policies would be added pursuant to the requirements of Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000) which requires that revisions or adoption of two or more elements of a general plan on or after January 1, 2018 “adopt or review the Environmental Justice Element, or the environmental justice goals, policies, and objectives in other elements” to focus on the inclusion of disadvantaged communities (DACs) in decision making procedures as well as increasing protections for these communities.

2.5.1 Housing Element Update
The Housing Element is comprised of the following major components:

ATTACHMENT 10 -47
Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-5
 Review of effectiveness of existing Housing Element
 Assessment of existing and projected housing needs
 Identification of resources – financial, land, administrative  Evaluation of constraints to the development of housing  Housing Plan – goals, policies, and programs
The Housing Element Update would provide a framework for accommodating new housing at all levels of affordability that is within access to transit, jobs, services, and open spaces within the 8- year planning period of October 2021-October 2029. 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 residential of adequate density to meet State- required housing production and affordability targets as discussed below.

2.5.2 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) allocation. 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 residential capacity. As shown in Table 2-1, Burbank’s RHNA allocation for the 2021-2029 planning period (6
th RHNA cycle) is 8,772 units, which is distributed among four income categories (HCD 2020). Additionally, the City is required to provide a sufficient buffer beyond that required by the RHNA to ensure that adequate site capacity exists throughout the eight-year planning period.

Table 2-1 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
Table 2-2 shows the estimated number and affordability level of housing units to accommodate the City’s RHNA under the existing General Plan and zoning, including projects that are entitled and pending entitlement, specified housing opportunity sites, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) expected to be developed over the course of the planning period, and units produced through the City’s committed assistance program. As shown in Table 2-2, these sources total 7,673, which falls short of the RHNA allocation by 1,099 units.

ATTACHMENT 10 -48
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

2-6
Table 2-2 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 934 7 6 83 838
Pending Entitlement 1,489 227 31 0 1,202
Opportunity Sites (Zoning in place) 3,640 1,988 1,068 292 292 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)1 1,600 384 704 32 480
Committed Assistance2 10 10 0 0 0
Total Site Capacity 7,673 4,425 436 2,812
RHNA Surplus/(Shortfall) (1,099) +454 (973) (580)
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.

To make up for this shortfall of 1,099 units, the Housing Element includes a housing program to rezone additional opportunity sites through adoption of two specific plan projects: the Downtown Transit-Oriented-Development Specific Plan (Downtown TOD) and the Golden State Specific Plan (GSSP) (see Figure 2-3 for the Specific Plan locations and opportunity sites). Adoption of these Specific Plans will provide the necessary zoning, objective development standards, and processing procedures to facilitate the production of the shortfall of housing units required to accommodate the City’s RHNA during the Housing Element planning period. The zone changes required by these Specific Plans will be adopted in 2022-2023, or within three years of the start of the planning period as required by State law.

Table 2-3 shows the number of units expected from the rezoning of the Specific Plan areas. With the additional rezone sites the City would exceed the RHNA requirement by 1,343 units with an additional 2,442 units accommodated. 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. The Notice of Preparation that was circulated on March 17, 2021 for the proposed Project included an estimated growth of 10,088 housing units based on the City’s RHNA allocation and 15 percent buffer. However, the estimated growth for the purpose of this analysis was changed to 10,456 housing units to account for the 2029 interpolated housing growth assumed under the two Specific Plans along with the City’s RHNA allocation.

Table 2-3 Projected Specific Plan Units
Specific Plan Total Net Units
Downtown TOD sites 627
Golden State Specific Plan sites 1,815
Total 2,442
Existing GP Units (from Table 2-2) 7,673
New Total with Specific Plans 10,115
RHNA Surplus/(Shortfall) 1,343
ATTACHMENT 10 -49
Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-7
Housing Element Opportunity Sites
The opportunity sites summarized in Table 2-3 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 are shown in Figure 2-3. The zone changes where applicable are shown on Table 2-4.

Table 2-4 Rezoning in Housing Opportunity Sites
Project APNs
Gross
Acres
Current Zoning
District
Current
Residential
Density
Units/Acre Proposed Zoning Uses Rezone?
TOD Plan Projects
1 TOD-1 Carl’s
Jr
2460-010-010
2460-010-011
2460-010-012
2460-010-013

0.31 NSFC (North San
Fernando
Commercial)
43 Residential (max. 43
du/acre)

No
2460-010-014
2460-010-033
2460-010-036

0.98 NSFC (North San
Fernando
Commercial)
27 Residential (max. 27
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 1.0
FAR)
No
Total 1.29
2 TOD-2 Kmart 2460-006-045
2460-007-036

6.43 NSFC (North San
Fernando
Commercial)
27 Residential (max. 27
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 1.0
FAR)
No
3 TOD-3
Caltrans/IHOP
2460-021-017
2460-021-018
2460-021-019
2460-021-020
2460-021-027
2460-021-028

2.87 NSFC (North San
Fernando
Commercial)
27 Residential (max. 27
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 1.0
FAR)
No
4 TOD-4 Old
Ikea
2460-023-044
2460-023-045
2460-023-046
2460-023-047
2460-023-060

12.06 PD (Planned
Development)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
2460-031-008
2460-031-016
2460-031-018
2460-031-019
2460-031-029
2460-031-044
2460-031-045

1.55 BCC-2 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
Limited
Business)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
Total 13.61
5 TOD-5 Ashley
Home/El
Pollo
2460-023-056
2460-023-057

2.71 PD (Planned
Development)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
ATTACHMENT 10 -50
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

2-8
Project APNs
Gross
Acres
Current Zoning
District
Current
Residential
Density
Units/Acre Proposed Zoning Uses Rezone?
6 TOD-6
Burbank
Town Center
2460-023-048
2460-023-049
2460-023-050
2460-023-052
2460-023-054
2460-023-063
2460-023-064
2460-023-996

16.75 PD (Planned
Development)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
7 TOD-7 Civic
Center
2453-008-900
2453-009-902
2453-008-903
2453-008-905
2453-008-908
2453-008-910
2453-008-911
2453-008-912

4.68 PD (Planned
Development)
0 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
Yes
2455-021-906 1.56 R-4 (Residential
Multiple
Medium
Density) and C-3
Commercial
General
Business
0 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
Yes
Total 6.24
8 TOD-8 Olive/
Glenoaks
2453-014-002
2453-014-003
2453-014-008
2453-014-024
2453-014-025

0.50 BCC-3 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
General
Business)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
2453-014-012
2453-014-014
2453-014-022
2453-014-023
2453-014-026
2453-014-029

1.05 BCC-2 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
Limited
Business)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
Total 1.55
9 TOD-9 Fosters
Freeze/ Boys
and Girls Club
2453-021-026
2453-021-027
2453-021-029
2453-021-030

0.74 BCC-3 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
General
Business)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
2453-021-032
2453-021-033
2453-021-035
2453-021-041
2453-021-046
2453-021-062

1.20 BCC-2 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
Limited
Business)
43 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
Yes
Total 1.94
ATTACHMENT 10 -51
Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-9
Project APNs
Gross
Acres
Current Zoning
District
Current
Residential
Density
Units/Acre Proposed Zoning Uses Rezone?
10 TOD-10
BJs/Black
Angus
2453-011-029
2453-018-017

3.83 BCC-2 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
Limited
Business)
87 Residential (max. 87
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 2.5
FAR)
No
11 TOD-11
Victory/Olive
2451-016-004
2451-016-011
2451-016-012
2451-016-013
2451-016-014

4.30 BCCM (Burbank
Center
Commercial
Manufacturing)
27 Residential (max. 27
du/acre)
Commercial (max. 1.0
FAR)
No
12 TOD-12 YMCA 2460-034-021
2460-035-005
2460-035-007
2460-035-008

0.88 BCC-2 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
Limited
Business)
87 Yes
2460-035-001
2460-035-003

1.07 BCC-3 (Burbank
Center
Commercial
General
Business)
87 Yes
2460-035-014
2460-035-016
2460-035-017
2460-035-018

1.50 PD (Planned
Development)
87 Yes
Total 2.66
GSSP Projects
A GSSP-1
Lima/Avon
2466-001-015
2466-001-016
2466-001-022
2466-001 023
2466-001-024
2466-001-025
2466-001-026
2466-001-029
2466-001-030
2466-001 045
2466-001-046
2466-001-063
2466-001-064
2466-001-077
2466-001-081

4.00 M-2
(Manufacturing
General
Industries)
27 1.25 FAR
Residential (max. 120
du/acre)
Commercial (2.0 FAR)
Yes
ATTACHMENT 10 -52
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

2-10
Project APNs
Gross
Acres
Current Zoning
District
Current
Residential
Density
Units/Acre Proposed Zoning Uses Rezone?
B GSSP-2 North
Hollywood
Way
2466-005-003
2466-005 013
2466-005 017
2466-005 018
2466-005-024
2466-005-025
2466-006-002
2466-006-003
2466-006-004
2466-006-005
2466-006-006
2466-006-007
2466-006-008
2466-006-009
2466-006-010
2466-006-011

5.28 M-2
(Manufacturing
General
Industries)
27 1.25 FAR
Residential (max. 120
du/acre)
Commercial (4.5 FAR)
Yes
C GSSP-3
Valhalla
2463-001-005
2463-001-006
2463-001-007
2463-001-008
2463-001-011
2463-001-012

8.10 M-1
(Manufacturing
Limited
Industries)
27 1.25 FAR
Residential (max. 120
du/acre)
Commercial (2.0 FAR)
Yes
D GSSP-4 Logix 2463-010-001 4.46 M-2
(Manufacturing
General
Industries)
27 1.25 FAR
Residential (max. 120
du/acre)
Commercial (2.0 FAR)
Yes
E GSSP-5
Ontario
2464-004-036 1.73 PD (Planned
Development)
58 1.25 FAR
Residential (max. 120
du/acre)
Commercial (3.0 FAR)
Yes
F GSSP-6
Fairview
2464-006-045 0.65 M-2
(Manufacturing
General
Industries)
58 1.25 FAR

Residential (max. 58
du/acre)
Commercial (max. xx
FAR))
No
G GSSP-7
Empire
2464-001-002
2464-001-003
2464-001-007
2464-001-015
2464-001-019
2464-001-020
2464-001-021

6.40 M-2
(Manufacturing
General
Industries)
58 1.25 FAR
Residential (max. 58
du/acre)
Commercial (2.0 FAR)
Yes
2464-001-906 0.06 RR (Railroad) 0 Residential (max. 100 du/acre)
Commercial (2.0 FAR))
Yes
Total 7.28
Note: As part of the rezoning and resulting 3,561 units, the City included a projection of 1.4 million square feet of new commercial space.

ATTACHMENT 10 -53
Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-11
Figure 2-3 Specific Plan and Housing Opportunity Locations

ATTACHMENT 10 -54
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

2-12

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 10 -55
Project Description

Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-13

2.5.3 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 Update include updated flooding and fire hazard maps, 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.

2.5.4 Environmental Justice Update
SB 1000 states that revisions to 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 DACs, promote civic engagement, and prioritize the needs of these communities. The Project also includes minor updates to policies and implementation measures for the Safety, Land Use, Open Space and Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change, Noise, and Mobility Elements of the Burbank2035 General Plan. These updates focus on the inclusion of disadvantaged communities in decision making procedures as well as increasing protections for these communities. Figure 2-4, 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.

ATTACHMENT 10 -56
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

2-14
Figure 2-4 CalEnviroScreen – Disadvantaged Communities

ATTACHMENT 10 -57
Project Description
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-15

2.6 Project Objectives
 Meet the City’s fair share, plus a reasonable buffer, of the regional housing need to accommodate projected population growth within the City and region consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation
 Conserve and enhance the quality of existing housing and neighborhoods  Provide housing sites that accommodate a range of housing types to meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents
 Continue to facilitate the development of housing affordable for all economic segments of the community and make inroads in addressing the City’s jobs-to-housing imbalance  Focus on removing governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing
 Promote non-discrimination and fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons

2.7 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 updates to the Safety Element
 Adoption of updates to other Burbank2035 General Plan elements to incorporate environmental justice policies
 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 for certification. The Safety Element updates will be submitted to CalFire for their review and approval.

ATTACHMENT 10 -58
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

2-16

This page intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 10 -59
Environmental Setting

Draft Environmental Impact Report 3-1
3 Environmental Setting
This section provides a general overview of the environmental setting for the proposed Project.

More detailed descriptions of the environmental setting for each environmental issue area can be found in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis.

3.1 Regional Setting
The Housing and Safety Element Update would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank (City) (i.e., 17.1 square miles). The Project 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 the San Fernando Valley area of the City of Los Angeles to the west.

In addition, the Project is bisected by the Interstate 5 (I-5) Freeway and the Metrolink Commuter Rail. Figure 2-1 in Section 2, Project Description, shows the location of the City in a regional context and Figure 2-2 shows the location of the proposed Project in relationship to surrounding cities.

A grid system of east-west and north-south roadways, including arterials, collectors, and local streets, provide vehicular access throughout the City. The major roadways include West Burbank Boulevard, Victory Boulevard, West Olive Avenue, North Buena Vista Street, North San Fernando Boulevard, and Glenoaks Boulevard. The closest freeways are the I-5 and Ventura Freeway (US Route 101).

The regional climate is considered semi-arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. Although air quality in the area has steadily improved in recent years, the Los Angeles region remains a nonattainment area for ozone (urban smog). The City is located approximately 13 miles inland from the coastline of the Pacific Ocean.

3.2 Project Site Setting
The Housing and Safety Element Update area consists of 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. In addition, the City consists of various zones including residential, commercial, media district, business, auto dealership, industrial, airport, railroad, cemetery, and open space.

3.3 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are the changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the Project and other projects with related impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 allows for two approaches to study cumulative impacts: using a list of past, current and probable future projects or relying on a summary of projections (growth forecasts) from adopted local, regional or statewide plans. Cumulative impact analysis allows the EIR to provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects of a series of projects.

ATTACHMENT 10 -60
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

3-2
Because the proposed Project is the Housing and Safety Element Update encompassing the entire area within the City limits, the cumulative impacts analysis in this EIR relies on the City’s growth projections utilizing data available from the Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG) 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020 RTP/SCS), SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS travel demand model for the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis in Section 4.11, Transportation; and the California Department of Finance’s (DOF) 2020 E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State. The City currently has a population of approximately 104,969 persons and 45,069 households (DOF 2021). Based on SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS growth forecasts, the population of the City is expected to increase to 115,400 persons and 48,600 households by 2045 (SCAG 2020). In general, the cumulative environmental analysis in this EIR is based on horizon conditions of the City’s General Plan, however, due to the eight-year update cycle of the Housing Element, 2029 conditions have been identified and included in the discussion. Based on the citywide average household size of 2.45, the increase of 10,456 residential units under the proposed Project would generate a population increase of approximately 25,617 residents over the eight-year horizon year of the Housing Element Update.

ATTACHMENT 10 -61
Environmental Impact Analysis

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4-1
4 Environmental Impact Analysis
This section discusses the possible environmental effects of the Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update for the specific issue areas that were identified through the scoping process as having the potential to experience significant effects. A “significant effect” as defined by the CEQA Guidelines §15382:
means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.

The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the environmental setting related to the issue, which is followed by the impact analysis. In the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the “significance thresholds,” which are those criteria adopted by the City of Burbank and other agencies, universally recognized, or developed specifically for this analysis to determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection describes each impact of the proposed Project, mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. Each effect under consideration for an issue area is separately listed in bold text with the discussion of the effect and its significance. Each bolded impact statement also contains a statement of the significance determination for the environmental impact as follows:
 Significant and Unavoidable. An impact that cannot be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations to be issued if the Project is approved per §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An impact that can be reduced to below the threshold level given reasonably available and feasible mitigation measures. Such an impact requires findings under §15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
 Less than Significant. An impact that may be adverse but does not exceed the threshold levels and does not require mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures that could further lessen the environmental effect may be suggested if readily available and easily achievable.  No Impact. The proposed Project would have no effect on environmental conditions or would reduce existing environmental problems or hazards.

Following each environmental impact discussion is a list of mitigation measures (if required) and the residual effects or level of significance remaining after implementation of the measure(s). In cases where the mitigation measure for an impact could have a significant environmental impact in another issue area, this impact is discussed and evaluated as a secondary impact. The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the proposed Project in conjunction with other planned and pending developments in the area listed in Section 3, Environmental Setting.

ATTACHMENT 10 -62
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4-2
The Executive Summary of this EIR summarizes all impacts and mitigation measures that apply to the proposed Project.

ATTACHMENT 10 -63
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-1

4.1 Air Quality
This section analyzes the effects of the project on air quality. This section analyzes both temporary impacts relating to construction activity and possible long-term impacts associated with project operation. Greenhouse gas and global climate change impacts are discussed in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

4.1.1 Environmental Setting
a. Local Climate and Meteorology
The City of Burbank (City) is in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin), which is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east, and the San Diego County line to the south. The regional climate in the SCAB is semi- arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime onshore breezes, and moderate humidity. The air quality in the SCAB is primarily influenced by a wide range of emissions sources – such as dense population centers, heavy vehicular traffic, and industry – and weather.

The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific Ocean, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The SCAB experiences warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfalls, light winds, and moderate humidity.

This usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and high mountains around the rest of its perimeter.

The SCAB experiences a persistent temperature inversion (increasing temperature with increasing altitude) because of the Pacific high. This inversion limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. As the sun warms the ground and the lower air layer, the temperature of the lower air layer approaches the temperature of the base of the inversion (upper) layer until the inversion layer finally breaks, allowing vertical mixing with the lower layer. This phenomenon is observed in mid to late afternoons on hot summer days. Winter inversions frequently break by midmorning.

The combination of stagnant wind conditions and low inversions produces the greatest pollutant concentrations in the SCAB. On days of no inversion or high wind speeds, ambient air pollutant concentrations are lowest. During periods of low inversions and low wind speeds, air pollutants generated in urbanized areas are transported predominantly onshore into Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
b. Air Pollutants of Primary Concern
The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for maximum allowable concentrations of six "criteria" pollutants in outdoor air. The six pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), ground-level ozone , nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), particulate matter (respirable
particulate matter [PM10] and fine particulate matter [PM2.5]), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The standards are set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety for six ATTACHMENT 10 -64
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-2
common air pollutants (also known as "criteria air pollutants"). The characteristics of each of these pollutants are briefly described below.

Ozone
Ozone is a highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when reactive organic gases (ROG), sometimes referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOC), and nitrogen oxides (NOX), byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed in southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue and some immunological changes.

Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon- containing fuels, such as gasoline or wood. In urban areas, automobile exhaust accounts for the majority of CO emissions. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, when little to no wind and surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. The health effects of CO are related to its affinity for hemoglobin in the blood. At high concentrations, CO reduces the amount of oxygen in the blood, causing heart difficulty in people with chronic diseases, nausea, reduced lung capacity, and impaired mental abilities (USEPA 2020).

Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen dioxide is a nitrogen oxide (NOX) compound that is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, such as in internal combustion engines (both gasoline and diesel powered), as well as point sources, especially power plants. Of the seven types of NO X compounds, NO2 is the most abundant
in the atmosphere. As ambient concentrations of NO2 are related to traffic density, commuters in heavy traffic areas, such as urban areas, may be exposed to higher concentrations of NO2 than those indicated by regional monitors.

Particulate Matter
Respirable and fine particulate matter, PM10 and PM2.5, consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter, respectively. Some sources of particulate matter, like pollen and windstorms, are naturally occurring. However, in populated areas, most particulate matter is caused by road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities.

Sulfur Dioxide
Sulfur dioxide is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When SO2 oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfates (SO4). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SOX). Generally, the highest levels of SO2 are found near large industrial complexes.

In recent years, SO2 concentrations have been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of SO2 and limits on the sulfur content of fuels.

ATTACHMENT 10 -65
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-3
Lead
Lead occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter. The combustion of leaded gasoline is the primary source of airborne Pb in the SCAB. The use of leaded gasoline is no longer permitted for on road motor vehicles, so the majority of such combustion emissions are associated with off-road vehicles. However, because leaded gasoline was emitted in large amounts from vehicles when leaded gasoline was used for on-road motor vehicles, Pb is present in many urban soils and can be re-suspended in the air. Other sources of Pb include the manufacturing and recycling of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, ammunition, and the use of secondary lead smelters.

Lead-based paint is also considered a health hazard for people, especially children. From the turn of the century through the 1940s, paint manufacturers used Pb as a primary ingredient in many oil- based paints. Use of Pb in paint decreased but was still used until 1978, when it was banned from residential use. Remodeling, renovations, or demolition activities in older buildings could disturb lead-based paint surfaces.

Toxic Air Contaminants
A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs may result in long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation, runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure. For carcinogenic TACs, potential health impacts are evaluated in terms of overall relative risk expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. Non-carcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis.

TACs are different than criteria pollutants because ambient air quality standards have not been established for TACs. TACs occurring at extremely low levels may still cause health effects and it is typically difficult to identify levels of exposure that do not produce adverse health effects. TAC impacts are described by carcinogenic risk and by chronic (i.e., long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health.

One of the main sources of TACs in California is diesel engines that emit exhaust containing solid material known as diesel particulate matter (DPM); however, TACs may be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities.

Diesel Particulate Matter
Fine particulates are generally associated with combustion processes and form in the atmosphere as a secondary pollutant through chemical reactions. PM
10 (particulate matter measuring no more than
10 microns in diameter) is a by-product of fuel combustion and wind erosion of soil and unpaved roads, and it is directly emitted into the atmosphere through these processes. Chemical reactions in the atmosphere also create PM10. Fine particulate matter poses a serious health threat to all groups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the fine particulate matter inhaled into the lungs remains there, which can cause permanent lung damage. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body’s mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carriers of an adsorbed toxic substance.

ATTACHMENT 10 -66
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-4
Diesel engine fuel combustion forms an important fraction of the particulate matter emission inventory, as particulates in diesel emissions are very small and readily respirable. The particles have hundreds of chemicals adsorbed onto their surfaces, including many known or suspected mutagens and carcinogens. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) reviewed and evaluated the potential for diesel exhaust to affect human health, and the associated scientific uncertainties (CARB 1998). Based on the available scientific evidence, it was determined that a level of diesel PM exposure, below which no carcinogenic effects are anticipated, has not been identified.

The Scientific Review Panel that approved the OEHHA report determined that, based on studies to date, 3 x 10
-4 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) is a reasonable estimate of the unit risk for diesel PM. This means that a person exposed to a diesel PM concentration of 1 µg/m3 continuously over the course of a lifetime has a 3 in 10,000 chance (or 300 in one million chance) of contracting cancer due to this exposure. Based on an estimated year 2000 statewide average concentration of

1.26 µg/m3 for indoor and outdoor ambient air, about 380 excess cancers per one million population could be expected if diesel PM concentrations remained the same (CARB 2000).

Therefore, these particulate emissions have been determined by CARB to be a TAC.

Diesel PM emissions are estimated to be responsible for about 70 percent of the total ambient air toxics risk. In addition to these general risks, diesel PM can also be responsible for elevated localized or near-source exposures (“hot-spots”). Depending on the activity and nearness to receptors, these potential risks can range from small to 1,500 per million or more (CARB 2000).

CARB staff have conducted risk characterization scenarios to determine the potential excess cancer risks involved when individuals are near various sources of diesel engine emissions, ranging from school buses to high volume freeways. The purpose of the risk characterization was to estimate, through air dispersion modeling, the cancer risk associated with typical diesel-fueled engine or vehicle activities based on modeled PM concentration at the point of maximum impact. The study included various sources of diesel PM emissions, including idling school buses, truck stops, low- and high-volume freeways, and other sources. High-volume freeways (20,000 trucks per day) were estimated to cause 800 to 1,700 per million potential excess cases of cancers, while low-volume freeways (2,000 trucks per day) were estimated to cause about 100 to 200 per million potential excess cases of cancers (CARB 2000).

Other Mobile Source Contaminants
Besides DPM, several other pollutants that are a public health concern are emitted by vehicle exhausts. The USEPA has identified six pollutants of highest priority: DPM, acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene. The latter five pollutants are part of the total organic gases emitted by diesel fueled vehicles. A brief description of each of these chemicals follows:
 Acrolein is the simplest unsaturated aldehyde. It is a widely produced substance with a piercing, disagreeable, acrid smell similar to that of burning fat. Acrolein is an unstable toxic substance that can burn the nose and throat and is a severe pulmonary irritant. It is a flammable and poisonous substance prepared industrially by the oxidation of propene. Small amounts of acrolein are formed and enter the air when trees, tobacco, other plants, gasoline, and oil are burned.
 Acetaldehyde, sometimes known as ethanol, is an organic chemical compound used as an intermediate in the production of acetic acid, certain esters, and a number of other chemicals. It is a flammable liquid with a fruity smell. Acetaldehyde is a toxic when applied externally for prolonged periods, an irritant, and a probable carcinogen.

ATTACHMENT 10 -67
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-5
 Formaldehyde is an organic chemical compound containing a terminal carbonyl group. It is produced in the atmosphere by the action of sunlight and oxygen on atmospheric methane and other hydrocarbons, becoming a part of smog. Additionally, formaldehyde is an intermediate in the oxidation (or combustion) of methane as well as other carbon compounds including automobile exhaust. Formaldehyde is a flammable substance that can be toxic, allergenic, and carcinogenic. It is naturally made in small amounts in human bodies and is found in small amounts in household sources, such as fiberglass, carpets, permanent press fabrics, paper products, and some household cleaners.
 Benzene, or benzol, is an organic chemical compound and a known carcinogen. It is a colorless and highly flammable liquid with a sweet smell and a relatively high melting point. Benzene is an important industrial solvent and precursor in the production of drugs, plastics, synthetic rubber, and dyes. Benzene is a natural constituent of crude oil and may be synthesized from other compounds present in petroleum. It is found in gasoline and cigarette smoke. Natural sources of benzene include emissions from volcanoes and forest fires.  1,3-Butadiene is an important industrial chemical used in the production of synthetic rubber (about 75 percent of manufactured 1,3-butadiene), which is then used primarily in the production of automobile tires. It is a colorless gas with a mild gasoline-like odor. Gasoline contains small amounts that are exhausted into the air after the combustion process. It is a carcinogen, highly irritative, and flammable.
c. Sensitive Receptors
There is a strong connection between health risk and the proximity of the source of air pollution.

Local jurisdictions have the responsibility for determining land use compatibility for sensitive receptors. A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) has identified the following population groups that are most likely affected by air pollution: children less than 14 years of age, adults over 65 years of age, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Land uses where these population groups are likely to spend a substantial amount of time are considered sensitive receptors. According to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), land uses with sensitive receptors include the following (SCAQMD 2005):
 Schools, playgrounds and childcare centers
 Long-term health care facilities
 Rehabilitation centers
 Convalescent centers
 Hospitals
 Retirement homes
 Residences
d. Ambient Air Quality Measurements
The SCAQMD divides the SCAB into 38 source receptor areas (SRAs), wherein 38 monitoring stations operate to monitor the various concentrations of air pollutants in the region. The purpose of the monitoring stations is to measure ambient concentrations of pollutants and determine whether ambient air quality meets the California and federal standards. The monitoring station located ATTACHMENT 10 -68
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-6
closest to the Project site is the North Hollywood monitoring station at 10659 West Delano Street, which is approximately eight miles west of the city. The North Hollywood station monitors ozone, PM2.5, and NO2. However, this monitoring station had insufficient data for measurements in the years 2018 and 2019. Therefore, measurements from the Los Angeles-North Main Street station, which is approximately nine miles southeast of the city was used The Los Angeles-North Main Street monitoring station measures ozone, NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Table 4.1-1 indicates the number of days that each of the standards has been exceeded at the Los Angeles-North Main Street station in 2018, 2019, and 2020.

As shown in Table 4.1-1, the ozone eight-hour ozone concentration exceeded both State and federal standards on four days in 2018, two days in 2019, and 22 days in 2020. The ozone concentration exceeded State one-hour standards on two days in 2018 and 14 days in 2020. The PM2.5 concentration exceeded standards on six days in 2018, one day in 2019, and 12 days in 2020. No exceedances of federal standards for NO2 or PM10 have occurred at the monitoring station in the last three years; however, the State PM10 standard was exceeded 31 times in 2018, 15 times in 2019, and 34 days in 2020.

Table 4.1-1 Ambient Air Quality at the Monitoring Station Pollutant 2018 2019 2020
8 Hour Ozone (ppm), 8-Hr Maximum1 0.073 0.080 0.118
Number of Days of State exceedances (>0.070) 4 2 22
Number of days of Federal exceedances (>0.070) 4 2 22
Ozone (ppm), Worst Hour1 0.098 0.093 0.185
Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 2 0 14
Number of days of Federal exceedances (>0.124 ppm) 0 0 1 Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm) – Worst Hour1 0.0701 0.0697 0.0616 Number of days of State exceedances (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Number of days of Federal exceedances (0.10 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter 10 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours1 81.2 93.9 185.2 Number of days above Federal standard (>150 µg/m3) 0 0 0 Number of days of State exceedances (>50 µg/m3) 31 15 34 Particulate Matter <2.5 microns, µg/m3, Worst 24 Hours1 65.3 43.5 175.0 Number of days above Federal standard (>35 µg/m3) 6 1 12 Source: CARB 2021a
ATTACHMENT 10 -69
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-7

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
The Federal CAA governs air quality in the United States. In addition to being subject to the requirements of the CAA, air quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the CCAA. At the federal level, the CAA is administered by the USEPA. In California, the CCAA is administered by CARB at the State level and by air quality management districts (AQMDs) at the regional and local levels.

Air quality in the SCAB, in which Burbank is located, is addressed through the efforts of various federal, State, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policymaking, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving air quality in the SCAB are discussed below.
a. Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The CAA was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 [42 United States Code (USC) 7401] for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation’s air resources to benefit public health, welfare, and productivity. In 1971, to achieve the purposes of Section 109 of the CAA [42 USC 7409], the USEPA developed Ambient Air Quality Standards which represent the maximum levels of background pollution considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been designated for the following criteria pollutants of primary concern: ozone, CO, NO 2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb.

The USPEA classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment” or “non-attainment” areas for each pollutant based on the comparison of measured data with the NAAQS. States are required to adopt enforceable plans, known as a State Implementation Plan (SIP), to achieve and maintain air quality meeting the NAAQS. State plans also must control emissions that drift across state lines and harm air quality in downwind states. Table 4.1-2 lists the current federal standards for regulated pollutants.

Table 4.1-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary Standards California Standard Ozone 1-Hour N/A1 0.09 ppm2
8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 0.053 ppm 0.030 ppm
1-Hour 0.100 ppm 0.18 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide Annual 0.03 ppm N/A
24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.04 ppm
1-Hour 0.075 ppm 0.25 ppm
PM10 Annual N/A 20 µg/m3
24-Hour 150 µg/m 50 µg/m
ATTACHMENT 10 -70
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-8
Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary Standards California Standard PM2.5 Annual 12 µg/m 12 µg/m
24-Hour 35 µg/m N/A
Lead 30-Day Average N/A 1.5 µg/m
3-Month Average 0.15 µg/m N/A
1 N/A: Not applicable because no standard is currently established for California 2 ppm = parts per million
3 µg/m = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: CARB 2016
SAFE Vehicle Rule
On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and the National Highway Safety Administration published the “Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program.” The Part One Rule revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and sets zero-emission vehicle mandates in California. To account for the effects of the Part One Rule, CARB released off- model adjustment factors on November 20, 2019 to adjust criteria air pollutant emissions outputs from the EMFAC model.
b. State
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was enacted in 1988 (California Health & Safety Code (H&SC) Section 39000 et seq.). Under the CCAA, the State has developed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are generally more stringent than the NAAQS. Table 4.1-2 lists the current State standards for regulated pollutants. In addition to the federal criteria pollutants, the CAAQS also specify standards for visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. Similar to the federal CAA, the CCAA classifies specific geographic areas as either “attainment” or “non-attainment” areas for each pollutant, based on the comparison of measured data within the CAAQS.

California is divided geographically into 15 air basins for managing the air resources of the State on a regional basis. Areas within each air basin are considered to share the same air masses and, therefore, are expected to have similar ambient air quality. If an air basin is not in either federal or state attainment for a particular pollutant, the basin is classified as a non-attainment area for that pollutant. Under the federal and State Clean Air Acts, once a non-attainment area has achieved the air quality standards for a particular pollutant, it may be redesignated to an attainment area for that pollutant. To be redesignated, the area must meet air quality standards and have a 10-year plan for continuing to meet and maintain air quality standards, as well as satisfy other requirements of the federal CAA. Areas that have been redesignated to attainment are called maintenance areas. SCAB is designated a non-attainment area for the state one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards, the State PM
10 standards, and the State annual PM2.5 standard. SCAB is classified as in attainment (or unclassifiable/attainment) for all other State and federal standards. c. Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the SCAB.

To that end, SCAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with the Southern California Association of ATTACHMENT 10 -71
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-9
Governments (SCAG), county transportation commissions, and local governments, and cooperates actively with all State and federal government agencies. SCAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements, inspects emissions sources, monitors air quality, and provides regulatory enforcement through such measures as educational programs, monitors or fines, when necessary.

SCAQMD is responsible for developing programs to reduce emissions from stationary, mobile, and indirect sources to meet national and State AAQS. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMP). The most recent plan, 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP), was adopted by the Governing Board of the SCAQMD on March 3, 2017. The 2016 AQMP was prepared to comply with the federal and State CAAs and amendments, to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants in the SCAB, to meet national and State AAQS, and to minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy (SCAQMD 2017). The 2016 AQMP identifies control measures that will be implemented over a 15-year horizon to reduce major sources of pollutants. Implementation of control measures established in the previous AQMPs has substantially decreased the population’s exposure to unhealthful levels of pollutants, even while population growth has occurred in the SCAB.

Future air quality levels forecast in the 2016 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example, SCAQMD assumes that new development in the SCAB will occur in accordance with population growth and transportation projections identified by SCAG in its previous Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the 2016 RTP/SCS (SCAQMD 2017). The 2016 AQMP also assumes that development projects will include strategies (mitigation measures) to reduce emissions generated during construction and operation in accordance with SCAQMD and local jurisdiction regulations, which are designed to address air quality impacts and pollution control measures. The 2016 AQMP acknowledges that the most significant air quality challenge in the Basin is to reduce NO
X emissions sufficiently to meet the upcoming ozone standard deadlines (SCAQMD 2017). The upcoming 2022 AQMP will represent a comprehensive analysis of emissions, meteorology, regional air quality modeling, regional growth projections, and the impact of existing and proposed control measures (SCAQMD 2021).

SCAQMD has also developed programs to attain and maintain the NAAQS and CAAQS. These include air quality rules and regulations for stationary sources, area sources, point sources, and certain mobile source emissions. The SCAQMD is also responsible for establishing stationary source permitting requirements and for ensuring that new, modified, or relocated stationary sources do not create net emission increases. All projects within SCAQMD jurisdiction are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations, including, but not limited to the following:
 Rule 401 Visible Emissions – This rule prohibits an air discharge that results in a plume that is as dark as or darker than what is designated as No. 1 Ringelmann Chart by the United States Bureau of Mines for an aggregate of three minutes in any one hour.  Rule 402 Nuisance – This rule prohibits the discharge of “such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of people or the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.”
 Rule 403 Fugitive Dust – This rule requires that future projects reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions from any active operation, open storage piles, or disturbed surface area.

ATTACHMENT 10 -72
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-10
 Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings – This rule limits VOCs in architectural coatings used in the SCAQMD jurisdiction. These limits are application-specific and are updated as availability of low- VOC products expands.
 Rule 1168 Adhesive and Sealant Applications – This rule reduces emissions of VOCs and eliminates emissions of chloroform, ethylene dichloride, methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, and trichloroethylene from the application of adhesives, adhesive bonding primers, adhesive primers, sealants, sealant primers, or any other primers.  Regulation XIII New Source Review – This regulation contains Rules 1300 through 1325, which set forth pre-construction review requirements for new, modified, or relocated facilities, to ensure that the operation of such facilities does not interfere with progress in attainment of the NAAQS, and that future growth within SCAQMD is not unnecessarily restricted. The specific air quality goal of this regulation is to achieve no net increases from new or modified permitted sources of non-attainment air contaminants or their precursors.

Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is a council of governments for Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. As a regional planning agency SCAG serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. Although SCAG is not an air quality management agency, it is responsible for developing transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures that improve air quality. The 2016 AQMP incorporates the population growth projections contained within SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS, which are used in the development of air quality-related land use and transportation control strategies developed by the SCAQMD. It should be noted that SCAG adopted an update to the RTP/SCS on May 7, 2020. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (2020 RTP/SCS) or Connect SoCal was developed through a four-year planning process to update population, housing and employment data as well as transportation strategies for the region through the horizon year of 2045 (SCAG 2020). Based on an evaluation of the 2016 RTP/SCS and the 2020 RTP/SCS demographic projections, the 2020 RTP/SCS projects fewer residents, jobs, and housing units. The 2020 RTP/SCS predicts approximately 290,000 fewer residents, 80,000 fewer houses, and 210,000 jobs in the region in 2040 than under the 2016 RTP/SCS, which would represent less activities and associated emissions than would have been predicted under the 2016 RTP/SCS. Therefore, evaluating again the 2016 RTP/SCS projections would be conservative as the 2016 AQMP assumed greater growth than is currently anticipated. The impact analysis throughout this EIR uses the demographic data provided in the 2020 RTP/SCS. The 2020 RTP/SCS is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. d. Local
Burbank2035 General Plan
The Burbank2035 General Plan (Burbank2035) includes numerous goals, policies, and programs that would impact future air emissions generated by land uses within the city. These include Mobility Programs M-6 (Transit System), M-7 (Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan), and M-10 (Transportation Demand Management). Burbank2035 also includes an Air Quality and Climate Change Element, which is an optional element (i.e., not required by State law), pursuant to California Government Code Section 65303. This Element is specifically designed to reduce the City’s air pollutant emissions and comply with Statewide goals. The Air Quality and Climate Change Element of Burbank2035, contains the following Policies that reduce potential air quality impacts:

ATTACHMENT 10 -73
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-11
Policy 1.1: Coordinate air quality planning efforts with local, regional, state, and federal agencies, and evaluate the air quality effects of proposed plans and development projects.

Policy 1.2: Seek to attain or exceed the more stringent of federal or state ambient air quality standards for each criteria air pollutant.

Policy 1.5: Require projects that generate potentially significant levels of air pollutants, such as landfill operations or large construction projects, to incorporate best available air quality and greenhouse gas mitigation in project design.

Policy 1.6: Require measures to control air pollutant emissions at construction sites and during soil disturbing or dust-generating activities (i.e., tilling, landscaping) for projects requiring such activities.

Policy 1.7: Require reduced idling, trip reduction, and efficiency routing of transportation for City departments, where appropriate.

Policy 1.9: Encourage the use of zero-emission vehicles, low-emission vehicles, bicycles, and other non-motorized vehicles, and car-sharing programs by requiring sufficient and convenient infrastructure and parking facilities in residential developments and employment centers to accommodate these vehicles.

Policy 1.10: Give preference to qualified contractors using reduced-emission equipment for City construction projects and contracts for services, as well as businesses that practice sustainable operations.

Policy 2.2: Separate sensitive uses such as residences, schools, parks, and day care facilities from sources of air pollution and toxic chemicals. Provide proper site planning and design features to buffer and protect when physical separation of these uses is not feasible.

Policy 2.3: Require businesses that cause air pollution to provide pollution control measures.

Policy 2.5: Require the use of recommendations from the California Air Resources Board’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook to guide decisions regarding location of sensitive land uses.

Policy 3.1: Develop and adopt a binding, enforceable reduction target and mitigation measures and actions to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions within Burbank by at least 15 percent from current levels by 2020.

4.1.3 Impact Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of significance are based on the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study prepared for the proposed Project (Appendix B) determined that a potentially significant impact might occur under the following threshold and therefore will be analyzed in this section of the EIR.

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan

2. 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

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odor) adversely affecting a substantial number of people
ATTACHMENT 10 -74
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-12
The Initial Study (Appendix B) determined that the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts related to the applicable air quality plan (Threshold 1), criteria pollutants (Threshold 2), and sensitive receptors (Threshold 3). As such, an analysis of these issues is included in this section of the EIR. The Initial Study found no potentially significant impacts related to odors (Threshold 4); therefore, this issue is not studied further herein. Specific quantitative thresholds used to define the general CEQA thresholds are discussed below.

SCAQMD Thresholds
As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, the significance criteria established by the regional air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. The SCAQMD has adopted guidelines for quantifying and determining the significance of air quality emissions in its SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and supplemental updates (SCAQMD 1993, 2008, and 2019).

Regional Significance Thresholds
The SCAQMD recommends the use of quantitative regional significance thresholds to evaluate emissions generated by temporary construction activities and long-term project operation in the SCAB, which are shown in Table 4.1-3. Project-level significance thresholds established by local air districts set the level at which a project would cause or have a cumulatively considerable contribution to an exceedance of a federal or State ambient air quality standard. Therefore, if a project’s air pollutant emissions exceed the significance thresholds, the project could cause or contribute to the human health impacts described under Section 4.1.1, Air Pollutants of Primary Concern. For example, SCAQMD has set its operational significance threshold for VOCs based in part on the significance level for stationary sources of emissions established by Section 182(e) of the federal CAA. SCAQMD developed its other significance thresholds “based on scientific and factual data that is contained in the federal and state Clean Air Acts” (SCAQMD 1993).

Table 4.1-3 SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
75 pounds per day of ROG
100 pounds per day of NOX
550 pounds per day of CO
150 pounds per day of SOX
150 pounds per day of PM10
55 pounds per day of PM2.5
55 pounds per day of ROG
55 pounds per day of NO
X
550 pounds per day of CO
150 pounds per day of SOX
150 pounds per day of PM10
55 pounds per day of PM2.5
Source: SCAQMD 2019
The SCAQMD has also developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) in response to the Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (1-4), which was prepared to update the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). LSTs were devised in response to concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities and have been developed for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each SRA, distance to the sensitive receptor, and project size. LSTs have been developed for emissions within construction areas up to five acres in size.

ATTACHMENT 10 -75
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-13
The city is located in SRA 7. SCAQMD sets LST values for construction and operation of projects with lot sizes from less than one acre up to five acres and at a distance of 25 meters to 500 meters (SCAQMD 2008). LSTs only apply to on-site emissions and are not applicable to off-site mobile sources, such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD 2008). As such, LSTs for future housing development facilitated by the proposed project would only apply to construction emissions because the majority of operational emissions from residential uses are associated with project-generated vehicle trips, rather than stationary sources (SCAQMD 2008).

As appropriate, analysis of individual future projects facilitated by the Housing Element Update must address the applicable threshold based on the SRA, size of the project site, and the proximity of sensitive receptors. Table 4.1-4 presents the LST values for construction within 25 meters of sensitive receptors, the most conservative thresholds.

Table 4.1-4 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction Within 25 M eters of Sensitive Receptors (SRA-7)
Allowable Emissions (lbs/day)
Pollutant 1-Acre Site or less 2-Acre Site 5-Acre Site
NOX 80 114 172
CO 498 786 1,434
PM10 4 7 14
PM2.5 3 4 8
Source: SCAQMD 2009
Toxic Air Contaminants
The USEPA considers those pollutants that could cause cancer risks between one in 10,000 (1.0 x 10 4) and one in one million (1.0 x 10-6) for risk management. Proposition 65 (California Health and Safety Code Section 25249.6), enacted in 1986, prohibits a person in the course of doing business from knowingly and intentionally exposing any individual to a chemical that has been listed as known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity without first giving clear and reasonable warning. For a chemical that is listed as a carcinogen, the “no significant risk” level under Proposition 65 is defined as the level that is calculated to result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 100,000 individuals (1.0 x 10
-5). The SCAQMD recommends the use of this risk level (also reportable as 10 in one million) as the significance threshold for TACs (SCAQMD 2019). The SCAQMD also recommends that the non-carcinogenic hazards of TACs should not exceed a hazard index (the summation of the hazard quotients for all chemicals to which an individual would be exposed) of 1.0 for either chronic or acute effects (SCAQMD 2019).
b. Methodology
The terminology and methodology used to evaluate the significance of potential impacts to air quality are described below. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially significant air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitors and enforces implementation of such mitigation. The City uses SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction. The City relies upon the expertise of the SCAQMD, uses the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and SCAQMD recommended thresholds of significance as the guidance for the environmental review of plans and development proposals. For purposes of this analysis, the CEQA ATTACHMENT 10 -76
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-14
Guidelines Appendix G criteria are used, supplemented by the thresholds identified in current SCAQMD guidance.

Air quality impacts resulting from implementation of the Housing Element Update are assessed at a programmatic level because information on specific future housing developments reasonably anticipated under the Housing Element is not known at this time. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that the air quality assessment should be as comprehensive as possible at a programmatic level. In the absence of SCAQMD programmatic thresholds, this EIR analysis broadly examines temporary construction emissions, long-term operational emissions, and localized pollutant concentrations. Common sources of construction emissions include heavy-duty off-road construction equipment exhaust, fugitive dust, and architectural coatings. Sources of operational emissions include the use of consumer products, motor vehicle trips attracted to or generated by a land use, and on-site combustion of natural gas. A best-effort approach to disclose all reasonably foreseeable impacts based on available information is used consistent with the requirements of CEQA.

Emissions have been calculated based on forecast growth in the city from existing conditions (2021) through 2029, the life of the Housing Element Update. Interim year calculations have not been conducted because the anticipated timing of land use changes and new development during interim years would be speculative. In general, economic activity tends to vary substantially over the short term with recessions and booms substantially affecting short-term growth. Over the long-term planning horizon, such variations tend to balance out. The City cannot reasonably anticipate whether short-term growth would be linear or sporadic between 2021 and 2029. Given this uncertainty, interim year emissions analyses are unlikely to be a reasonably accurate portrayal of emissions prior to 2029. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that interim year calculations would produce substantially different emission estimates or conclusions regarding the significance of such emissions than presented herein. For these reasons, calculating emissions for interim year scenarios would not provide the public with any more valuable information than what is presented in this EIR.

Construction
Construction emissions were estimated for equipment exhaust emissions and truck trips using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. Equipment emission factors in CalEEMod are based on CARB data. Equipment was assumed to operate for eight hours per day.

Truck emission factors in CalEEMod are from EMFAC2017 and haul trucks were assumed to travel 20 miles per day. Fugitive dust and architectural coating emissions are qualitatively discussed because it would be speculative to quantify lot acreage and the size of buildings to be coated. To estimate construction emissions, example individual construction project scenarios were developed with varying equipment usage and hauling truck trip intensity. The scenarios were not associated with any specific land use and include generalized assumptions regarding construction scheduling and practices; excepting fugitive dust control through site watering twice a day to reflect compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. The four scenarios are itemized below:
 Two pieces of heavy-duty equipment and 25 truck trips per day  Four pieces of heavy-duty equipment and 50 truck trips per day  Eight pieces of heavy-duty equipment and 100 truck trips per day  Ten pieces of heavy-duty equipment and 150 truck trips per day ATTACHMENT 10 -77
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-15
These equipment inventories and truck volumes are representative of a reasonable range of construction activity intensity for individual projects based on previous development in Burbank.

Maximum daily regional and localized emissions were quantified for these construction scenarios and assessed in the context of the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The analysis of reasonably expected construction projects from the Housing Element Update and adoption of the rezone program assumes a baseline of zero for daily criteria pollutant emissions, which is a conservative assumption given that cities typically have several construction projects ongoing at any given time.

Operation
Reasonably anticipated development from the Housing Element Update would generate mobile source emissions, energy use emissions (natural gas combustion), and area source emissions.

Mobile Sources
Mobile source emissions were estimated using vehicle activity data presented in Section 4.11, Transportation, and vehicle emission rates from CARB’s EMFAC2017 model. All residential vehicle miles traveled (VMT) growth and employment VMT growth between the existing (2021) condition and the future (2029) condition were attributed to the Housing Element Update. As shown in Table 4.1-5, buildout of the existing land use designations would gradually increase vehicle trips and VMT. However, per capita and per employee VMT would each diminish due to reduced trip lengths.

Table 4.1-5 Vehicle Activity Data (Daily) for the Housing Element Update Activity Existing (2021) With Project (2029) Project (2029) vs. Existing (2021) 1 Residential VMT 1,219,394 1,187,371 -32,023 (-2.6%)
Residential Vehicle Trips 4,911 788,283 +4,911 (+3.4%) Residential Average Trip Length 8.5 8.0 -0.5 (-5.9%)
Residential VMT per capita 11.3 9.2 -2.1 (-18.5%)

Employment VMT 2,016,992 2,198,215 +181,223 (+9.0%)
Employment Vehicle Trips 128,750 142,510 +13,760 (+10.7%) Employment Average Trip Length 15.7 15.4 -0.2 (-1.5%)
Employment VMT per Employee 16.9 16.7 -0.2 (-1.3%)
VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
1 Quantities may not sum properly due to independent rounding.

Source: Fehr & Peers 2021
Energy Sources
Energy use emissions were calculated according to the methodology explained in Appendix A of the CalEEMod User Guide, Version 2020.4.0. The energy use estimates account for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24). This is a conservative assumption since the energy use estimates do not account for potential energy efficiency measures required by subsequent Title 24 updates in 2022, 2025, and 2028.

ATTACHMENT 10 -78
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-16
Area Sources
Emissions associated with area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating, were calculated in CalEEMod and utilize standard emission rates from CARB, USEPA, and emission factor values provided by the local air district (CAPCOA 2021).

Toxic Air Containments
Rincon prepared a health risk assessment (HRA) to evaluate potential impacts associated with emissions of existing sources of TACs in proximity to the proposed residential developments under the Housing Element Update pursuant with Program AQCC-4, Health Risk Assessments for Stationary and Mobile Sources, from the Burbank 2035 General Plan. However, pursuant to the judicial decisions in the California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4
th 369,386, the impacts of the environment upon a project are excluded from CEQA unless the project itself “exacerbates” such impacts. Therefore, the results from the HRA are presented for informational purposes only. The HRA evaluated TAC emissions from Interstate 5 (I-5), State Route 134 (SR-134), and the Burbank Water and Power (BWP) facility. I-5 and SR-134 are mobile sources of TAC and the BWP facility is a stationary source of TAC.

Air dispersion modeling was completed using the American Meteorological Society/USEPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). AERMOD provides X/Q (CHI/Q = chi/q = χ/q) values, which are the concentrations estimated by the air quality model based on an emission rate of one gram per second. The same AERMOD computations for area sources are used for line sources. To account for the urban heat island effect, the AERMOD urban option was used with the 2010 United States Census Bureau Los Angeles County population of 9,818,605 (SCAQMD 2017). Specific meteorology and terrain for the site were also included in the model using the nearest available meteorological data set for the Hollywood Burbank Airport (located approximately three miles northwest of the Project site) and United States Geological Survey Digital Elevation Model data for Burbank quadrangle (30 by 30-meter resolution) (CARB 2021b, 2021c). Additionally, the presence of buildings and other structures disturbs downwind air flow. Building downwash, which is a plume transport and dispersion phenomenon that accounts for the disturbance from building on downwind air flow, is only calculated for point sources. Therefore, the roadway HRAs for I-5 and SR-134 did not include building downwash, but the stationary source HRA for the BWP facility included building downwash to account for buildings onsite at the BWP facility.

Health risk calculations in CARB’s Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program version 2 (HARP 2) were used to determined carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risks at the locations of residential developments proposed under the Housing Element Update within 500 feet of the sources analyzed. The sensitive receptors were assumed to all be individual residences. Receptors located farther away from these locations would have reduced health risk impacts, as concentrations would be further reduced with increasing distance (CARB 2005). Sensitive receptors associated with the housing development under the proposed Project were modeled for eight floors by adjusting the flagpole height (i.e., the height that a receptor is above the ground) by 11 feet or 3.35 meters for each floor above the base elevation of the project site. The first floor was assumed to be ground level at zero feet. Figure 4.1-1 and Figure 4.1-2 show the opportunity sites within 500 feet of I-5, BWP, and SR-134.These sites were included in the HRA.

ATTACHMENT 10 -79
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-17
Figure 4.1-1 Burbank Housing Element Development Sites within 500 feet of Interstate 5 and Burbank Water and Power Facility

ATTACHMENT 10 -80
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-18
Figure 4.1-2 Burbank Housing Element Development Sites within 500 Feet of State Route 134

ATTACHMENT 10 -81
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-19
Mobile Source Emissions
The traffic volume for I-5, SR-134, and associated the ramps were based on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2019 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, 2019 Truck Traffic: Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic, and 2019 Ramp Volumes on the California State Freeway System District 4 (Caltrans 2021a, 2021b, 2021c). The year 2019 is the most recent year for which freeway traffic data is available from these sources. Based on the average of the ahead and behind 2019 traffic counts, the annual average daily traffic (AADT) volume along the nearest segment of I-5 is approximately 219,500 vehicles. The AADT on the nearest segment of SR-134 is 214,500 vehicles. A total of 11 ramps were identified for inclusion in the HRA, including nine associated with I-5 and two associated with SR-134. See Appendix C for a full list of the AADTs used on the ramps. The segments of I-5, SR-134 within half a mile and the ramps within 500 feet of the project site were modeled as a series of volume sources in AERMOD.

Mobile source TACs associated with vehicle traffic on I-5, SR-134, and associated on- and off-ramps within 500 feet of the Project sites were estimated based on the methodology developed by the University of California Davis (UC Davis)-California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Air Quality Project, Estimating Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions [MSAT]: A Step-By-Step Project Analysis Methodology (2006). This spreadsheet application was designed to generate the total amount of the six pollutants of concern discussed in Section 4.1.1, Environmental Setting, based on total organic gases emission factors and diesel particulate emission factors from CARB’s EMission FACtors 2021 (EMFAC2021). For the SR-134 HRA, EMFAC2021 emissions factors for the year 2023 were used, while emission factors for the year 2029 were used for the I-5 HRA. The UC Davis- Caltrans spreadsheet contained speciation factors from the CARB, and the USEPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES; USEPA 2014) was used to supplement missing values for acrolein.

These emission and speciation factors were then multiplied against traffic volumes for the mainline and ramp segments to obtain total emissions from I-5 and SR-134 mainlines within one-half mile of the Project sites and from associated freeway on- and off-ramps within 500 feet of the Project sites.

Emission factors for this study were based on grams per mile. Spreadsheet outputs adapted from the UC Davis-Caltrans MSAT model and composite emission rates are included in Appendix C.

For mainline emissions, emission factors were reviewed for speeds between 50 and 65 miles per hour (mph) based on the posted speed limits. On I-5 and SR-134, the worst reasonable case speed for diesel PM emissions (i.e., highest emission levels) was 65 mph for heavy duty and light duty trucks. For total organic gases emissions (TOG), the worst reasonable speed was 50 mph for heavy- duty trucks traveling on I-5 and 65 mph for light duty trucks and passenger vehicles. For vehicles traveling on SR-134, the highest TOG emission factors were at 65 mph for heavy-duty trucks, light- duty trucks, and passenger vehicles. All entrance ramp segments were modeled using emissions factors based on a speed of 50 mph. Exit ramp segments were modeled based on the posted speed limits of 35 mph. Figure 4.1-3 and Figure 4.1-4 show the sources and receptors for SR-134 and I-5, respectively.

ATTACHMENT 10 -82
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-20
Figure 4.1-3 Sources and Receptors for State Route 134

ATTACHMENT 10 -83
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-21
Figure 4.1-4 Sources and Receptors for Interstate 5

ATTACHMENT 10 -84
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-22
Stationary Source Emissions
BWP is the City’s electricity provider with two active natural gas-fueled combined cycle power plants in the vicinity of development locations proposed under the Project. The Magnolia Power Plant (MPP), an approximately 310-megawatt (MW) natural gas-fueled combined cycle power plant, is located near the intersection of Magnolia Boulevard and Lake Street (BWP 2021a). Lake One is a natural gas-fired plant rated to produce 45 MWs by burning natural gas in a combustion turbine, which is adjacent to MPP at the intersection at North Lake Street and West Olive Avenue (BWP 2021b). Emissions from natural gas-fired stationary equipment include criteria pollutants as well as low levels of particulate matter, and total organic compounds (TOCs). TOCs are a health concern because trace amounts of toxic emissions, such as formaldehyde and benzene, may be emitted if not completely combusted. The following pollutants associated with the power plants’ operations were analyzed: 1-3 butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), propylene oxide, toluene, and xylenes.

The MPP and Lake One turbines were modeled as point sources. The stack height and stack diameter for both points were provided by the BWP. MPP has a stack height of 150 feet and a stack diameter of 19 feet. Lake One has a stack height of 80 feet and a stack diameter of 12 feet. For both plants, a stack temperature of 356.4 Kelvin and an exhaust velocity of 18.40 meters per second were assumed based on a HRA prepared by BWP in support of a petition to amend for the MPP (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2016). The emission rates for both plants were based on their annual and hourly fuel consumption (million standard cubic feet [mmscf]) multiplied by SCAQMD emission factors (pounds per mmscf) for the aforementioned pollutants (CEC 2021). The MPP and Lake One were modeled together to represent the BWP facility, thus, both sources will herein be referred to as the BWP facility in this analysis. Figure 4.1-5 shows the sources and receptors modeled for the BWP facility HRA.

ATTACHMENT 10 -85
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-23
Figure 4.1-5 Sources and Receptors for Burbank Water and Power Facility

ATTACHMENT 10 -86
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-24

HEALTH RISK MODELING
Version 21081 of the HARP 2 program was used to calculate the potential risk values associated with the worst case one-hour and average annual toxic emission concentrations at surrounding receptors. The SCAQMD mandatory minimum pathways were used. Table 4.1-6 lists the inputs for the risk scenario and for specific pathways, which are consistent with SCAQMD guidance.

Table 4.1-6 HARP 2 Risk Inputs for Carcinogenic and Non-carcinogenic Risks HARP 2 Inputs Setting
Carcinogenic Risk Individual residents, 30-year exposure duration, Risk Management Policy using the Derived Method
Non-Carcinogenic Risk: Chronic Risk Individual resident, OEHHA Derived Method Deposition Velocity 0.02 meters per second
Fraction of Time at Residences Fraction of time applied for age bins greater than 16 years Dermal Warm Climate
Source: SCAQMD 2017
In addition, the reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would be required to include minimum efficiency reporting value (MERV) 13 filters in the building ventilation systems, pursuant to the 2019 California Energy Code Subchapter 7, Section 150(m). The analysis accounts for the inclusion of MERV-13 filters, which remove approximately 90 percent of diesel PM from the intake air (Singer et al. 2016). The calculated risk using air dispersion modeling is based on the USEPA’s Exposure Factors Handbook recommended daily activity pattern, which includes 16.9 hours per day spent inside and 2.3 hours per day spent outside (USEPA 2011). The cancer risks from all three sources were adjusted post-model to account for the reduction from MERV-13 filters. c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impact AQ-1 THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS OR POLICIES OF APPLICABLE AIR QUALITY PLANS SUCH AS SCAQMD’S 2016 AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in Section 4.1.2, Regional Air Quality Regulations, SCAB is designated a non-attainment area for the federal and state one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards, the State PM10 standards, and the federal and State annual PM2.5 standard. The SCAQMD adopted its latest AQMP, the 2016 AQMP, on March 3, 2017.

A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate substantial population, housing, or employment growth that exceeds forecasts used in the development of the AQMP or if the project is inconsistent with applicable AQMP control measures. The 2016 AQMP, the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates local general plans and the SCAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population, housing and employment growth. 1 The upcoming 2022 AQMP will incorporate socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population,

1 On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (titled Connect SoCal). However, the 2016 AQMP was adopted prior to this date and relies on the demographic and growth forecasts of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS.

ATTACHMENT 10 -87
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-25
housing and employment growth from the recently adopted 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (titled Connect SoCal).

Therefore, these updates would result in no impact related to consistency with the 2016 AQMP or long-term criteria air pollutant emissions would occur.

Housing Element Update
Operation of the residential developments facilitated by the proposed General Plan Update would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area sources (e.g., fireplaces, architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment), energy sources (i.e., use of natural gas for space and water heating and cooking), and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips to and from the project site). Emissions associated with reasonably foreseeable development, depending on project type and size, could exceed project-specific thresholds established by the SCAQMD. However, such projects will be required to undergo independent, project-level CEQA review and include mitigation measures, if necessary, to address potentially significant impacts. Therefore, the following analysis focuses on the consistency of the proposed General Plan Update with the growth and emissions forecasts upon which the AQMP is based and with applicable AQMP control measures.

Consistency with AQMP Growth Forecasts
Consistent with State housing element law, the purpose of the Housing Element Update is to accommodate the development of adequate housing to meet housing needs associated with most recent SCAG forecasts of regional growth. The Housing Element Update does not encourage or promote growth beyond the existing growth forecasts. Therefore, although the Housing Element Update would result in the development of 10,456 additional housing units, this increase in housing is consistent with SCAG forecasts of regional growth and the Housing Element would not conflict with the growth assumptions used in the development of the AQMP. 2 Consistency with AQMP Control Measures
Consistency with the 2016 AQMP is also a function of consistency with applicable AQMP control measures. The AQMP includes specific control measures to reduce air pollutant emissions in order to meet federal and State air quality standards. One of the most important methods the AQMP relies on to achieve its goals is the use of Transportation Control Measures (TCM). TCMs are defined in the 2016 AQMP as “measures for the purpose of reducing emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion conditions.” The TCMs included in the 2016 AQMP are described in SCAG’s Final 2016 RTP/SCS. TCMs identified for Burbank include traffic signal upgrades for arterial intersections within one mile of Interstate 5 or along the State Route 234 Corridor (LAOG1211, LAOG914, LAOG916); construction of a 12-mile bikeway along San Fernando Boulevard, Victory Place, and Burbank Western Channel (LAF1502); and replacement of traffic signal controllers on Glen Oak Boulevard

2 As compared to growth forecasts from the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS, growth forecasts from the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS assume a lesser rate of population and housing growth in the city. The 2016-2040 RTP/SCS forecasts population will increase to 118,700 persons and 48,400 households in 2040; the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS forecasts population will only increase to 115,430 persons and 48,640 households in 2045.

ATTACHMENT 10 -88
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-26
and San Fernando Boulevard (LAF3313). These TCMs were scheduled for initiation and completed between 2014 and 2019.

The Housing Element Update would not conflict with implementation of TCMs from the AQMP, or otherwise lessen emissions reductions associated with these measures. Additionally, the following policies in the Housing Element would help reduce air pollutant emissions through promoting transportation and land use design factors, such as intensification and reuse of already developed lands in proximity to transit and commercial areas, that would result in VMT reductions:

Policy 2.1: Direct the majority of new residential development into Downtown Burbank, the Media District and the Golden State/Airport Area to support the building of neighborhoods where people can live, work, shop, and benefit from access to a Metrolink station or other public transit.

Policy 2.2: Update land use regulations that facilitate new opportunities for developing a variety of housing types that include but are not limited to small lot development, condominiums, townhomes, live-work units, micro-units and accessory dwelling units, to accommodate the City’s diverse housing needs.

Policy 2.4: Allow residential units in traditionally non-residential areas including mixed-use areas, and support adaptive reuse of non-residential buildings for residential and live-work units.

Policy 2.5: Continue to facilitate the provision of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in all residential districts as a means of creating new opportunities for appropriated scaled and affordable units throughout the community.

Policy 3.8: Encourage use of sustainable and green building design in new and existing housing.

The Housing Element Update would help reduce reliance on the automobile and increase use of alternative transportation modes. By increasing the overall population density of the community and encouraging mixed land uses, implementation of the Housing Element Update would largely reduce per capita automobile trips and travel distances as compared to existing conditions or lower density development more widely distributed throughout the community. This would generally reduce per capita air pollutant emissions associated with vehicle use.

As the Housing Element Update would not conflict with the implementation of TCMs from the AQMP
and would include policies to further reduce air pollutant emissions through promoting transportation and land use design factors, the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the AQMP control measures. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

ATTACHMENT 10 -89
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-27
Threshold 2: 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?
Impact AQ-2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND OPERATION OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE

HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE COULD NOT RESULT IN A CUMULATIVELY CONSIDERABLE NET INCREASE OF ANY

CRITERIA POLLUTANT FOR WHICH THE REGION IS A NON-ATTAINMENT AREA UNDER APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS. AIR QUALITY STUDIES AND PROJECT-SPECIFIC EMISSIONS REDUCTION MEASURES WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR LARGE PROJECTS PROPOSED UNDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE.

IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

As discussed under Section 4.1.2, Regional Regulatory Setting, criteria pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, PM10, PM2.5, sulfur dioxide, and lead. The SCAB is a non- attainment area for the federal standards for ozone and PM2.5 and the state standards for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. The Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB is also designated non-attainment for lead (SCAQMD 2016). The SCAB is designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal and state standards.

Safety Element Update and Environmental Justice Policies Updates to the Safety Element as well as the addition of environmental justice policies would not result in additional development that would generate construction or operational air pollutant emissions. Therefore, these updates would result in no impact related to temporary criteria air pollutant emissions during construction activities would occur.

Housing and Land Use Element Updates
Residential and commercial development facilitated by the proposed zones changes included in the Housing Element Update would generate short-term air pollutant emissions associated with use of heavy-duty construction equipment; truck trips hauling debris, soils, and construction materials; and fugitive dust from demolition and grading. Additionally, long-term air pollutant emissions would result from mobile sources (motor vehicle exhaust), energy use (natural gas combustion), and area sources, such as hearths, landscaping equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings.

Construction Emissions
The extent of daily emissions, particularly NO
X emissions, generated by construction equipment,
would depend on the equipment used and the hours of operation for each project. The extent of PM

2.5 and PM10 emissions would depend upon the following factors: 1) the amount of disturbed soils; 2) the length of disturbance time; 3) whether existing structures are demolished; 4) whether excavation is involved; and 5) whether transporting excavated materials off site is necessary. The extent of VOC emissions would primarily depend on the square footage of buildings being painted and asphalt surfaces being paved each day.

As discussed in Section 4.1.3, Thresholds of Significance, the SCAQMD has not established plan-level significance thresholds for construction air pollutant emissions. Given the programmatic nature of the plan, sufficient detail (e.g., construction schedule, amount of soil export, specific buildout parameters) of the development facilitated by the proposed zones changes is not available to perform project-level analysis and thus it would be speculative to analyze project-level impacts.

Therefore, a more qualitative approach to characterizing construction-related air emissions has been employed for this analysis.

ATTACHMENT 10 -90
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-28

SAMPLE CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SCENARIOS
Table 4.1-7 shows the estimated average daily construction emissions associated with the four sample construction activity scenarios described under Methodology. These scenarios are representative of construction activity intensities for housing development projects under the Housing Element Update.

Results of the emissions modeling demonstrate that daily emissions of NOX from heavy-duty diesel equipment and trucks during construction activities would approach but not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds under reasonably expected circumstances for projects that involve the use of 10 pieces of equipment and 150 heavy truck trips per day. However, projects with large amounts of soil import/export or smaller projects with a large number of workers may have potential to exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, construction activity accommodated under the Housing Element would result in a significant impact related to regional construction emissions of NO X. The
impact includes potential exposure of sensitive receptors to high concentrations of NO2, which may result in adverse health effects such as breathing difficulties.

Table 4.1-7 Construction Scenarios – Daily Emissions
Example Scenarios – Daily Activity1
Pounds per Day
VOC2 NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
2 Heavy-Duty Equipment, 25 Truck Trips 2 27 16 <1 8 4
4 Heavy-Duty Equipment, 50 Truck Trips 4 53 25 <1 10 5
8 Heavy-Duty Equipment, 100 Truck Trips 6 71 39 <1 17 9 10 Heavy-Duty Equipment, 150 Truck Trips 7 94 46 <1 21 12 Regional Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceedance? No No No No No No
1 Equipment exhaust was estimated using CalEEMod and 8 hours of operation per day. Truck emissions were estimated using CalEEMod and a trip length of 20 miles.
2 Does not account for application of architectural coatings. Maximum daily VOC emissions may vary greatly depending on the area of coatings applied in a given day.

Source: See Appendix D for modeling results and assumptions.

Although not reflected in Table 4.1-7, maximum daily VOC emissions may vary greatly depending on the area of coatings applied in a given day; and as such, even smaller projects may have potential to exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds. Health effects of VOCs may include eye, nose, throat irritation, headaches, loss of coordination, nausea, damage to liver, kidney, and central nervous system. The SCAQMD has also published Rules 1113 and 1186 that limit VOC content in architectural coating applications. VOC content limits for architectural coatings substantially reduces the likelihood that off-gassing emissions from painting, finishing, and paving activities would exceed applicable SCAQMD air quality significance thresholds.

EVELOPMENT UNDER HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Development under the Housing Element would result in the development of 10,456 residential units. The sites for these units are all located in urbanized areas in the city and are clustered within one mile of Interstate 5.

Reasonably foreseeable development would be subject to compliance with applicable SCAQMD rules, including Rule 401 (Visible Emissions), Rule 402 (Nuisance), Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), and Rule ATTACHMENT 10 -91
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-29
1113 (Architectural Coatings). Specifically, Rule 403 requires the use of best available control measures for all construction activities to reduce fugitive dust emissions. The major construction elements addressed by Rule 403 include earth moving, disturbed surface areas, unpaved roads, open storage piles, demolition, and other various construction activities. Rule 403 compliance by individual property owners, developers, and/or contractors would reduce temporary construction- related air pollutant emissions of fugitive dust. In addition, Rule 1113 limits the VOC content of architectural coatings to minimize VOC emissions from the off-gassing of exterior and interior paints. Furthermore, the following policies from the General Plan Air Quality and Climate Change Element aim for reduce air quality impacts associated with construction activities:

Policy 2.1: Require projects that generate potentially significant levels of air pollutants, such as landfill operations or large construction projects, to incorporate best available air quality and greenhouse gas mitigation in project design.

Policy 1.6: Require measures to control air pollutant emissions at construction sites and during soil
-disturbing or dust-generating activities (i.e., tilling, landscaping) for projects requiring such activities.

Policy 1.7: Require reduced idling, trip reduction, and efficiency routing of transportation for City departments, where appropriate.

Compliance with SCAQMD rules and General Plan Air Quality and Climate Change Element policies would reduce the overall level of air quality impacts associated with construction activities facilitated by the proposed zones changes. Moreover, reasonably foreseeable development facilitated by the proposed General Plan Update would be required to implement additional mitigation if project-specific analysis identifies the potential to exceed the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds and LSTs for construction activities. Nonetheless, projects with large amounts of equipment, large number of hauling truck trips, or other unusual circumstances could generate criteria pollutant emissions that exceed the SCAQMD LST thresholds. Therefore, construction- related impacts associated with the Housing Element Update are considered potentially significant.

Operational
As discussed in the Chapter 2, Project Description, the City’s housing goal is to ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the Housing Element Update to accommodate the RHNA with a buffer (10,456 housing units) throughout the eight-year planning period. Consistent with the existing housing types in Burbank, this analysis conservatively assumes that 48.5 percent of new development would be single-family residential (5,071 units) and 51.5 percent would be multi- family residential (5,385 units). Table 4.1-8 shows the estimated average daily operational emissions associated with the housing development accommodated under Housing Element Update.

ATTACHMENT 10 -92
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-30
Table 4.1-8 Operational Emissions under the Housing Eleme nt Update Scenario
Daily Emissions (Pounds/Day)
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Mobile Sources 669 199 3,487 9 435 435
Energy Sources 6 50 22 0 4 4
Area Sources 46 44 432 1 115 31
Total 721 294 3,941 11 554 470
SCAQMD Regional Significance Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Source: See Appendix D for modeling results and assumptions.

As shown in Table 4.1-8, the build out of the RHNA accommodated under Housing Element would generate criteria pollutants that exceed the SCAQMD operational daily emission thresholds.

Comparison of criteria emissions from build out of all the RHNA accommodated under the Housing Element is conservative as the SCAQMD Regional Significance Thresholds are intended for assessment of individual development projects. The scenario of 10,456 residential units is also conservative as it does not attempt to quantify the difference between reasonably foreseeable development without adoption of the Housing Element Update. Instead, it accounts for all new activity from build out of all RHNA, much of which would occur without adoption of the Housing Element Update. Nonetheless, this comparison illustrates the magnitude of potential emissions and demonstrates how a low-emissions-intensity land use such as residential development may, without proper mitigation, result in potentially significant air quality emissions.

Additional modeling was performed to determine the largest individual project sizes that would typically be anticipated to result in emissions that do not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Through iterative modeling it was determined that operation of a 553 single-family unit project or a 710 multi-family unit project (multi-family or mixed use) would typically result in emissions that approach but remain less than SCAQMD thresholds (Appendix D).

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would address construction and operational emissions associated with subsequent development projects.

AQ-1 Construction Emissions Reduction
For projects that would include any of the following: demolition of more 13,500 square feet of building area, greater than 5,000 cubic yards of soil cut/fill, greater than 5-acres of graded area, or use of more than ten pieces of heavy-duty construction equipment and 150 truck trips on any given day during demolition, site clearing, or grading, prior to issuance of a permit to construct and at the expense of the project applicant, the City shall retain a qualified air quality analyst to prepare an Air Quality Impact Analysis to analyze construction emissions . The air quality analysis shall demonstrate that project emissions are less than applicable SCAQMD regional and LST thresholds, and as applicable may include, but is not limited to, the following mitigations:
 Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In the event that Tier 4 engines are not available for any off-road equipment larger than 100 horsepower, that equipment shall be equipped with a Tier 3 engine or an engine that is equipped with retrofit controls to reduce ATTACHMENT 10 -93
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-31
exhaust emissions of NOx and DPM to no more than Tier 3 levels unless certified by engine manufacturers or the onsite air quality construction mitigation manager that the use of such devices is not practical for specific engine types.
 All construction equipment shall be outfitted with best available control technology (BACT) devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.  Consistent with SCAQMD Rule 403, construction contractors shall identify and implement best available dust control measures during active construction operations capable of generating dust.

AQ-2 Operations Emissions Reduction
For any project that would include more than 553 single-family residential units, 710 multi-family residential units, or any equivalent combination thereof, prior to issuance of a permit to construct, and at the expense of the project applicant, the City shall retain a qualified air quality analyst to prepare an Air Quality Impact Analysis to analyze operational emissions The air quality analysis shall demonstrate that project emissions are less than applicable SCAQMD regional and LST thresholds, and as applicable may include, but is not limited to, the following mitigation:
 Implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan.  Installation of additional electric vehicle charging stations  Public infrastructure improvements (e.g., bus stop shelter improvements)  Carpool or ridesharing programs
 Subsidized transit costs
 Unbundled parking costs
 Bicycle amenities (storage, showers, lockers, etc.)
 Use of all-electric appliances (i.e., elimination of natural gas service)  Use solar or low emission water heaters that exceed Title 24 requirements  Increased walls and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements  Required use of electric lawnmowers, leaf-blowers, and chainsaws Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require air quality analysis and appropriate air pollutant emissions reduction measures for projects with construction that exceeds screening criteria for projects with large grading or demolition quantities or large areas of soil disturbance are generally based on SCAQMD Rule 403. Additionally, projects with large amounts of heavy-duty construction equipment would air quality analysis and appropriate mitigation. As shown in Table 4.1-7, the criterion for the maximum number of pieces of heavy-duty construction equipment conservatively correlates to the applicable SCAQMD threshold. As subsequent analysis and mitigation would be required for any project with reasonable potential to generate criteria pollutant emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds, impacts from construction emissions would be reduced to less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 10 -94
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-32
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would require air quality analysis and appropriate air pollutant emissions reduction measures for projects that exceed screening criteria for operational emissions. With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, air emissions associated with housing development accommodated under Housing Element Update would be reduced to less than SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts from construction emissions would be reduced to less than significant.

Threshold 3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact AQ-3 THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EXPOSE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO SUBSTANTIAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Safety Element Update and Environmental Justice Policies Updates to the Safety Element as well as the addition of environmental justice policies would not result in additional development that would contribute to carbon monoxide hotspots or generate TAC emissions. Therefore, no impact related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of carbon monoxide or TACs would occur.

Housing Element Update
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of carbon monoxide that is above a carbon monoxide ambient air quality standard; elevated CO levels can occur at roadway intersections that experience high traffic volumes and severe vehicle congestion. Historically, mobile source-related CO concentrations at high-volume (e.g., congested) intersections have been linked to health concerns according to USEPA and SCAQMD.

CO attainment was also demonstrated in the 2003 AQMP and the region has remained in attainment of CO standards ever since. According to the 2004 Revision to the California State Implementation Plan for Carbon Monoxide, requirements for cleaner vehicles, equipment, and fuels have cut peak CO levels in half since 1980 despite growth (CARB 2004). With cleaner technologies, automobile emissions of CO have steadily declined over the years.

A detailed carbon monoxide analysis was conducted during the preparation of SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP. The locations selected for microscale modeling in the 2003 AQMP included high average daily traffic (ADT) intersections in the SCAB, those which would be expected to experience the highest CO concentrations. The highest CO concentration observed was at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue on the west side of the city and near the I-405 Freeway. The concentration of CO at this intersection was 4.6 ppm, which is well below the state and federal standards. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection has an ADT of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day (SCAQMD 2003). The 2003 1-hour concentration for this intersection was

4.6 ppm, which indicates that the most stringent 1-hour CO standard (20.0 ppm) would likely not be exceeded until the daily traffic at the intersection exceeded more than 400,000 vehicles per day (Los Angeles 2016).

Based on traffic volumes documented in the Transportation Assessment (Appendix E),the highest volume intersection is Victory Boulevard/Victory Place and Burbank Boulevard with a future ADT estimated to be 67,500, which is based on a standard approach of ten times the PM peak hour to get to ADT. The city does not have any intersections that would foreseeably experience daily ATTACHMENT 10 -95
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-33
volumes exceeding 400,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not have potential to contribute to localized CO concentrations at intersections that exceed state CO standards.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. The following subsections discuss the project’s potential to result in impacts related to TAC emissions during construction and operation.

ONSTRUCTION
Construction would result in various TACs associated with equipment exhaust and off-gassing from various materials applied during construction such as coatings. Of these, the TAC of primary concern associated with construction activities is diesel exhaust which may be released in substantial quantities by use of heavy-duty equipment operations and truck traffic. Although health risks associated with acute exposure to diesel exhaust are negligible, chronic exposure may contribute to carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risks to the respiratory system. The severity of health effects depends upon several factors including the amount of exposure and the duration of exposure.

The specific locations, amount of heavy-equipment use, and duration of construction activity resulting from the Housing Element Update are not currently known. Health risks associated with construction-related diesel exhaust emissions would only have potential to result in significant health risks for large projects with substantial heavy equipment use for a period of several years in close proximity to sensitive receptors.

Based on a review of project environmental documents for development projects recently analyzed in the city, only extremely large projects would have potential to result in impacts. For example, the for the Replacement Airline Passenger Terminal at Burbank Bob Hope Airport Project involved approximately 42-months of intensive construction, 327.5 acres of grading, and the hauling export of 130,000 cubic yards of soil. Nonetheless, the Environmental Impact Report determined that potential exposure at the maximally exposed residential receptor would be 4.6 in one million and would not exceed the threshold of 10 in one million (Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority 2016). Typical housing development projects accommodated under Housing Element Update would be less intense than this example project.

Future development projects would be required to implement compliance measures for California Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleet Regulations and idling limits for diesel-fueled vehicles, which would reduce potential diesel exhaust emissions from construction. Entitlements for large projects are typically subject to discretionary approvals and subsequent air quality analysis is required pursuant to CEQA to demonstrate that projects would not result in air quality impacts at nearby receptors.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require air quality analysis and appropriate air pollutant emissions reduction measures for projects with potential for construction to include activities that generate substantial diesel exhaust such as demolition, grading, hauling, of heavy-duty equipment use. For these reasons, construction-related impacts associated with TAC emissions would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 10 -96
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-34

OPERATION
Residential land uses are not considered land uses that generate substantial TAC emissions based on review of the air toxic sources listed in SCAQMD’s and CARB’s guidelines. It is expected that quantities of hazardous TACs generated on-site (e.g., cleaning solvents, paints, landscape pesticides, etc.) for the types of proposed residential land uses would be below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program. Because the project would not include substantial TAC sources and is consistent with CARB and SCAQMD guidelines, it would not result in the exposure of off-site sensitive receptors to significant amounts of carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants. Impacts would be less than significant.

N-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project would add new sensitive receptors in Burbank. Although new residences would not exacerbate health risks related to TACs, they could be exposed to such health risks. Such exposure does not constitute a potential significant impact under CEQA, but the potential risks are provided for informational purposes.

A HRA was prepared to assess the potential health effects associated with TAC emissions from I-5, SR-134, associated ramps, and the BWP facility. For the roadways the primary concern is the effect of diesel PM on the on-site sensitive receptors combined with the other vehicle exhaust pollutants described in Section 4.1.1b, Air Pollutants of Primary Concern. For the BWP facility, the air toxic emissions emitted by the turbines (i.e., MPP and Lake One) during the electricity generation process are the primary concern.

Cancer risk is expressed as the maximum number of new cases of cancer projected to occur in a population of one million people due to exposure to the cancer-causing substance, typically over a specific exposure duration, such as the high-end residency (95 th percentile) of 30 years (SCAQMD
2017). For example, a cancer risk of one in one million means that in a population of one million people, not more than one additional person would be expected to develop cancer as the result of the exposure to the substance causing that risk.

An analysis using the USEPA’s AERMOD dispersion model and CARB’s Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) risk analysis tool was used to determine the maximally exposed individual receptors (MEIR) for SR-134, I-5, and the BWP facility. The 30-year excess cancer risk, potential acute and chronic (such as lung inflammation, immune suppression, and immune sensitization) health risks for on-site residential units were calculated. A singular MEIR was not identified since the receptors in proximity to SR-134 are approximately two miles southwest of I-5 and the BWP facility. Due to the large distance between the sources, the TAC and TOC concentrations from I-5 and the BWP facility would be negligible at the location of the receptors near SR-134 since concentrations lessen with distance and vice-versa. Furthermore, the MEIRs for each source were identified at different floor levels. Thus, three separate MEIRS were identified for each of the three sources. However, since I-5 and BWP are adjacent, a cumulative cancer risk impact was summed and identified at the location of one receptor. There is no separate SCAQMD cumulative health risk threshold; thus, the cumulative cancer risk is compared to the singular-source SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million.

ATTACHMENT 10 -97
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-35
State Route 134
The MEIR for SR-134 is located at the at the 3700 Riverside residential building directly south of SR- 134 (376484 meters East and 3779902 meters North)3 . Refer to Figure 4.1-2 for the location of the residential development within the Plan Area. Based on the modeling results, the maximum cancer risk and chronic risk were identified on the ground-level (0 feet), while the maximum acute risk was located on the third floor (22 feet). The cancer and hazard quotient values (chronic and acute hazard risk) do not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of 10 in one million and 1.0, respectively, as shown in Table 4.1-9. See Figure 4.1-3 for the location of sensitive receptors in relation to SR-134.

Table 4.1-9 Potential Health Risks from State Route 134 at the MEIR Maximum Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR)1
Cancer Risk
Incremental Excess Cancer Risk2 4.3 in one million
Threshold 10 in one million
Threshold Exceeded? No
Chronic Risk
Chronic Hazard Index2 <0.1
Threshold 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? No
Acute Risk
Acute Hazard Index3 0.1
Threshold 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? No
1 Based on 30-year resident exposure.
2 The MEIR for cancer and chronic risk is located at on the ground-level (0 feet) at 3700 Riverside and south of SR-134 (at 376484 meters East and 3779902 meters North).
3 For acute risk, the MEIR is located at North on the third floor (22 feet) in 3700 Riverside and south of SR-134 (at 376484 meters East and 3779902 meters).

Note: Coordinates for the MEIR location are provided in Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates and are in meters. See Appendix C for the HRA modeling outputs.

Interstate 5
The MEIR for I-5 is located at the at the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) 5 residential building directly east of I-5 (378900 meters East and 3783073 meters North). Refer to Figure 4.1-1 for the location of the TOD development within the Plan Area. Based on the modeling results, the maximum cancer risk, chronic risk, and acute risk were identified on the ground-level (0 feet). The cancer and hazard quotient values (chronic and acute hazard risk) do not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of 10 in one million and 1.0, respectively, as shown in Table 4.1-10. See Figure 4.1-4 for the location of sensitive receptors in relation to I-5.

3 The exact coordinates of the MEIR are provided in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system. The coordinates are in meters.

ATTACHMENT 10 -98
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-36
Table 4.1-10 Potential He alth Risks from Interstate 5 at the MEIR Maximum Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR)1
Cancer Risk
Incremental Excess Cancer Risk2 5.7 in one million
Threshold 10 in one million
Threshold Exceeded? No
Chronic Risk
Chronic Hazard Index2 <0.1
Threshold 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? No
Acute Risk
Acute Hazard Index3 <0.1
Threshold 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? No
1 Based on 30-year resident exposure.
2 The MEIR for cancer and chronic risk is located on the ground-level (0 feet) in TOD 5 and east of I-5 (at 378900 meters East and 3783073 meters North).
3 For acute risk, the MEIR is located on the ground-level in TOD and east of I-5 (at 378813 meters East and 3783325 meters North).

Note: Coordinates for the MEIR location are provided in Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates and are in meters. See Appendix C for the HRA modeling outputs.

Burbank Water and Power
The MEIR for the BWP facility is located at the TOD 5 residential building approximately 1,220 feet northeast of the BWP facility (378,829 meters east and 3,783,223 meters north). Based on the modeling results, the maximum cancer risk and chronic risk were identified on the ground-level (0 feet). The maximum acute risk associated with BWP facility emissions was located on ground-level in the TOD 11 residential building approximately 480 feet southeast of the BWP facility (378783 meters East and 3782281 meters North). Refer to Figure 4.1-1 for the location of the TOD developments within the Plan Area. The cancer and hazard quotient values (chronic and acute hazard risk) do not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of 10 in one million and 1.0, as shown in Table 4.1-11. See Figure 4.1-5 for the location of sensitive receptors in relation to the BWP facility.

Cumulative Cancer Risk from Interstate 5 and Burbank Water and Power Facility As described above, the cumulative cancer risk from I-5 and BWP was based on the maximum summed cancer risk for all sensitive receptors in proximity to both sources. The cumulative summed maximum cancer risk would be located on the ground-level of the TOD 5 residential building (378,856 meters east and 3,783,154 meters north). The cumulative summed cancer risk would be

6.8 in one million, which does not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million. Note that the chronic and acute risk are not summed values and are based on the maximum annual value computed. The chronic and acute risk would then be less than 0.1, which is below the hazard quotient threshold of 1.0.

ATTACHMENT 10 -99
Environmental Impact Analysis
Air Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.1-37
Table 4.1-11 Potential Health Risks from the Burbank Power and Water at the MEIR Maximum Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR)1
Cancer Risk
Incremental Excess Cancer Risk2 1.6 in one million
Threshold 10 in one million
Threshold Exceeded? No
Chronic Risk
Chronic Hazard Index2 <0.1
Threshold 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? No
Acute Risk
Acute Hazard Index3 <0.1
Threshold 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? No
1 Based on 30-year resident exposure.
2 The MEIR for cancer and chronic risk is located on the ground-level (0 feet) in TOD 5 approximately 1,220 feet northeast of BWP (at 378829 meters East and 3783223 meters North_.
3 For acute risk, the MEIR is located on the ground-level in TOD 11 approximately 480 feet southeast of BWP (at 378783 meters East and 3782281 meters North).

Note: Coordinates for the MEIR location are provided in Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates and are in meters. See Appendix C for the HRA modeling outputs.

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
As discussed in Environmental Setting, the SCAB is named so because its geographical formation is that of a basin, with the surrounding mountains trapping the air and its pollutants in the valleys below. The SCAB encompasses all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. Cumulative projects would include any reasonably anticipated development in SCAB for regional air quality impacts, as well as housing development accommodated under the Housing Element Update for localized air quality impacts.

Conflict with Applicable Air Quality Plan
The Housing Element Update does not encourage or promote growth beyond the SCAG forecasts of regional growth; therefore, the Housing Element Update would not conflict with the growth assumptions used in the development of the AQMP. The Housing Element Update would include policies that help reduce air pollutant emissions through promoting transportation and land use design factors, such as intensification and reuse of already developed lands in proximity to transit and commercial areas, that would result in VMT reductions and would not conflict with implementation of TCM from the AQMP. Similar to direct air quality impacts, cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.

National and State Air Quality Standards
In order to assess cumulative impacts of emissions, the SCAQMD recommends that projects be evaluated to determine whether they would be consistent with AQMP performance standards and project-specific emissions thresholds. In the case of the Housing Element Update, air pollutant ATTACHMENT 10 -100
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.1-38
emissions would be considered to be cumulatively considerable if the new sources of emissions exceed SCAQMD project-specific emissions thresholds. The cumulative context for consideration of most air quality impacts is the SCAB. The context for localized significance thresholds is within 1,500 feet of the project site per SCAQMD LST guidance, as health risks generally decrease by about 90 percent at 1,500 feet from the emission source (SCAQMD 2017).

As discussed under Impact 4.1-2, construction activities and operation of development accommodated under Housing Element could result in significant impacts related to criteria emissions. Without a specific construction schedule, timing and emission levels cannot be accurately estimated; it is possible that multiple construction projects will occur concurrently and immediately adjacent to one another. Similarly, without specific land use details, it is possible that the Housing Element may accommodate operation of large projects in proximity (e.g., residential or mixed-use high-rises) and thereby result in cumulative operations emissions that exceed SCAQMD thresholds.

Therefore, reasonably expected construction and operation from the Housing Element Update has the potential to be cumulatively considerable. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce emissions generated by various construction activities, including equipment operation, truck trips, and painting and operational sources including vehicle use, natural gas use, and other area sources. Furthermore, housing development accommodated under the Housing Element Update would include development that is substantially similar to existing residential projects and continued enforcement of existing regulations would reduce potential for multiple adjacent development projects to contribute to deterioration of air quality. Cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Toxic Air Contaminants
The Housing Element would not directly exacerbate existing conditions related to TAC concentrations as operation of residential development is not associated with substantial TAC emissions. Each individual future project would be responsible for demonstrating compliance with the SCAQMD thresholds of 10 in one million for carcinogenic risks and a hazard index of 1.0 for non- carcinogenic chronic and acute health risks; These thresholds are designed to protect public health and prevent exposures to substantial pollutant concentrations. For these reasons, cumulative impacts related to operational emissions of toxic air contaminants would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 10 -101
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-1

4.2 Biological Resources
This section assesses potential impacts to biological resources. The urbanized environment in the City of Burbank (City) limits the amount of biological resources that are present and those that may be affected by the proposed project. As such, the biological resources addressed in this section are limited to nesting birds and their habitat. Moreover, the Initial Study (Appendix B) concludes that reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update (proposed Project) would not have the potential to result in significant effects related to other biological resource topics, such as special status species; wetlands, streams, rivers, and riparian habitat; wildlife movement; Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs); and other applicable plans, policies, and ordinances intended to preserve and/or protect biological resources. Thus, these topics are not further addressed herein.

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
a. Regional Setting
The City of Burbank, where development resulting from the Housing and Safety Element Update would occur, lies in Los Angeles County, which encompasses approximately 4,084 square miles. The County borders 70 miles of coast on the Pacific Ocean and extends west to the Mojave Desert. The County is divided west-to-east by the San Gabriel Mountains, which are part of the Transverse Ranges of southern California. The region’s climate is characteristic of a Mediterranean climate system with hot, dry summers and cooler, wetter winters. b. Project Setting
The Housing Element and Safety Update would apply to the entire geographic area located within the boundaries of the City of Burbank, which encompasses 17.1 square miles. Burbank is located in the central portion of Los Angeles County, approximately 12 miles north of downtown Los Angeles.

The northeastern part of the City is located along the foothills of the Verdugo Mountains and the western edge of the City is located near the eastern part of the San Fernando Valley. The City is bisected by the Interstate 5 (I-5) and is adjacent to the developed areas of the cities of Los Angeles and Glendale.

Burbank is comprised mainly of residential and commercial land uses, but also contains various patches of open space. Three types of open space totaling approximately 2,700 acres occur throughout the City: public parks, public and private open space areas, and cemeteries. Multiple public parks are located throughout the City. Private open spaces areas include the Lakeside Country Club at the south end and the Valhalla Cemetery south of Hollywood Burbank Airport. The Verdugo Mountains provide important habitat connectivity for many plant and animal species.

Open space areas in the City are meant to be preserved, with only minimal structures and improvements that are necessary and complementary to the open space use. Per Policy 8.1 of the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan, development that diminishes sensitive or protected plant and animal communities is prohibited (City of Burbank 2013a). Of the 732 acres of parks in Burbank, approximately 603 acres 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, though landscape areas such as street medians, parkways, and other green areas are located throughout the City and provide habitat for nesting birds and potentially other wildlife (City of Burbank 2013a).

ATTACHMENT 10 -102
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.2-2

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
Under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), authorization is required to “take” a listed species.

Take is defined under Section 3 of the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Under federal regulation (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Sections 17.3, 222.102); “harm” is further defined to include habitat modification or degradation where it would be expected to result in death or injury to listed wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Critical habitat is a specific geographic area(s) that is essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection.

Critical habitat may include an area that is not currently occupied by the species but that will be needed for its recovery. Section 7 of the Federal ESA outlines procedures for federal interagency cooperation to conserve federally listed species and designated critical habitat.

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and its implementing regulations require federal agencies to consult with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. For projects where federal action is not involved and take of a listed species may occur, the project proponent may seek to obtain an incidental take permit under Section 10(a) of the ESA.

Section 10(a) allows USFWS to permit the incidental take of listed species if such take is accompanied by a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that includes components to minimize and mitigate impacts associated with the take.

The USFWS and NMFS share responsibility and regulatory authority for implementing the ESA (7 United States Code [USC] Section 136, 16 USC Section 1531 et seq.).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds, and prohibits the removal of nests occupied by migratory birds. The USFWS administers the MBTA.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC §§ 668 – 668d) The Bald and Golder Eagle Protection Act makes it illegal to possess, sell, or hunt bald and golden eagles, including their feathers, nests, eggs, or body parts. b. State Regulations
California Endangered Species Act
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is responsible for administration of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). For projects that may affect both a State and federal listed species, compliance with the FESA will satisfy the CESA, provided the CDFW determines that the federal incidental take authorization is consistent with the CESA.

ATTACHMENT 10 -103
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-3
Take is defined in the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities under CFGC Section 2081. Project proponents wishing to obtain incidental take permits are able to do so through a permitting process outlined in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 783. Additionally, some sensitive mammals and birds are protected by the state as Fully Protected Mammals or Fully Protected Birds, as described in the CFGC, Sections 4700 and 3511, respectively.

Projects that may result in a take of a California listed species require a take permit under the CESA.

The federal and State acts lend protection to species considered rare enough by the scientific community and trustee agencies to warrant special consideration, particularly with regard to protection of isolated populations, nesting or den locations, communal roosts, and other essential habitat. Unlike the FESA, the CESA prohibits the take of not just listed endangered or threatened species, but also candidate species (species petitioned for listing).

The CESA defines an endangered species as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, or disease.

A threatened species is defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future in the absence of the special protection and management efforts required by this chapter. Any animal determined by the commission as rare on or before January 1, 1985 is a threatened species.

Candidate species are defined as:
…a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant that the commission has formally noticed as being under review by the department for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, or a species for which the commission has published a notice of proposed regulation to add the species to either list.

Candidate species may be afforded temporary protection as though they were already listed as threatened or endangered at the discretion of the Fish and Game Commission. Unlike the FESA, CESA does not include listing provisions for invertebrate species. Article 3, Sections 2080 through 2085, of the CESA addresses the taking of threatened or endangered species by stating:
…no person shall import into this State, export out of this State, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this State, any species, or any part or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided.

Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act
The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act was established by the California Legislature, is directed by the CDFW, and is implemented by the State, as well as public and private partnerships to protect habitat in California. The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act takes a regional ATTACHMENT 10 -104
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.2-4
approach to preserving habitat. A Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) identifies and provides for the regional protection of plants, animals and their habitats, while allowing compatible and appropriate economic activity. Once an NCCP has been approved, CDFW may provide take authorization for all covered species, including fully protected species, Section 2835 of the CFGC.

Nesting Bird Protection (CFGC §§ 3503, 3503.5, 3513, 3800) According to CFGC Section 3503 it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird [except English sparrows (Passer domesticus) and European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris)]. Sections 3503 and 3513 prohibit the taking of specific birds, their nests, eggs, or any portion thereof during the nesting season. Section 3503.5 specifically protects birds in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3513 essentially overlaps with the federal MBTA, prohibiting the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird. Section 3800 states that all birds occurring naturally in California that are not resident game birds, migratory game birds, or fully protected birds are nongame birds.

Fully Protected Species (CFGC §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515) California Fully Protected Species designation protects wildlife species that are rare or face possible extinction. Fully Protected Species include designated birds (Section 3511), mammals (Section 4700), reptiles and amphibians (Section 5050), and fish (Section 5515). c. Local Regulations
Burbank2035: General Plan Goal 8, Policies 8.1 and 8.2
Goal 6: Open Space Resources. Burbank’s open space areas and mountain ranges are protected spaces supporting important habitat, recreation, and resource conservation.

Policy 6.2: Protect the ecological integrity of open spaces and maintain and restore natural habitats and native plant communities.

Goal 8: Biological Resources. Burbank’s high-quality biological communities are sustained Policy 8.1: Prohibit development that jeopardizes or diminishes the integrity of sensitive or protected plant and animal communities.

Policy 8.2: Improve ecological and biological conditions in urban and natural environments when reviewing proposals for site development, as well as when making public improvements.

4.2.3 Impact Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of significance are based on the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix B) determined that a potentially significant impact might occur under the following threshold and therefore will be analyzed in this section of the EIR.

1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service ATTACHMENT 10 -105
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-5
The Initial Study (Appendix B) determined that the Project could result in potentially significant impacts related to nesting birds under Threshold 1. As such, an analysis of this issue is included in this section of the EIR. The Initial Study found no potentially significant impacts related to special status species (Threshold 1), riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities (Threshold 2), state or federally protected wetlands (Threshold 3), wildlife movement (Threshold 4), local biological resource policies or ordinances (Threshold 5), or habitat conservation plans (Threshold 6); therefore, these issues are not studied further herein.

1. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service

2. 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

3. 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

4. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance

5. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan b. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: 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 US Fish and Wildlife Service? Impact BIO-1 THE PROJECT COULD RESULT IN DIRECT OR INDIRECT IMPACTS TO NESTING BIRDS THROUGH VEGETATION REMOVAL AND CONSTRUCTION DURING THE NESTING SEASON. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

Development would be prioritized on infill sites in urbanized areas of the City. Reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update would be primarily concentrated on underutilized sites that have been previously developed and disturbed, but that may still contain vegetation or structures suitable to support nesting birds. The Housing Element Update includes 19 rezoning sites, 12 of which are concentrated in the urban downtown region of Burbank and 7 of which are located in urban areas near the Hollywood Burbank Airport. Although these rezoning sites are urban and developed, the existing buildings and associated ornamental vegetation may provide suitable habitat for nesting birds and raptors. For example, the Downtown BJs/ Black Angus housing opportunity site has multiple trees surrounding the existing buildings that could support nests. As a result, development under the Housing Element Update could directly and indirectly affect nesting birds, which as described in the Environmental Setting are protected under CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 as well as the MBTA. CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 describe unlawful take, possession, or destruction of native birds, nests, and eggs. Section 3503.5 of the Code protects all birds-of-prey and their eggs and nests against take, possession, or destruction. Section 3515 ATTACHMENT 10 -106
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.2-6
makes it a State-level offense to take any bird in violation of the federal MBTA. Violation of these provisions would be considered a potentially significant impact.

Construction of reasonably foreseeable development under the proposed Project could potentially 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, construction activities have the potential to disturb nesting birds and raptors, which would be a potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure requires a nesting bird survey for development activities during the nesting season.

BIO-1 Nesting Bird Avoidance
Prior to issuance of grading permits for individual housing developments that will include disturbance of vegetation, structures, or other areas where bird nests could be present, implement the following requirements for any construction activities that would occur during the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31):

Applicant shall submit a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of grading or construction activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot on the construction site, including a 100-foot buffer, and in inaccessible areas (e.g., private lands) from afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California and a copy of the study shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and Building and Safety Division. The cost to hire a qualified biologist shall be borne entirely by the developer/project applicant.

If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be demarcated by a qualified biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No parking, storage of materials, or construction activities shall occur within this buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist.

A survey report shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting and verifying compliance with the above requirements and applicable State and Federal regulations protecting birds that shall be submitted to the City of Burbank. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities would occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests would occur.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level by ensuring that active nests are identified and avoided, as necessary, which would avoid potential conflicts with the MBTA and CFGC.

ATTACHMENT 10 -107
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.2-7

4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
The area to analyze cumulative biological resource impacts includes the City limits. As defined in Section 3.3, vegetation, including trees, located in the City could potentially support nesting migratory birds. As discussed previously, the CFGC and MBTA protect migratory avian species when they are nesting. Compliance with the CFGC and MBTA by all reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing and Safety Element Update would ensure that cumulative impacts to migratory birds would not be significant. Such regulatory compliance, including implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, would ensure that the implementation of the proposed Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts related to nesting bird disturbance.

ATTACHMENT 10 -108
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.2-8

This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 10 -109
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-1

4.3 Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources
This section assesses potential impacts to cultural resources. Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) conducted a cultural resources assessment for the 6th Cycle Housing and Safety Element Update to the Burbank2035 General Plan project through a desktop literature review. Impacts to prehistoric archaeological resources, historic-period resources, and Tribal cultural resources are addressed.

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
Cultural resources include prehistoric resources, historic-period resources, and Tribal cultural resources. Prehistoric resources represent the remains of human occupation prior to European settlement. Historic-period resources represent remains after European settlement and may be part of a "built environment," including man-made structures used for habitation, work, recreation, education and religious worship, and may also be represented by houses, factories, office buildings, schools, churches, museums, hospitals, bridges and other structural remains. Tribal cultural resources include ethnographic elements pertaining to Native American issues and values. a. Prehistoric Context
During the twentieth century, many archaeologists developed chronological sequences to explain prehistoric cultural changes in all or portions of southern California (c.f., Moratto 1984; Jones and Klar 2007). Wallace (1955, 1978) devised a prehistoric chronology for the southern California coastal region based on early studies and focused on data synthesis that included four horizons: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric. Though initially lacking the chronological precision of absolute dates (Moratto 1984), Wallace’s (1955) synthesis has been modified and improved using thousands of radiocarbon dates obtained by southern California researchers over recent decades (Koerper and Drover 1983; Mason and Peterson 1994; Koerper et al. 2002; Byrd and Raab 2007).

The prehistoric chronological sequence for southern California presented below is a composite based on Wallace (1955) and Warren (1968) as well as later studies, including Koerper and Drover (1983).

Early Man Horizon (10,000 – 6,000 B.C.)
Numerous pre-8,000 B.C. sites have been identified along the mainland coast and Channel Islands of southern California (c.f., Moratto 1984; Erlandson 1991; Rick et al. 2001; Johnson et al. 2002; Jones and Klar 2007). The Arlington Springs site on Santa Rosa Island produced human femurs dated to approximately 13,000 years ago (Johnson et al. 2002; Arnold et al. 2004). On nearby San Miguel Island, human occupation at Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261) has been dated to nearly 13,000 years ago and included basketry greater than 12,000 years old, the earliest recorded on the Pacific Coast (Arnold et al. 2004).

Although few Clovis or Folsom style fluted points have been found in southern California (e.g., Erlandson et al. 1987; Dillon 2002), Early Man Horizon sites are generally associated with a greater emphasis on hunting than later horizons. Recent data indicate that the Early Man economy was a diverse mixture of hunting and gathering, including a significant focus on aquatic resources in coastal areas (e.g., Jones et al. 2002) and on inland Pleistocene lakeshores (Moratto 1984). A warm and dry 3,000-year period called the Altithermal began around 6,000 B.C. The conditions of the ATTACHMENT 10 -110
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.3-2
Altithermal are likely responsible for the change in human subsistence patterns at this time, including a greater emphasis on plant foods and small game.

Millingstone Horizon (6,000 – 3,000 B.C.)
The Wallace (1955:219) defined the Milling Stone Horizon as “marked by extensive use of milling stones and mullers, a general lack of well-made projectile points, and burials with rock cairns.” The dominance of such artifact types indicate a subsistence strategy oriented around collecting plant foods and small animals. A broad spectrum of food resources was consumed, including small and large terrestrial mammals, sea mammals, birds, shellfish and other littoral and estuarine species, near-shore fishes, yucca, agave, and seeds and other plant products (Kowta 1969; Reinman 1964).

Variability in artifact collections over time and from the coast to inland sites indicates that Milling Stone Horizon subsistence strategies adapted to environmental conditions (Byrd and Raab 2007).

Lithic artifacts associated with Milling Stone Horizon sites are dominated by locally available tool stone and in addition to ground stone tools, such as manos and metates, chopping, scraping, and cutting tools, are very common. Kowta (1969) attributes the presence of numerous scraper-plane tools in Milling Stone Horizon collections to the processing of agave or yucca for food or fiber. The mortar and pestle, associated with acorns or other foods processed through pounding, were first used during the Milling Stone Horizon and increased dramatically in later periods (Wallace 1955, 1978; Warren 1968).

Two types of artifacts that are considered diagnostic of the Milling Stone period are the cogged stone and discoidal, most of which have been found within sites dating between 4,000 and 1,000 B.C. (Moratto 1984), though possibly as far back as 5,500 B.C. (Couch et al. 2009). The cogged stone is a ground stone object that has gear-like teeth on the perimeter and is produced from a variety of materials. The function of cogged stones is unknown, but many scholars have postulated ritualistic or ceremonial uses (c.f., Eberhart 1961; Dixon 1968). Similar to cogged stones, discoidals are found in the archaeological record subsequent to the introduction of the cogged stone. Cogged stones and discoidals were often purposefully buried, or “cached.” Cogged stones have been collected in Los Angeles County, though their distribution appears to center on the Santa Ana River basin (Eberhart 1961).

Intermediate Horizon (3,000 B.C. – A.D. 500)
Wallace’s Intermediate Horizon dates from approximately 3,000 B.C.-A.D. 500 and is characterized by a shift toward a hunting and maritime subsistence strategy, as well as greater use of plant foods.

During the Intermediate Horizon, a noticeable trend occurred toward greater adaptation to local resources including a broad variety of fish, land mammal, and sea mammal remains along the coast.

Tool kits for hunting, fishing, and processing food and materials reflect this increased diversity, with flake scrapers, drills, various projectile points, and shell fishhooks being manufactured.

Mortars and pestles became more common during this transitional period, gradually replacing manos and metates as the dominant milling equipment. Many archaeologists believe this change in milling stones signals a change from the processing and consuming of hard seed resources to the increasing reliance on acorn (e.g., Glassow et al. 1988; True 1993). Mortuary practices during the Intermediate typically included fully flexed burials oriented toward the north or west (Warren 1968).

ATTACHMENT 10 -111
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-3
Late Prehistoric Horizon (A.D. 500 – Historic Contact)
During Wallace’s (1955, 1978) Late Prehistoric Horizon the diversity of plant food resources and land and sea mammal hunting increased even further than during the Intermediate Horizon. More classes of artifacts were observed during this period and high quality exotic lithic materials were used for small finely worked projectile points associated with the bow and arrow. Steatite containers were made for cooking and storage and an increased use of asphalt for waterproofing is noted. More artistic artifacts were recovered from Late Prehistoric sites and cremation became a common mortuary custom. Larger, more permanent villages supported an increased population size and social structure (Wallace 1955).

Warren (1968) attributes this dramatic change in material culture, burial practices, and subsistence focus to the westward migration of desert people he called the Takic, or Numic, Tradition in Los Angeles, Orange, and western Riverside counties. This Takic Tradition was formerly referred to as the “Shoshonean wedge” (Warren 1968). However, this nomenclature is no longer used to avoid confusion with ethnohistoric and modern Shoshonean groups (Shipley 1978). b. Ethnographic and Historical Background
Ethnography
Burbank is located in the traditional territory of the Native American group known as the Gabrieleño. The name “Gabrieleño” denotes those people who were administered by the Spanish from the San Gabriel Mission. It includes people from the Gabrieleño area proper, as well as other social groups nearby (Kroeber 1925; Plate 57; Bean and Smith 1978:538). The term Gabrieleño was imposed upon the Tribe by Spanish Missionaries. Because of this, descendants have chosen to use their original name, Tongva (Welch 2006). This term is used in the remainder of this section to refer to the pre-contact inhabitants of the Los Angeles Basin and their descendants. Archaeological evidence points to the Tongva arriving in the Los Angeles Basin sometime around 500 BCE, but this has been a subject of debate. Tongva lands encompassed the greater Los Angeles Basin, three Channel Islands, and the present-day cities of San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Santa Catalina.

The Tongva language belongs to the Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family, which can be traced to the Great Basin region (Mithun 2001). This language family includes dialects spoken by the nearby Juaneño and Luiseño to the southeast, the Serrano and Cahuilla to the northeast, and the Tataviam to the northwest. Yet, it is considerably different from those of the Chumash people living to the northwest and the Diegueño (including Ipai, Tipai, and Kumeyaay) people living to the south.

The Tongva established large, permanent villages in the fertile lowlands along rivers and streams, and in sheltered areas along the coast. A total Tribal population is estimated to have been at least 5,000 in 1770 (Bean and Smith 1978:540), but recent ethnohistoric work suggests a number closer to 10,000 (O’Neil 2002). Political organization followed a patrilocal and patrilineal pattern. Typically, the oldest son would lead a family. Chieftainship was also passed down patrilineally. A Chari, or chief of a village or political grouping was separated from any religious leadership (King 2011).

At the time of Spanish contact, the basis of Tongva religious life was the Chinigchinich cult, centered on the last of a series of heroic mythological figures. Chinigchinich gave instruction on laws and institutions, and taught people how to dance, the primary religious act for this society. He later withdrew into heaven, where he rewarded the faithful and punished those who disobeyed his laws (Kroeber 1925: 637–638). The Chinigchinich religion seems to have been relatively new when the Spanish arrived. It was spreading south into the Southern Takic groups even as Christian missions ATTACHMENT 10 -112
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.3-4
were being built. Elements of Chinigchinich beliefs suggest it was a syncretic mixture of Christianity and native religious practices (McCawley 1996: 143-144).

Houses constructed by the Tongva were large, circular, domed structures made of willow poles, thatched with tule and could hold up to 50 people (Bean and Smith 1978). Other structures served as sweathouses, menstrual huts, ceremonial enclosures, and probable communal granaries. Cleared fields for races and games, such as lacrosse and pole throwing, were created adjacent to Tongva villages (McCawley 1996: 27).

The Tongva subsistence economy was centered on gathering and hunting. The surrounding environment was rich and varied, and the Tribe exploited mountains, foothills, valleys, deserts, riparian, estuarine, and open and rocky coastal eco-niches. Like most native Californians, acorns were the staple food. By the time of the early Intermediate Period, acorn processing was an established industry. Acorns were supplemented by the roots, leaves, seeds, and fruits of a wide variety of flora (e.g., islay, cactus, yucca, sages, and agave). Fresh water and saltwater fish, shellfish, birds, reptiles, insects, and large and small mammals were also consumed (Kroeber 1925:631–632; Bean and Smith 1978:546; McCawley 1996: 119–123, 128–131).

The Tongva used a wide variety of tools and implements to gather food resources. These included the bow and arrow, traps, digging sticks, nets, blinds, throwing sticks and slings, spears, harpoons, and hooks. The Tongva made oceangoing plank canoes (known as a ti’at) capable of holding six to 14 people used for fishing, travel, and trade between the mainland and the Channel Islands. Tule reed canoes were employed for near-shore fishing (McCawley 1996: 117-127). Tongva people processed food with a variety of tools, including hammerstones and anvils, mortars and pestles, manos and metates, strainers, leaching baskets and bowls, knives, bone saws, and wooden drying racks. Food was consumed from a variety of vessels. Catalina Island steatite was used to make ollas and cooking vessels (Kroeber 1925:629; McCawley 1996: 129–138).

Deceased Tongva were either buried or cremated. Inhumation was more common on the Channel Islands and the neighboring mainland coast, and cremation was more predominate on the remainder of the coast and in the interior (Harrington 1942; McCawley 1996:157). At the behest of the Spanish missionaries, cremation essentially ceased during the post-Contact period (McCawley 1996:157).

Historic Period
The post-contact history of California is generally divided into three time spans: the Spanish period (1769–1822), the Mexican period (1822–1848), and the American period (1848–present). Each of these periods is described below.

Spanish Period (1769 – 1822)
Spanish exploration of California began when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led the first European expedition into the region in 1542. For more than 200 years after his initial expedition, Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Russian explorers sailed the California coast and made limited inland expeditions, but they did not establish permanent settlements (Bean 1968; Rolle 2003). In 1769, Gaspar de Portolá and Franciscan Father Junipero Serra established the first Spanish settlement in what was then known as Alta (upper) California at Mission San Diego de Alcalá. This was the first of 21 missions erected by the Spanish between 1769 and 1823. It was during this time that initial Spanish settlement of the Project vicinity began. Mission San Fernando Rey de España, approximately 12 miles northwest of Burbank, was founded in 1797 as the 17 th mission to be
ATTACHMENT 10 -113
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-5
established in California. Mission San Fernando Rey de España’s location closed the gap between Mission San Buenaventura on the Ventura coast, and Mission San Gabriel Arcángel in the Los Angeles interior (California Missions Foundation, N.d.).

Mexican Period (1822 – 1848)
The Mexican Period commenced when news of the success of the Mexican War of Independence (1810-1821) against the Spanish crown reached California in 1822. This period saw the privatization of mission lands in California with the passage of the Secularization Act of 1833. This Act federalized mission lands and enabled Mexican governors in California to distribute former mission lands to individuals in the form of land grants. Successive Mexican governors made approximately 700 land grants between 1833 and 1846, putting most of the state’s lands into private ownership for the first time (Shumway 2007).

The Mexican Period for the Los Angeles County region ended in early January 1847. Mexican forces fought and lost to combined U.S. Army and Navy forces in the Battle of the San Gabriel River on January 8 and in the Battle of La Mesa on January 9 (Nevin 1978). On January 10, leaders of the pueblo of Los Angeles surrendered peacefully after Mexican General Jose Maria Flores withdrew his forces. Shortly thereafter, newly appointed Mexican Military Commander of California Andrés Pico surrendered all of Alta California to U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel John C. Fremont in the Treaty of Cahuenga (Nevin 1978).

American Period (1848 – Present)
The American Period officially began with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, in which the United States agreed to pay Mexico $15 million for conquered territory including California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Settlement of the Los Angeles region increased dramatically in the early American Period.

The discovery of gold in northern California in 1848 led to the California Gold Rush, though the first California gold found by settlers was previously discovered in Placerita Canyon in 1842 (Workman 1935; Guinn 1977). By 1853, the population of California exceeded 300,000. Thousands of settlers and immigrants continued to immigrate to the state, particularly after the completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad in 1869. The U.S. Congress in 1854 agreed to let San Pedro become an official port of entry. By the 1880s, the railroads had established networks from the port and throughout the county of Los Angeles, resulting in fast and affordable shipment of goods, as well as a means to transport new residents to the booming region (Dumke 1944). New residents included many health-seekers drawn to the area by the fabled Southern California climate in the 1870s– 1880s.

Burbank
In 1867, New Hampshire dentist Dr. David Burbank purchased the land encompassing Rancho San Rafael and Rancho La Providencia, a portion of which eventually became the modern-day city of Burbank. Dr. Burbank combined the land into one large ranch and sold portions of his property to the Southern Pacific Railroad, land investors, and development companies. On May 1, 1887, the town of Burbank was officially founded and the town incorporated in 1911 (City of Burbank 2017).

Burbank experienced tremendous growth following World War II. Growth was induced further in 1962, when the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) moved its network television headquarters to the City; and in 1978, when the Bob Hope Airport (now Hollywood Burbank Airport) was ATTACHMENT 10 -114
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.3-6
purchased from Lockheed. Today, Burbank is known as the “media capital of the world” in reference to its longstanding relationships with entertainment companies, such as Warner Brothers and Disney (City of Burbank 2017).

Geologic Setting
Burbank is in the eastern portion of the San Fernando Valley situated along the southwestern edge of the Verdugo Mountains within the east-west trending Transverse Ranges geomorphic province (California Geological Survey 2002; Yerkes and Campbell 2005). The San Fernando Valley is approximately 23 miles wide and 12 miles long and is underlain by a structural depression that contains a thick accumulation of more than 20,000 feet of Cenozoic alluvial, shallow marine, and deep shelf sedimentary deposits (McCulloh and Beyer 2004). The alluvium in the San Fernando Valley is mainly derived from the Santa Monica Mountains to the south, the Santa Susana Mountains to the north, the Simi Hills to the west, the San Gabriel Mountains to the northeast, and the Verdugo Mountains to the east. The San Fernando Valley is structurally complex and is transected by several faults, including the San Fernando fault, Sylmar fault zone, and Verdugo fault.

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
This section discusses applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards governing cultural resources.
a. Federal Regulations
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, state, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (36 Code of Federal Regulations 60.2). The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it meets any one of the following criteria:

Criterion A: Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history
Criterion B: Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction
Criterion D: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, ATTACHMENT 10 -115
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-7
define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, defined in the following manner:

Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property Materials: T he physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property
Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property
b. State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a lead agency determine whether a project could have a significant effect on historical resources (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21084.1), unique archaeological resources (PRC Section 21083.2 [g]), and tribal cultural resources (PRC Section 21074 [a][1][A]-[B]). A historical resource is a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Section 21084.1), a resource included in a local register of historical resources (Section 15064.5[a][2]), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (Section 15064.5[a][3]).

PRC Section 5024.1 requires an evaluation of historical resources to determine their eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The purpose of the register is to maintain listings of the State’s historical resources and to indicate which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change.

The criteria for listing resources in the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the NRHP, as enumerated according to CEQA and quoted below.
15064.5(a)(3) […] Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (PRC, § 5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 4852) including the following:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past ATTACHMENT 10 -116
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.3-8
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history 15064.5(a)(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the PRC), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. 15064.5(b) A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

In addition, if a project can be demonstrated to cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC, Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).

PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it does one or more of the following:

Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type
Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person
Impacts to significant cultural resources that affect the characteristics of any resource that qualify it for the NRHP or adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR are considered a significant effect on the environment. These impacts could result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 [b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion or eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A]).

Codes Governing Human Remains
The disposition of human remains is governed by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 and falls within the jurisdiction of the NAHC. If human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there should be no further disturbance to the site where the remains were found. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours.

The NAHC, pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, will immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native Americans so they can inspect the burial site and make recommendations for treatment or disposal.

ATTACHMENT 10 -117
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-9
Assembly Bill 52
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” Assembly Bill 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 20184.3 (b)(2) provides examples of mitigation measures that lead agencies may consider to avoid or minimize impacts to Tribal cultural resources.

PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines Tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and meets either of the following criteria:

Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC section 5020.1(k) 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 applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, 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 Native American Tribe regarding those resources. The formal consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be released if a California Native American Tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project requests consultation from the lead agency (PRC Section 21080.3.1). California Native American Tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of any proposed projects within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.

Senate Bill 18
Enacted on March 1, 2005, Senate Bill 18 (SB18) (California Government Code Section 65352.3 and 65352.4) requires cities and counties to notify and consult with California Native American Tribal groups and individuals regarding proposed local land use planning decisions for the purpose of protecting traditional Tribal cultural places (sacred sites), prior to adopting or amending a general plan or designating land as open space. Tribal groups or individuals have 90 days to request consultation following the initial contact.

Senate Bill 35 and Assembly Bill 168
Enacted on September 29, 2017, Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) (California Government Code Section 65913.41) grants a ministerial approval process that expedites and facilitates construction of affordable housing projects without normal CEQA documentation. However, in May 2021, Assembly Bill 168 (AB 168), an act to amend Sections 65400, 65913.4, and 65941.1 of SB 35, was passed. AB 168 requires a pre-consultation process with Native American Tribes to identify and protect Tribal cultural resources prior to the submission of an SB 35 permit for a housing development.

ATTACHMENT 10 -118
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.3-10
c. Local Regulations
City of Burbank Historic Resource Management Ordinance
Division 6. Historic Preservation Regulations of Article 9. (Miscellaneous Uses and Standards) the Burbank Municipal Code’s zoning regulations, referred to as the “Historic Resource Management Ordinance”, provides criteria and procedures to designate, alter or remove historical resources within the City of Burbank. The intent of the Historic Resource Management Ordinance is “to recognize, preserve, and protect historic resources in the interest of the health, prosperity, social and cultural enrichment, and general welfare of the people” (City of Burbank 2018). The purpose of this Ordinance is to:

A. Safeguard the heritage of the City by preserving resources that reflect elements of the City’s history;
B. Encourage public understanding and involvement in the historic, cultural, architectural, archaeological, and social heritage of the City;
C. Promote the private and public use and preservation of historic resources for the education, appreciation and general welfare of the people;
D. Promote the conservation, preservation and enhancement of historic resources; E. Promote the conservation of energy and natural resources through the preservation and maintenance of historic resources;
F. Discourage the demolition, destruction, alteration, misuse or neglect of designated historic resources which represent an important link to Burbank’s past; G. Provide economic benefits to owners of qualifying historic resources to ensure their continued maintenance and preservation; and
H. To make all information about historic resources and historic preservation accessible and available to the public. [Added by Ord. No. 3381, eff. 10/15/94; Amended by Ord. No. 3812, eff. 6/24/11.]
Burbank2035 General Plan
The Burbank2035 General Plan (adopted February 2013) is the primary mechanism for guiding future change in Burbank and provides a guide for land use decision-making. The Land Use Element and Open Space and Conservation Element include goals and policies that aim to preserve cultural resources and protect natural resources.

Land Use Element
The Burbank2035 General Plan’s Land Use Element serves as a guide for future development and land use decisions. Land use goals and policies seek to maintain a balance between small-town character, economic prosperity, and sustainability. The goal and policies applicable to cultural resources are presented below.

Goal 3: Community Design and Character
Burbank’s well-designed neighborhoods and buildings and enhanced streets and public spaces contribute to a strong sense of place and “small town” feeling reflective of the past.

ATTACHMENT 10 -119
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-11
Policy 3.10: Preserve historic resources, buildings, and sites, including those owned by private parties and government agencies, including the City of Burbank. Alter such resources only as necessary to meet contemporary needs and in a manner that does not affect the historic integrity of the resource.

Policy 3.11: Carefully consider the evolution of community character over time. Evaluate projects with regard to their impact on historic character, their role in shaping the desired future community character, and how future generations will view today’s Burbank.

Open Space and Conservation Element
The Burbank2035 General Plan’s Open Space and Conservation Element addresses the conservation and enhancement of open space, parks, recreation, and natural resources within the City. The goals and policies of the Open Space and Conservation Element are intended to protect natural resources including historical, archeological, and paleontological resources (City of Burbank 2013). The goal and policy applicable to cultural resources are presented below.

Goal 6: Open Space Resources
Burbank’s open space areas and mountain ranges are protected spaces supporting important habitat, recreation, and resource conservation.

Policy 6.1: Recognize and maintain cultural, historical, archeological, and paleontological structures and sites essential for community life and identity.

Plan Realization
The Plan Realization portion of the Burbank2035 General Plan establishes implementation programs to translate into action the goals and polices set forth in Burbank2035 (City of Burbank 2013). The program applicable to the proposed Project, with respect to cultural resources, is presented below.

Program LU-4: Historic Preservation Plan
To reduce impacts to both known and as-yet-unidentified historical resources within Burbank, the City shall:

Require evaluation by a qualified architectural historian for projects subject to CEQA involving buildings constructed more than 45 years prior to the project application. If the evaluation determines that historical resources (as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5) would be adversely affected, the City shall require the proposed project to comply with Section 10-1-928 of the Historic Resource Management Ordinance and obtain a Permit to Alter a Designated Historic Resource.

Require assessment by a qualified archeologist for projects subject to CEQA involving ground disturbing activities on previously undisturbed land to identify the potential to encounter buried historical resources (as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5). If the assessment determines that buried resources may be present, the City shall require preparation and implementation of a treatment plan outlining measures for monitoring, data recovery, and/or handling inadvertent discoveries.

ATTACHMENT 10 -120
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.3-12

4.3.3 Impact Analysis
This section identifies potential baseline conditions for cultural resources, possible impacts that could occur as a result of project implementation, and feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the significance of possible significant impacts. a. Thresholds of Significance
The Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix B) determined that a potentially significant impact might occur under the following thresholds and therefore will be analyzed in this section of the EIR. Thresholds of significance are based on the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines:

Cultural Resources

1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5

2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5

3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries Tribal Cultural Resources

4. 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)

5. 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.
b. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL-1 DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT KNOWN AND PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED HISTORIC-PERIOD RESOURCES. IMPACTS TO HISTORIC-PERIOD RESOURCES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT AFTER MITIGATION.

As outlined in the City of Burbank Historic Preservation Plan (1999) and Citywide Historic Context Report (2009), the City contains numerous historic-period resources. Historic-period resources include all buildings, structures, and/or artifacts that are older than 45 years old at the commence of projects (i.e., 1976 as of 2021). While none of the proposed Project sites were identified as known historic resources in the City’s Historic Preservation Plan (1999) or Context Report (2009), a review of the developmental history and property status of the proposed rezone properties identified 68 parcels in the Housing Element Update inventory properties that possesses potential historic-period buildings and/or structures (Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2). The Downtown TOD Specific Plan (TOD) inventory possesses 36 parcels with known historic-period buildings, and the Golden ATTACHMENT 10 -121
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-13
State Specific Plan (GSSP) inventory contains 32. Excluding TOD-5, -6, and -10 and GSSP-5 and -6, all of the Housing Element Update Project sites contain buildings older than 45 years.

The Burbank2035 General Plan Historic Resource Management Ordinance, Program LU-4: Historic Preservation Plan provides specific measures to ensure that any historic-period resources identified during the Housing Element Update Project would be properly evaluated by a qualified architectural historian or archaeologist prior to development. The Program LU-4 measures specific to Impact CUL-1 include:

Table 4.3-1 and Table 4.3-2 identify all Housing Element Update properties that possess buildings and/or structures greater than 45 years old that are subject to the policies outlined in Program LU-4 and will require assessment by a qualified architectural historian prior to development. If a Housing Element Update property is determined to be eligible for the CRHR, the qualified architectural historian will develop a mitigation plan in conjunction with the City to reduce any potential impacts to the resource to a less than significant level. If development under the Housing Element Update requires the demolition or alteration of a historic-period resource, a Permit to Alter a Designated Historic Resource (Historic Resource Management Ordinance Section 10-1-928) must be obtained before development occurs.

Table 4.3-1 Golden State Specific Plan Properties with Buildings over 45 years of age.

OP Site ID APN Year Built
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 2466001015 1974
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 2466001016 1965
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 2466001022 1947
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 2466001023 1947
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 2466001024 1967
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 2466001025 1951
GSSP-1 Lima/Avon 2466001026 1946
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466005003 1955
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466005013 1972
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466005024 1954
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006002 1951
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006003 1951
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006004 1951
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006005 1951
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006006 1951
ATTACHMENT 10 -122
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.3-14
OP Site ID APN Year Built
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006007 1951
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006008 1952
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006009 1968
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006010 1968
GSSP-2 N. Hollywood Way 2466006011 1955
GSSP-3 Valhalla 2463001005 1952
GSSP-3 Valhalla 2463001006 1956
GSSP-3 Valhalla 2463001007 1956
GSSP-3 Valhalla 2463001008 1956
GSSP-3 Valhalla 2463001011 1973
GSSP-3 Valhalla 2463001012 1973
GSSP-4 Logix 2463010001 1964
GSSP-7 Empire 2464001002 1965
GSSP-7 Empire 2464001003 1964
GSSP-7 Empire 2464001007 1967
GSSP-7 Empire 2464001017 1952
GSSP-7 Empire 2464001020 1960
Table 4.3-2 Downtown TOD Specific Plan Inventory with Buildings over 45 years of age OP Site ID APN Year Built
TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 2460010014 1964
TOD 1-Carl’s Jr 2460010033 1966
TOD 2-Kmart 2460006045 1962
TOD 2-Kmart 2460007036 1962
TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 2460021018 1963
TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 2460021019 1967
TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 2460021020 1961
TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 2460021027 1972
TOD 3-Caltrans/IHOP 2460021028 1929
TOD 4-Old IKEA 2460031029 1963
TOD 7-Civic Center 2453008908 1962
TOD 7-Civic Center (City Hall) 2453009902 1952
TOD 7-Civic Center 2455021906 1964
TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 2453014002 1952
ATTACHMENT 10 -123
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-15
OP Site ID APN Year Built
TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 2453014003 1911
TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 2453014008 1953
TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 2453014012 1937
TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 2453014014 1927
TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 2453014022 1920
TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 2453014023 1941
TOD 8-Olive/Glenoaks 2453014024 1955
TOD 9-Fosters Freeze/Salvation Army 2453021026 1956
TOD 9-Fosters Freeze/Salvation Army 2453021027 1962
TOD 9-Fosters Freeze/Salvation Army 2453021029 1947
TOD 9-Fosters Freeze/Salvation Army 2453021030 1949
TOD 9-Fosters Freeze/Salvation Army 2453021032 1974
TOD 9-Fosters Freeze/Salvation Army 2453021033 1957
TOD 9-Fosters Freeze/Salvation Army 2453021035 1955
TOD 9-Fosters Freeze/Salvation Army 2453021041 1961
TOD 11-Victory/Olive 2451016012 1971
TOD 11-Victory/Olive 2451016013 1965
TOD 11-Victory/Olive 2451016014 1952
TOD 12-YMCA 2460035003 1961
TOD 12-YMCA 2460035005 1956
TOD 12-YMCA 2460035007 1957
TOD 12-YMCA 2460035018 1923
All projects that would be permitted under the proposed update to the Housing Element and the associated zone changes would be subject to additional CEQA review during the Development Review and/or any other applicable permitting process. Therefore, adherence to the requirements of LU-4 would ensure that all properties are surveyed to determine if they are eligible for listing as a historic resource. However, impacts could still arise if a Permit to Alter a Historic Resource was issued allowing for the alteration or demolition of an eligible resource. Therefore, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 is also required.

Mitigation Measure
CUL-1 Historic Resource Protection
The project proponent shall either:
a) Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Burbank Community Development Department that the project does not contain any historic resources either due to the site ATTACHMENT 10 -124
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.3-16
being vacant, age of the structures on the site, or due to the result of the Program LU-4 Historic Preservation Plan determination; or
b) For any structure determined to be eligible for listing on a federal, State, or local registry, or currently listed, as a historic resource (typically determined as a result of the Program LU-4 Historic Preservation Plan process), project activities shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). During the project planning phase (prior to any construction activities), input shall be sought from a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards to ensure project compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation. The cost of this assessment shall be borne entirely by the project applicant.

This input will ensure the avoidance of any direct/indirect physical changes to historical resources. The findings and recommendations of the architectural historian or historic architect shall be documented in a Standards Project Review Memorandum at the schematic design phase. This memorandum shall analyze all project components for compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation. Project components to be analyzed shall include direct and indirect changes to historical resources and their setting. Should design modifications be necessary to bring projects into compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation, the memorandum will document those recommendations, which will then become conditions of project approval. The report will be submitted to the City for review and approval.

Significance After Mitigation
Potential impacts to historic resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1.

Threshold 2: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL-2 DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT IDENTIFIED AND PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED PREHISTORIC CULTURAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION, AS WELLS AS THE POLICIES OUTLINED IN THE HISTORIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, PROGRAM LU-4: HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN.

Although the City has not listed identified archaeological sites in the city, it is known that prehistoric populations were present in Burbank and the surrounding areas. Therefore, the potential to encounter unidentified resources in the City and on residential opportunity sites noted in the Housing Element Update properties is considered moderate. Undeveloped properties in the Housing Element Update inventory have a higher probability of containing previously unidentified archaeological resources given the probable lack of previous ground-disturbing activities on those properties. Additionally, ground-disturbance into undisturbed soils on any Housing Element Update property could contain previously unknown prehistoric or historic-period resources. The Historic Resource Management Ordinance, Program LU-4: Historic Preservation Plan also provides specific policies related to the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources. The Program LU-4 measures specific to Impact CUL-2 include:

Require assessment by a qualified archeologist for projects subject to CEQA involving ground disturbing activities on previously undisturbed land to identify the potential to encounter buried historical resources (as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5). If the assessment ATTACHMENT 10 -125
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-17
determines that buried resources may be present, the City shall require preparation and implementation of a treatment plan outlining measures for monitoring, data recovery, and/or handling inadvertent discoveries.

As described in Program LU-4, all development projects under the Housing Element Update that require ground-disturbing activities on previously undisturbed lands must be assessed by a qualified archaeologist before construction commences. In addition, Mitigation Measure CUL-2(a) and CUL- 2(b) are required for projects that include excavation beyond five feet.

Mitigation Measures
Housing development projects that require ground disturbance (grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) beyond five feet below ground surface (bgs) where it was not previously excavated beyond five feet bgs, shall comply with the City of Burbank Historic Resource Management Ordinance, Program LU-4: Historic Preservation Plan, and General Plan Policies. In addition, the following requirements shall apply:

CUL-2(a) Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources Prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training on archaeological sensitivity for all construction personnel. The training shall be conducted by an archaeologist who meets or exceeds the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. Archaeological sensitivity training will include a description of the types of cultural material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find.

In the event of the unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials, the project applicant shall immediately cease all work activities in the area (within approximately 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Construction shall not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with the City on the significance of the resource. If it is determined that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historical resource or unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place shall be the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is determined to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The City shall consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond that which is scientifically important, are considered.

ATTACHMENT 10 -126
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.3-18
CUL-2(b) Archaeological and Native Monitors
During initial ground disturbing activities related to the proposed project, both a qualified archaeologist and a locally affiliated Native American monitor shall monitor construction activities within the project site in accordance with City of Burbank Historic Resource Management Ordinance, Program LU-4: Historic Preservation Plan. Initial ground disturbance is defined as disturbance within previously undisturbed native soils. If, during initial ground disturbance, the qualified archaeologist determines that the construction activities have little or no potential to impact cultural resources (e.g., excavations are within previously disturbed, non-native soils, or within soil formation not expected to yield cultural resources deposits), the qualified archaeologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced or eliminated, in consultation with the Native American monitor.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) would reduce impacts to prehistoric resources to a less than significant level.

Threshold 3: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact CUL-3 GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE COULD RESULT IN DAMAGE TO OR DESTRUCTION OF HUMAN BURIALS. IMPACTS WOULD BE

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION, AS WELL AS THE POLICIES OUTLINED IN THE HISTORIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, PROGRAM LU-4: HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN.

Human burials outside of formal cemeteries can occur in prehistoric archaeological contexts. While no known burial sites have been identified in the city, excavations during construction activities could have the potential to disturb these resources, which could include Native American burial sites. Although it is unlikely that human remains are present, all Housing Element Update properties have at least the possibility of containing previously unidentified human remains.

Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the California PRC. The California Health and Safety Code (Section7050.5, 7051, and 7054) has specific provisions for the protection of human burial remains.

Existing regulations address the illegality of interfering with human burial remains, and protect them from disturbance, vandalism, or destruction. They also include established procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered. PRC Section 5097.98 also addresses the disposition of Native American burials, protects such remains, and established the NAHC to resolve any related disputes.

The policies outlined in Program LU-4 (see Impact CUL-2) ensures that a plan will be in place to properly mitigate any potential unanticipated discovery of human remains on a Housing Element Update property. Additionally, all development projects are subject to State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 that states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 24 hours of notification ATTACHMENT 10 -127
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.3-19
and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) would address potential impacts to human remains.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) would reduce impacts to human remains to a less than significant level.

Threshold 4: 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)?
Threshold 5: 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 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?
Impact CUL-4 DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE COULD ADVERSELY IMPACT TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION AND THROUGH CONSULTATION CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF AB 52.

Ground-disturbing activities associated with individual development projects under the Housing Element Update could expose previously unidentified subsurface archaeological resources that may qualify as Tribal cultural resources and could be adversely affected by the project construction.

Given the highly developed nature of most Housing Element Update and rezone properties, the likelihood of encountering intact cultural or Tribal cultural resources is low to moderate.

As part of its Tribal cultural resource identification process under AB 52, the City of Burbank sent letters via certified mail to nine Native American Tribes that had previously requested to be informed through formal notification of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Tribes. The City has yet not received any requests for consultation. The City of Burbank also requested a review of the Sacred Land File (SLF) by the NAHC and received a response on April 6, 2021 that the search of the SLF was positive. The NAHC requested that the City contact the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to determine if any specific Tribal cultural resources that would be impacted by the proposed Housing Element Update. To date, the City has not received any responses for additional consultation under AB 52 or SB 18.

The proposed Project is part of a high-level planning document. It remains a possibility that Tribal cultural resources may be present within geographic areas affiliated with Tribal organizations.

Adherence to the requirements of AB 52 would require Tribal consultation with local California Native American Tribes prior to implementation of any project activities which are subject to CEQA.

In compliance with AB 52, a determination of whether project-specific substantial adverse effects on Tribal cultural resources would occur along with identification of appropriate project-specific ATTACHMENT 10 -128
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.3-20
avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be required. Due to the programmatic nature of the proposed program, it is not possible to fully determine impacts, however, no Tribal cultural resources were identified during consultation and no resources eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or local register were identified as being impacted by the proposed program. Any future project implementation would require project-specific Tribal cultural resource identification and consultation, and the appropriate avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be incorporated.

AB 52 consultation, thus far, did not identify Tribal cultural resources in the Project area as part of this analysis. Project-specific Tribal cultural resource consultation will occur when specific projects are implemented, and consultation conducted pursuant to the requirements of AB 52. In addition, Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) would apply on all undeveloped properties and properties that require ground-disturbance beyond five feet bgs where it was not previously excavated beyond five feet bgs.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) would address potential impacts to Tribal cultural resources.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measures CUL-2(a) and CUL-2(b) would reduce impacts to Tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative development under the Burbank2035 Housing Element Update could potentially disturb areas that may contain cultural and Tribal cultural resources. While there is the potential for significant cumulative impacts to cultural and Tribal cultural resources, it is anticipated that potential impacts associated with individual development projects would be addressed on a case- by-case basis and would be subject to City policies and local and State regulations regarding the protection of such resources. With compliance with existing policies and regulations, future development in the City and region would be required to avoid or mitigate the loss of these resources. The proposed Project’s impacts can be reduced to below a level of significance with the standard conditions of approval (including City policies and local and State regulations) described above. Therefore, significant cumulative resource impacts would not occur.

ATTACHMENT 10 -129
Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology/Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-1

4.4 Geology/Soils
This section evaluates potential impacts related to paleontological resources.

The Initial Study found no potentially significant impacts related earthquake faults (Threshold 2), strong seismic ground shaking (Threshold 3), liquefaction (Threshold 4), landslides (Threshold 5), substantial soil erosion (Threshold 6), unstable geologic units (Threshold 7), expansive soils (Threshold 8), or soils supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems (Threshold 9); therefore, these issues are not studied further herein.

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
a. Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in “soil” but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically, fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010). Fossils occur in a non-continuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on a number of factors. It is possible to evaluate the potential for geologic units to contain scientifically important paleontological resources, and therefore evaluate the potential for impacts to those resources and provide mitigation for paleontological resources if they are discovered during construction of a development project.
b. Geologic Setting
Burbank is in the eastern portion of the San Fernando Valley situated along the southwestern edge of the Verdugo Mountains within the east-west trending Transverse Ranges geomorphic province (California Geological Survey 2002; Yerkes and Campbell 2005). The San Fernando Valley is approximately 23 miles wide and 12 miles long and is underlain by a structural depression that contains a thick accumulation of more than 20,000 feet of Cenozoic alluvial, shallow marine, and deep shelf sedimentary deposits (McCulloh and Beyer 2004). The alluvium in the San Fernando Valley is mainly derived from the Santa Monica Mountains to the south, the Santa Susana Mountains to the north, the Simi Hills to the west, the San Gabriel Mountains to the northeast, and the Verdugo Mountains to the east.

The City includes four geologic units mapped at ground surface, including Quaternary young (late to middle Holocene) alluvial fan deposits (Qyf, Qf), Quaternary young (late Holocene) graded deposits (Qacf), and Mesozoic intrusive igneous rocks (Mzbqd) (Yerkes and Campbell 2005). Quaternary young (late to middle Holocene) alluvial fan deposits (Qyf, Qf), mapped throughout most of the City, consist of unconsolidated gravel, sand, and silt, bouldery near mountain fronts; deposited chiefly from flooding streams and debris flows. In addition, surfaces of these deposits can display slight to moderate pedogenic soil development. Late to middle Holocene alluvial deposits are too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to preserve fossil resources, but these sediments may grade downward into older, fossiliferous sedimentary deposits of early Holocene or late Pleistocene age.

ATTACHMENT 10 -130
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.4-2
Quaternary old (early Holocene to Pleistocene) alluvial deposits (e.g., Qoa); consisting of unconsolidated to moderately indurated gravel, sand and silt; have a well-documented record of abundant and diverse vertebrate fauna throughout California, including Los Angeles County. Fossil specimens of whale, sea lion, horse, ground sloth, bison, camel, mammoth, dog, pocket gopher, turtle, ray, bony fish, shark, and bird have been reported (Agenbroad 2003; Jefferson 2010; Paleobiology Database 2020; Savage et al. 1954; University of California Museum of Paleontology [UCMP] 2021).

Quaternary young (late Holocene) graded deposits (Qacf), mapped in the central portions of the City, consist of undifferentiated cuts and artificial fill associated with prior development. Mesozoic intrusive igneous rocks (Mzbqd), mapped within the northern portion of the City, consist of medium-grained biotite-quartz diorite that is slightly gneissic and formed either from the cooling of molten rock deep below the surface under high heat and high pressure, or from cooling magma injected into older rocks (Yerkes and Campbell 2005). The high-heat and high-pressure conditions in which these rocks formed are not suitable for life or fossilization. Refer to Figure 4.4-1 for the geologic units and paleontological sensitivity within the City limits.

ATTACHMENT 10 -131
Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology/Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-3
Figure 4.4-1 Geologic Units and Paleontological Sensitivity Within the City of Burbank ATTACHMENT 10 -132
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.4-4

4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
a. State
California Environmental Quality Act
Paleontological resources are protected under CEQA, which states in part a project will “normally” have a significant effect on the environment if it, among other things, will disrupt or adversely affect a paleontological site except as part of a scientific study. Specifically, in Section VII(f) of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Environmental Checklist Form, the question is posed thus: “Will the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.” To determine the uniqueness of a given paleontological resource, it must first be identified or recovered (i.e., salvaged). Therefore, CEQA mandates mitigation of adverse impacts, to the extent practicable, to paleontological resources.

CEQA does not define “a unique paleontological resource or site.” However, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has defined a “significant paleontological resource” in the context of environmental review as follows:

Fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information.

Paleontological resources are typically to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years) (SVP 2010).

The loss of paleontological resources meeting the criteria outlined above (i.e., a significant paleontological resource) would be a significant impact under CEQA, and the CEQA lead agency is responsible for ensuring that impacts to paleontological resources are mitigated, where practicable, in compliance with CEQA and other applicable statutes.

California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code states:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

Here “public lands” means those owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the State or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequently, public agencies are required to comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, and for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.

ATTACHMENT 10 -133
Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology/Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-5
b. Local
Burbank2035 General Plan
Chapter 6, Open Space Resources and Chapter 7, Safety Element, of the Burbank2035 General Plan contain the following geology, soils, and paleontology policies applicable to the project:
 Policy 6.1: Recognize and maintain cultural, historical, archeological, and paleontological structures and sites essential for community life and identity.

Chapter 8, Plan Realization of the Burbank2035 General Plan includes an implementation program to put General Plan goal and policies into action. The following is included under Program OSC-7:

Development Review to help minimize the potential impacts of project implementation on paleontological resources:

If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities associated with future development projects, the construction crew shall immediately cease work in the vicinity of the find and notify the City. The project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the resource and prepare a recovery plan in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines (1996). The recovery plan shall include, but is not limited to, a field survey, construction monitoring, sampling and data recovery procedures, museum storage coordination for any specimen recovered, and a report of findings. Recommendations in the recovery plan that are determined by the lead agency to be necessary and feasible shall be implemented before construction activities can resume at the site where the paleontological resources were discovered. (Page 161)
Burbank Municipal Code
BMC Title 7, Article 1, Section 105(c) and (d), define the requirements of the Engineering Geological Report and Soil Engineering Report required with a project’s grading plans. The Engineering Geological Report shall be prepared and signed by an engineering geologist and shall include a description of the geology of the site, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the effect of geological conditions on the proposed development, and a geologic map of sufficient detail as to portray the existing field condition. The Soils Engineering Report must be prepared by a soil engineer and shall include data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures, design criteria for corrective measures, or other criteria as may be necessary. Conclusions from these reports are to be incorporated into the grading plans or specifications for the project.

4.4.3 Impact Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of significance are based on the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix B) determined that a potentially significant impact might occur under the following threshold and therefore will be analyzed in this section of the EIR.

Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature 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- ATTACHMENT 10 -134
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.4-6
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault
Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking
Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil 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
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 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 Initial Study (Appendix B) determined that the Project could result in potentially significant impacts related to unique paleontological resources or geologic features (Threshold 1). As such, an analysis of this issue is included in this section of the EIR.

The Initial Study (IS) found no potentially significant impacts related earthquake faults (Threshold 2) because project development would not directly or indirectly cause or exacerbate potential substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault. Similarly, the IS found no potentially significant impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking (Threshold 3) or liquefaction (Threshold 4), because compliance with applicable building standards and the California Building Code (CBC) 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 or liquefaction. The IS also found no potentially significant impacts related to landslides (Threshold 5), due to the majority of the City’s area having a flat topography, and housing sites identified in the Housing Element Update are not located along the foothills. Regarding substantial soil erosion (Threshold 6), the IS found that no potentially significant impacts would occur because compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and BMPs would reduce the risk of soil erosion from construction activities such that there would be minimal change in risk compared to current conditions. The IS found no potentially significant impacts related to unstable geologic units (Threshold 7) or expansive soils (Threshold 8), because adherence to the CBC’s soil requirements would achieve accepted safety standards relative to unstable geologic units, or unstable or expansive soils. The IS found no impacts related to soils supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems (Threshold 9) because the use of septic systems is not anticipated as part of future development. Therefore, these issues are not studied further herein.
b. Methodology
Because the Housing and Safety Element Updates pertain to the entire City and this Program EIR is aimed at identifying the broad, citywide impacts of implementing the proposed updates, methods ATTACHMENT 10 -135
Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology/Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-7
for research consisted of a desktop analysis and definition of the existing conditions that characterize the general geologic setting and paleontological sensitivity in the City and surrounding region. These potential impacts and any associated mitigation measures would apply citywide and would be tied directly to projects with physical construction activities.

Paleontological Resources Sensitivity
Paleontological sensitivity refers to the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. Direct impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities, such as grading or trenching, cut into the geologic deposits within which fossils are buried and physically destroy the fossils. Since fossils are the remains of prehistoric animal and plant life, they are considered to be nonrenewable. Such impacts have the potential to be significant and, under the CEQA Guidelines, may require mitigation. Sensitivity is determined by rock type, past history of the geologic unit in producing significant fossils, and fossil localities recorded from that unit.

Paleontological sensitivity is derived from the known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit, not just from a specific survey.

The discovery of a vertebrate fossil locality is of greater significance than that of an invertebrate fossil locality, especially if it contains a microvertebrate assemblage. The recognition of new vertebrate fossil locations could provide important information on the geographical range of the taxa, their radiometric age, evolutionary characteristics, depositional environment, and other important scientific research questions. Vertebrate fossils are almost always significant because they occur more rarely than invertebrates or plants. Thus, geological units having the potential to contain vertebrate fossils are considered the most sensitive.

The Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) outlines in its Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (SVP 2010) guidelines for categorizing paleontological sensitivity of geologic units in a project area. The SVP (2010) describes sedimentary rock units as having a high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. This criterion is based on rock units within which vertebrates or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present. Significant paleontological resources are fossils or assemblages of fossils, which are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, diagnostically or stratigraphically, taxonomically, or regionally. The paleontological sensitivity of the project site has been evaluated according to the following SVP (2010) categories, which are presented below.

High Potential (Sensitivity)
Rock units from which significant vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils or significant suites of plant fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing significant non-renewable fossiliferous resources. These units include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations and some volcanic formations which contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils. Sensitivity comprises both (a) the potential for yielding abundant or significant vertebrate fossils or for yielding a few significant fossils, large or small, vertebrate, invertebrate, or botanical and (b) the importance of recovered evidence for new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecologic, or stratigraphic data. Areas which contain potentially datable organic remains older than recent, including deposits associated with nests or middens, and areas that may contain new vertebrate deposits, traces, or trackways are also ATTACHMENT 10 -136
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.4-8
classified as significant. Full-time monitoring is typically recommended during any project-related ground disturbance in geologic units with high sensitivity.

Low Potential (Sensitivity)
Sedimentary rock units that are potentially fossiliferous but have not yielded fossils in the past or contain common and/or widespread invertebrate fossils of well documented and understood taphonomic (processes affecting an organism following death, burial, and removal from the ground), phylogenetic species (evolutionary relationships among organisms), and habitat ecology.

Reports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist may allow determination that some areas or units have low potentials for yielding significant fossils prior to the start of construction. Generally, these units will be poorly represented by specimens in institutional collections and will not require protection or salvage operations.

Undetermined Potential (Sensitivity)
Specific areas underlain by sedimentary rock units for which little information is available are considered to have undetermined fossiliferous potentials. Field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to specifically determine the potentials of the rock units are required before programs of impact mitigation for such areas may be developed.

No Potential
Rock units of metamorphic or igneous origin are commonly classified as having no potential for containing significant paleontological resources. For geologic units with no sensitivity, a paleontological monitor is not required.
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED UNDER THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. IMPACTS TO PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

The proposed Safety Element Update does not include any language regarding paleontological resources and therefore no impact would occur as a result of the update. The only potential impacts to paleontological resources would occur as a result of new residential and commercial construction that would be accommodated under the Housing Element Update.

Based on a paleontological literature review and existing fossil locality information available on the Paleobiology Database and UCMP database, the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units underlying the City were determined in accordance with criteria set forth by the SVP (2010).

Mesozoic intrusive igneous rocks (Mzbqd), mapped within the northern portion of the City have no paleontological sensitivity since the physical parameters of their formation are not conducive to fossil preservation. Quaternary young (Holocene) graded deposits (Qacf) and other previously disturbed sediments (e.g., artificial fill) lack taphonomic and other important scientific data and, as such, are also assigned no paleontological sensitivity.

ATTACHMENT 10 -137
Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology/Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-9
Quaternary young (late to middle Holocene) sedimentary deposits (Qyf, Qf) are too young to preserve fossil resources as defined by SVP standards (2010) (i.e., deposits that are less than 5,000 years old cannot, by definition, contain fossils). Late to middle Holocene sedimentary deposits are assigned a low paleontological sensitivity at the surface; however, these units grade downward into older, potentially fossiliferous deposits of early Holocene to Pleistocene age (e.g., Qoa) at unknown depths, that can only be estimated, based on regional geologic setting in the absence of additional data. Accurately assessing the boundaries between younger and older units within the City is generally requires site-specific stratigraphic data, some form of radiometric dating, or fossil analysis from nearby sites. Conservative estimates of the depth at which paleontologically sensitive units may occur reduces potential for impacts to paleontological resources. The depths at which these units become old enough to yield fossils is highly variable, but generally does not occur at depths of less than five feet throughout most of the San Fernando Valley. Sensitive units could occur at depths shallower than five feet on basin margins and near contact points with high sensitivity units. Early Holocene to Pleistocene sedimentary deposits have a well-documented record of abundant and diverse vertebrate fauna throughout California (Jefferson 2010; Paleobiology Database 2021; UCMP 2021). Therefore, areas mapped as Quaternary young (middle to late Holocene) sedimentary deposits (Qf, Qyf) are assigned a high paleontological sensitivity at depths greater than five feet.

Paleontological resources may be encountered during any ground-disturbing activities associated with construction (e.g., grading, excavation, or other ground disturbing construction activity) in intact (native) geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity. Construction activities may result in the destruction, damage, or loss of undiscovered scientifically important paleontological resources. However, the Housing Element Update would prioritize residential development on infill sites and in areas that have previously been developed and disturbed and are therefore less likely to contain paleontological resources than undisturbed areas that have not previously been excavated or disturbed below the ground surface. In addition, where suitable geologic units are present, paleontological resources are most likely to occur more than five feet below the ground surface. All of the proposed rezone locations have been mapped as Qyf, Qf (low sensitivity increasing with depth), and Qacf (no sensitivity). While development under the Housing Element Update and proposed rezoning would most often occur on previously disturbed sites, paleontological resources could be impacted if the proposed development requires excavation of a greater depth than previously disturbed and when located in areas that have been mapped as Qyf or Qf.

Most foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update and rezoning would be unlikely to involve impacts to paleontological resources, due to the locations in infill areas where previous disturbance has occurred. However, given that most of the proposed housing opportunity sites are mapped within areas of high paleontological sensitivity at depths greater than five feet, substantial adverse change in or a disturbance to known or unknown resources is possible; therefore, impacts to paleontological resources would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
GEO-1(a) Paleontological Resources Management
Housing development projects that require ground disturbance (grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations) beyond five feet below ground surface (bgs) on a site located in an area mapped as Quaternary young (Holocene) alluvial fan deposits (Qyf, Qf) where it was not previously excavated beyond five feet bgs, shall comply with the following requirements prior to the commencement of any construction activities:

ATTACHMENT 10 -138
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.4-10
The Developer shall retain a qualified professional paleontologist to review project plans to determine if underlying paleontologically sensitive units (i.e., early Holocene to Pleistocene age deposits [Qoa]) could be impacted. If potentially significant impacts are identified, the qualified professional paleontologist shall prepare and implement a Paleontological Resources Mitigation Plan (PRMP). The PRMP shall describe mitigation recommendations, including paleontological monitoring procedures; communication protocols to be followed in the event that an unanticipated fossil discovery is made during project development; and preparation, curation, and reporting requirements.

As part of a PRMP, require the Qualified Paleontologist or his or her designee to conduct Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for the general contractor, subcontractor(s), and all construction workers participating in earth disturbing activities, regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by on-site personnel. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a preconstruction meeting. A training acknowledgment form must be signed by all workers who receive the training and retained by the City. In the event a fossil is discovered by construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and the qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find before re-starting work in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the qualified paleontologist shall complete the mitigation outlined below (GEO-1[b]) to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources.

Conduct monitoring during ground construction activities (i.e., grading, trenching, foundation work, and other excavations). Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who meets the minimum qualifications per standards set forth by the SVP (2010), which includes a B.S. or B.A. degree in geology or paleontology with one year of monitoring experience and knowledge of collection and salvage of paleontological resources. The duration and timing of the monitoring shall be determined by the Qualified Paleontologist and the location and extent of proposed ground disturbance. If the Qualified Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions at the surface or at depth, the Qualified Paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be limited to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely.

GEO-1(b) Fossil Discovery, Preparation, and Curation
If a paleontological resource is discovered at any time during earthmoving activities, the construction contractor shall ensure that all construction activities in the immediate area of the find are halted and diverted, and the City is contacted. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained (if not done so already) to evaluate the discovery. The paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity around the find until it is assessed for scientific significance and collected to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner.

Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County [NHMLAC]) along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps.

ATTACHMENT 10 -139
Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology/Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.4-11
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measures GEO-1(a) and GEO-1(b) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The area to analyze cumulative paleontological resource impacts includes the City limits of Burbank.

As discussed in the Impact Analysis, the geologic units in the City could potentially yield fossils.

However, implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1(a) and GEO-1(b) would ensure that Project impacts to paleontological resources would not be significant by creating added protections for potentially sensitive paleontological sites. Such compliance, and implementation of these measures would ensure that the implementation of the proposed Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts related to paleontological resources.

ATTACHMENT 10 -140
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.4-12

This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 10 -141
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-1

4.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section identifies and evaluates impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates Earth’s temperature. The State of California has undertaken initiatives designed to address the effects of GHGs, and to establish targets and emission reduction strategies for GHG emissions in California. The GHG data supporting this section is included as Appendix D of this Draft EIR.

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
a. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Earth’s natural warming process is known as the “greenhouse effect.” Certain atmospheric gases act as an insulating blanket for solar energy to keep the global average temperature in a suitable range for life support. The greenhouse effect raises the temperature of Earth’s surface by about 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). With the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature of Earth is about 45°F; without it, Earth would be about minus 15°F. It is normal for Earth’s temperature to fluctuate over extended periods of time. Over the past 100 years, Earth’s average global temperature has generally increased by one-degree Fahrenheit. In some regions of the world, the increase has been as much as 4°F.

Scientists studying the particularly rapid rise in global temperatures during the late twentieth century believe that natural variability alone does not account for that rise. Rather, human activity spawned by the industrial revolution has likely resulted in increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other forms of GHGs, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels (i.e., during motorized transport, electricity generation, consumption of natural gas, industrial activity, manufacturing, etc.) and deforestation, as well as agricultural activity and the decomposition of solid waste.

Common GHGs that are emitted by both natural processes and human activities include carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Man-made GHGs, many of which have much greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and sulfur hexafluoride. As emission of these man-made GHGs is typically only associated specific types of industrial development and industrial development is not associated with the proposed Housing Element Update, these fluorinated gases and sulfur hexafluoride are discussed further in this document.

Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). CO
2 is the most abundant GHG. Other GHGs are less abundant but have higher global warming potential (discussed below) than CO2. Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. CO2 has a 100-year GWP of one. General characteristics of each GHG discussed in this report is briefly described.

Carbon Dioxide
CO2 is an odorless, colorless GHG, which has both natural and man-made sources. Natural sources include the following: decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, ATTACHMENT 10 -142
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.5-2
animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing; man made sources of CO2 are burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood.

Methane
CH4 is a flammable gas and is the main component of natural gas. When one molecule of CH4 is burned in the presence of oxygen, one molecule of CO2 and two molecules of water are released.

There are no ill health effects from CH4. A natural source of CH4 is the anaerobic decay of organic matter. Geological deposits, known as natural gas fields, also contain CH4, which is extracted for fuel. Other sources are from landfills, fermentation of manure, and cattle. CH4 has a GWP of 25 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2007).

Nitrous Oxide
N2O is a colorless GHG. High concentrations can cause dizziness, euphoria, and sometimes slight hallucinations. N2O is produced by microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions which occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to its atmospheric load. It is used in rocket engines, race cars, and as an aerosol spray propellant. N
2O has a GWP of 298 (IPCC 2007).
b. Impacts of Global Climate Change in California
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources though potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the twenty first century than were observed during the twentieth century.

Each of the past three decades has been warmer than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the decade from 2000 through 2010 has been the warmest. The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) from 2011 to 2020 was approximately 0.82 degrees Celsius (°C) higher than the average GMST for the twentieth century (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2020). Furthermore, several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations jointly indicate that LSAT and sea surface temperatures have increased. Due to past and current activities, anthropogenic GHG emissions are increasing global mean surface temperature at a rate of 0.2°C per decade. In addition to these findings, there are identifiable signs that global warming is currently taking place, including substantial ice loss in the Arctic over the past two decades (IPCC 2014a and 2018).

According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, statewide temperatures from 1986 to 2016 were approximately 0.6 to 1.1°C higher than those recorded from 1901 to 1960. Potential impacts of climate change in California may include reduced water supply from snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more large forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2018). In addition to statewide projections, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment includes regional reports that summarize climate impacts and adaptation solutions for nine regions of the state and regionally-specific climate change case studies (State of California 2018). However, while there is growing scientific consensus about the possible effects of climate change at a global and statewide level, current scientific modeling tools are unable to predict what local impacts may occur with a similar degree of accuracy. A summary follows of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California as a result of climate change.

ATTACHMENT 10 -143
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-3
Air Quality
Scientists project that the annual average maximum daily temperatures in California could rise by

2.5 to 5.8°F in the next 50 years and by 5.6 to 8.8°F in the next century. Since 1896, the top five warmest years in the Los Angeles region (in terms of annual average temperature) have all occurred since 2012 (State of California 2018). Higher temperatures are conducive to air pollution formation, and rising temperatures could therefore result in worsened air quality in California. As a result, climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. In addition, as temperatures have increased in recent years, the area burned by wildfires throughout the State has increased, and wildfires have occurred at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. In southern California, the average size of summertime non-Santa Ana based fires has significantly increased from 1,129 hectares in the 1960s to 2,121 hectares in the 2000s (State of California 2018). If higher temperatures continue to be accompanied by an increase in the incidence and extent of large wildfires, air quality could worsen. Severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains could tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution, which would effectively reduce the number of large wildfires and thereby ameliorate the pollution associated with them (California Natural Resources Agency 2009).

Water Supply
Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future precipitation trends and water supplies in California.

Year-to-year variability in statewide precipitation levels has increased since 1980, meaning that wet and dry precipitation extremes have become more common (California Department of Water Resources 2018). This trend of increased dry and wet extremes is expected to increase in the future across most of the Los Angeles region (State of California 2018). The uncertainty regarding future precipitation trends complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. The average early spring snowpack in the western U.S., including the Sierra Nevada Mountains, decreased by about 10 percent during the last century. During the same period, sea level rose over 0.15 meter along the central and southern California coasts (State of California 2018). The Sierra snowpack provides the majority of California's water supply as snow that accumulates during wet winters is released slowly during the dry months of spring and summer. A warmer climate is predicted to reduce the proportion of precipitation that falls as snow and the amount of snowfall at lower elevations, thereby reducing the total snowpack. Projections indicate that average spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and other mountain catchments in central and northern California will decline by approximately 66 percent from its historical average by 2050 (State of California 2018).

Hydrology and Sea Level Rise
Climate change could affect the intensity and frequency of storms and flooding. The number of atmospheric rivers (regions of high-water vapor transport from the tropics to the Pacific Coast that produce intense topographic-induced precipitation along southern California mountain ranges) is ATTACHMENT 10 -144
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.5-4
expected to increase in the future, resulting in an extended flood hazard season (State of California 2018). Furthermore, climate change could induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century.

Rising sea level increases the likelihood of and risk from coastal flooding. The rate of increase of global mean sea levels between 1993 to 2020, observed by satellites, is approximately

3.6 millimeters per year, more than double the twentieth century trend of 1.6 millimeters per year (World Meteorological Organization 2013; National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2021).

Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous two millennia, and the rise will probably accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control measures. The most recent IPCC report predicts a mean sea level rise of 0.25 to 0.94 meter by 2100 (IPCC 2018). A rise in sea levels could erode 31 to 67 percent of southern California beaches and cause flooding of approximately 370 miles of coastal highways during 100-year storm events. This would also jeopardize California’s water supply due to saltwater intrusion and induce groundwater flooding and/or exposure of buried infrastructure (State of California 2018). Furthermore, increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events. In the Los Angeles region, the effects of sea level rise on the coastline is expected to be compounded by the impacts of wave events during coastal storms because much of the coastline is comprised of wide sandy beaches (State of California 2018).

Agriculture
California has an over $50 billion annual agricultural industry ($176 million of which is from Los Angeles County) that produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2021). Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, certain regions of agricultural production could experience water shortages of up to 16 percent, which would increase water demand as hotter conditions lead to the loss of soil moisture. In addition, crop yield could be threatened by water-induced stress and extreme heat waves, and plants may be susceptible to new and changing pest and disease outbreaks (State of California 2018). Temperature increases could also change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (California Climate Change Center 2006).

Ecosystems and Wildlife
Climate change and the potential resultant changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on global and local scales. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions as a result of higher temperatures, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: timing of ecological events; geographic distribution and range of species; species composition and the incidence of nonnative species within communities; and ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan 2006; State of California 2018).

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
Climate change and GHG emissions are governed by an evolving body of laws, regulations, and case law. Below are summaries of key regulations; however, the discussion below should not be considered exhaustive of this growing body of regulation.

ATTACHMENT 10 -145
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-5
a. Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The U.S. Supreme Court determined in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has the authority to regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions under the Federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines and requires annual reporting of emissions. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final Rule that established the GHG permitting thresholds that determine when Clean Air Act permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (134 Supreme Court 2427 [2014]), the U.S. Supreme Court held the USEPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source can be considered a major source required to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration or Title V permit. The Court also held that Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits otherwise required based on emissions of other pollutants may continue to require limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology.

Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule
On September 27, 2019, the USEPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program.

The SAFE Rule Part One revokes California’s authority to set its own GHG emissions standards and to adopt its own zero-emission vehicle mandates. On April 30, 2020, the USEPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published Part Two of the SAFE Vehicles Rule, which revised corporate average fuel economy and CO2 emissions standards for passenger cars and trucks of model years 2021 to 2026 such that the standards increase by approximately 1.5 percent each year through model year 2026 as compared to the approximately five percent annual increase required under the 2012 standards (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2020). To account for the effects of the SAFE Vehicles Rule, California Air Resources Board (CARB) released off-model adjustment factors on June 26, 2020 to adjust GHG emissions outputs from the EMFAC model (CARB 2020).
b. State
California Advanced Clean Cars Program
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost- effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, the USEPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, beginning with the 2009 model year, which allowed California to implement more stringent vehicle emission standards than those promulgated by the USEPA. Pavley I regulates model years from 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG,” regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the LEV, Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, the rules will be fully implemented, and new ATTACHMENT 10 -146
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.5-6
automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels (CARB 2011). However, as a result of the SAFE Vehicles Rule discussed above, California’s waiver of Clean Air Act preemption was revoked, thereby rescinding the CARB’s authority to implement the Advanced Clean Cars program.

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32)
The “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” (AB 32), outlines California’s major legislative initiative for reducing GHG emissions. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHG emissions to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 target of 431 million metric tons (MMT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which was achieved in 2016.

The CARB approved the Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008, which included GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among others (CARB 2008). Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted since the Scoping Plan’s approval.

The CARB approved the 2013 Scoping Plan update in May 2014. The update defined the CARB’s climate change priorities for the next five years, set the groundwork to reach post-2020 statewide goals, and highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the “near-term” 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. It also evaluated how to align the state’s longer term GHG reduction strategies with other state policy priorities, including those for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use (CARB 2014).

On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law, extending the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 by requiring the State to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 and SB 100 (discussed later). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally-appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with statewide per capita goals of six MT of CO 2e by 2030 and two MT of CO2e by 2050
(CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, sub-regional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State (CARB 2017).

Senate Bill 375
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the State’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG reduction targets, and affordable housing ATTACHMENT 10 -147
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-7
allocations. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

Qualified projects consistent with an approved SCS or Alternative Planning Strategy (categorized as “transit priority projects”) can receive incentives to streamline CEQA processing.

On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) was assigned targets of an 8 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 2035. In the SCAG region, SB 375 also provides the option for the coordinated development of subregional plans by the subregional councils of governments and the county transportation commissions to meet SB 375 requirements. On September 3, 2020, the SCAG’s Regional Council formally adopted the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS entitled Connect SoCal, which meets the requirements of SB 375.

Senate Bill 1383
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 (Lara, Chapter 395, Statues of 2016) requires the CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. SB 1383 requires the strategy to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:
 Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
 Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
 Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels As a result, the CARB adopted the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy in 2017 and has initiated implementation. SB 1383 also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with the CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills. CalRecycle has initiated the rulemaking process for these regulations with the proposed regulation text submitted to the Office of Administrative Law in October 2020.

Senate Bill 100
Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires 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.

Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, former Governor Brown issued Executive Order (EO) B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.

California Building Standards Code
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) is referred to as the California Building Standards Code. It consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, and handicap ATTACHMENT 10 -148
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.5-8
accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The current iteration is the 2019 Title 24 standards, which the City of Burbank has adopted in Burbank Municipal Code. The California Building Standards Code’s energy-efficiency and green building standards are outlined below.

Part 6 – Building Energy Efficiency Standards/Energy Code CCR Title 24, Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards or California Energy Code. This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and non- residential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submittal and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the California Energy Commission (CEC).

Part 11 – California Green Building Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, was added to Title 24 as Part 11, first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory effective January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 California Building Standards Code). The 2019 CALGreen includes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of residential and non-residential structures. It also includes voluntary tiers (Tiers I and II) with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of residential and non-residential buildings. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory CALGreen standards and may adopt additional amendments for stricter requirements.

The mandatory standards require:
 20 percent reduction in indoor water use relative to specified baseline levels; 1  65 percent construction/demolition waste diverted from landfills;  Inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency;  Low-pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring, and particleboards;
 Dedicated circuitry to facilitate installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in newly constructed attached garages for single-family and duplex dwellings (“EV ready”); and  Designation of at least ten percent of parking spaces for multi-family residential developments as electric vehicle charging spaces capable of supporting future electric vehicle supply equipment (“EV capable”).

The voluntary standards require:
 Tier I: stricter energy efficiency requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 65 percent reduction in construction waste with third-party verification, 10 percent recycled content for building materials, 20 percent permeable paving, 20 percent cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective roof; and
 Tier II: stricter energy efficiency requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 75 percent reduction in construction waste with third-party verification,

1 Similar to the compliance reporting procedure for demonstrating Energy Code compliance in new buildings and major renovations, compliance with the CALGreen water-reduction requirements must be demonstrated through completion of water use reporting forms.

Buildings must demonstrate a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use by either showing a 20 percent reduction in the overall baseline water use as identified by CALGreen or a reduced per-plumbing-fixture water use rate.

ATTACHMENT 10 -149
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-9
15 percent recycled content for building materials, 30 percent permeable paving, 25 percent cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective roof.

California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 341) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as modified by AB 341 in 2011, requires each jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element to include an implementation schedule that shows: (1) diversion of 25 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 1995 through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities; and (2) diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000.
c. Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin, which includes Los Angeles, Orange, and the urbanized portions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, including the Plan Area. SCAQMD works directly with SCAG, County transportation commissions, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and State government agencies to regulate air quality.

In April 2008, the SCAQMD, in order to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining the significance of GHG emissions identified in CEQA documents, convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group. The goal of the working group is to develop and reach consensus on an acceptable CEQA-significance thresholds for GHG emissions that may be utilized on an interim basis until CARB (or some other State agency) develops guidance on assessing the significance of GHG emissions under CEQA.

Southern California Association of Governments
On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council voted to approve and fully adopt the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020 RTP/SCS), also known as Connect SoCal. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS builds upon the progress made through implementation of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and includes ten goals focused on promoting economic prosperity, improving mobility, protecting the environment, and supporting healthy/complete communities.

The SCS implementation strategies include focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies. The SCS establishes a land use vision of center focused placemaking, concentrating growth in and near Priority Growth Areas, transferring of development rights, urban greening, creating greenbelts and community separators, and implementing regional advance mitigation (SCAG 2020).

The SCS technical report of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS demonstrates the region’s ability to attain and exceed the GHG emission reduction targets set forth by CARB; and outlines the region’s plan for integrating the transportation network and related strategies with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs, changing demographics, and transportation demands. The regional vision of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS maximizes current voluntary local efforts that support the goals of SB 375. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS emphasizes new housing and job growth in transit priority areas, livable corridors, high-quality transit areas, and neighborhood mobility areas in existing main streets, downtowns, and commercial corridors, resulting in an improved jobs- ATTACHMENT 10 -150
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.5-10
housing balance and more opportunity for transit-oriented development. This overall land use development pattern supports and complements the proposed transportation network that emphasizes system preservation, active transportation, and transportation demand management measures.

SCAG’s SCS provides specific strategies and tools for successful implementation. These include supporting projects that provide diverse housing choices, focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, leveraging technology innovations such as bike sharing and neighborhood electric vehicles, implementing congestion pricing, improvements to pedestrian infrastructure, and more. d. Local
Burbank2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The City of Burbank adopted the Burbank2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) in 2013.

Guided by the framework set forth in the City’s 2035 General Plan, the GGRP implements Goal 3 and associated Policies 3.1 and 3.2. Policy 3.1 establishes the target for Burbank to reduce communitywide GHG emissions by at least 15 percent from current levels by 2020, and Policy 3.2 establishes the goal to reduce emissions by at least 30 percent from current levels by 2035. This target and goal are consistent with statewide efforts established in the Scoping Plan to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (City of Burbank 2013).

Based on the 2010 jurisdictional emissions inventory and projections for the City provided in the GGRP, the 2020 communitywide emissions reduction target is 1,430,120 MT of CO 2e/year.

Reductions from current statewide policies would contribute emissions reductions of 368,670 MT of CO2e/year. Therefore, local actions must address an emissions gap of 61,109 MT of CO2e/year by 2020. To achieve the 2035 communitywide emissions reduction goal of 1,177,746 MT of CO2e/year, the City would require reductions of 949,754 MT of CO2e/year. Reductions achieved from statewide policies would contribute 494,944 MT of CO2e/year and local actions would be needed to achieve the remaining emissions gap of 454,810 MT of CO2e/year by 2035.

The Draft GGRP Update, which was released in August 2021, included an inventory of communitywide emissions (City of Burbank 2021). As of 2019, the City has reduced GHG emission by 28 percent from 2010 baseline emission levels, well-exceeding the 2020 target in the original GGRP and approaching the 2035 target established well in advance of the horizon year. To reflect new State goals established by SB 32 and EO B-55-18, the Draft GGRP Update recommends aggressive GHG emissions targets including:
 Reduce GHG emissions to 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2030 (SB 32 target year),  Reduce GHG emissions to 66 percent below 2010 levels by 2035 (General Plan horizon year), and
 Achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 (EO B-55-18 target year).

As discussed in Section 4.1, Air Quality, the Burbank2035 General Plan provides goals and policies related to GHG reductions in the Air Quality and Climate Change Element. The specific goals and policies include the following:

Goal 3: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ATTACHMENT 10 -151
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-11
Policy 3.1: Develop and adopt a binding, enforceable reduction target and mitigation measures and actions to reduce communitywide greenhouse gas emissions within Burbank by at least 15 percent from current levels by 2020.

Policy 3.2: Establish a goal and strategies to reduce communitywide greenhouse gas emissions by at least 30 percent from current levels by 2035.

Policy 3.3: Continue to participate in the Cities for Climate Protection program and applicable State and federal climate change programs.

Policy 3.4: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new development by promoting water conservation and recycling; promoting development that is compact, mixed-use, pedestrian- friendly, and transit-oriented; promoting energy-efficient building design and site planning; and improving the jobs/housing ratio.

Policy 3.5: Submit an annual report on implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, in conjunction with the annual report to the City Council regarding implementation of Burbank2035.

Policy 3.6: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging the retrofit of older, energy inefficient buildings.

Policy 3.8: Transition all economic sectors, new development, and existing infrastructure and development to low- or zero-carbon energy sources. Encourage implementation and provide incentives for low- or zero-carbon energy sources.

Goal 4: Climate Change
Policy 4.1: Evaluate the potential effects of climate change on Burbank’s human and natural systems and prepare strategies that allow the City to appropriately respond.

Policy 4.2: Consult with state resource and emergency management agencies regarding updates to climate change science and development of adaptation priorities.

4.5.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology
As discussed in the Chapter 2, Project Description, the City’s housing goal is to ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the Housing Element Update to accommodate the RHNA with a buffer (a total of 10,456 additional housing units) throughout the eight-year planning period. As proposed zoning generally accommodates residential densities between 27 and 87 units per acre, the majority of new development is intended to be multi-family residential, however, buildout may include lower densities. Consistent with the existing housing types in Burbank, this analysis conservatively assumes that 48.5 percent of new development would be single-family residential (5,071 units) and

51.5 percent would be multi-family residential (5,385 units).

Additionally, as discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, several of the proposed zone changes in Housing Opportunity Sites would include an increase in commercial floor area ratio (FAR). This would allow for up to an additional 1,428,827 square feet of commercial to be developed than is currently allowed.

GHG emissions result from both direct and indirect sources. Direct emissions include emissions from fuel combustion in vehicles and natural gas combustion from stationary sources. Indirect sources ATTACHMENT 10 -152
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.5-12
include off-site emissions occurring because of electricity and water consumption and solid waste generation. In addition, construction activities would result in direct and indirect emissions.

Mobile Sources
Mobile source emissions were estimated using vehicle activity data presented in Section 4.11, Transportation, and vehicle emission rates from CARB’s EMFAC2017 model. Overall residential VMT growth and employment VMT growth between the existing (2021) condition and the future (2029) condition were attributed to the Housing Element Update. As shown in Table 4.5-1, buildout of the existing land use designations would gradually increase vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). However, per capita and per employee VMT would each diminish due to reduced trip lengths.

Table 4.5-1 Vehicle Activity Data for the Housing Element Update Activity Existing (2021) With Project (2029) Project vs. No Project (2029)1 Residential VMT 1,219,394 1,187,371 -32,023 (-2.6%)
Residential Vehicle Trips 4,911 788,283 +4,911 (+3.4%) Residential Average Trip Length 8.5 8.0 -0.5 (-5.9%)
Residential VMT per capita 11.3 9.2 -2.1 (-18.5%)

Employment VMT 2,016,992 2,198,215 +181,223 (+9.0%)
Employment Vehicle Trips 128,750 142,510 +13,760 (+10.7%) Employment Average Trip Length 15.7 15.4 -0.2 (-1.5%)
Employment VMT per Employee 16.9 16.7 -0.2 (-1.3%)
1 Quantities may not sum properly due to independent rounding.

VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled
Source: Fehr & Peers 2021
Energy Sources
Energy use emissions were calculated according to the methodology explained in Appendix A of the CalEEMod User Guide, Version 2020.4.0. The energy use estimates account for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24). This is a conservative assumption since the energy use estimates do not account for potential energy efficiency measures required by subsequent Title 24 updates in 2022, 2025, and 2028.

Electricity emissions are calculated by multiplying the energy use times the carbon intensity of the utility district per kilowatt hour (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 2021). The Project would be served by Burbank Water and Power. Therefore, Burbank Water and Power specific energy intensity factors (i.e., the amount of CO 2, CH4, and N2O per kilowatt-hour) are
used in the calculations of GHG emissions. The energy intensity factors included in CalEEMod are based on 2021 data. As of 2020, Burbank Water and Power is projected to procure 33 percent of its electricity from renewable sources and as of 2021 is projected procure 43 percent of its electricity from renewable sources (Burbank Water and Power 2018). Consistent with the requirements of SB 100, Burbank Water and Power is retiring procurement of electricity from coal-fueled power plants in 2025, which currently represents approximately 28 percent of its electricity procurement (Burbank Water and Power 2019). By 2030, Burbank Water and Power is projected to procure 67 percent of its electricity from renewable sources (Burbank Water and Power 2018). To account for ATTACHMENT 10 -153
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-13
the continuing effects of the RPS, the energy intensity factors included in CalEEMod were reduced to reflect 67 percent renewable energy procurement in 2030. Burbank Water and Power energy intensity factors that include this reduction are shown in Table 4.5-2.

Table 4.5-2 Burbank Water and Power Energy Intensity Factors

2021
(lbs./MWh)
2030
(lbs./MWh)
Percent procurement1 43% 67%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 929.98 538.41
Methane (CH4) 0.033 0.019
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.004 0.002
1 Source: Burbank Water and Power 2019 Integrated Resource Plan lbs./MWh = pounds per megawatt-hour
Area Sources
Emissions associated with area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating, were calculated in CalEEMod and utilize standard emission rates from CARB, USEPA, and emission factor values provided by the local air district (CAPCOA 2017).

Water and Wastewater Emissions
Water used and wastewater produced by a project generate indirect GHG emissions. These emissions are a result of the energy used to supply, convey, and treat water and wastewater. In addition to the indirect GHG emissions associated with energy use, the wastewater treatment process itself can directly emit both CH
4 and N2O. Indoor and outdoor water use was estimated
based on average consumption rates from the Pacific Institute’s Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California (2003).

Solid Waste Emissions
The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from the transportation of waste, anaerobic decomposition in landfills, and incineration. To calculate the GHG emissions generated by solid waste disposal, the total volume of solid waste was calculated using waste disposal rates identified by CalRecycle. The methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste are based on the IPCC method, using the degradable organic content of waste. GHG emissions associated with the project’s waste disposal were calculated using these parameters. The disposal of solid waste produces GHG emissions from the transportation of waste, anaerobic decomposition in landfills, and incineration. As of 2016, California had achieved a statewide 44 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills through “reduce/recycle/compost” programs (CalRecycle 2020).

Construction
GHG emissions would also be generated by construction activity. No specific development projects have been proposed as part of the Housing Element Update; therefore, an annualized quantification of construction emissions would be speculative. In addition, construction-related GHG emissions would be a negligible percentage of total regional emissions when considering the emissions generated by mobile sources. As stated in the 2020-2045 SCAG RTP/SCS PEIR, construction related emissions account for less than 0.3 percent of total regional emissions (SCAG 2020). Nevertheless, ATTACHMENT 10 -154
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.5-14
construction emissions are calculated and amortized over 30 years in accordance with SCAQMD recommendations.

The number of new housing units anticipated under the Housing Element Update (total of 10,456 additional housing units) was used to model GHG emissions generated by construction activities for reasonably foreseeable development. For projects that involve development of land uses that occupy more than 34 acres, CalEEMod extrapolates longer phase duration rather than increasing the estimated amount of equipment and number of workers. As such, emissions estimates were modeled for a project including 51 single-family units, 54 multi-family units, and 15,000 square feet of commercial area; results were multiplied by a factor of 100. This is a slightly conservative estimate as it is estimating emissions from 5,100 single-family units, 5,400 multi-family units, and 1,500,000 square feet. GHG construction emissions are amortized.

CalEEMod does not assume any export of demolition debris or any soil import/export from grading.

As few vacant sites remain in the City, development accommodated under the Housing Element Update would result from infill development are the replacement of underutilized, low-density development. This analysis conservatively assumes demolition of existing buildings equal to one-half of the floor area of new development. Housing development typically balances grading cut and fill materials on-site to reduce costs; nonetheless, development accommodated under the Housing Element Update may include sites that require substantial grading including that needed to accommodate subterranean parking facilities. This analysis assumes an average cut depth of 10 feet for the area of the building footprint and that 25 percent of the cut soil would be exported. With these factors included, CalEEMod was used to conservatively estimate GHG emissions resulting from housing development accommodated under the Housing Element Update. With these factors included, CalEEMod was used to estimate reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions resulting from the Housing Element Update.
b. Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of significance are based on the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix B) determined that a potentially significant impact might occur under the following threshold and therefore will be analyzed in this section of the EIR.

Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases
To answer the Appendix G questions above for the Housing Element Update, the City will rely on the following project-specific threshold of significance to assess the environmental impacts associated with GHG emissions.

Consistency with State Scoping Plan (SB 32), 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (SB 375), and the Burbank2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The basis for the project specific threshold is provided as follows. The City has not adopted specific GHG significance thresholds. SCAQMD has not adopted a GHG significance threshold for land use development projects, although it has adopted significance thresholds for industrial-type projects for which it is the lead agency (SCAQMD 2010). Those industrial thresholds are not relevant to the Housing Element Update, as the only projects for which the SCAQMD serves as the lead agency are ATTACHMENT 10 -155
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-15
those involving the adoption of air quality rules or regulations, or those projects that have not gone through CEQA environmental review via another lead agency. No industrial projects would be accommodated by the Housing Element Update. In the absence of adopted thresholds for land use development projects based on SCAQMD guidance, the City has the discretion to use a significance threshold relevant to the Housing Element Update.

On November 30, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion on GHG significance thresholds for CEQA in the case Center for Biological Diversity et al. vs. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The following discussion is paraphrased from that case, which assessed the use of GHG significance thresholds.

The Court stated that California air pollution control officials and air quality districts have made several proposals for numerical thresholds. Multiple agencies’ efforts at framing GHG significance issues have not yet coalesced into any widely accepted set of numerical thresholds, but have produced a certain level of consensus on the value of consistency with the State plans to meet GHG reduction targets as a criterion. The CARB Scoping Plan has not set out a method for CEQA analysis of GHG emissions from a proposed project. A 2007 CEQA amendment, however, required the preparation, adoption, and periodic update of guidelines for mitigation of GHG impacts. The resulting State direction was that a lead agency should attempt to describe, calculate, or estimate the amount of GHG emissions a project will emit, but recognized that agencies have discretion in how to do so. The amendment provides that when assessing the significance of GHG emissions, the agency should consider these factors among others: (1) the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; (2) whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and (3) the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project.

The Court also acknowledged that the scope of global climate change and the fact that GHGs, once released into the atmosphere, are not contained in the local area of their emission means that the evaluated impacts are global rather than local. For many air pollutants, the significance of their environmental impact may depend greatly on where they are emitted, but this is not the case for GHG emissions. For projects that are designed to accommodate long-term growth in California’s population and economic activity in a sustainable manner, such as the Housing Element Update, this fact gives rise to an argument that a certain amount of GHG emissions is as inevitable as population growth. Under this view, a significance criterion framed in terms of efficiency and conservation in land use (as compared to a business-as-usual [BAU] pattern of growth) is superior to a simple numerical threshold because CEQA is not intended as a population control measure.

This consideration favors consistency with statewide GHG reduction targets as a permissible significance criterion for project GHG emissions. Meeting statewide reduction goals does not preclude all new development. Rather, the Scoping Plan, the State’s roadmap for meeting statewide GHG reduction targets, assumes continued growth and depends on increased efficiency and conservation in land use and transportation from all Californians. To the extent a project incorporates efficiency and conservation measures sufficient to contribute its portion of the overall GHG reductions necessary for the entire State, one can reasonably argue that its impact is not ATTACHMENT 10 -156
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.5-16
cumulatively considerable, because it would be helping to solve the cumulative problem of GHG emissions as envisioned by California law. Given the reality of growth, some GHG emissions from new housing developments are inevitable. The critical CEQA question is the cumulative significance of a project’s GHG emissions and, as discussed previously, from a climate change point of view it does not matter where in the State those emissions are produced. Under these circumstances, evaluating the significance of a project’s GHG emissions with respect to their effect on the State’s efforts to meet its long-term goals is a reasonable threshold.

The Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity recognized potential options for analyzing cumulative significance of a project’s GHG emissions, including:
 BAU Model. BAU comparison based on the Scoping Plan methodology if supported by substantial evidence that the metric used supports what level of reduction from business as usual a new land use development at the proposed location must contribute to comply with state goals.
 Consistency with AB 32’s goal in whole or in part by looking at compliance with regulatory programs designed to reduce GHG; provided the project complies with or exceeds the regulations that were adopted by CARB, or state agencies to comply with Scoping Plan; and provided, the significance analysis only relates to impacts within the area governed by the regulation – e.g., reliance on Title 24 energy efficiency rules that are intended to reduce GHG from building would not address GHG impacts from transportation. And/or showing consistency with local GHG reduction plans, (e.g., climate action plan), to provide a basis for the tiering or streamlining of project-level CEQA analysis, including as consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3.
 Relying on numerical thresholds for significance for GHG.

As discussed with in Regulatory Setting, Section 15064.4 was amended in 2019 to incorporate the holding in Center for Biological Diversity case as well as others. That section now directs lead agencies as follows:

Section 15064.4. Determining the Significance of Impacts from Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (a) The determination of the significance of greenhouse gas emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency consistent with the provisions in Section 15064. A lead agency shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. A lead agency shall have discretion to determine, in the context of a particular project, whether to:
(1) Quantify greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project; and/or (2) Rely on a qualitative analysis or performance-based standards. (b) In determining the significance of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions, the lead agency should focus its analysis on the reasonably foreseeable incremental contribution of the project’s emissions to the effects of climate change. A project’s incremental contribution may be cumulatively considerable even if it appears relatively small compared to statewide, national or global emissions. The agency’s analysis should consider a timeframe that is appropriate for the project. The agency’s analysis also must reasonably reflect evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes. A lead agency should consider the ATTACHMENT 10 -157
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-17
following factors, among others, when determining the significance of impacts from greenhouse gas emissions on the environment:
(1) The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting;
(2) Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.
(3) The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions (see, e.g., Section 15183.5(b)). Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project's incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project. In determining the significance of impacts, the lead agency may consider a project’s consistency with the State’s long- term climate goals or strategies, provided that substantial evidence supports the agency’s analysis of how those goals or strategies address the project’s incremental contribution to climate change and its conclusion that the project’s incremental contribution is not cumulatively considerable.
(c) A lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. The lead agency has discretion to select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change. The lead agency must support its selection of a model or methodology with substantial evidence. The lead agency should explain the limitations of the particular model or methodology selected for use.

Based on the above legal standards, the City finds analyzing the Project’s GHG emissions through consistency with the State’s laws and programs to address climate change, including SB 32, SB 375, regional plans to address climate change consistent with State laws and plans, including the 2020- 2045 SCS/RTP, and local plans, ordinances and policies to address climate change, including Burbank2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, is the appropriate threshold.

Basis for Estimate of Project’s GHG Emissions
As stated above, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.4(a) states a lead agency shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual date, to describe and estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.4(c) states a lead agency may use a model or methodology to estimate GHG emissions resulting from the project and that the lead agency has the discretion to select the model or methodology is considers most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change.

Calculating and analyzing per-service population GHG emissions, while not a threshold of significance, is a useful indicator as to whether regional GHG impacts are consistent with State plans to meet the GHG reduction target established by SB 32. Per-service population GHG emissions reflect average GHG emissions taking into account population density. As discussed in the 2017 Scoping Plan goals, local jurisdictions may demonstrate consistency with Scoping Plan goals (i.e., ATTACHMENT 10 -158
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.5-18
SB 32’s emission reduction target) by establishing communitywide emissions targets tied to the statewide per capita goals of 6 MTCO2e per capita by 2030. The City of Burbank has a current population of 104,969. As discussed in Section 4.8, Population and Housing, buildout accommodated by the Housing Element Update is anticipated to increase the City’s population from 104,969 persons to approximately 130,586 persons. Based on SCAG Regional Growth Forecasts, the City is anticipated to have approximately 128,658 jobs in 2030 (SCAG 2020). Therefore, as shown in Table 4.5-3, the communitywide emissions target of 6 MTCO2e may be equated to approximately

3.0 MTCO2e per service population.2
Table 4.5-3 Service Population Emissions Level Target Determination Metric Quantity Source
Service Population Derivation
Population, 2030 130,586 persons Section 4.8, Population and Housing Employment, 2030 128,658 jobs SCAG 2020-2045 Growth Forecast Service Population, 2030 259,244 SP 130,586 + 128,658
2030 Communitywide Target Derivation
Per Capita Target 6.0 MTCO2e per capita 2017 Scoping Plan Mass Emissions Target 783,516 MTCO2e 6.0 MTCO2e * 130,586 persons Service Population Target 3.0 MTCO2e/SP 783,516 MTCO2e ÷ 259,244 SP Source: 2017 Scoping Plan (CARB 2017); 2020-2045 Growth Forecast (SCAG 2020) In accordance with the objectives and requirements of SB 375, the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS assessed regional per-capita GHG emissions from passenger and light duty vehicles. As noted above, regional targets intended to be addressed by the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS include reducing per capita GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks for the SCAG region to 19 percent below 2005 levels.

Using consistency with statewide GHG reduction targets, among the other regulations, standards and policies, rather than a numerical threshold, as a significance criterion is also consistent with the broad guidance provided by Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15064.4, to reflect that there is no iron-clad definition of significance. Section 15064.4 was not intended to restrict agency discretion in choosing a method for assessing GHG emissions, but rather to assist lead agencies in investigating and disclosing all that they reasonably can, regarding a project’s GHG emissions impact.

2 For comparison, this analysis evaluated what a 40 percent reduction (i.e., SB 32’s emission reduction target for 2030) in SCAQMD’s Tier 4 2020 efficiency targets. This method would derive a 4.0 MTCO2e per service population threshold. The 2.8 MTCO2e per service population threshold is more conservative and is more appropriate as it uses local (rather than statewide) growth forecasts.

ATTACHMENT 10 -159
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-19
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the proposed Project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Threshold 2: Would the proposed Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact GHG-1 THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS CONSISTENT WITH STATE PLANS TO MEET THE GHG REDUCTION TARGET ESTABLISHED BY SB 32 (STATE SCOPING PLAN), THE 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, AND THE BURBANK2035 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLAN. AS THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE IS CONSISTENT WITH

ALL STATE, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL PLANS TO REDUCE GHG EMISSIONS, IMPACTS RELATED TO GHG EMISSIONS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Based on the analysis below, the Housing Element Update would be consistent with measures from the State Scoping Plan and GHG emission would not exceed per capita emissions levels identified in the State Scoping Plan. The Housing Element Update would also be consistent with the goals of the 2020-2045 SCS/RTP and the Burbank2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan. The Housing Element Update impacts to GHG would be less than significant.
2017 Scoping Plan (SB 32 Implementation)
There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted to reduce GHG emissions. The principal policy and State plan are SB 32 and the State Scoping Plan that outlines the strategies for reducing GHG emissions to meet the 2030 GHG reduction targets established by SB 32. The Scoping Plan measures applicable to the Project include energy efficiency measures, water conservation and efficiency measures, and transportation and motor vehicle measures, as discussed below.

The following policies in the Housing Element Update would help reduce GHG emissions through promoting transportation and land use design factors, such as intensification and reuse of already developed lands in proximity to transit and commercial areas, that would be relevant to reducing GHG emissions:

Policy 2.4: Allow residential units in traditionally non-residential areas including mixed-use areas, and support adaptive reuse of non-residential buildings for residential and live-work units.

Policy 3.8: Encourage use of sustainable and green building design in new and existing housing.

ATTACHMENT 10 -160
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.5-20
Based on the analysis provided in Table 4.5-4 below, the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the State’s Climate Change Scoping Plan’s actions and strategies for reducing 2030 GHG emissions in accordance with SB 32.

Table 4.5-4 Consistency Analysis – SB 32 and 2017 Scoping Plan Actions and Strategies Responsible Project Consistency Analysis Senate Bill 100 (SB 100). The California
Renewables Portfolio Standard
Program (2018) requires a Statewide
renewables energy portfolio that
requires retail sellers to procure
renewable energy that is at least 50
percent by December 31, 2026 and 60
percent by December 31, 2030. It
would also require that local publicly
owned electric utilities procure a
minimum quantity of electricity from
renewable energy resources achieve 44
percent of retail sales by December 31,
2024 and 60 percent by December 31,
2030.

Burbank Water and
Power, California Energy
Commission
Consistent. Burbank Water and Power is
required to generate electricity that would
increase renewable energy resources to 60
percent by 2030. As Burbank Water and Power
would provide electricity service to the housing
development accommodated by the Housing
Element Update, development would benefit
indirectly by reduced GHG emissions from SB
100.

Implement Mobile Source Strategy
(Cleaner Technology and Fuels)
 At least 1.5 million zero emission and
plug-in hybrid light-duty electric
vehicles by 2025.
 At least 4.2 million zero emission and
plug-in hybrid light-duty electric
vehicles by 2030.
 Further increase GHG stringency on
all light-duty vehicles beyond existing
Advanced Clean Cars regulations.
 Medium- and heavy-duty GHG Phase

2.  Innovative Clean Transit
 Last Mile Delivery
Further reduce VMT through continued
implementation of SB 375 and regional
Sustainable Communities Strategies;
forthcoming statewide implementation
of SB 743; and potential additional
VMT reduction strategies not specified
in the Mobile Source Strategy but
included in the document “Potential
VMT Reduction Strategies for
Discussion.”
CARB, California State
Transportation Agency,
Southern California Gas,
Caltrans California
Energy Commission,
Office of Planning and
Research, local agencies
Consistent. GHG emissions generated by
vehicular travel related to the Housing Element
Update would benefit from proposed regulation,
and mobile source emissions generated by the
build out of the RHNA would be reduced with
implementation of standards under the
Advanced Clean Cars Program and the 2020-
2045 RTP/SCS.

Increase Stringency of SB 375
Sustainable Communities Strategy
(2035 Targets)
CARB Consistent. As discussed below, the Housing
Element Update would be consistent with the
2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

ATTACHMENT 10 -161
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-21
Actions and Strategies Responsible Project Consistency Analysis Mobile
Implement the Short-Lived Climate
Pollutant Strategy by 2030:
 40 percent reduction in methane and
hydrofluorocarbon emissions below
2013 levels.
50 percent reduction in black carbon
emissions below 2013 levels.

CARB, CalRecycle,
California Department of
Food and Agriculture,
California State Water
Resources Control Board,
local air districts
Consistent. Housing development
accommodated by the Housing Element Update
would comply with the CARB Short-Lived Climate
Pollutant (SLCP) Reduction Strategy, which limits
the use of hydrofluorocarbons for refrigeration
uses.

Source: CARB, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, November 2017.

GHG Emissions Generation
Housing development accommodated under the proposed Housing Element Update would generate GHG emissions through the construction and operation of individual housing projects. GHG emissions would specifically arise from direct sources such as motor vehicles, natural gas consumption, solid waste handling/treatment, and indirect sources such as electricity generation.

Table 4.5-5 estimates emissions associated with the Housing Element Update. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Housing Element Update would accommodate construction of housing in locations with good access to jobs, services, and high-quality public transit. The increase in housing and the additional commercial uses would result in an increase in emissions of 70,685 MTCO
2e.

As discussed in the Section 4.5.3, Thresholds of Significance, the 2017 Scoping Plan recommends that local governments adopt policies consistent with a statewide per capita goal of 6 MTCO2e by 2030, which equates to a per service population level of 3.0 MTCO2e per service population. The Housing Element Update GHG emissions would equate to 2.3 MTCO2e per service population level, which is below the level necessary to demonstrate consistency with the statewide 2030 GHG reduction targets established by SB 32. This is not a threshold of significance. However, the low per service area emission levels of the Housing Element Update coupled with the consistency analysis above supports that the Housing Element Update would be consistent with the State’s Climate Change Scoping Plan’s objective of reducing 2030 GHG emissions in accordance with SB 32.

Table 4.5-5 GHG Emissions under the Housing Element Update Source
Forecasted Activity Level Increase
(2029)
Forecasted 2029 GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Transportation -11.7 Million Residential VMT/year
+66.1 Million Employment
VMT/year
16,695
Electricity 80.3 GWh/year1 19,658
Natural Gas 1,993 Thousand Therms/year1 10,696
Water Supply
Potable Water Supply
Wastewater Treatment

1,281 Million Gallons/year
787 Million Gallons/year
4,923
Solid Waste 9,924 tons 4,991
Other Area Sources2 -- 3,109
Construction Emissions (Amortized) -- 1,782
ATTACHMENT 10 -162
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.5-22
Source
Forecasted Activity Level Increase
(2029)
Forecasted 2029 GHG Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Total -- 61,854
Residents3 25,617 persons
Employment 1,534 jobs
Emissions Rate per Service Population 2.3 MTCO2e/SP
Service Population Emissions Level Target 3.0 MTCO2e/SP 1 Energy use estimates are conservative. Estimates do not account for energy efficiency measures required by the 2019 Title 24 energy efficiency or potential energy efficiency measures required by subsequent Title 24 updates in 2022, 2025, and 2028. 2 Other area sources include hearths and landscaping equipment. 3 Residents estimated by multiplying average household size of 2.45 times 10,456 units.

VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled; GWh = Gigawatt-hours; SP = Service Population SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (SB 32 Implementation)
SB 375 requires that each MPO prepare a SCS with the RTP that demonstrates how the region will meet GHG emissions targets. SB 375 establishes a collaborative relationship between MPOs and CARB to establish GHG emissions targets for each region in the state.

SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS was developed to provide a blueprint to integrate land use and transportation strategies to help achieve a coordinated and balanced regional transportation system. As discussed in Section 4.5.2, State Regulatory Framework, SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS is a regional plan intended to reduce per capita GHG emission from automobiles and light trucks for the SCAG region to 19 percent below 2005 levels. The SCS implementation strategies include focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies.

The SCS focuses the majority of new housing and job growth in high-quality transit areas and other opportunity areas on existing main streets, in downtowns, and on commercial corridors, resulting in an improved jobs-housing balance and more opportunity for transit-oriented development. The underlying purpose of the Housing Element Update is to plan for and accommodate the RHNA compliant with State law and consistent with the City’s Burbank2035 General Plan.

As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, while some housing development accommodated by the Housing Element Update may occur anywhere existing housing is currently allowed, most housing development is anticipated to occur in higher-intensity commercial and mixed use districts, centers and boulevards, and in proximity to transit. The rezoning of housing opportunity sites is focused in twelve sites within the Downtown Transit-Oriented-Development Specific Plan area and seven sites are located in the proposed Golden State Specific Plan area. These sites are all located in highly urbanized areas in the City and are clustered within one mile of Interstate 5 (I-5). As shown in Table 4.5-1, the Housing Element Update would result in an 18.5 percent reduction of residential VMT per capita and a 1.3 percent reduction employment VMT per employee due to the reduced average trip lengths.

As discussed further in Section 4.8, Population and Housing, the State requires that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of their communities. The proposed element provides appropriate guidance for the residential growth that would occur with or without Project implementation. The Housing Element focuses on expanding housing opportunities for all segments of the population and improving the quality of existing housing stock. Although the Housing Element Update would facilitate development beyond what is forecasted in SCAG’s 2020 ATTACHMENT 10 -163
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-23
RTP/SCS, it would reduce per capita and per employee GHG emissions from mobile sources and would contribute to updating the forecasts for the City’s General Plan and the RTP/SCS into consistency. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not conflict with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Burbank2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan
The City of Burbank adopted the 2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) in 2013. Guided by the framework set forth in the City’s 2035 General Plan, the GGRP implements Goal 3 and associated Policies 3.1 and 3.2. Policy 3.1 establishes the target for Burbank to reduce communitywide GHG emissions by at least 15 percent from 2010 baseline levels by 2020; Policy 3.2 establishes the goal to reduce emissions by at least 30 percent from 2010 baseline levels by 2035.

Based on the consistency analysis in Table 4.5-6 below, the Housing Element Update is consistent with Burbank GGRP.

Table 4.5-6 Consistency Analysis – Burbank2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Measure E-1.1
Action A: Adopt an ordinance requiring new commercial
construction to exceed the California Green Building
Standards Code energy efficiency baseline by 15% starting in 2015
Consistent. Housing development accommodated
under the Housing Element would comply with
applicable building ordinances including the Green
Building Standards Code.

Measure E-1.2
Action A: Adopt an ordinance requiring HERS-certified energy performance ratings for all residential buildings sold
within the City
Action B: Adopt an ordinance requiring point-of-sale energy audits for all residential and commercial buildings sold within the City
Action C: Develop a comprehensive energy efficiency upgrade outreach program
Consistent. Housing development accommodated
under the Housing Element would comply with
applicable building ordinances. Housing Element
Policy 3.6 would involve encouraging the retrofit of
older, energy inefficient buildings.

Measure E-1.7
Action A: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require installation of two on-site shade trees for each new single-family
residential unit
Action B: Continue the BWP Made in the Shade Program
Action C: Update the Street Tree Plan and Urban Forestry program
Consistent. Housing development accommodated
under the Housing Element would comply with
applicable building ordinances.

Measure E-2.1
Action A: Adopt an ordinance requiring new single-family residential construction to include 1.8 kWh solar PV
systems, and new multi
-family residential and commercial
construction to meet 10% of its expected energy needs
from on
-site renewable sources
Action B: Adopt an ordinance requiring solar water heaters to be installed in all new residential construction
Action C: Update the building code to require pre-wiring and pre-plumbing for solar PV and solar hot water systems in all new construction
Consistent. Housing development accommodated
under the Housing Element would comply with
applicable building ordinances.

ATTACHMENT 10 -164
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.5-24
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Measure T-1.4
Action A: Implement bicycle network expansions that have already received funding
Action B: Adopt the draft bicycle parking ordinance by
December 31, 2012
Action C: Pursue funding to implement other Top Priority Projects identified in Table 5.2 in the 2009 Bicycle Master Plan, with a focus on implementing Class I and II facilities Action D: Identify north-south roads that can accommodate bicycle boulevard facilities to connect the Chandler bicycle path with Burbank and Magnolia Boulevards
Action E: Evaluate safety on popular Class III routes and identify potential candidates for upgrades to Class II
facilities
Action F: Provide bicycles for shared use by all City employees and amenities at the BWP campus and in the Burbank
Civic Center to accommodate the shared bicycles
Action G: Consider expanding the shared bicycle program to accommodate public use in Downtown Burbank, the
Media District, and the Golden State area
Consistent. Housing development accommodated
under the Housing Element would comply with
applicable ordinances including requirements to
provide bicycle parking. Housing Element Policy 3.6
would involve promoting development that is
compact, mixed
-use, pedestrian-friendly, and transit-
oriented.

Measure T-1.5
Action A: Adopt draft bicycle accommodation ordinance by June 30, 2013
Action B: Provide technical assistance to developers seeking to comply with the ordinance
Consistent. Housing development accommodated
under the Housing Element would comply with
applicable ordinances including policies regarding
bicycle accommodation.

Measure T-2.1
Action A: Update the Transportation Management
Organization (TMO) website to provide program
information to current and potential members
Action B: Develop a TMO business outreach strategy to
increase membership and active participation in TMO
programs
Action C: Expand geographic boundary of TMO into Golden State and Empire areas by 2020 and citywide by 2035
Action D: Require all new businesses with 25 employees or more within the TMO boundary to join the TMO and fulfill required reporting procedures
Action E: Expand the carpool/rideshare program through
adoption of current technologies
Action F: Evaluate the City’s guaranteed ride home policy to ensure its applicability to small businesses
Action G: Evaluate the City’s carpool parking preference requirements
Consistent. Housing development accommodated
under the Housing Element in the Golden State
Specific Plan Area would comply with applicable TMO
requirements. Housing Element Policy 3.6 would
involve promoting development that is compact,
mixed
-use, pedestrian-friendly, and transit-oriented.

Measure W1.1
Action A: Implement Urban Water Management Plan water
conservation program
Consistent. Housing development accommodated
under the Housing Element would comply with
applicable Urban Water Management Plan water
conservation requirements for new development.

Housing Element Policy 3.6 would involve promoting
water conservation and recycling.

ATTACHMENT 10 -165
Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-25
Goals and Policies Consistency Analysis
Measure W-1.2
Action A: Expand recycled water system
Action B: Increase number of targeted large irrigation
customers required to use recycled water
Consistent. Housing development accommodated
under the Housing Element would comply with
applicable water-efficient irrigation requirements for
new development.

Measure SW-1.2
Action A: Adopt an ordinance requiring recycling bins or recycling areas in all buildings
Consistent. Housing development accommodated
under the Housing Element would comply with
applicable building ordinances. Housing Element
Policy 3.6 would involve promoting water
conservation and recycling.

Source: Burbank2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

4.5.4 Cumulative Impacts
The analysis above analyzes GHG emissions consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.4(b) and considers whether the incremental contributions of the Housing Element Update could be cumulatively considerable. The GHG emissions associated with the Housing Element Update would be less than significant, and no further cumulative impact analysis is necessary.

ATTACHMENT 10 -166
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.5-26

This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT 10 -167
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-1

4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section addresses impacts associated with risk of upset related to hazardous materials, hazards to schools, hazardous materials cleanup sites, airports, emergency response plans. The Initial Study for the Project (Appendix B) found no potentially significant impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or wildland fires; therefore these issues are not studied further herein.

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
a. Hazardous Materials
The term “hazardous material” has different definitions for different regulatory programs. For the purpose of this EIR, the term “hazardous materials” refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous waste. The California Health and Safety Code Section 25501(n)(1) defines a hazardous material as any material that “because of its quantity, concentrations, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.” Hazardous materials include but are not limited to hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or environment.

A material is hazardous if it exhibits one or more of the following characteristics: toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity. These types of hazardous materials are defined below:
 Toxic Substances. Toxic substances may cause short-term or long-lasting health effects, ranging from temporary effects to permanent disability, or even death. For example, such substances can cause disorientation, acute allergic reactions, asphyxiation, skin irritation, or other adverse health effects if human exposure exceeds certain levels (the level depends on the substances involved and is chemical-specific). Carcinogens, substances that can cause cancer, are a special class of toxic substances. Examples of toxic substances include benzene (a component of gasoline and suspected carcinogen) and methylene chloride (a common laboratory solvent and a suspected carcinogen).
 Ignitable Substances. Ignitable substances are hazardous because of their ability to burn.

Gasoline, hexane, and natural gas are examples of ignitable substances.  Corrosive Materials. Corrosive materials can cause severe burns. Corrosives include strong acids and bases such as sodium hydroxide (lye) or sulfuric acid (battery acid).  Reactive Materials. Reactive materials may cause explosions or generate toxic gases. Explosives, pure sodium or potassium metals (which react violently with water), and cyanides are examples of reactive materials.

Soil and groundwater can become contaminated by hazardous material releases in a variety of ways, including permitted or illicit use and accidental or intentional disposal or spillage. Before the 1980s, most land disposal of chemicals was unregulated, resulting in numerous industrial properties and public landfills becoming dumping grounds for unwanted chemicals. The largest and most contaminated of these sites became Superfund sites, so named for their eligibility to receive cleanup money from a federal fund established under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The National Priorities List (NPL) is the list of national ATTACHMENT 10 -168
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.6-2
priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. Sites are added to the NPL following a hazard ranking system.

Numerous smaller properties have been designated as contaminated sites. Often these are gas station sites where leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) were upgraded under a federal requirement in the late 1980s. Another category of sites that may have some overlap with the types already mentioned is “brownfields” – previously used, often abandoned, sites that due to actual or suspected contamination are undeveloped or underused. Both the USEPA and California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintain lists of known brownfields sites. These sites are often difficult to inventory due to their owners’ reluctance to publicly label their property as potentially contaminated.

Asbestos Containing Materials
Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material that was widely used in structures built between 1945 and 1978 for its fireproofing and insulating properties. Asbestos-containing materials (ACM) were banned by USEPA between the early 1970s and 1991 under the authority of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) due to their harmful health effects.

Exposure to asbestos increases risk of developing lung disease, such as lung cancer, mesothelioma, or asbestosis (USEPA 2017a). Common ACMs include vinyl flooring and associated mastic, wallboard and associate joint compound, plaster, stucco, acoustic ceiling spray, ceiling tiles, heating system components, and roofing materials. Pre-1973 commercial and industrial structures are affected by asbestos regulations if damage occurs, or if remodeling, renovation, or demolition activities disturb ACMs.

Lead and Lead-Based Paint
Lead is a naturally occurring metallic element. Because of its toxic properties, lead is regulated as a hazardous material. Excessive exposure to lead can result in the accumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones. Children are particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because it is easily absorbed into developing systems and organs. Lead can affect almost every organ and system in the body. In children, lead can cause behavior and learning problems, lower IQ and hyperactivity, hearing problems, and anemia. In adults, lead can cause cardiovascular effects, decreased kidney function, and reproductive problems. In addition, lead can result in serious effects to the developing fetus and infant for pregnant women (USEPA 2017b). Among its numerous uses and sources, lead can be found in paint, water pipes, solder in plumbing systems, and in soils surrounding buildings and structures that are painted with lead-based paint (LBP). LBP was primarily used during the same time period as ACMs. Pre-1978 commercial and industrial structures are affected by LBP regulations if the paint is in a deteriorated condition or if remodeling, renovation, or demolition activities disturb LBP surfaces. b. Existing Conditions
Hazardous Materials Sites
The locations where hazardous materials are used, stored, treated and/or disposed of comes to the attention of regulatory agencies through various means, including licensing and permitting, enforcement actions, and anonymous tips. To the extent possible, the locations of these businesses ATTACHMENT 10 -169
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-3
and operations are recorded in database lists maintained by various State, Federal, and local regulatory agencies. In addition, Federal, State, and local agencies enforce regulations applicable to hazardous waste generators and users, and the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous Materials Division tracks and inspect hazardous materials handlers to ensure appropriate reporting and compliance.

Permitted uses of hazardous materials include those facilities that use hazardous materials or handle hazardous wastes in accordance with current hazardous materials and hazardous waste regulations. The use and handling of hazardous materials from these sites is considered low risk, although there can be instances of unintentional chemical releases. In such cases, the site would be tracked in the environmental databases as an environmental case. Permitted sites without documented releases are, nevertheless, potential sources of hazardous materials in the soil and/or groundwater due to accidental spills, incidental leakage, or spillage that may have gone undetected.

Some facilities are permitted for more than one hazardous material use and, therefore, could appear in more than one database.

The potential to encounter hazardous materials in soil and groundwater in the City is generally based on a search of Federal, State, and local regulatory databases that identify permitted hazardous materials uses, environmental cases, and spill sites. The DTSC EnviroStor database contains information on properties in California where hazardous substances have been released or where the potential for a release exists. The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database contains information on properties in California for sites that require cleanup, such as leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites, which may impact, or have potential impacts, to water quality, with emphasis on groundwater.

According to databases of hazardous material sites maintained by the DTSC (EnviroStor) and the SWRCB (GeoTracker), Burbank has the following types of hazardous sites that are still active or need further investigation: corrective action sites, military evaluation sites, State response sites, historical sites, tiered permit sites, Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) sites, underground storage tanks (UST’s) and cleanup program sites (DTSC 2021; SWRCB 2021). These sites are dispersed throughout the City.

Existing sites that may potentially contain hazardous land uses in the City include large and small- quantity generators of hazardous waste, such as metal fabricators, dry cleaners, gas stations and other industrial uses. According to DTSC and SWRCB, there are 41 open sites containing or potentially containing hazardous materials contamination located in the City, 15 sites in need of evaluation, 70 USTs, and numerous closed or “no further action” sites. A full list of these sites and their cleanup status can be reviewed in Appendix F (DTSC, SWRCB, 2021).

ATTACHMENT 10 -170
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.6-4
Figure 4.6-1 Burbank Hazardous Material Sites

ATTACHMENT 10 -171
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-5
Use, Transport, and Abatement of Hazardous Materials
The use of hazardous materials is typically associated with industrial land uses. Activities such as manufacturing, plating, cleaning, refining, and finishing, frequently involve chemicals that are considered hazardous when accidentally released into the environment.

To a lesser extent, hazardous materials may also be used by various commercial enterprises, as well as residential uses. In particular, dry cleaners use cleaning agents considered to be hazardous materials. Hardware stores typically stock paints and solvents, as well as fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Swimming pool supply stores stock acids, algaecides, and caustic agents. Most commercial businesses occasionally use commonly available cleaning supplies that, when used in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations, are considered safe by the State of California, but when not handled properly can be considered hazardous. Private residences also use and store commonly available cleaning materials, paints, solvents, swimming pool and spa chemicals, as well as fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.

If improperly handled, hazardous materials can result in public health hazards through human contact with contaminated soils or groundwater, or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. There is also the potential for accidental or unauthorized releases of hazardous materials that would pose a public health concern. The use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes are required to occur in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. In accordance with such regulations, the transport of hazardous materials and wastes can only occur with transporters who have received training and appropriate licensing. Additionally, hazardous waste transporters are required to complete and carry a hazardous waste manifest, which includes forms, reports, and procedures designed to seamlessly track hazardous waste.

Schools
School locations require consideration because children are particularly sensitive to hazardous materials exposure. Additional protective regulations apply to projects that could use or disturb potentially hazardous products near or at schools. The California Public Resources Code requires projects that would be located within 0.25 mile of a school and might reasonably be expected to emit or handle hazardous materials to consult with the school district regarding potential hazards.

The Burbank Unified School District (BUSD) operates 22 schools in the City, including 11 elementary schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and five alternative schools (BUSD 2002). See Figure 4.6-2 for the locations of schools in the City. Numerous day care facilities, charter schools, and private schools are also located throughout the City.

ATTACHMENT 10 -172
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.6-6
Figure 4.6-2 Burbank Public School Locations
ATTACHMENT 10 -173
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-7

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
Hazardous materials and waste can pose a potential hazard to human health and the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Federal, State, and local programs that regulate the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste are in place to prevent unwanted consequences. These regulatory programs are designed to reduce the risk that hazardous substances may pose to people and businesses under normal daily circumstances and as a result emergencies and disasters. a. Federal
Primary Federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the USEPA, U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and U.S.

Department of Transportation (USDOT). The major federal laws enforced by these agencies are described below.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Enacted in 1980, CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund, creates a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment.

The tax goes into a trust fund for cleaning up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. A summary of CERCLA is as follows:
 Establishes prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites;
 Provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and  Establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.

CERCLA also established the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). The CERCLIS database was renamed to Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) by USEPA in 2015. SEMS is the USEPA’s system for tracking potential hazardous-waste sites within the Superfund program. In addition, CERCLA authorizes two kinds of response actions:
 Short-term removals, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response; and
 Long-term remedial response actions that permanently and significantly reduce the dangers associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances that are serious, but not immediately life threatening. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on the USEPA’s NPL.

CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP), which provides guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 gives the USEPA the authority to control hazardous waste from "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, ATTACHMENT 10 -174
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.6-8
treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes. The 1986 amendments to RCRA enabled USEPA to address environmental problems that could result from underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances.

Toxic Substances Control Act
Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), to give USEPA the ability to track the 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the United States. USEPA repeatedly screens these chemicals and can require reporting or testing of those that may pose an environmental or human-health hazard. USEPA can ban the manufacture and import of those chemicals that pose an unreasonable risk. More specifically, in California, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are regulated by both State (RCRA and Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]) and Federal (TSCA) rules. TSCA has banned the manufacture, processing, use, and distribution in commerce of PCBs. TSCA gives USEPA the authority to develop, implement and enforce regulations concerning the use, manufacture, cleanup, and disposal of PCBs. TSCA also establishes USEPA’s Lead Abatement Program regulations, which provide a framework for lead abatement, risk assessment, and inspections. Those performing these services are required to be trained and certified by USEPA. 1 U.S. Department of Transportation Regulations
USDOT prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including requirements for hazardous waste containers and licensed haulers who transport hazardous waste on public roads. The Secretary of the USDOT receives the authority to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials from the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), as amended and codified in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) Section 5101 et seq. The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations to implement the requirements of 49 U.S.C. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), formerly the Research and Special Provisions Administration, was delegated the responsibility to write the hazardous materials regulations, which are contained in Title 49 of the CFR Parts 100-180. Title 49 of the CFR, which contains the regulations set forth by the HMTA, specifies requirements and regulations with respect to the transport of hazardous materials.

It requires that every employee who transports hazardous materials receive training to recognize and identify hazardous materials and become familiar with hazardous materials requirements.

Under the HMTA, the Secretary "may authorize any officer, employee, or agent to enter upon, inspect, and examine, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, the records and properties of persons to the extent such records and properties relate to: (1) the manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repair, testing, or distribution of packages or containers for use by any "person" in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce; or (2) the transportation or shipment by any "person" of hazardous materials in commerce." Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
The U.S. Department of Labor’s OSHA was created to assure safe and healthful working conditions by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance.

OSHA provides standards for general industry and construction industry on hazardous waste operations and emergency response. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is implemented by OSHA, contains provisions with respect to hazardous materials handling. Federal Occupational

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Park 745, Rules 402 and 404, August 29, 1996.

ATTACHMENT 10 -175
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-9
Safety and Health Act requirements, as set forth in Title 29 of the CFR Section 1910, et. seq., are designed to promote worker safety, worker training, and a worker’s right-to-know. OSHA has delegated the authority to administer OSHA regulations to the State of California.

Title 49 of the CFR, which contains the regulations set forth by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975, specifies additional requirements and regulations with respect to the transport of hazardous materials. Title 49 of the CFR requires that every employee who transports hazardous materials receive training to recognize and identify hazardous materials and become familiar with hazardous materials requirements. Drivers are also required to be trained in function and commodity specific requirements.

Research and Special Programs Administration
The Research and Special Programs Administration’s (RSPA) regulations cover definition and classification of hazardous materials, communication of hazards to workers and the public, packaging and labeling requirements, operational rules for shippers, and training. They apply to hazardous waste shipments and interstate, intrastate, and foreign commerce by air, rail, ships, and motor vehicles. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is responsible for highway routing of hazardous materials and highway safety permits. The U.S. Coast Guard regulates bulk transport by vessel. The hazardous materials regulations include emergency response provisions, such as incident reporting requirements. Reports of major incidents go to the National Response Center, which in turn is linked with CHEMTREC, a service of the chemical manufacturing industry that provides details on most chemicals shipped in the United States.

Other Hazardous Materials Regulations
In addition to the USDOT regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, there are other applicable federal laws that also address hazardous materials:
 Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992  Clean Water Act
 Clean Air Act
 Safe Drinking Water Act
 Atomic Energy Act
 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) b. State
The primary State agencies with jurisdiction over hazardous chemical materials management are the California Environmental Protection Agency’s (CalEPA’s) DTSC and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). Other State agencies involved in hazardous materials management include California OSHA (CalOSHA) and the State Office of Emergency Services (CalOES).

Authority for statewide administration and enforcement of RCRA rests with CalEPA’s DTSC. While DTSC has primary State responsibility in regulating the generation, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, DTSC may further delegate enforcement authority to local jurisdictions. In addition, DTSC is responsible and/or provides oversight for contamination cleanup and administers statewide hazardous waste reduction programs. DTSC operates programs to accomplish the following: (1) manage the aftermath of improper hazardous waste management by overseeing site ATTACHMENT 10 -176
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.6-10
cleanups; (2) prevent releases of hazardous waste by ensuring that those who generate, handle, transport, store, and dispose of wastes do so properly; and (3) evaluate soil, water, and air samples taken at sites.

The storage of hazardous materials in USTs is regulated by the SWRCB, which delegates authority to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on the regional level, and typically to the local fire department on the local level.

The Cal OSHA program is administered and enforced by the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH). CalOSHA is similar to the federal OSHA program. Both programs contain rules and procedures related to exposure to hazardous materials during demolition and construction activities. In addition, CalOSHA requires employers to implement a comprehensive, written Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP). An IIPP is an employee safety program for potential workplace hazards, including those associated with hazardous materials.

The CalOES Hazardous Materials (HazMat) section under the Fire and Rescue Division coordinates statewide implementation of hazardous materials accident prevention and emergency response programs for all types of hazardous materials incidents and threats. In response to any hazardous materials emergency, the HazMat section staff is called upon to provide State and local emergency managers with emergency coordination and technical assistance.

California Occupational Safety and Health Act – California Labor Code, Section 6300 et seq.

The California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 addresses California employee working conditions, enables the enforcement of workplace standards, and provides for advancements in the field of occupational health and safety. The Act also created CalOSHA, the primary agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. CalOSHA’s standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. Under the former, the employer is required to monitor worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure. The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident-prevention programs, and hazardous substance exposure warnings. At sites known or suspected to be contaminated by hazardous materials, workers must have training in hazardous materials operations and a Site Health and Safety Plan must be prepared. The Health and Safety Plan establishes policies and procedures to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential hazards at the contaminated site.

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Hazardous Waste Management At the State level, under Title 22, Division 4.5 of the CCR, CalEPA’s DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the Federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). The Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL), under CCR 22, Chapter 30, establishes regulations that are similar to RCRA but more stringent in their application and empowers the DTSC to administer the State’s hazardous waste program and implement the federal program in California. The DTSC is responsible for permitting, inspecting, ensuring compliance, and imposing corrective action programs to ensure that entities that generate, store, transport, treat, or dispose of potentially hazardous materials and waste comply with federal and State laws. The DTSC defines hazardous waste as waste with a chemical composition or other properties that make it capable of causing illness, death, or some other harm to humans and other life forms when mismanaged or released into the environment.

ATTACHMENT 10 -177
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-11
The DTSC shares responsibility for enforcement and implementation of hazardous waste control laws with the SWRCB and, at the local level, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and city and county governments.

California Code of Regulations Title 23, Chapter 15 Discharges of Hazardous Waste to Land Section 2511(b)
CCR 23, Chapter 15 Discharges of Hazardous Waste to Land Section 2511(b) pertains to water quality aspects of waste discharge to land. The regulation establishes waste and site classifications as well as waste management requirements for waste treatment, storage, or disposal in landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and land treatment facilities. Requirements are minimum standards for proper management of each waste category, which allows Regional Water Boards to impose more stringent requirements to accommodate regional and site-specific conditions. In addition, the requirements of CCR 23, Chapter 15 applies to cleanup and abatement actions for unregulated hazardous waste discharges to land (e.g., spills).

License to Transport Hazardous Materials – California Vehicle Code, Section 32000.5 et seq.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) regulates hazardous materials transportation on all interstate roads. Within California, the State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing Federal and State regulations and for responding to transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol and Caltrans. Together, Federal and State agencies determine driver-training requirements, load labeling procedures, and container specifications for vehicles transporting hazardous materials.

California Fire Code, Title 24, Part 9
The 2019 California Fire Code, written by the California Building Standards Commission, is based on the 2018 International Fire Code (IFC). The IFC is a model code that regulates minimum fire safety requirements for new and existing buildings, facilities, storage, and processes. The IFC addresses fire prevention, fire protection, life safety, and safe storage and use of hazardous materials in new and existing buildings, facilities, and processes.
c. Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403 establishes asbestos survey requirements, notification, and work practice requirements to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating during building renovation and demolition activities. Rule 1403 incorporates the requirements of the federal asbestos requirements found in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) found in CFR Title 40, Part 61, Subpart M. USEPA has delegated SCAQMD the authority to enforce the Federal asbestos NESHAP, and SCAQMD is the local enforcement authority for asbestos.
d. Local
In Burbank, the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is Los Angeles County CUPA, which is managed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health Hazardous Materials Division (HHMD).

ATTACHMENT 10 -178
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.6-12
The City of Burbank Fire Department oversees UST and piping removal per the City of Burbank Municipal Code.

Health Risk Assessment Regulatory Oversight
Regulatory agencies such as the USEPA, DTSC, and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OEHHA set forth guidelines that list concentration thresholds over which contaminants may pose a risk to human health. The USEPA combines current toxicity values of contaminants with exposure factors to estimate concentrations of contaminants that may pose a risk to human health.

The concentrations set forth by the USEPA are termed Regional Screening Levels (RSL) for various pollutants in soil, air, and tap water (USEPA, 2020). RSL concentrations can be used to screen pollutants in environmental media, trigger further investigation, and provide an initial cleanup goal.

RSLs for soil contamination have been developed for both industrial and residential land uses.

Residential RSLs are more conservative than industrial RSLs and take into account the possibility of the contaminated environmental media coming into contact with sensitive receptor sites such as childcare facilities and schools. RSLs consider exposure to pollutants by means of ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation.

Groundwater Regulatory Oversight
The DTSC has set forth Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs) for select contaminants in soil, indoor air, and tap water based on values calculated using Cal-EPA toxicity criteria and risk assessment procedures.

While the majority of the DTSC-SLs reflect RSL values, some values are more conservative (DTSC, 2020). Both the U.S. EPA and the California Department of Health Services (DHS) promulgate regulations with respect to the concentration of various chemicals in drinking water. The DHS thresholds for drinking water are generally stricter than those set by the U.S. EPA. Primary maximum contaminant levels (CalMCLs) are established for a number of chemical and radioactive contaminants (Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15, CCR) in groundwater. CalMCLs are often used by regulatory agencies to determine cleanup standards when contaminants affect groundwater with beneficial uses or potential beneficial uses as drinking water aquifers.

The SWRCB and LARWQCB regulate water quality in the State of California pursuant to statutory requirements set forth in the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Cal. Water Code, Section 13000 et seq.), including oversight of water monitoring and contamination cleanup and abatement.

4.6.3 Impact Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
Thresholds of significance are based on the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Initial Study prepared for the Project (Appendix B) determined that a potentially significant impact might occur under the following threshold and therefore are analyzed in this section of the EIR.

1. 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

2. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school

3. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
ATTACHMENT 10 -179
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-13

4. 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, the project would result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area

5. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan

6. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials

7. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires
The Initial Study (Appendix B) determined that the Project could result in potentially significant impacts related to above issues related to hazards. As such, an analysis of these issues is included in this section of the EIR. However, the Initial Study found no potentially significant impacts related to the transport of hazardous materials (Threshold 6) or wildland fires (Threshold 7); therefore, these issues are not studied further herein.
b. Methodology
This impact analysis addresses the potential to encounter hazardous substances during future Project construction in the City and the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The evaluation was performed based on current conditions in the City, information in environmental databases, applicable regulations and guidelines, and future development that may have the potential to introduce hazards. Relationships and proximities of potential future development to schools were also identified.
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: 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?
Threshold 2: 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?
Impact HAZ-1 DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT

ACCOMMODATED BY THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE MAY RESULT IN THE RELEASE OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND MAY OCCUR WITHIN 0.25 MILE OF A SCHOOL. HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH

REGIONAL AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE SAFETY ELEMENT POLICIES WOULD MINIMIZE THE RISK OF RELEASES AND EXPOSURE TO THESE MATERIALS.

IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The Housing Element Update would accommodate infill housing and mixed use (residential- commercial) development in urbanized areas of the City. This is accomplished through policies and specifically through the proposed rezoning, all of which would occur in existing developed areas.

Infill development under the Housing Element Update would likely involve demolition of existing structures. Demolition could result in emission of lead and asbestos. However, lead-based materials and asbestos exposure are regulated by the California Occupational Safety and Health ATTACHMENT 10 -180
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.6-14
Administration (Cal OSHA). CCR Section 1532.1 requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials such that exposure levels do not exceed Cal OSHA standards. Under this rule, construction workers (and by extension, neighboring properties) may not be exposed to lead at concentrations greater than 50 micrograms per cubic meter of air averaged over an eight- hour period and exposure must be reduced to lower concentrations if the workday exceeds eight hours. Similarly, CCR Section 1529 sets requirements for asbestos exposure assessments and monitoring, methods of complying with exposure requirements, safety wear, communication of hazards, and medical examination of workers.

The control of asbestos during demolition or renovation of buildings is regulated under the Federal Clean Air Act. The Federal Clean Air Act requires a thorough inspection for asbestos where demolition will occur and specifies work practices to control emissions, such as removing all asbestos-containing materials, adequately wetting all regulated asbestos-containing materials, sealing the material in leak tight containers and disposing of the asbestos-containing waste material as expediently as practicable (USEPA 2021a). Compliance with the CCR and Federal Clean Air Act, which is mandatory, would reduce the potential hazards and risks associated with release of lead and asbestos to a less than significant level. In addition, any development projects under the Housing Element Update that include demolition or renovation activities would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403. Building permits will not be issued prior to elimination of asbestos and compliance with all applicable regulations.

Rezoning for the proposed Project would include 3,561 residential units with 1.4 million square feet (sf) of commercial space. Housing and other residential uses do not utilize hazardous materials, and thereby pose little risk of exposing the public to hazardous materials. Commercial uses would be subject to compliance with CCR, Cal OSHA, and other agencies to ensure hazardous materials risks to the public are minimized as well. In addition, one of the proposed new policies included in the update to the Safety Element is to “Reduce the loss of life, property, and injures incurred as a result of hazardous materials spills by offering comprehensive spill prevention information to businesses using hazardous materials, public education, and emergency response programs. Focus outreach and emergency response on vulnerable populations.” (City of Burbank, 2013) This policy calls for the development of public educational materials, prevention plans and emergency response plans for hazardous materials spills in coordination with the Los Angeles County Fire Health HazMat Division, LA County Department of Public Health Environmental Health Services Division, and Burbank Fire Department as part of the next Hazard Mitigation Plan update. This addition to the Safety Element would further prepare the City, and protect the public, in the event of an accidental spill or exposure.

The Housing and Safety Element Update does not include specific development projects, however, the proposed project seeks to update numerous zoning districts from Manufacturing uses to Residential or Commercial uses, thereby reducing the potential for businesses using hazardous materials to occur within 0.25 mile of Burbank’s existing schools (shown in Figure 4.6-1and Figure 4.6-2).

Furthermore, hazardous materials and waste generated from future development would not pose a health risk to nearby schools because the majority of the development would be residential which does not handle or emit hazardous materials or substances. Additionally, any businesses that would be developed in the proposed mixed use commercial areas that handle or have on-site storage of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the California Fire Code and the HHMD CUPA requirements set forth in the California Health and Safety Code through review and approval of a business plan by the Burbank Fire Department, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Articles ATTACHMENT 10 -181
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-15
1 and 2. As described in the Regulatory Setting above, all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials are required to submit a hazardous materials business plan to a regulating agency, in this case, the HHMD. Therefore, future development facilitated by the proposed Project would not result in use of new hazardous material use within a 0.25-mile radius of existing public and private schools in Burbank, and impacts would be less than significant.

Implementation of the updated Burbank2035 General Plan Safety Element policies would minimize risks associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials during operation of the residential and commercial spaces. Additionally, compliance with all other appropriate federal, State, and local agencies (such as CCR and Cal OSHA) would minimize the risk of the public’s potential exposure to these materials. Therefore, impacts to the public or the environmental through accidental release or exposure to hazardous materials as a result of project implementation would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 3: 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? Impact HAZ-2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HOUSING AND SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT ON OR NEAR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES. HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH

APPLICABLE REGULATIONS RELATING TO SITE CLEANUP WOULD MINIMIZE HAZARDS FROM DEVELOPMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As mentioned in the Environmental Setting, there are existing sites within City limits (shown in Figure 4.6-1) which contain, or potentially contain, contaminated or hazardous materials. A full list of these sites and their cleanup status can be reviewed in Appendix F (DTSC, 2021).

The Housing Element Update would not directly result in project development, since it is a policy document. However, new development facilitated by the Housing Element Update could expose construction workforce as well as future occupants to hazardous materials if the project site is listed for hazardous materials. It is also possible that USTs in use prior to permitting and record keeping requirements may be present in the City. If an unidentified UST were uncovered or disturbed during construction activities, it would be removed under permit by the HHMD; if such removal would potentially undermine the structural stability of existing structures, foundations, or impact existing utilities, the tank might be closed in place without removal. Tank removal activities could pose both health and safety risks, such as the exposure of workers, tank handling personnel, and the public to tank contents or vapors. Potential risks, if any, posed by USTs would be minimized by managing the tank according to existing standards contained in Division 20, Chapters 6.7 and 6.75 (Underground Storage Tank Program) of the California Health and Safety Code as enforced and monitored by the HHMD.

The extent to which groundwater may be affected by an underground tank, if at all, depends on the type of contaminant, the amount released, the duration of the release, and depth to groundwater.

If groundwater contamination is identified during Phase I or II ESA, characterization of the vertical and lateral extent of the contamination and remediation activities would be required by the RWQCB prior to the commencement of any new construction activities that would disturb the subsurface. If contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, the developer would be required to undertake ATTACHMENT 10 -182
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.6-16
remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the RWQCB, depending upon the nature of any identified contamination. Compliance with existing State and local regulations as well as implementation of the Burbank2035 General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
HAZ-2 Property Assessment – Phase I and II ESAs
Prior to the start of construction (demolition or grading), the project applicant will retain a qualified environmental professional (EP), as defined by ASTM E-1527, to complete one of the following.

If the project is not listed in Appendix F, DTSC (GeoTracker) or SWRCB (EnviroStor) resources, and requires more than five feet of excavation, then the proponent will retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer (PE), to prepare a Phase I ESA. If the Phase I ESA identifies recognized environmental conditions or potential concern areas, a Phase II ESA will be prepared.

If the project site is currently listed, previously listed, or un-listed with a regulatory closure or no further action letter in Appendix F, DTSC (GeoTracker) or SWRCB (EnviroStor) resources, then the project proponent shall test to confirm that there are no existing hazardous materials posing a risk to human health. The project proponent shall retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer (PE), to prepare a Phase II ESA to determine whether the soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapor has been impacted at concentrations exceeding regulatory screening levels for commercial/industrial land uses. Any and all recommended actions included in the Phase II ESA will be followed. This may include the preparation of a Soil Management Plan (SMP) for Impacted Soils (see below) prior to project construction and/or completion of remediation at the proposed project prior to onsite construction.

The completed ESAs will be submitted to the lead agency for review and approval prior to issuance of building or grading permits.

Soil Management Plan Requirements: The SMP, or equivalent document, will be prepared to address on-site handling and management of impacted soils or other impacted wastes, and reduce hazards to construction workers and offsite receptors during construction. The plan will be submitted to the lead agency, and must establish remedial measures and/or soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants from the site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:
 Stockpile management including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of BMPs  Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials
 Monitoring and reporting
 A health and safety plan for contractors working at the site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection
 The health and safety plan will also outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.

ATTACHMENT 10 -183
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-17
The lead agency will review and approve the development site Soil Management Plan for Impacted Soils prior to demolition and grading (construction).

Soil Remediation Requirements: If soil present within the construction envelope at the development site contains chemicals at concentrations exceeding hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 22, Section 66261.24), the project proponent will retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE), to conduct additional analytical testing and recommend soil disposal recommendations, or consider other remedial engineering controls, as necessary.

The qualified environmental consultant will utilize the development site analytical results for waste characterization purposes prior to offsite transportation or disposal of potentially impacted soils or other impacted wastes. The qualified environmental consultant will provide disposal recommendations and arrange for proper disposal of the waste soils or other impacted wastes (as necessary), and/or provide recommendations for remedial engineering controls, if appropriate.

The project applicant will review and approve the disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soils offsite, and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to construction.

Remediation of impacted soils and/or implementation of remedial engineering controls, may require additional delineation of impacts; additional analytical testing per landfill or recycling facility requirements; soil excavation; and offsite disposal or recycling.

Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 requires that any development that requires more than five feet of excavation would require a Phase I ESA, and a Phase II ESA if environmental concerns are discovered through the Phase I ESA. Additionally, this measure ensures that any potential development site location listed on DTSC or SWRCB (Appendix F) conducts a Phase II ESA for soil sampling and environmental professional recommendations for remediation, as needed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Threshold 4: 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?
Impact HAZ-3 THE BURBANK2035 GENERAL PLAN INCLUDES A SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE AND POLICIES FOR THE BURBANK AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA THAT ADDRESS EXCESSIVE NOISE AND SAFETY FOR THE VICINITY.

THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SAFETY HAZARDS OR EXCESSIVE NOISE FOR PEOPLE RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE PROJECT AREA AND IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The Burbank2035 General Plan Safety Element outlines safety policies for the Hollywood-Burbank Airport Influence Area and includes noise policies for its potentially affected vicinity, which are further discussed in Section 4.7, Noise. As shown in Figure 2-3, the proposed Project includes rezoning within the Burbank Airport Influence Area of the City. In particular, one of the potential Golden State Specific Plan Sites (the 678-unit Valhalla site) falls within the Airport Influence Area, and therefore would be required to comply with the Burbank2035 General Plan policies, the Los ATTACHMENT 10 -184
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.6-18
Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan (LACALUP), and any other local or regional regulations as they pertain to development in this area.

Safety hazards associated with airports are generally related to the construction of tall structures that could interfere with flight paths, or with increasing the number of people working or residing in potential crash zones. The Airport Influence Area is defined by the LACALUP, and is the area in which noise, overflight, safety, or airspace protection factors may affect land uses or require restrictions on those uses. The LACALUP identified the Approach Surface and the Runway Protection Zone as two such safety zones requiring use restrictions (LACALUP 2004). The updated Burbank2035 Safety Element requires compliance with the LACALUP and provides policies such as Policy 7.2, which ensures that land uses, densities, and building heights within Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones, including those in disadvantaged communities, are compatible with safe operation of the Hollywood Burbank Airport. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in safety hazards in the airport vicinity.

Threshold 5: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact HAZ-4 THE BURBANK2035 GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING AND SAFETY ELEMENT POLICY

UPDATES ADDRESS MAINTAINING A LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AND COORDINATION WITH ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS. ADDITIONALLY, TRAFFIC CREATED BY THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD NOT INTERFERE WITH AN EVACUATION PLAN OR CAUSE INCREASED TRAFFIC CONGESTION. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN INTERFERENCE WITH THESE TYPES OF ADOPTED PLANS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in Section 4.11, Transportation, development facilitated by the proposed Project would accommodate future population growth and would increase vehicle miles traveled in the City, which could lead to increased congestion during emergency evacuations. However, future developments would be reviewed by City staff to ensure consistency with all applicable City and State design standards and emergency access requirements and plans. In addition, the following policies are included in the updated language to Burbank2035 General Plan Safety Element, which are intended to ensure effective and coordinated response to disasters and further the City’s preventative measures.

Policy 1.1: Regularly update all hazard mitigation plans, disaster preparedness plans, and emergency response plans.

Policy 1.3: Sponsor and support public education programs for emergency preparedness and disaster response.

The City has also prepared an All-Hazard Mitigation Plan (AHMP, last updated in 2011) that has been incorporated into the Burbank2035 General Plan Safety Element and is currently being updated. The AHMP assesses risk from natural disasters, transportation-related accidents and losses, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, utility loss or disruption, water and wastewater disruption, hazardous materials incidents, aviation disasters, information technology loss or disruption, explosions, economic disruption, and other special events (AHMP, 2011). The primary objective of the AHMP is to provide a mitigation plan that reduces the negative impacts of potential future disasters on the City, and meets FEMA requirements by addressing hazards, vulnerability, and risk.

For example, Chapter 11, Drought, of the AHMP includes an overview and variability analysis of the City’s water system, historical drought information and impacts, probability of future droughts and ATTACHMENT 10 -185
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-19
vulnerability analysis, and initiatives (such as the 2007 Recycled Water Master Plan), mitigation strategies and action items that would aid the City’s response and recovery in the event of a serious drought. The AHMP’s use of historical data and scenario analysis to help predict and recommend proper recovery strategies provides detailed, realistic emergency planning measures. The Burbank2035 General Plan Safety Element, and the AHMP therein, provide ample emergency response guidelines and planning; therefore, development accommodated under the Housing Element Update would not result in interference with the adoption of these types of plans.

The Burbank Fire Department (BFD) provides fire and emergency response services. BFD assists in on-site emergency and command center management, and general fire and medical emergency assistance. They also provide an online public platform and alert system (Burbank Community Alerts) to help circulate information to Burbank residents in case of emergency, family preparedness plans in case of emergency, updates for COVID-19, and the AHMP update (BFD, 2021). The BFD’s established, community platform offers additional opportunity to circulate adopted emergency response and evacuation plans. Implementation of the Burbank2035 General Plan policies, including the AHMP, and other programs associated with emergency planning and response would ensure that development under the Housing Element Update would result in less than significant impacts related to implementation of adopted emergency response and evacuation plans.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

4.6.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative development would consist of the Project as well as additional projects proposed within the City of Burbank. Cumulative development could contribute to an increase in hazards related to the use of, and exposure to, hazardous materials. Implementation of the Burbank2035 General Plan Safety Element would help guide and accommodate the projected growth within the City of Burbank and utilize updated policies to ensure safety in Burbank communities. Rezoning for the Project seeks to update numerous zoning districts from Manufacturing uses to Residential or Commercial uses.

The removal of manufacturing uses would cumulatively reduce the risk for businesses utilizing hazardous materials to occur within proximity to residences. However, any demolition of existing structures could potentially expose additional residents to hazardous materials. Implementation of the updated Burbank2035 General Plan Safety Element policies would minimize risks associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials during operation of the residential and commercial spaces and would require compliance with the All-Hazard Mitigation Plan and LACALUP.

Compliance with these plans and policies would reduce any potential hazards related to project development in the vicinity of the Airport Influence Area. Additionally, compliance with all other appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies (such as CCR and Cal OSHA) would minimize the risk of the public’s potential exposure to these materials. Therefore, impacts to the public or the environmental through accidental release or exposure to hazardous materials as a result of project implementation would be less than significant.

Existing hazardous materials sites in the City (Figure 4.6-1) could potentially be impacted if development is proposed on a previously-identified site or if the site is within 0.25-mile of a school.

However, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2 would ensure that impacts related to close ATTACHMENT 10 -186
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.6-20
proximity to hazardous materials sites would be less than significant by requiring added site assessment and cleanup measures prior to project construction.

Compliance with existing laws and regulations, and implementation of these measures, would ensure that the implementation of the proposed Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials. Therefore, implementation of the Project would have an incremental contribution to cumulative impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials but would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

ATTACHMENT 10 -187
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-1

4.7 Noise
This section evaluates noise and groundborne vibration impacts resulting from the construction and operation of new housing development accommodated by the Housing Element Update. Topics addressed consist of short-term construction and long-term operational noise and vibration, including the exposure of noise-sensitive receivers to substantial or incompatible noise levels. Noise modeling results and the vibration calculations associated with the analysis herein are included in Appendix G to this EIR.

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
a. Fundamentals of Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs (e.g., the human ear). Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013).

Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (Hz) and less sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hz (Kinsler, et. al. 1999).

Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as a doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; similarly, dividing the energy in half would result in a decrease of 3 dB (Crocker 2007). Common outdoor and indoor noise sources and their typical corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown in Figure 4.7-1.

Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy. The perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive an increase (or decrease) of up to 3 dBA in noise levels (i.e., twice [or half] the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible (8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (or half) as loud (10.5 times the sound energy) (Crocker 2007).

ATTACHMENT 10 -188
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.7-2
Figure 4.7-1 Examples of Typical Noise Levels

Source: Caltrans 2013
Noise Level
(dBA)
Common Indoor
Noise Levels
Common Outdoor
Noise Levels
Rock band
Inside subway train
Food blender at 3 ft.

Garbage disposal at 3 ft.

Shouting at 3 ft.

Vacuum cleaner at 10 ft.

Normal speech at 3 ft.

Large business office
Dishwasher next room
Small theater, conference
room (background)
Library
Bedroom at night
Concert hall (background)
Broadcast and
recording studio
Threshold of hearing
Jet flyover at 1,000 ft.

Gas lawnmower at 3 ft.

Diesel truck at 50 ft.

Noisy urban daytime
Gas lawnmower at 100 ft.

Commercial area
Heavy traffic 300 ft.

Quiet urban daytime
Quiet urban nighttime
Quiet suburban nighttime
Quiet rural nighttime
110
100
90 80
70 60
50 40
30 20
10 0
ATTACHMENT 10 -189
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-3
Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.

The most obvious change is the decrease in sound level as the distance from the source increases.

The manner by which noise declines with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line), the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions. Noise levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). The propagation of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A hard site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, receives no additional ground attenuation and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) result simply from the geometric spreading of the source. An additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to a soft site (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) (Caltrans 2013).

Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures. The amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5 dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011).

Structures can substantially reduce occupants’ exposure to noise as well. The FHWA’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows.

Descriptors
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, its frequency, and the duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed.

One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and intensity is the equivalent noise level (L
eq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time. Typically, Leq is equivalent to a one-hour period, even when measured for shorter durations as the noise level of a 10- to 30-minute period would be the same as the hour if the noise source is relatively steady. Lmax is the highest Root Mean Squared (RMS) sound pressure level within the sampling period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measuring period (Crocker 2007). Normal conversational levels at three feet are in the 60- to 65-dBA Leq range and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).

Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the day.

Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn or DNL), which is a 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels described by DNL and CNEL usually differ by about 0.5 dBA. Quiet suburban areas typically have a CNEL in the range of 40 to 50 dBA, while areas near arterial streets are typically in the 50 to 70+ CNEL range.

ATTACHMENT 10 -190
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.7-4
Propagation
Sound from a small, localized source (approximating a “point” source) radiates uniformly outward as it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern, known as geometric spreading. The sound level decreases or drops off at a rate of approximately 6 dBA for each doubling of distance.

Traffic noise is not a single, stationary point source of sound. Rather, the movement of vehicles makes the source of the sound appear to emanate from a line (line source) rather than a point. The drop-off rate for a line source is approximately 3 dBA for each doubling of distance. b. Fundamentals of Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of hertz (Hz). The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt by the human body starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz and goes to a high of about 200 Hz (Crocker 2007).

While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as groundborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hz), or when foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the vibration source (FTA 2018). Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses.

Descriptors
Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or RMS vibration velocity.

The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in./sec.). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in monitoring of vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020).

Response to Vibration
Vibration associated with construction has the potential to be an annoyance to nearby land uses.

Caltrans has developed limits for the assessment of vibrations from transportation and construction sources. The Caltrans vibration limits are reflective of standard practice for analyzing vibration impacts. As shown in Table 4.7-1 and Table 4.7-2, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2020) identifies guideline impact criteria for damage to buildings and additional impact criteria for annoyance to humans from transient and continuous/frequent sources.

ATTACHMENT 10 -191
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-5
Table 4.7-1 Building Vibration Damage Potential
Maximum PPV (in./sec.)
Structure and Condition Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient mountains 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.20 0.10
Historic and similar old buildings 0.50 0.25
Older residential structures 0.50 0.30
New residential structures 1.00 0.50
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.00 0.50
Notes: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls (i.e., a loose steel ball that is dropped onto structures or rock to reduce them to a manageable size). Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

PPV = peak particle velocity; in./sec. = inches per second Source: Caltrans 2020
Table 4.7-2 Vibration Annoyance Potential
Maximum PPV (in./sec.)
Human Response Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10
Severe 2.00 0.40
Notes: Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls (i.e., a loose steel ball that is dropped onto structures or rock to reduce them to a manageable size). Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

PPV = peak particle velocity; in./sec. = inches per second Source: Caltrans 2020
Propagation
Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish with distance away from the source. High-frequency vibrations diminish much more rapidly than low frequencies, so low frequencies tend to dominate the spectrum at large distances from the source. Variability in the soil strata can also cause diffractions or channeling effects that affect the propagation of vibration over long distances (Caltrans 2020). When a building is exposed to vibration, a ground-to-foundation coupling loss (the loss that occurs when energy is transferred from one medium to another) will usually reduce the overall vibration level. However, under rare circumstances, the ground-to-foundation coupling may amplify the vibration level due to structural resonances of the floors and walls.
c. Sensitive Receivers
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. According to the Burbank2035 General Plan Noise Element, residential areas, hospitals, convalescent and day care facilities, schools, and libraries are considered noise-sensitive uses (City of Burbank 2013).

ATTACHMENT 10 -192
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.7-6
Vibration-sensitive receivers, which are similar to noise-sensitive receivers, include residences and institutional uses, such as hospitals, schools, and churches. However, vibration-sensitive receivers also include buildings where vibrations may interfere with vibration-sensitive equipment that is affected by vibration levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance (e.g., recording studies or medical facilities with sensitive equipment). Other uses that may have particular sensitivity to groundborne vibration include historic sites and structures.

The city encompasses 17.1 square miles and consists of a mix of urban uses (i.e., residential, civic, commercial, media, industrial, and open space). According to the Burbank2035 General Plan Land Use Element, the city predominantly consists of land that is designated and zoned for residential purposes, totaling approximately 36 percent of the city’s acreage (City of Burbank 2013). Therefore, residential uses comprise most of the sensitive receivers in the city. Other sensitive receivers consist of recreational uses (e.g., parks) and some commercial/retail (e.g., motels, hotels, movie studios) and institutional (e.g., schools, hospitals) uses. Also, refer to Section 4.3, Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources, for a discussion of historic properties in the city, which may be particularly sensitive to increases in groundborne vibration levels. d. Existing Conditions
Noise Sources
Burbank is affected by a variety of noise sources, including mobile and stationary sources. According to the Burbank2035 General Plan Noise Element, the most prevalent noise source in the city is traffic on the freeways and arterials. Interstate 5 (I-5) bisects the city from north to south and the State Route 134 (SR 134) passes through the southern end of the city. Many arterial roadways (e.g., Glenoaks Boulevard, Olive Avenue, Burbank Boulevard, Hollywood Way) traverse almost all areas of the city.

Periodic noise sources include train traffic (i.e., Amtrak, Metrolink, freight trains); aircraft operations into and out of the Hollywood Burbank Airport (formerly known as Bob Hope Airport); trucks and machinery within industrial areas (located primarily along the I-5 corridor); and loading docks or other mechanical equipment at retail centers. Furthermore, movie studio noise is a stationary source unique to the southern portion of the city and typically consists of single, periodic events that last for a specific time period, rather than continuously (City of Burbank 2013).

The General Plan Noise Element includes noise contours that have been estimated using information about both current and projected future land uses and traffic volumes throughout the city.1 Figure 4.7-2 identifies modeled noise contours for baseline year 2010. In addition to traffic volumes, railroad and aircraft operations also represent major noise sources in certain parts of Burbank. Figure 4.7-3 displays anticipated changes in noise levels associated with future growth accompanied by an increase in citywide traffic volumes for the year 2035. Roadway segments anticipated to experience the greatest increase in noise levels consist of Olive Avenue between Hollywood Way and Riverside Drive (3 CNEL increase), Empire Avenue between Victory Boulevard and Hollywood Way (4 CNEL increase), and First Street between Magnolia Boulevard and San Fernando Boulevard (3 CNEL increase). Furthermore, Figure 4.7-4 identifies the Hollywood Burbank Airport (identified as the Bob Hope Airport on the figure) planning boundary and Airport Influence Area, which is consistent with the airport’s 65 CNEL contour. This airport noise contour represents

1 Noise contours consist of modeled areas of similar noise exposure that do not consider the presence of structures (e.g., buildings and solid walls) and natural topography (e.g., hills and berms) that obstruct the line-of-sight between a noise source and a receiver and further reduce noise levels.

ATTACHMENT 10 -193
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-7
the boundary in which new development is subject to additional planning considerations (City of Burbank 2013).

In cases where the actual ambient conditions are not known, the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) indicates that the city’s base ambient noise levels defined in Section 9-3-208.B of the BMC (as shown in Table 4.7-5 under Regulatory Setting of this section) should be used to characterize noise conditions. According to Section 9-3-208.B, the city’s presumed daytime and nighttime ambient noise levels for residential-zoned areas are 55 dBA and 45 dBA, respectively. Furthermore, the city’s presumed all-day ambient noise level for commercial zones is 65 dBA whereas the all-day ambient noise level for all other zones (e.g., industrial) is 70 dBA. These noise levels are generally consistent with the common outdoor noise levels associated with commercial areas and quiet urban areas, as identified by Caltrans and shown in Figure 4.7-1 (i.e., 50 dBA Leq during the daytime and 40 dBA Leq during the nighttime at quiet urban areas; between 60 dBA Leq and 80 dBA Leq during the daytime at commercial districts).

ATTACHMENT 10 -194
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.7-8
Figure 4.7-2 Baseline Traffic Noise Contours

Source: City of Burbank 2013
ATTACHMENT 10 -195
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-9
Figure 4.7-3 Change in Future (Year 2035) Traffic Noise Contours

Source: City of Burbank 2013
ATTACHMENT 10 -196
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.7-10
Figure 4.7-4 Hollywood Burbank Airport (formerly Bob Hope Airport) Noise Contour

Source: City of Burbank 2013
ATTACHMENT 10 -197
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-11
Vibration Sources
Sources of vibration in the city, similar to that of the noise environment, are also primarily motor vehicles along roadways. Like mobile-source noises, vibration by vehicular movement generally affects numerous receivers along lengths of roadways and depends on pavement and type and weight of the vehicle. Vibration may also be generated by construction equipment (e.g., earth- moving equipment and pile driving); however, these sources are temporary and vary on a project- by-project basis. More permanent, but intermittent, vibration may also be generated by railroad and airport operations, which would affect communities adjacent to these facilities. In addition, commercial or industrial activities may generate vibration from the use of heavy equipment (e.g., businesses that recycle construction debris).

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has adopted regulations designed to protect workers against the effects of occupational noise exposure. These regulations list permissible noise level exposure as a function of the amount of time during which the worker is exposed. The regulations further specify a hearing conservation program that involves monitoring noise to which workers are exposed, ensuring that workers are made aware of overexposure to noise, and periodically testing the workers’ hearing to detect any degradation.
b. State
California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Section 1206.4 According to the 2019 California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Section 1206.4 (Allowable Interior Noise Levels) of the California Code of Regulations, interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 CNEL in any habitable room. A habitable room is typically a residential room used for living, sleeping, eating, or cooking. Bathrooms, closets, hallways, utility spaces, and similar areas are not considered habitable rooms for this regulation.

California Department of Transportation
As discussed in the Environmental Setting of this section, Caltrans has developed limits for the assessment of vibration from transportation and construction sources, which are reflective of standard practice for analyzing vibration impacts. Table 4.7-1 presents the impact criteria for structural damage to buildings and Table 4.7-2 presents the criteria for annoyance to humans.

The State noise and vibration guidelines are to be used as guidance with respect to planning for noise, not standards and/or regulations to which the City of Burbank must adhere.

ATTACHMENT 10 -198
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.7-12
c. Regional
Airport Land Use Commission
In Los Angeles County, the Regional Planning Commission has the responsibility for acting as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and for coordinating the airport planning of public agencies within the county. The ALUC coordinates planning for the areas surrounding public use airports, and the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) provides for the orderly expansion of the County's public use airports and the area surrounding them. It is intended to provide for the adoption of land use measures that will minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. There are several airports in the city or its vicinity, including the Hollywood Burbank Airport, Whiteman Airport, Van Nuys Airport, Santa Monica Municipal Airport, San Gabriel Airport, and Los Angeles International Airport. The Los Angeles County ALUC is responsible for implementing airport land use plans for these airports that promote compatibility between each airport in the county and the surrounding land uses to ensure that hazardous conditions, including incompatible noise levels, are not created (Los Angeles County 2004).
d. Local
Burbank2035 General Plan Noise Element
The Burbank2035 General Plan Noise Element is intended to identify sources of noise and provide goals, objectives, and policies that ensure that noise from various sources, including transportation and stationary sources, does not create an unacceptable noise environment. As shown in Table 4.7-3, the City has adopted land use compatibility standards for use in assessing the compatibility of various land use types that are exposed to noise levels generated by transportation sources (e.g., traffic, railroad operations, and aircraft). According to the City’s standards shown in Table 4.7-3, ambient noise up to 60 CNEL is normally acceptable for single-family residences whereas ambient noise up to 65 CNEL is normally acceptable for multi-family residences. These standards also establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential development, requiring that sufficient insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 CNEL (City of Burbank 2013).

Table 4.7-3 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Transportation Sources Land Use Category
Exterior Normally
Acceptable1
(CNEL/Ldn)
Exterior Possibly
Acceptable2
(CNEL/Ldn)
Exterior Normally
Unacceptable3
(CNEL/Ldn)
Interior
Acceptable4
(CNEL/Ldn, except
where noted)
Residential, Single-family Up to 60 61-70 71 and higher 45 Residential, Multi-family Up to 65 66-70 71 and higher 45 Residential, Multi-family
Mixed-use Up to 65 66-70 71 and higher 45
Transient Lodging Up to 65 66-70 71 and higher 45
Hospitals, Nursing Homes Up to 60 61-70 71 and higher 45 Theaters, Auditoriums,
Music Halls Up to 60 61-70 71 and higher 35 dBA Leq5
Churches, Meeting Halls Up to 60 61-70 71 and higher 40 dBA Leq5 ATTACHMENT 10 -199
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-13
Land Use Category
Exterior Normally
Acceptable1
(CNEL/Ldn)
Exterior Possibly
Acceptable2
(CNEL/Ldn)
Exterior Normally
Unacceptable3
(CNEL/Ldn)
Interior
Acceptable4
(CNEL/Ldn, except
where noted)
Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Parks Up to 70 71-75 75 and higher –
Schools, Libraries, Museums6 – – – 45 dBA Leq5
Offices7 – – – 45 dBA Leq5
Retail/Commercial7 – – – –
Industrial – – – –
1 Normally acceptable means that land uses may be established in areas with the stated ambient noise level, absent any unique noise circumstances.
2 Possibly acceptable means that land uses should be established in areas with the stated ambient noise level only when exterior areas are omitted from the project or noise levels in exterior areas can be mitigated to the normally acceptable level. 3 Normally unacceptable means that land uses should generally not be established in areas with the stated ambient noise level. If the benefits of the project in addressing other Burbank2035 goals and policies outweigh concerns about noise, the use should be established only where exterior areas are omitted from the project or where exterior areas are located and shielded from noise sources to mitigate noise to the maximum extent feasible. 4 Interior acceptable means that the building must be constructed so that interior noise levels do not exceed the stated maximu m, regardless of the exterior noise level. Stated maximums are as determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use. 5 dBA Leq is as determine for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use. 6 Within the Airport Influence Area, these uses are not acceptable above 65 CNEL if subject to the City’s discretionary review procedures.
7 Within the Airport Influence Area, these uses may be acceptable up to 75 CNEL following review for additional noise attenuati on; in excess of 75 CNEL these uses are not acceptable.

Source: City of Burbank 2013
When stationary noise is the primary noise source, the City applies a second set of hourly daytime and nighttime performance standards (expressed in dBA Leq) that are designed to protect noise- sensitive land uses adjacent to stationary sources from excessive noise (City of Burbank 2013).

Table 4.7-4 summarizes stationary-source noise standards for various land use types that represent acceptable noise levels at exterior spaces of the sensitive receiver.

Table 4.7-4 Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure – Stationary Sources Noise Source
Noise Level
Descriptor
Exterior Spaces1 – Daytime
(7 AM to 10 PM)
Exterior Spaces1 – Nighttime
(10 PM to 7 AM)
Typical dBA Leq
(1-Hour)
552 452
Tonal, impulsive, repetitive, or
consisting primarily of speech or music
dBA Leq
(1-Hour)
502 402
Any dBA Lmax 75 65
1 Where the location of exterior spaces (i.e., outdoor activity areas) is unknown, the exterior noise level standard shall be applied to the property line of the receiving land use. Where it is not practical to mitigate exterior noise levels at patio or balconies of apartment complexes, a common area such as a pool or recreation area may be designated as the exterior space. 2 The City may impose noise level standards that are more or less restrictive than those specified above based upon determination of existing low or high ambient noise levels.

Source: City of Burbank 2013
ATTACHMENT 10 -200
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.7-14
In addition to these maximum allowable noise exposure standards, for analysis of noise impacts and determining appropriate mitigation under CEQA, an increase in ambient noise levels is assumed to be a significant noise impact if a project causes ambient noise levels to exceed the following (City of Burbank 2013):
 Where the existing ambient noise level is less than 60 CNEL/Ldn, a project-related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 5 CNEL/Ldn or greater.  Where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 60 CNEL/Ldn, a project-related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 CNEL/Ldn or greater.

Furthermore, the following goals, objectives, and policies from the General Plan Noise Element are relative to the Housing Element Update (City of Burbank 2013):

Goal 1: Noise Compatible Land Uses: Burbank’s diverse land use pattern is compatible with current and future noise levels.

Policy 1.1: Ensure the noise compatibility of land uses when making land use planning decisions.

Policy 1.2: Provide spatial buffers in new development projects to separate excessive noise generating uses from noise-sensitive uses.

Policy 1.3: Incorporate design and construction features into residential and mixed-use projects that shield residents from excessive noise.

Policy 1.4: Maintain acceptable noise levels at existing noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy 1.5: Reduce noise from activity centers located near residential areas, in cases where noise standards are exceeded.

Policy 1.6: Consult with movie studios and residences that experience noise from filming activities to maintain a livable environment.

Goal 2: Noise in Mixed-Use Development: Noise from commercial activity is reduced in residential portions of mixed-use projects.

Policy 2.1: Require the design and construction of buildings to minimize commercial noise within indoor areas of residential components of mixed-use projects.

Policy 2.2: Locate the residential portion of new mixed-use projects away from noise generating sources such as mechanical equipment, gathering places, loading bays, parking lots, driveways, and trash enclosures.

Goal 3: Vehicular Traffic Noise: Burbank’s vehicular transportation network reduces noise levels affecting sensitive land uses.

Policy 3.1: Support noise-compatible land uses along existing and future roadways, highways, and freeways.

Policy 3.2: Encourage coordinated site planning and traffic management that minimizes traffic noise affecting noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy 3.3: Advocate the use of alternative transportation modes such as walking, bicycling, mass transit, and non-motorized vehicles to minimize traffic noise.

Policy 3.4: Install, maintain, and renovate freeway and highway right-of-way buffers and sound walls through continued work with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).

Policy 3.5: Monitor noise levels in residential neighborhoods and reduce traffic noise exposure through implementation of the neighborhood protection plans.

ATTACHMENT 10 -201
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-15
Policy 3.6: Prohibit heavy trucks from driving through residential neighborhoods.

Policy 3.7: Where feasible, employ noise-cancelling technologies such as rubberized asphalt, fronting homes to the roadway, or sound walls to reduce the effects of roadway noise on sensitive receptors.

Policy 3.8: Within the Airport Influence Area, seek to inform residential property owners of airport generated noise and any land use restrictions associated with high noise exposure.

Goal 4: Train Noise: Burbank’s train service network reduces noise levels affecting residential areas and noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy 4.1: Support noise-compatible land uses along rail corridors.

Policy 4.2: Require noise-reducing design features as part of transit-oriented, mixed-use development located near rail corridors.

Policy 4.3: Promote the use of design features, such as directional warning horns or strobe lights, at railroad crossings that reduce noise from train warnings.

Goal 5: Aircraft Noise: Burbank achieves compatibility between airport-generated noise and adjacent land uses and reduces aircraft noise effects on residential areas and noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy 5.1: Prohibit incompatible land uses within the airport noise impact area.

Policy 5.2: Work with regional, state, and federal agencies, including officials at Bob Hope Airport, to implement noise reduction measures and to monitor and reduce noise associated with aircraft.

Policy 5.3: Coordinate with the Federal Aviation Administration and Caltrans Division of Aeronautics regarding the siting and operation of heliports and helistops to minimize excessive helicopter noise.

Policy 5.4: Within the Airport Influence Area, seek to inform residential property owners of airport generated noise and any land use restrictions associated with high noise exposure.

Goal 6: Industrial Noise: Noise generated by industrial activities is reduced in residential areas and at noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy 6.1: Minimize excessive noise from industrial land uses through incorporation of site and building design features.

Policy 6.2: Require industrial land uses to locate vehicular traffic and operations away from adjacent residential areas.

Goal 7: Construction, Maintenance, and Nuisance Noise: Construction, maintenance, and nuisance noise is reduced in residential areas and at noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy 7.1: Avoid scheduling city maintenance and construction projects during evening, nighttime, and early morning hours.

Policy 7.2: Require project applicants and contractors to minimize noise in construction activities and maintenance operations.

Policy 7.3: Limit the allowable hours of construction activities and maintenance operations located adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses.

Policy 7.4: Limit the allowable hours of operation for and deliveries to commercial, mixed-use, and industrial uses located adjacent to residential areas.

ATTACHMENT 10 -202
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.7-16
City of Burbank Municipal Code
The City’s noise standards, found in Title 9, Chapter 3, Article 2 (Noise Control) of the City of Burbank Municipal Code (BMC), set forth hours of operation for certain activities and standards for determining when noise is deemed to be a disturbance.

Section 9-3-208.A of the BMC prohibits the operation of any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air conditioning apparatus, or similar mechanical device in such a manner as to cause the ambient noise level at an adjacent noise-sensitive property to be exceeded by more than 5 dBA. In the case of leaf blowers, the ambient noise level may not be exceeded by more than 20 dBA.

According to Section 9-3-208.B, the ambient noise level referred to in this section are described by the base levels and pertaining zones shown in Table 4.7-5.

Table 4.7-5 Ambient Noise Base Level
Zone Time Base Levels (dBA)
Residential Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 45
Residential Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) 55
Commercial Anytime 65
All Other Zones Anytime 70
Source: BMB Section 9-3-208.B
According to Section 9-3-213 of the BMC, no person shall use or operate any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound in such manner as to cause disturbance and cause the ambient noise level at an adjacent noise-sensitive property to be exceeded by more than 5 dBA.

Similarly, according to Section 9-3-213.5 of the BMC, no person in a park (including public parking lots) or on a right of way adjacent to a park shall use or operate any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound or other sound amplification systems in such manner as to disturb the peace, quiet, and comfort of neighboring residents or any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area.

According to Section 9-3-224 of the BMC, no person shall create any noise on any street, sidewalk or public place adjacent to any hospital or to any school, institution of learning or church while the same is in use, which noise unreasonably interferes with the workings of such institution or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospital, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets, sidewalk or public place indicating the presence of a school, church or hospital.

The BMC also designates hours of construction applicable to all construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, maintenance, removal and demolition work.

Section 9-1-1-105.10 of the BMC prohibits construction activity between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Monday through Friday, between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays, and at any time on Sundays or national holidays.

ATTACHMENT 10 -203
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-17

4.7.3 Environmental Impacts
a. Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Housing Element Update’s noise and vibration impacts would be significant if it would:

1. Generate 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

2. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels

3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels The Initial Study (Appendix B) determined that the proposed Project could result in potentially significant impacts related to ambient noise levels (Threshold 1), groundborne vibration (Threshold 2), and airport noise (Threshold 3). As such, an analysis of these issues is included in this section of the EIR. The following discussion identifies specific thresholds used to analyze the general CEQA thresholds listed above.

Construction Noise Thresholds
While the City does not have specific noise level criteria for assessing construction impacts, the FTA has developed guidance for determining whether construction of a project would result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels. Based on FTA guidance, for residential land uses, a significant impact would occur if construction noise exceeds an eight-hour 80 dBA L eq daytime noise
limit or an eight-hour 70 dBA Leq nighttime noise limit (FTA 2018). As described under Section 4.7.2, Regulatory Framework, construction hours would comply with Section 9-1-1-105.10 of the BMC and would not occur during nighttime hours between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or national holidays.

Therefore, nighttime construction noise is not analyzed further in this section.

Operational Noise Thresholds
The City has adopted noise standards in the BMC that regulate on-site operational noise sources in the city. The Housing Element Update would result in a significant impact if the accommodated 10,456 housing units generate noise from on-site sources in excess of BMC standards included in Chapters 9-3-208, 9-3-213, 9-3-213.5, and 9-3-224 (as described under Section 4.7.2, Regulatory Framework), which collectively regulate noise from operations that are typical to residential uses (e.g., sound-amplifying devices, HVAC equipment, lawn maintenance equipment, hand tools, wheeled equipment, outdoor activities).

Off-site operational noise (i.e., roadway noise) would result in a significant if housing development accommodated under the Housing Element Update would cause the ambient noise level measured at the property line of affected uses to increase by 3 dBA, which would be a perceptible increase in traffic noise.

In addition, as described by the Burbank2035 General Plan Noise Element, an increase in ambient noise levels is assumed to be a significant noise impact if a project causes ambient noise levels to exceed the following (City of Burbank 2013):

ATTACHMENT 10 -204
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.7-18
 Where the existing ambient noise level is less than 60 CNEL/Ldn, a project-related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 5 CNEL/Ldn or greater.  Where the existing ambient noise level is greater than 60 CNEL/Ldn, a project-related permanent increase in ambient noise levels of 3 CNEL/Ldn or greater.

Land Use Compatibility Thresholds
According to the City’s land use compatibility standards shown in Table 4.7-3, ambient noise up to 60 CNEL is normally acceptable for single-family residences whereas ambient noise up to 65 CNEL is normally acceptable for multi-family residences. In addition, ambient noise up to 70 CNEL is possible acceptable for all residences. These standards also establish maximum interior noise levels for new residential development, requiring that enough insulation be provided to reduce interior ambient noise levels to 45 CNEL (City of Burbank 2013).

Groundborne Vibration Thresholds
The City has not adopted a significance threshold to assess vibration impacts during construction and operation. Therefore, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2020) is used to evaluate potential construction vibration impacts related to both potential building damage and human annoyance. Construction vibration impacts from housing development would be significant if vibration levels exceed the Caltrans criteria shown in Table 4.7-1 and Table 4.7-2.

For example, impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.5 in./sec. PPV for residential structures and 2.0 in./sec. PPV for commercial structures, which is the limit where minor cosmetic (i.e., non-structural) damage may occur to these buildings. Construction vibration impacts would also be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.12 in./sec. PPV for extremely fragile historic buildings, as shown in Table 4.7-1. In addition, construction vibration impacts would cause significant human annoyance at nearby receivers if vibration levels exceed 0.25 in./sec. PPV, which is the limit where vibration becomes distinctly perceptible from barely perceptible.

Airport Noise Thresholds
Exposure to airport noise would be significant if new housing development is located within the Hollywood Burbank Airport’s 65 CNEL noise contour identified in the Burbank2035 General Plan Noise Element and as shown in Figure 4.7-4 (City of Burbank 2013). b. Methodology
As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the Housing Element Update is a plan to accommodate forecasted growth and existing and future need. The following discussion describes the methodology, including models, used to evaluate the significance of potential noise and vibration impacts related to the forecasted construction and operation of 10,456 housing units accommodated by the Housing Element Update, particularly for construction noise, on-site and off- site operational noise, and construction vibration.

Construction Noise
The primary source of temporary noise associated with the Housing Element Update would be construction activities associated with accommodated housing development. Construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes: stationary and mobile. Stationary equipment operates in a single location for one or more days at a time, with either fixed-power ATTACHMENT 10 -205
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-19
operation (e.g., pumps, generators, and compressors) or variable-power operation (e.g., pile drivers, rock drills, and pavement breakers). Mobile equipment moves around a construction site with power applied in cyclic fashion, such as bulldozers, graders, and loaders (FTA 2018). Each phase of construction has its own noise characteristics due to specific equipment mixes; some will have higher continuous noise levels than others and some may have high-impact intermittent noise levels (FTA 2018). Therefore, construction noise levels may fluctuate depending on the type of equipment being used, construction phase, or equipment location. In typical construction projects on vacant sites, grading activities typically generate the highest noise levels because grading involves the largest equipment and covers the greatest area. Foundation excavation and construction is often the second loudest phase, followed by paving and building construction.

Variation in power imposes additional complexity in characterizing the noise source level from construction equipment. Power variation is accounted for by describing the noise at a reference distance from the equipment operating at full power and adjusting it based on the duty cycle, or percent of operational time, of the activity to determine the L eq of the operation (FTA 2018).

For assessment purposes, noise levels for common construction equipment provided in the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2018) guidance document were used to analyze potential noise levels associated with future development under the Housing Element Update. The FTA provides typical noise levels at 50 feet from various types of equipment. Construction noise was also estimated using the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) (2006). RCNM predicts construction noise levels for a variety of construction operations based on empirical data and the application of acoustical propagation formulas. Using RCNM, construction noise levels were estimated at a distance of 50 feet from future development. Model results are included in Appendix G to this EIR.

In general, smaller housing developments on urban infill sites are not likely to result in substantial construction noise impacts because construction activities at these sites are inherently limited by the size of the site. The size of urban infill project sites typically limits the use of the largest (i.e., noisiest) pieces of heavy-duty equipment. The size of a project site also typically limits the size of the development and the related duration of construction activities. Although some individuals may find construction noise of any kind or of any duration very disturbing, as a general matter, typical construction (including with the implementation of mitigation measures described in further detail in the following subsection) does not result in and would not be considered a significant impact.

Therefore, while urban infill housing developments that meet the following criteria could result in disturbance to residents and employees at adjacent properties, resulting noise levels typically would not result in significant construction noise impacts:
 One subterranean level or less (generally 20,000 cubic yards or less of excavated soil material);  Construction durations of less than 18 months (excluding interior finishing);  Use of equipment rated less than 300 horsepower, typically small and medium backhoes, bulldozers, etc.; and
 No potential for pile driving.

Larger projects that require extended construction or heavy-duty equipment could expose sensitive uses to more continuous and/or louder noise impacts and result in significant short-term noise exposure. When noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, libraries, hospitals) are located within 500 feet of a project site, projects that meet one or more of the characteristics below may have the potential to result in significant impacts:

ATTACHMENT 10 -206
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.7-20
 Two subterranean levels or more (generally more than 20,000 cubic yards of excavated soil material);
 Construction durations of 18 months or more (excluding interior finishing);  Use of large, heavy-duty equipment rated 300 horsepower or greater; or  The potential for pile driving.

On-site Operational Noise
The primary on-site noise sources associated with operation of housing developments, including in mixed use developments, and those discussed in this analysis, would include noise from stationary heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, on-site vehicle movement (e.g., delivery and trash hauling), and outdoor activities. Analysis of outdoor activity considers the existing noise environment and refers to regulations included in the City’s noise ordinance (i.e., Title 9, Chapter 3, Article 2 of the BMC).

Specific planning data for HVAC systems are not available at this stage of analysis; however, for a reasonable assessment, specification for a typical to larger-sized residential condenser was used to determine project HVAC noise. The unit used for this analysis is a Carrier 38HDR060 split system condenser. The manufacturer’s noise data lists the unit as having a sound power level of 72 dBA (Carrier 2011).

Off-site Operational Noise
Housing development accommodated under the Housing Element Update would generate motor vehicle trips, thereby increasing off-site traffic on area roadways. The Project’s off-site traffic noise impacts are analyzed based on data from the Transportation Assessment completed by Fehr & Peers (F&P) dated July 2021, which is included as Appendix E to this EIR. The overall increase in traffic noise was estimated using vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data from the Transportation Assessment for existing conditions (Year 2021), future without project conditions (i.e., Year 2029 without the Housing Element Update), and future with project conditions (i.e., Year 2029 with the Housing Element Update). Residential development under the Housing Element Update would generate vehicle trips, thereby increasing traffic on area roadways.

Groundborne Vibration
Operation of housing development accommodated by the Housing Element Update would not include any substantial vibration sources (e.g., use of heavy equipment). Rather, construction activities would have the greatest potential to generate groundborne vibration affecting sensitive receivers and/or structures adjacent to a construction site, especially during grading and when a site is located near a historic site or structure. As discussed in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources/Tribal Cultural Resources, the Downtown TOD Specific Plan (TOD) inventory possesses 36 parcels with known historic-period buildings and the Golden State Specific Plan (GSSP) inventory contains 32 parcels.

A quantitative assessment of potential vibration impacts from construction activities was conducted using equations developed by Caltrans (Caltrans 2020). Table 4.7-6 shows typical vibration levels for various pieces of construction equipment used in the construction vibration assessment.

ATTACHMENT 10 -207
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-21
Table 4.7-6 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in./sec.) at 25 Feet
Pile Driver (Impact) 0.644
Pile Driver (Sonic) 0.170
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Truck 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Sources: FTA 2018; Caltrans 2020
Because groundborne vibration could cause physical damage to structures and is measured in an instantaneous period, vibration impacts are typically modeled based on the distance from the location of vibration-intensive construction activities, which is conservatively assumed to be edge of a project site, to the edge of the nearest off-site structures. For assessment purposes, vibration levels for the construction equipment shown in Table 4.7-6 were modeled at various incremental distances between 25 feet and 100 feet to analyze potential vibration levels associated with future development under the Housing Element Update. Vibration calculations are included in Appendix G to this EIR.
c. Project Impacts
Threshold 1: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Impact NOI-1 CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACCOMMODATED UNDER

THE HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE ALLOWED DAYTIME CONSTRUCTION

HOURS REGULATED BY THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE AND, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT OCCUR DURING NIGHTTIME HOURS WHEN PEOPLE ARE MORE SENSITIVE TO NOISE. WHILE LARGER DEVELOPMENTS COULD

INVOLVE CONSTRUCTION WITH LENGTHY DURATIONS, SUBSTANTIAL SOIL MOVEMENT, USE OF LARGE, HEAVY-

DUTY EQUIPMENT, AND/OR PILE DRIVING NEAR NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES THAT WOULD EXCEED THE APPLICABLE FTA DAYTIME NOISE LIMITS, IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES NOI-1A THROUGH NOI-51J WOULD REDUCE CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS TO BELOW THRESHOLDS. THEREFORE, IMPACTS GENERATED BY TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NOISE WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.

Future construction activity would require the use of a variety of noise-generating equipment that would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels on an intermittent basis. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance between the noise source and receiver, and presence or absence of noise attenuation barriers.

Typical noise levels at 50 feet from various types of equipment that may be used during construction are listed in Table 4.7-7. The loudest noise levels are typically generated by impact equipment (e.g., pile drivers) and heavy-duty equipment (e.g., cranes, scrapers, and graders).

Construction noise would occur intermittently throughout construction and, in some instances, ATTACHMENT 10 -208
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.7-22
multiple pieces of equipment may operate simultaneously, generating overall noise levels that are incrementally higher than what is shown in Table 4.7-7.

Table 4.7-7 Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 Feet from Source Air Compressor 80
Backhoe 80
Compactor 82
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Concrete Vibrator 76
Crane, Derrick 88
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Generator 82
Grader 85
Jackhammer 88
Loader 80
Paver 85
Pile-driver (Impact) 101
Pile-driver (Sonic) 95
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 77
Roller 85
Saw 76
Scarifier 83
Scraper 85
Shovel 82
Truck 84
Sources: FTA 2018
Sensitive receivers are located throughout the city and could be exposed to noise associated with construction activities from reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update. As discussed in Section 4.7.1, Environmental Setting, sensitive receivers in the city mainly consist of residences but also include parks, motels, hotels, movies studios, school, and hospitals.

Because specific development projects have not yet been determined at individual sites, this analysis assumes that construction activities would occur within 50 feet from sensitive receivers throughout the course of a typical construction day. As shown in Table 4.7-7, sensitive receivers would be exposed to noise levels ranging from 76 to 88 dBA at 50 feet from typical construction equipment, and could reach as high as 101 dBA through the use of pile drivers. However, a typical construction day includes the operation of multiple pieces of equipment at once. For assessment purposes, a construction noise level at 50 feet from the source was estimated using RCNM and was based on an excavator, dozer, and jackhammer operating simultaneously. These pieces of ATTACHMENT 10 -209
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-23
equipment generate some of the highest noise levels during demolition and grading phases of construction. As shown in Table 4.6-8, the combined noise level (dBA, Leq) from these pieces of equipment is estimated at 84 dBA Leq at 50 feet.

Table 4.6-8 Typical Construction Noise Level at 50 Feet Equipment Leq, dBA at 50 Feet
Excavator, Dozer, Jackhammer 84
See Appendix G for RCNM results.

Construction noise levels would vary depending on the type of equipment, the duration of use, the distance to receivers, and the potential for pile driving. Engine noise reduction technology, including silencers, continues to improve, but heavy construction equipment still generates noise exceeding ambient levels that could cause intermittent annoyance to nearby receivers. Noise associated with construction of development under the Housing Element Update would be typical of residential construction, but could exceed the eight-hour 80 dBA Leq daytime significance threshold at residences.

As previously discussed in Methodology of this section, housing development accommodated under the Housing Element Update that could result in construction noise would tend to include relatively lengthy construction durations (i.e., longer than 18 months), two or more subterranean levels, use of multiple pieces of heavier equipment (i.e., cranes, excavators, dozers), simultaneous use of multiple pieces of equipment, and generally noisier activities, such as the potential for pile driving.

While these larger projects are not considered typical, they could potentially result in significant noise impacts, particularly upon potentially adjacent residential zones or other nearby sensitive receivers, and temporarily increase ambient noise levels above FTA noise limits. The type of construction equipment, proximity of sensitive receivers to the site, and the overall duration of construction are key factors in determining whether construction-related noise would be significant at the project-level as opposed to determining construction noise impacts at the programmatic level. Based on typical construction equipment noise levels, the anticipated duration of construction activities, and type of equipment used for larger housing developments, the Housing Element Update could result in potentially significant construction noise impacts on a project-specific basis at nearby sensitive receivers. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level .

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are required to reduce construction-related noise impacts to sensitive receivers near subsequent development projects.

NOI-1a Shielding and Silencing
Power construction equipment (including combustion engines), fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with noise shielding and silencing devices consistent with manufacturer’s standards or the Best Available Control Technology. Equipment shall be properly maintained, and the project applicant or owner shall require any construction contractor to keep documentation on-site during any earthwork or construction activities demonstrating that the equipment has been maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

ATTACHMENT 10 -210
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.7-24
NOI-1b Enclosures and Screening
All outdoor fixed mechanical equipment shall be enclosed or screened from off-site noise-sensitive uses. The equipment enclosure or screen shall be impermeable (i.e., solid material with minimum weight of 2 pounds per square feet) and break the line-of-sight from the equipment and off-site noise-sensitive uses.

NOI-1c Construction Staging Areas
Construction staging areas shall be located as far from noise-sensitive uses as reasonably possible and feasible in consideration of site boundaries, topography, intervening roads and uses, and operational constraints.

NOI-1d Smart Back-Up Alarms
Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction.

N-1e Equipment Idling
Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.

N-1f Workers’ Radios
All noise from workers’ radios, including any on-site music, shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at off-site noise-sensitive uses.

NOI-1g Use of Driven Pile Systems
Driven (impact), sonic, or vibratory pile drivers shall not be used, except in locations where the underlying geology renders alternative methods infeasible, as determined by a soils or geotechnical engineer and documented in a soils report.

NOI-1h Temporary Sound Barriers
Temporary sound barriers, such as walls or sound blankets, shall be positioned between construction activities and noise-sensitive uses when construction equipment are located within a line-of-sight to and within 500 feet of off-site noise-sensitive uses. Sound barriers shall break the line-of-sight between the construction noise source and the receiver where modeled levels exceed applicable standards. Placement, orientation, size, and density of acoustical barriers shall be specified by a qualified acoustical consultant.

NOI-1i Noise Complaint Response
Project applicants shall designate an on-site construction project manager who shall be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. This person shall be responsible for responding to concerns of neighboring properties about construction noise disturbance and shall be available for responding to any construction noise complaints during the hours that construction is to take place. They shall also responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad silencer) and shall require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. A toll- ATTACHMENT 10 -211
Environmental Impact Analysis
Noise

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-25
free telephone number and email address shall be posted in a highly visible manner on the construction site at all times and provided in all notices (mailed, online website, and construction site postings) for receiving questions or complaints during construction and shall also include procedures requiring that the on-site construction manager to respond to callers and email messages. The on-site construction project manager shall be required to track complaints pertaining to construction noise, ongoing throughout demolition, grading, and/or construction and shall notify the City’s Community Development Director of each complaint occurrence.

NOI-1j Project-Specific Construction Noise Study
A Construction Noise Study, prepared by a qualified noise expert to meet the requirements herein, shall be required for housing development projects located within 500 feet of noise-sensitive land uses identified in the Burbank2036 General Plan Noise Element (i.e., residences, parks, motels, hotels, movies studios, school, and hospitals), and that have one or more of the following characteristics:
 Two subterranean levels or more (generally more than 2 0,000 cubic yards of excavated soil material;
 Construction durations of 18 months or more (excluding interior finishing);  Use of large, heavy-duty equipment rated 300 horsepower or greater;  The potential for pile driving; or
 Located within 1,000 feet of other construction projects with overlapping construction schedules.

The Construction Noise Study shall characterize sources of construction noise, quantify noise levels at noise-sensitive uses (e.g., residences, parks, motels, hotels, movies studios, school, and hospitals) and identify measures to reduce noise exposure. The Construction Noise Study shall identify reasonably available noise reduction devices or techniques to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels and/or durations including through reliance on any relevant federal, state or local standards or guidelines or accepted industry practices. Noise reduction devices or techniques may include but not be limited to silencers, enclosures, sound barriers, and/or placement of restrictions on equipment or construction techniques (e.g., alternative installation methods to pile driving such as cast-in-place systems or pile cushioning). Each measure in the Construction Noise Study shall identify anticipated noise reductions at noise-sensitive land uses.

Project applicants shall be required to comply with all requirements of Mitigation Measures NOI-1a through NOI-1i in addition to any additional requirements identified and recommended by the Construction Noise Study and shall maintain proof that notice of, as well as compliance with, the identified measures have been included in contractor agreements.

Significance After Mitigation
It is anticipated that, with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1a through NOI-1i, construction noise levels associated with smaller housing development could be reduced below the eight-hour 80 dBA Leq daytime residential noise limit per FTA guidelines. However, noise generated by larger housing development may still exceed the FTA noise limit. This would most commonly occur when a development project requiring larger equipment generates high noise levels (e.g., pile driving) on a property abutting a sensitive receiver. Nonetheless, for such larger housing developments, Mitigation Measure NOI-1j would reduce construction noise impacts whenever a development project is located within 500 feet of a noise-sensitive land use. It is anticipated that, ATTACHMENT 10 -212
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update

4.7-26
with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1j, reasonably available noise reduction devices or techniques would be identified to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels and/or durations including through reliance on any relevant federal, state or local standards or guidelines or accepted industry practices. Therefore, noise impacts from construction activities related to the Housing Element Update would be less than significant with mitigation.

Burbank City CouncilSeptember 27, 2022

Burbank City Council
September 27, 2022