Attachment 12 — Burbank City Council, September 27, 2022 (part 2 of 4)

Burbank should be proud of its past record of GHG
r
eductions.

D. Air Quality Policies: where is the policy to upgrade existing homes to greater energy e
ﬃciency? p. 4.1-26
E. Please answer where the threshold of a 400,000 car
intersection comes from. What is Five Points compar
ed
with a 400,000 car intersection?
10 cont.
11 12
13 2-232
ATTACHMENT 12-247
"The city does not have any intersections that would
foreseeably experience daily volumes exceeding 400,000
vehicles per day. Therefor
e, the Housing Element Update
would not have potential to contribute to localized CO
concentrations at intersections that exceed state CO
standards.” p. 4.1-32/33

Five Points at Victory and Burbank, is unique: cars idle for many minutes at a time waiting their turn. Will the future for
ecast of 67,000 daily trips generate CO equal to
400,000 (or even 100,000) cars because the idle times are long at that unique intersection?
Where is there a 400,000 car intersection in the State of California? Wher
e does this come from and where is it
justiﬁed?

7. Contradiction on impacts of “Unplanned growth.”
One section of the DEIR states it is not a problem.
“The Housing Element Update would not induce
unplanned growth directly or indirectly
, and impacts
would be less than signiﬁcant.” page ES-19
However, another section states the housing units may
occur anywhere in the city:
“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-
13 cont.
14 2-233
ATTACHMENT 12-248
family residential and mixed-use residential of adequate density to meet State- required housing production and
affordability targets as discussed below
.” p. 2-14
Occurring “anywhere in the City” is certainly unplanned these days. As an example, the DEIR fails to discuss the impacts of SB9 (replace one home with 4) and SB10 (up
zone to 10 units without CEQA requirements).

These
State mandates result in an unknowable number of new
units in unknowable locations. Housing units may occur
anywhere in the city zoned for residential, a net increase of 2 to 4 new units where one used to be. But we don’t
know where. And the Housing Element indeed induces
direct (population, housing) and indirect (services, quality of life infrastructure) growth it by its implementation of State mandates.

Assess impacts on VMT-

growth inducing impact not addressed
need to look at j/h balance in Burbank area
whether it increases growth of jobs?
and how j/h affects VMT
impact
14 cont.
15 2-234
ATTACHMENT 12-249

8. Loss of housing units to Short Term Rentals. This
impact is not assessed in the DEIR. Loss of these homes — even if no more than 500 — exacerbates the housing
shortage…. by 500 units. Requiring these homes become
available for long term r
ent or sales will help the city make
more progress on its RHNA numbers for all income
categories. And help people ﬁnd homes to live in.

This factor should be discussed in Housing/Population.

How many units? How much displacement? It would
seem the State housing crisis demands every unit be
available.

9. Paradigm shift of work/commute patterns should
be discussed either in GHG, Transportation or Housing
Chapter of the DEIR. W
ork-commute patterns have new
implications for VMT, GHG and RHNA. Historically, longer commute times created more greenhouse emissions, as
recognized by HCD. However, the pandemic has brought
about a paradigm shift to work-travel patterns, the split oﬃce/work from home schedule; on-line learning and on-
line job training.

The new work pattern may be around permanently:
commercial pr
operty can down scale and reduce costs,
employees travel into the oﬃce on a “part-time” basis,
save gas money, enjoy a better quality of life.
16 17
2-235
ATTACHMENT 12-250
This new work pattern is not available to employees who work with their hands, provide services.

How ar
e the impacts of any of these foundational shifts
accounted for in the DEIR?

10. Inadequate discussion of impacts on water supply.

Water utilities r
outinely state that they will provide water to
new development. However, the DEIR needs to discuss
the contemporary drought more completely given the
signiﬁant loss of snowpack and the Governor’s latest
order to local water agencies to develop their own plans for the drought. This will aﬀect Burbank Water and Power. and all of its users.

The Chapter on water needs to more clearly state where
the snow pack is estimated to be in 2029, by using an
interpolation or some other method. Water availability and its management have huge implications for Burbank. See

Page 4 ends

11. Deﬁcient cumulative impact analysis. Cumulative
impacts analyses are deﬁcient because neither SB35,
SB9 and SB10 ar
e assessed nor identiﬁed as part of the
proposed Project.

A.Water. First, ther
e is a housing demand on the overall
availability of water for the city.
17 cont.
18 19
20 2-236
ATTACHMENT 12-251
What is actually required to reach the water conservation levels needs to pr
ovide water to the 10,456 housing
units?
B. Loss of yards/green space/increase in urban heat
island.

One of the beneﬁts peoples have in these
neighborhoods are yards with plants, shade and natural
cooling. Once the yards are cumulatively eliminated, that will reduce a natural cooling eﬀect.

What will be the cumulative eﬀect of additional
development and a commensurate loss of open space?
What is the eﬀect on urban heat island? Therefore, what is the eﬀ
ect on climate change?
C. State housing mandate aﬀects the entire MWD
service area and not just Burbank. Signi
ﬁcantly,
Burbank is not unique among MWD customers required
by the State to substantially up zone their city. This is widely-based, service area impact because all cities are mandated to increase housing units.

Without a service area-wide cumulative analysis,
how will the demand on water supplies be assessed? We
ar
e not an island, our needs are connected to all the cities securing water supplies through MWD.
20 cont.
21 22
2-237
ATTACHMENT 12-252
Given current drought, what level of water conservation will be requir
ed to be meet water supply for 10,456
additional dwelling units in Burbank and is it feasible? Given water conservation, what will be the impacts on
landscaping and resulting heat island eﬀect? A
quantitative analysis is r
equired under cumulative impacts
for water because Burbank is not the only city in the key services area required to zone in this manner.

There needs to be a quantitative analysis.

D. Cumulative Impacts fails to address:

direct and indirect impacts, loss of greenery, infrastructure construction to increase provision of recycled water to neighborhoods, impacts of new piping to provide
recycled water.

Why is there no cumulative analysis of what infrastructure is required to be upgraded to accommodate these new
housing units?

12. The Alternatives are inadequate. The purpose of the Alternatives Section is to provide decision makers with information about how the Project would need to be
modiﬁed, and to what degree, in order to reduce impacts to a level that is less than signi
ﬁcant.
22 cont.
23 24
2-238
ATTACHMENT 12-253
This is a disclosure, even if decision makers do not
choose it.

This alternative- one where there ar
e no signiﬁcant and
unavoidable impacts — (like the proposed Project) should realistically address the potential for impacts to
wastewater, water and other infrastructure systems
associated with level of proposed development. An
Alternative like this needs to be included.

Two added Alternatives should be assessed:

1. An Alternative without the 15% buﬀer;

2. An Alternative that reduces all infrastructure impacts to a level of insigni
ﬁcance.

Unlike current zoning that allows the city to plan in a measured way for development and its density, allowing housing any wher
e in the city, does not aﬀord the city to
reasonably plan for the increase in locational and
cumulative infrastructure demands.

13. Misc.
“As discussed in Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, the analysis found that existing utility systems for water, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications
facilities in the City have suﬃ
cient capacity to serve
reasonably foreseeable development under the
24 cont.
25 26
2-239
ATTACHMENT 12-254
proposed Project; therefor
e, potential infrastructure
improvements associated with these utilities and service systems would not contribute to growth in the City.

Regarding wastewater treatment capacity, the analysis
found that development under the proposed Project
would increase wastewater generation proportional to the projected increased population. Based on the sewer
generation rates that were calculated for the proposed
Project, along with constraints within the City’s
wastewater treatment system that could result from build out of development projects under the Project, potential impacts associated with wastewater generation are
signiﬁcant and unavoidable. Nonetheless, the City’s plans and improvements to the sewer conveyance and
treatment system will be based on the projected
population, and therefore, would not result in unplanned population growth.” Page 5-5
CEQA requires analysis of the impacts of the proposed
Pr
oject, not “reasonably foreseeable development.”
The Elements
Safety Element
Is there a policy recommendation to armor soft story
housing in the face of inevitable earth quakes?
Public Review of Housing Element
Move this Section to the Appendices
26 cont.
27 28
2-240
ATTACHMENT 12-255
Goal 2, Adequate Housing Sites
Revise Policy 2.4
engage proactive code enforcement to retur
n
unauthorized short-term rentals to the city’s housing
market
Goal 3 Aﬀordable Housing
ADD new policy
Establish a Task Force of Burbank Senior Board and
Burbank Committee on Disabilities to determine state-of the-art housing development examples for housing of
person with disabilities; and incorporate these objective standar
ds into all density bonus and inclusionary zoning
projects. SB35, 9 and 10
Goal 5 Equal Housing Opportunity
ADD new policy:

Establish a pre-qualiﬁcation pr
ogram with the Burbank
Housing Corporation for elderly renter households in the extremely low income category and large family
households in the low income category; and support their relocation to stabilized extremely low/low income homes.

Neighborhood Revitalization, Page 33
This paragraph should include the day care and job
search centers and the after-school center that is in BHC but serves the entir
e neighborhood.
30 29
31 32
2-241
ATTACHMENT 12-256
Map of Focus Neighborhoods page 1-34
Map needs correction
Deﬁnitions:

Aﬀordable Unit: could be tied to % of area median
Burbank Housing Corporation: It is more inclusive than
housing: after school learning centers for neighborhood, child care facilities.

By-right development: doesn’t require public hearings
Grants:

List all available State and Federal Grants and
describe
Conditional Use Permit: identify as quasi-judicial
Density Bonus: need simpler deﬁnition
Dissimilarity Index: needs a clear deﬁnition
Homeless: include unsheltered who live in vehicles
Thank you,
Emily

Emily Gabel-Luddy, FASLA
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 2-242
ATTACHMENT 12-257
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter I-1
COMMENTER: Emily Gabel-Luddy
DATE: March 31, 2022
Response I-1.1
The commenter states that the letter contains comments regarding both the Draft EIR and Housing Element. The commenter discusses 2020 census data and notes that there are a significant number of disadvantaged neighborhoods in Burbank. The commenter also states that State pre-emption of local decision making is confirmed by the inadequacy of the Draft EIR to serve as a basis for decision-makers on the Housing and Safety Elements.

Individual responses to each comment are provided below. This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the analysis in the Draft EIR. The comment will be provided to the City’s decisionmakers for their consideration. No further response is required and no revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary.

Response I-1.2
The commenter states that the Draft EIR uses incongruous data sets, such as when discussing housing unit numbers. The commenter notes that all the acronyms are difficult to understand and reconcile in a rational manner. The commenter also states that the housing units listed in the Draft EIR differ from SCAG, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and the California Department of Finance (DOF), and that housing units in the Draft EIR conflict with the DOF housing units listed in the Housing Element.

Please refer to pages A-1 to A-2 in the glossary of the Housing Element for a list of abbreviations.

The DOF housing data provides the current estimated number of housing units within the city and serves as a baseline for Project analysis. SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS Demographics & Growth Forecast provides growth projections for housing units in the city in the year 2045. The Housing Element Update is required to plan for the RHNA allocation, which reflects the number of housing units needed to meet existing need and accommodate projected need. Under the RHNA allocation, the City is required to provide the capacity to accommodate the development of at least 8,772 housing units during the 2021-2029 planning period. Due to the 15 percent buffer recommended by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), as well as the interpolation for housing growth assumed under the City’s two Specific Plans, the estimated number of housing units analyzed in the Draft EIR was changed to 10,456 housing units. As discussed under Impact POP-1 in Section 4.8, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR, the Project would facilitate housing development beyond what is forecasted in SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS. However, SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS was released prior to the 2021-2029 RHNA allocations and therefore, did not include the RHNA allocations in the 2045 housing projections. SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS will be updated to reflect new forecasts for each city in the region.

The City’s existing housing units in the Housing Element conflict with the number of units in the Draft EIR because at the time the Housing Element was prepared, the most current housing unit estimates available were from 2020 DOF data (44,978 units). When the Draft EIR was prepared, 2021 DOF estimates were available (45,069 units). The difference in these two estimates is 91 units, or approximately 0.2 percent, which is negligible and does not change the significance determinations presented in the Draft EIR.

2-243
ATTACHMENT 12-258
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response I-1.3
The commenter states that the algorithms used to produce data in the analysis cannot account for local nuances, activities, historic growth patterns, infrastructure, non-profits, etc.

This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the analysis in the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary; nonetheless, the comment will be provided to the City’s decisionmakers for their consideration. No further response is required.

Response I-1.4
The commenter questions how the City Council will make a Finding of Overriding Consideration for the identified significant and unavoidable impacts to sewers and what benefit would outweigh these impacts. The commenter notes that the Draft EIR identifies an elaborate uncharted approach that Public Works Department’s (PWD) would take over time. The commenter also questions the maximum amount of housing units that would be permitted before reaching significant and unavoidable sewer impacts and how much the Project would need to be modified to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

As required under CEQA, the significant and unavoidable impact to sewerage system will be further considered by the City Council. If the City Council determines that the Project generally meets the City’s objectives for the Housing Element, a Finding of Overriding Consideration will be made, which includes findings and proposed short-term and long-term measures to address sewage capacity issues attributed to the new housing units projected as part of the Housing Element Update that protect public health and safety as it relates to the safe conveyance, storage and treatment of sewage resulting from future housing production under this project. Potential benefits that may outweigh the significant and unavoidable impact include: meeting the City’s fair share, plus a reasonable buffer, of the regional housing need to accommodate projected population growth within the city and region; providing housing sites that accommodate a range of housing types to meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents; and promoting non-discrimination and fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons.

Based on the PWD’s calculations under Impact UTIL-3 in Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, of the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR, the Project would be anticipated to generate an estimated peak discharge of 6.3 million gallons per day (mgd). In addition, as discussed under Impact UTIL-3 in Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, Burbank’s PWD is currently working on both a Cost of Service/Rate Study and Needs Assessment for the Burbank Water Reclamation Plant (BWRP). PWD will also be preparing a new Sewer System Master Plan in FY 2022/23 to evaluate the City’s sewer conveyance and treatment system over the next twenty years, which is inclusive of the proposed Housing Element update planning and implementation period, as well as developing the appropriate sewer facility impact fee to ensure that developers pay their fair share of the cost to expand and upgrade the capacity of the BWRP treatment facilities.

The citywide analysis of the Housing Element Update was analyzed under a Program EIR, which does not require analysis of each individual project. As such, it is not possible with the current level of information provided to reduce all variables related to sewage capacity to a single number of housing units that can be built before negatively impacting the sewer conveyance system. The City sewer system is a network of over 230 miles of interconnected gravity sewer pipelines and certain areas of the City have more available sewer capacity than others. For example, a specific location in the City may utilize a sewer tributary flow path that has available capacity for several additional housing units; whereas a separate location that is only a block away may utilize a very different 2-244
ATTACHMENT 12-259
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
tributary sewer flow path that cannot support any additional housing units. In addition, impacts to the BWRP due to the addition of significant housing units needs to be evaluated at a project level through a Sewer Capacity Analysis. Furthermore, all proposed housing units at specific locations/property addresses throughout the City that are included as part of the Project would be incorporated into and assessed as part of the BWRP Needs Assessment and new Sewer System Master Plan.

Please note that for proposed developments with a significant increase in housing units that trigger a Sewer Capacity Analysis, which is any project with a net increase of five or more additional multi- family housing units, developers will be required to upgrade City sewer infrastructure that is directly impacted by the proposed project, and/or contribute their fair share cost of the sewer improvements as determined by the Public Works Director or their designee.

Since this will have a significant impact to both the City’s conveyance system and treatment plant there are mitigation measures that can be implemented at the project level, but not under this Programmatic EIR. Nonetheless, the Recirculated Draft EIR includes the following mitigation measures that would address potential impacts related to the City’s wastewater conveyance system but would not reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant due to the exceedance of the available wastewater treatment capacity at BWRP associated with full buildout of the Housing Element Update. Mitigation Measures UTIL-3a and 3b would reduce short-term impacts, and Mitigation Measures UTIL-3c and 3d require the preparation of plans, and the implementation of infrastructure capacity and conveyance expansion and upgrades as needed by the infrastructure plans for long-term solutions.

UTIL-3a Sewer System Upgrades by Developers
A Sewer Capacity Analysis shall be required for individual housing projects of five (5) or more multi-family units, so the City may identify sewer infrastructure upgrades that can be implemented by developers when a nexus and rough proportionality is established between proposed project(s) impact to City sewer infrastructure. The SCA must be completed as part of the City’s development review process or prior to the submittal of plan check documents, whichever occurs first.

UTIL-3b Sewage Diversion
Per the City’s Public Works Department there are several locations throughout the City of Burbank where sewage can potentially be diverted away from the BWRP and conveyed to the City of Los Angeles’ Hyperion wastewater treatment system. As a short-term measure, diversion of sewage may be used to alleviate capacity concerns for certain sewage conveyance pipelines (but not all pipelines) as well as temporarily lowering the influent flows to the BWRP. Diverting flows to the Los Angeles system would result in an increase in one-time Sewer Facility Charges (SFCs) and other recurring annual charges (capital improvement and operation & maintenance fees) that shall be paid to the City of Los Angeles. Therefore, if the sewage analysis determines that diversion is feasible, the applicant will be required to contribute a fair share fee, which shall be estimated based on the preliminary billing estimates received from the City of Los Angeles, to offset to the cost of diversion to the City of Los Angeles. 2-245
ATTACHMENT 12-260
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
UTIL-3c Sewer System Master Plan
The City shall prepare a new Sewer System Master Plan in 2023 to evaluate the City’s sewer conveyance and treatment system over the next twenty years, which is inclusive of the proposed Housing Element update planning and implementation period, as well as developing the appropriate sewer facility impact fees to ensure that developers pay their fair share of the cost to expand and upgrade the capacity of the BWRP treatment facilities.

UTIL-3d Expansion and Upgrades to BWRP Treatment Facilities The City shall expand and upgrade the BWRP treatment facilities as needed consistent with the City’s Sewer Master Plan including but not limited to, the acquisition of land adjacent to the BWRP facilities, the addition of new primary clarifiers, increased capacity in the equalization basins, and upgrades to other parts of the sewage treatment process.

The full text of the Recirculated Draft EIR is available on the City’s website at the following link:
https://www.burbankhousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Burbank-Housing-and- Safety-Element-Update-Recirculated-DEIR.pdf
Response I-1.5
The commenter states that there are significant inconsistencies between the RHNA, SCAG’s forecasts for the region and Burbank, and the existing 2021 DOF numbers. The commenter also states that the large discrepancy between the RHNA allocation and SCAG’s 2030 housing unit forecast needs a full explanation. Lastly, the commenter states that Burbank’s RHNA allocation does not make sense and that the City should demand an audit of the SCAG RHNA numbers prior to approving the Project.

Refer to Response I-1.2 regarding the inconsistencies between the SCAG, RHNA, and DOF forecasts.

SCAG’s 2020-2030 growth forecast is used as the basis for calculating projected household growth.

A jurisdiction's projected housing need is calculated based on this household growth in addition to a calculated future vacancy need and replacement need. The RHNA also includes a jurisdiction's existing housing needs, which includes factors related to access to transit and jobs. For additional information, please refer to https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/scag-final-rhna- methodology-030520.pdf?1602189316.

As noted in the Draft Burbank Housing Element, the State is in a worsening affordable housing crisis.

Implementation of the Project would assist in alleviating the housing crisis by meeting 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 RHNA allocation, providing housing sites that accommodate a range of housing types to meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, continuing 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, and focusing on removing governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. Due to the current housing crisis, RHNA allocations throughout the State are high, and City staff and consultants were aware that appeals were not being granted. 2-246
ATTACHMENT 12-261
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response I-1.6
The commenter states that SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS estimates fewer residents, jobs, and housing units by 2040 than under the 2016 RTP/SCS. The commenter questions how the lower numbers for residents, jobs, and housing units are reconciled with the RHNA for Burbank.

Refer to Response I-1.5 regarding the City’s RHNA allocation.

Response I-1.7
The commenter states that the disparity among housing unit numbers in SCAG, RHNA, and DOF forecasts need to be reconciled. The commenter questions how an additional 10,456 housing units in the 6th Cycle Housing Element is justifiable given the current six percent vacancy rate. The commenter also notes that the DOF forecast for housing units in the Housing Element is different from the DOF forecast in the Draft EIR.

As discussed on pages 1-27 to 1-28 in the Housing Element, a vacancy rate measures the overall housing availability in a community and is often a good indicator of how efficiently for-sale and rental housing units are meeting the current demand for housing. A vacancy rate of five percent for rental housing and two percent for ownership housing is generally considered healthy and suggests that there is a balance between the demand and supply of housing. A lower vacancy rate may indicate that households are having difficulty in finding housing that is affordable, leading to overcrowding or households having to pay more than they can afford. In addition, refer to Response I-1.2 regarding the inconsistencies between the SCAG, RHNA, and DOF forecasts.

Response I-1.8
The commenter questions what the justification is for the 15 percent housing unit buffer and states that the Draft EIR should study resulting impacts without the 15 percent buffer. The commenter also questions what statute requires this buffer, if the buffer is a State mandate, why there is no discussion in the alternatives section about the buffer’s impacts on sewers, and the justification of the buffer with the arrival of Senate Bill (SB) 9, SB 10, and SB 35.

The City included the buffer to meet the State requirement to include a sufficient buffer in the Inventory of Sites to accommodate future reductions in the sites identified for affordable housing as they are developed with another use during the eight-year cycle, or the jurisdiction could be required to conduct further rezoning during the planning period if insufficient sites are available for housing. To ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the housing element to accommodate the RHNA throughout the planning period, HCD recommends that jurisdictions create a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required. The buffer is needed to ensure that the jurisdiction can meet the RHNA, which as noted previously is the build out of the RHNA allocation of 8,772 housing units. As stated in Section 6.3, Alternatives Considered but Rejected, of the Draft EIR, a reduced RHNA buffer was considered as an alternative to reduce significant impacts. However, in order to comply with State requirements, a sufficient buffer to the RHNA is needed; therefore, this alternative is not feasible and was rejected from further consideration.

The Draft EIR does not analyze housing development under SB 9 or SB 10 because they are the State’s action that went into effect January 1, 2022. The EIR is required to look at the existing conditions at the time of the distribution of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR, which was March 2021. In addition, the analysis of 10,456 housing units in the Draft EIR is a conservative approach as the Housing Element estimates maximum growth potential. 2-247
ATTACHMENT 12-262
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
SB 9 allows a subdivision of single family residential (R-1 and R-1-H) lots into two lots and allows for construction of up to four dwelling units, inclusive if ADU ad JADU, on each lot. Therefore, up to a total of 8 residential units (4 per each lot) can be created from the one existing single-family zoned property. The City adopted an urgency ordinance for implementing SB 9 on April 5, 2022, to limit the number of residential units yielded from an existing single family zoned property to a maximum of four residential units (2 residential units per lot). The City already accounts for a main dwelling with accessory dwelling units (ADU) and Junior ADUs, so potential environmental impacts for the addition of one unit on an existing residential lot would be nominal. The ordinance adopted by the City for implementing SB 9 will significantly reduce the development impacts on the City’s infrastructure and utility services by limiting the maximum number of units per single-family residential lot to four consistent with City’s available infrastructure.

SB 10 allows for cities to zone for smaller housing developments of up to 10 units per lot. However, this is a voluntary effort that the City is not undertaking.

Regarding SB 35, this law now mandates the ministerial process for certain development projects instead of the discretionary review process. SB 35 may alter the City’s process for approval of housing development, but does not alter the allowable base density. As such, developers will have to abide by the base density and the density bonus law.

Response I-1.9
The commenter questions what factors were used to quantify reductions in GHG emissions and whether the waiver of the Clean Air Act was reinstated. The commenter notes that if this waiver has been reinstated, GHG emissions would likely be lower.

As discussed under Methodology in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, total GHG emissions under the Housing Element Update were calculated according to the methodology explained in Appendix A of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User Guide (Version 2020.4.0), and account for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24). The CalEEMod run calculates the emissions from the following sources: transportation, electricity, natural gas, water supply, solid waste, other area sources (such as landscaping), and construction emissions (amortized). To account for the continuing effects of the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, the energy intensity factors included in the Project’s CalEEMod were reduced to reflect 67 percent renewable energy procurement in 2030. Mobile source emissions were estimated using vehicle activity data presented in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the Draft EIR and vehicle emission rates from the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2017 Emission Factor model. Per capita and per employee VMT were found to diminish due to reduced trip lengths.

On March 9, 2022, the United States Environmental Protection Agency reinstated California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to implement its own GHG emission standards and zero emission vehicle sales mandate. The Draft EIR is required to look at the existing conditions at the time of the distribution of the NOP, which was March 2021. Therefore, the reinstatement was not in effect when the Draft EIR was circulated for public review in January 2022.

Response I-1.10
The commenter replicates the information provided on page 4.5-10 of Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR and notes that Burbank should be proud of its past record of reductions in GHG emissions.
2-248
ATTACHMENT 12-263
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
This comment does not address a deficiency in the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary and no further response is required.

Response I-1.11
The commenter questions what assumptions were made for the growing use of electric vehicles and where the discussion and assumptions about electric vehicles by 2029 for mobile sources are in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR.

As described under Methodology in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, fleet mix and vehicle emission rates in CalEEMod are based off CARB’s 2017 Emission Factor (EMFAC2017) model. The EMFAC model uses trends in vehicle sales data to estimate the future mix of vehicles present on California’s roads, as detailed in depth in the EMFAC2017 technical documentation: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017-volume-iii-technical- documentation.pdf. In addition, as discussed under Impact GHG-1, mobile source emissions generated by build out of the City’s RHNA allocation would be reduced with implementation of standards under the California Advanced Clean Cars Program, which requires the CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles,” and SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which leverages technology innovations such as electric vehicles.

Response I-1.12
The commenter questions where the policy to upgrade existing homes to greater energy efficiency is in the air quality section of the Draft EIR.

The policy referred to in this comment is Policy 3.8 of the Draft Housing Element, which was included under Impact AQ-1 in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR as a policy that would help reduce air pollutant emissions through promoting transportation and land use design factors, resulting in VMT reductions.

Please note, since the Draft EIR was released for public review, the Housing Element has updated this policy and renumbered it as Policy 3.9. This revision was made as indicated in Section 4, Errata to the Draft EIR.

Response I-1.13
The commenter questions the threshold of a 400,000-car intersection and where this threshold is justified. The commenter questions whether the future forecast of 67,000 daily trips will generate carbon monoxide (CO) emissions equal to a 400,000-car intersection due to the additional idling time at the at the Victory Boulevard and Burbank Boulevard five-point intersection.

The threshold of a 400,000-car intersection is based on the ratio of the most stringent 1-hour carbon monoxide (CO) standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan’s estimated 1-hour CO concentration value of 4.6 ppm at the intersection within the South Coast Air Basin expected to experience the highest CO concentrations. As discussed under Impact AQ-3 in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, the 1-hour CO standard of 20 ppm would not likely be exceeded at this intersection until the intersection exceeded more than 400,000 vehicle trips per day. In addition, the Burbank Victory Boulevard/Victory Place and Burbank Boulevard intersection, which the commenter is referring to, is the highest volume intersection in Burbank and is estimated to have 67,500 average daily trips with implementation of the Project, which is approximately 17 percent of the threshold of a 2-249
ATTACHMENT 12-264
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
400,000-car intersection. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not have potential to contribute to localized CO concentrations at intersections that exceed State CO standards.

Response I-1.14
The commenter states that the Draft EIR contains contradiction on impacts related to “unplanned growth” and that new housing units occurring “anywhere in the city” is considered unplanned growth. The commenter also states that the Draft EIR fails to discuss the impacts of SB 9 and SB 10, which would result in an unknown number of new housing units in unknown locations and adds that the Housing Element induces direct (population, housing) and indirect (services, quality of life infrastructure) growth.

As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, 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. However, the Housing Element Update does identify 19 locations as opportunity sites that have the greatest potential to accommodate the RHNA’s housing growth allocated for the city and are shown in Figure 2-3 of the Draft EIR. These sites are underutilized and located in urbanized areas of the city, and they have been previously developed or disturbed. In addition, individual development projects accommodated under the Housing Element Update would require project-level CEQA review, which would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with population and housing and utilities and service systems. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 5, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR, the Housing Element Update would not result in unplanned growth but would rather ensure that the projected growth is accommodated. The Housing Element Update is anticipated to satisfy the anticipated population growth in the region in an efficient manner consistent with State, regional and local policies and with the projected growth forecast for Burbank and the surrounding region.

Refer to Response I-1.8 regarding SB 9 and SB 10.

Response I-1.15
The commenter states that impacts on VMT should be assessed and that growth-inducing VMT impacts are not addressed. The commenter also states that the analysis needs to look at the job/housing balance in the Burbank area and whether it would increase growth of jobs and how it would affect VMT impacts.

The transportation analysis presented in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the Draft EIR accounts for the growth in population, employment and households associated with the 2029 Housing Element and uses the SCAG travel demand model to assess VMT. The future year VMT was calculated for three different metrics:
 VMT per capita
 VMT per employee
 VMT per service population
Impact TRA-2 in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the Draft EIR assesses the Project’s VMT impacts and concluded that the Housing Element Update would reduce VMT in the three target populations (per service population, per capita, and per employee); however, it would not reduce VMT by more than the required 15 percent, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, the 2-250
ATTACHMENT 12-265
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
impacts associated with growth under the Housing Element Update are disclosed in the Draft EIR. It should be noted that the Plan does not contain any new roadway infrastructure or measures that would lead to induced VMT.

Regarding the jobs/housing balance in the city of Burbank, the transportation analysis assesses the effects of a 19 percent change in population and households along with a 10 percent increase in employment, some of which is associated with mixed use residential developments. The jobs/housing balance improves by approximately 7 percent from the baseline year, with an average daily VMT of 18.1, to 2029, with an average daily VMT of 16.7, and all VMT metrics improve over the baseline values against which the impacts are assessed.

In addition, as discussed under Section 5.3, Growth Inducing Impacts, of the Draft EIR, the City’s existing roadway network would largely accommodate reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update. In the event that roadway upgrades are required to serve specific future development, such upgrades would likely be minor (e.g., lane reconfiguration or restriping) and would not include the construction of new roads. Therefore, the Project would not result in the extension of infrastructure to undeveloped areas which would remove an obstacle to growth. In addition, Section 5.3 states that new residential development accommodated under the Housing Element Update would increase employment, which would be within regional forecasts. New residential development would also accommodate new employees rather than induce people to move to the region, resulting in lower VMT.

Response I-1.16
The commenter states that the loss of housing units to short-term rentals should be discussed and addressed in the population and housing section of the Draft EIR. The commenter adds that loss of these housing units exacerbates the housing shortage and that requiring these homes to become available for long-term rent or sales would assist the City in making more progress towards achieving the RHNA allocation.

Section 4.8, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR, analyzes the thresholds under CEQA, which include whether the Project would induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure) or displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Economic analysis of issue, such as short-term rentals, is beyond the scope of the EIR.

Response I-1.17
The commenter states that the paradigm shift of work/commute patterns resulting from the pandemic should be discussed in either the GHG, Population and Housing, or Transportation section of the Draft EIR as work-commute patterns have new implications for VMT, GHG, and RHNA. The commenter questions how the impacts of these shift of work patterns are accounted for in the Draft EIR.

The shift in work/commute patterns attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic are not included in the transportation analysis in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR analysis relies on pre-pandemic assumptions from a transportation perspective. The long-term effects of the pandemic on travel behavior and travel patterns have not yet stabilized and thus are not fully known.

According to the City’s Assistant Community Development Director overseeing Transportation Planning, it is too early to predict whether the impact due to the pandemic has caused a permanent 2-251
ATTACHMENT 12-266
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
paradigm shift in work/commute patterns on VMT. The Draft EIR has generally assumed trip assumptions for VMT analysis based on pre-pandemic patterns, and analyzes the ability of implementation of the Housing Element’s goals and policies to reduce VMT from this pre-pandemic level. Travel and trip generation trends since the height of the pandemic indicate that VMT may be returning to pre-pandemic levels. However, even if the pandemic were to cause a permanently- changed level of VMT in the City, increasing housing in Burbank to address the job-housing imbalance, and locating much of that housing near transit, as proposed in the Housing Element, will help reduce per employee VMT and GHG emissions due to reduced trip lengths, regardless of whether baseline VMT has been fundamentally changed due to the pandemic.

Response I-1.18
The commenter states that the water supply discussion in Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, needs to discuss the contemporary drought more completely given the significant loss of snowpack and the Governor’s latest order to local water agencies to develop their own plans for the drought. The commenter also states that the water supply discussion needs to clearly state where the snowpack is estimated to be in 2029 by using interpolation or another method.

As discussed in Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, citywide water demand has declined compared to the early 1970s due to efficient water use after major droughts in the 1970s, 1990s, and especially in response to the previous significant water shortage and closure of major industries. In addition, Impact UTIL-2 concluded that growth under the Project is accounted for in the City of Burbank Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), as informed by the General Plan, and that sufficient water supplies are available to serve reasonably foreseeable development accommodated under the Housing Element Update during normal (water year), dry- year, and multiple-dry-year (drought) conditions through the year 2045, resulting in less than significant impacts.

In addition, Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, includes discussion on the loss of snowpack and states that future 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.

Response I-1.19
The commenter states that the cumulative impacts analyses are deficient because SB 9, SB 10, and SB 35 are not assessed or identified as part of the Project.

Refer to Response I-1.8 regarding SB 9, SB 10, and SB 35.

Response I-1.20
The commenter questions what is required to reach water conservation level needs to provide water to the 10,456 housing units.

Refer to Response I-1.18 regarding the Project’s projected water supply and demand.

Burbank Water and Power’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which serves as the long-term planning document that will help to ensure that the City can provide its customers with reliable water supplies through 2045 (https://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/water/water- supply/urban-water-management-plan), contains future water supply and demand projections with the assumption that 12,000 new housing units will be added to the City by 2035. Based on the 2-252
ATTACHMENT 12-267
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
analysis in the UWMP and with concurrence from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the City has sufficient water supply to meet the additional water demand from 12,000 new housing units.

Response I-1.21
The commenter questions what cumulative effects will result from additional development and loss of open space. The commenter also questions the effect on urban heat island and on climate change.

Reason
ably foreseeable development accommodated under the Housing Element Update would be focused in urban areas that have already been previously developed. The Housing Element identifies 19 locations as opportunity sites which have the greatest potential to accommodate the RHNA’s housing growth allocated for the city and are shown in Figure 2-3, of the Draft EIR. Impact GHG-1 in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR concluded that the Housing Element Update would be consistent with all State, regional, and local plans to reduce GHG emissions, resulting in less than significant impacts to GHG emissions and climate change. In addition, the Project would be consistent with the actions under Measure E-1.7 in the Burbank 2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, which include amending the Zoning Ordinance to require installation of two on -site
shade
trees for each new single-family
residential unit, continuing Burbank Water and Power’s Made in the Shade Program, and updating the Street Tree Plan and Urban Forestry Program.

As discu
ssed under Impact REC-1 in Section 4.10, Recreation, of the Draft EIR, the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Burbank2035 General Plan establishes a requirement for three acres of new parkland per 1,000 new residents. This requirement applies to large residential developments and would result in parkland dedications, improvements, or in-lieu payments if a project applicant is not able to dedicate land or the land is considered unsuitable for park or recreation use.

Response I-1.22
The commenter notes that Metropolitan’s service area includes other cities and that there should be a quantitative, service area-wide cumulative analysis to assess water supply demands. The commenter questions what level of water conservation would be required to meet water supply for 10,456 additional housing units in the city and if it is feasible. The commenter also questions what impacts landscaping will have on the heat island effect.

Please see Response I-1.20 regarding water conservation levels required to meet water supply for 10,4
56 additional housing units. Metropolitan’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan provides an assessment of Metropolitan’s ability to meet expected water demands in the region through the year 2045 under normal water years, single dry-years, and five-year drought sequences.

Metropolitan’s approximate 52,000 square-mile service area covers the Southern California coastal plain and extends approximately 200 miles along the Pacific Ocean from the city of Oxnard on the north to the international boundary with Mexico on the south and reaches as far as 70 miles inland from the coast, and includes portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties. The 2020 UWMP indicates the Metropolitan has sufficient water supplies to meet expected service area demands under normal water year, single dry-yeas, and five-year drought conditions.

Regarding landscaping, see Response I-1.21.

2-253
ATTACHMENT 12-268
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response I-1.23
The commenter states that the cumulative impacts fail to address direct and indirect impacts, loss of greenery, infrastructure construction to increase provisions of recycled water to neighborhoods, and impacts of new piping to provide recycled water. The commenter questions why no cumulative analysis has been conducted regarding what infrastructure is required to be upgraded to accommodate these new housing units.

4.12.4, Cumulative Impacts, of the Draft EIR, future housing development facilitated by the Housing Element Update, in conjunction with cumulative development are also served by the respective service areas, would increase demands for utilities that could require facility expansion or construction. Potential impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by- case basis at the project level when future development is proposed in accordance with the proposed Project. Discretionary projects would require separate review, which would address potential impacts to utilities and service systems, as well as the identification and implementation of project-specific mitigation measures, including conducting an updated sewer service constraints analysis to identify deficiencies in existing utility systems and a resulting update in City fees for new development projects to help offset the cost of any future necessary upgrades on a project-specific basis as deemed necessary. However, cumulative impacts associated with wastewater generation were found to be significant as wastewater generation for full buildout of the proposed Housing Element Update is estimated to be up to approximately 6.3 mgd, which is not within the City’s currently available treatment capacity of 4 mgd.

Reasonably foreseeable development accommodated under the Housing Element Update would be focused in urban areas that have already been previously developed and contain existing utility connections. Potential construction impacts associated with connecting to existing infrastructure would be temporary.

Response I-1.24
The commenter states that the Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR is inadequate because the analysis should provide an alternative that addresses the significant impacts under the proposed Project. The commenter adds that the alternatives should not have significant and unavoidable impacts and should realistically address the potential for impacts to wastewater, water, and other infrastructure systems associated with the level of proposed development.

As discussed in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, three potential alternatives were considered but rejected. The first alternative considered, which included relocating housing units to the undeveloped mountain area in the northeastern portion of the city, was rejected as it would be in conflict with the Safety Element of the Burbank2035 General Plan as residences would have been placed in a high fire area. The second alternative considered, which included increasing density in the single-family residential neighborhoods and away from freeway corridors, was rejected as it would not reduce any significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project, increase VMT, and require policy revisions to the City’s General Plan. The last alternative considered, which included lowering the 15 percent RHNA buffer, was rejected as it would not comply with State requirements. No other feasible alternatives were identified that would address the Project’s 2-254
ATTACHMENT 12-269
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
significant impacts. Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “[a]n EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.”
Response I-1.25
The commenter provides two added alternatives that should be assessed. The first alternative includes removing the 15 percent buffer and the second alternative includes reducing all infrastructure impacts to a level of insignificance. The commenter also states that allowing housing anywhere in the city does not afford the City to reasonably plan for the increase in locational and cumulative infrastructure demands.

Refer to Response I-1.24 regarding the removal of the 15 percent buffer alternative and Response I-1.14 regarding potential locations within the city for development accommodated under the Housing Element Update.

Refer to Response I-1.20 regarding Burbank Water and Power’s ability to provide sufficient water supply to meet the additional water demand from 12,000 new housing units.

Response I-1.26
The commenter quotes analysis on pages 5-4 to 5-5 of Section 5, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR, which relates to wastewater generation, and states that CEQA requires the analysis of Project impacts and not “reasonably foreseeable development” impacts.

Response I-1.27
The commenter questions if there is a policy recommendation in the Safety Element to armor soft story housing in the face of inevitable earthquakes.

Armoring soft story housing is not a specific policy included in the Safety Element. However, Policy 5.3 under Goal 5, Seismic Safety, includes enforcement of seismic design provisions of the current California Building Standards Code related to seismic hazards. All housing projects are required to comply with this policy.

Response I-1.28
The commenter requests that the Public Review of the Housing Element section be moved to the appendices.

The 6th cycle planning requirements place added emphasis on demonstrating sufficient opportunities for public review of the draft Housing Element, summary of key comments received, and how these comments are addressed in the Element. This discussion is thus included in the body of the Housing Element public participation section of the Introduction. 2-255
ATTACHMENT 12-270
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response I-1.29
The commenter requests revision of Policy 2.4 in the Housing Element to engage proactive code enforcement to return unauthorized short-term rentals to the city’s housing market.

The City Council has reviewed options for abatement of unauthorized short-term rentals and has decided not to pursue at this time.

Response I-1.30
The commenter requests that a new policy be added under Goal 3 of the Housing Element that establishes a task force comprised of the Burbank Senior Board and Burbank Committee on Disabilities to determine state-of-the-art housing development examples for housing of persons with disabilities; and incorporates these objective standards into all density bonus and inclusionary zoning projects. SB 35, SB 9, and SB 10.

A policy establishing a task force comprised of the Burbank Senior Board and Burbank Committee on Disabilities to determine state-of-the-art housing development can be created upon direction from the City Council and is outside of the scope of the Draft EIR. Additionally, all housing units are required to comply with the California Building and Safety Code which includes objective development standards for designing buildings for persons with disabilities. As a matter of education and outreach, housing developments have been and can continue to be presented, as appropriate, to boards and commissions citywide with an interest/commitment on housing development.

Refer to Response I-1-.8 regarding SB 35, SB 9, and SB 10.

Response I-1.31
The commenter requests that a new policy be added under Goal 5 of the Housing Element that establishes a pre-qualification program with the Burbank Housing Corporation for elderly renter households in the extremely-low-income category and large family households in the low-income category, and support their relocation to stabilized extremely low/low-income homes.

This comment does not pertain to the adequacy of the EIR. Nonetheless, in response to the commenter’s requestion, Burbank Housing Corporation (BHC) is a Community Housing Development Organization, a private nonprofit, community-based organization (a separate entity from the City) that develops affordable housing. BHC has received this designation as the City’s partner in the creation of affordable housing utilizing federal HOME funds along with other restricted housing funds. The City does not have the authority to dictate policy of this private, nonprofit developer.

However, BHC continues to work with the City to serve the needs of the community via financing of housing developments with restricted housing funds. These housing developments include new construction and the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units. The units are made available at affordable rents for extremely-low, very-low, lower and moderate-income households. Elderly renter households with limited income, and in some cases on the Section 8 program, are already occupying extremely-low income units in the BHC portfolio. Furthermore, BHC has utilized financing to create larger units with two-and three-bedrooms to accommodate larger families. Interested and eligible households can apply when BHC opens their waiting list(s). An initial application is submitted to BHC as a pre-qualification measure to determine household income (extremely-low, very-low, lower and moderate-income), and household size for appropriate unit size (one, two or three- bedroom, etc.). When a unit is available, eligible households are matched to available units. If 2-256
ATTACHMENT 12-271
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
income and household size changes, BHC will work with households to relocate to an appropriate unit to meet income level and household size.

Response I-1.32
The commenter states that the Neighborhood Revitalization paragraph on page 33 of the Housing Element should include the daycare and job search centers as well as the afterschool center that is in the Burbank Housing Corporation but serves the entire neighborhood.

The following has been added to the Neighborhood Revitalization paragraph on page 33 of the Housing Element: "and to provide services to residents and the greater neighborhood including day care, after-school programs and job search assistance." Response I-1.33
The commenter notes that the Map of Focus Neighborhoods on page 1-34 of the Housing Element needs correction.

The Map of Focus Neighborhoods on page 1-34 of the Housing Element has been corrected.

Response I-1.34
The commenter states that the definition for “affordable unit” in the Housing Element could be tied to the percent of area median.

The definition refers to "income qualified household" because affordability is relative to the specific income level. Table 1-24 in the Housing Element provides affordable rent specific income level thresholds by income level, which is based on percent area median income, and compares with average rents in Burbank.

Response I-1.35
The commenter states that the definition for “Burbank Housing Corporation” in the Housing Element is more inclusive than housing.

Per page 1-97 in the Housing Element, the following has been added to the definition: “BHC also provides services to enrich the quality of life for residents, especially for children and youth, and operates four activity centers with after school programs, and two child development centers.” Response I-1.36
The commenter states that the definition for “by-right development” in the Housing Element doesn’t require public hearings
This is the definition utilized by HCD and is consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2 (i).

Response I-1.37
The commenter states that the definition for “Grants” in the Housing Element should list and describe all available State and federal grants.

Please refer to Table 1-45 in the Housing Element.
2-257
ATTACHMENT 12-272
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response I-1.38
The commenter states that the definition for “Conditional Use Permit” in the Housing Element should be identified as quasi-judicial.

The comment is noted, but no revision has been made to the Housing Element.

Response I-1.39
The commenter states that the definition for “Density Bonus” in the Housing Element needs a simpler definition.

The intent of the definitions included in the Glossary are to provide the lay public a general understanding of terms used in the Housing Element. Please refer to page 1-52 to 1-53 for more detail on density bonus incentives.

Response I-1.40
The commenter states that the definition for “Dissimilarity Index” in the Housing Element needs a clear definition.

The intent of the definitions included in the Glossary are to provide the lay public a general understanding of terms used in the Housing Element. Please refer to page B-15 for a detailed discussion of the Dissimilarity Index.

Response I-1.41
The commenter states that the definition for “Homeless” in the Housing Element should include unsheltered who live in vehicles.

The following has been added to the definition of homeless on page 1-24 of the Housing Element:
"Also includes persons living in a car, van or RV/camper." 2-258
ATTACHMENT 12-273

From: s.ocarroll <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2022, 6:49 PM
To: Rajesh, Shipra <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on the DEIR for the Housing Element

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Attached please find comments on the Housing Element DEIR. Can you please add me to the mailing list for any related notices.

Thank you,

Susan O'Carroll

1 Letter I-2
2-259
ATTACHMENT 12-274
March 31, 2022

Shipra Rajesh
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, CA 91502
[email protected]

Subject: Fatally Flawed EIR for the Housing Element

Dear City Council and Planning Staff

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) for the City’s Housing Element Update (“proposed project”) is fatally flawed. It fails to accurately or completely analyze the impacts of up-zoning and the construction of an additional 10,456 housing units in the City of Burbank in the next 8 years. According to the Department of Finance there are currently 45,069 housing units in Burbank. The Housing Element’s housing construction targets thus represents a 23% increase in housing units, and associated Burbank population in just 8 years. Yet the Draft EIR only identifies two significant unmitigated impacts: VMT and Sewage Treatment Capacity.

This defies commons sense and vastly overestimates the impact of any city to respond to this magnitude of change.

According to the DEIR, the City’s sewer treatment capacity is 4 million gallons per day (mgd). Meeting the City’s Housing Element targets would result in the generation of 6.3 mgd of sewage. Sewage generation would thus represent 157% of existing sewage treatment capacity.

The need to expand sewage treatment capacity by 57% is not a simple fix and would represent a substantial impact pending development of the additional capacity which no rational City would wish to approve.

The DEIR’s analysis of dire ct impacts to other public services and utilities lacks needed quantification and the conclusions do not pass the smell test (pun intended). The DEIR needs to include quantification of the increase in demand for water, other utilities and public services and to compare those numbers to existing and planned capacity.

The DEIR needs to more completely address the indirect impacts of the project. For example, the project generates the need for additional sewage treatment facilities. What are the impacts of the construction and operation of those facilities, and any other facilities which need to be either expanded or constructed to address project-induced demand? The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that both direct and indirect impacts of a project be addressed in an EIR. The DEIR has failed to adequately comply with this requirement.

The absurd changes in Housing Element Law in California over the last few years has resulted in a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the SCAG region of 1,341,827 new housing units. The neighboring City of Los Angele
s has a RHNA allocation plus buffer for
its Housing Element Update of 456,643 new units for the 2021-2029 Plan period, representing a 2 3
4 5
6 2-260
ATTACHMENT 12-275
30% increase in the City of Los Angeles’ total housing stock. Any cumulative impact analysis needs to address the impact of the City’s Housing Element targets in combination with projected housing increases in neighboring jurisdictions resulting from their Housing Element targets and this analysis needs to be quantitative, not qualitative. How will this cumulative development in combination with the proposed project impact public services and utilities in the Burbank area? Given the massive up-zoning of the entire State, how can assumptions regarding water availability be justified? It can’t
without an actual quantification of changing water demand and how it will affect
water availability from each of the City’s water sources? If additional water conservation is required as a result of the proposed project, what is the required reduction in water consumption required, and is this level of water conservation actually feasible? Given the extreme amount of growth being required by the State legislature, how will water and other service availability be impacted? This has not been adequately addressed in the DEIR.

In addition to changes in Housing Element law , with the consequent requirements for up -
zoning, the legislature has separately engaged in substantial additional mandated up-zoning which is not accounted for in either the Housing Element Update or the DEIR. The DEIR must address, as part of the cumulative impact analysis, the impact of the proposed Project in combination with not only RHNA targets for the greater Los Angeles area, but also the impacts of SB9, SB10, SB35 and similar legislation which is not accounted for in recent housing element updates.

It is important that the DEIR accuratel
y disclose to the City’s decision-makers and the
public the impacts of mandates imposed on the City through recent State legislation, and the

projected harmful effect of those mandates on the quality of life in Burbank and the City’s ability to provide basic public services and functioning infrastructure. One of the key purposes of CEQA is to disclose to the public the environmental values of elected officials so the public can take appropriate action come election day. It is very important that this DEIR disclose to the public the impacts which the State legislature has chosen to impose on the City via legislative mandates, so that the public can judge whether recent changes in State housing-related laws are acceptable to Burbank residents and, if not, take appropriate action at the State-level come election day. The DEIR fails to accomplish this basic purpose and must be rewritten to acknowledge additional significant project and cumulative impacts, and recirculated for additional public review and comment before any action can be taken to either certify the EIR or approve the project.

Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. I thank you in advance for correcting these fatal EIR flaws an
d more accurately disclosing to Burbank residents the impacts of the project and cumulative housing law changes.

Sincerely,
Susan O’Carroll
Burbank Resident

cc:

Burbank City Council
6 cont.
7 8
9 2-261
ATTACHMENT 12-276
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter I-2
COMMENTER: Susan O’Carroll
DATE: March 31, 2022
Response I-2.1
The commenter requests to be added to the mailing list for all Project-related notices.

The commenter has been added to the Project mailing list.

Response I-2.2
The commenter states that the Draft EIR is fatally flawed and fails to accurately or completely analyze the impacts of upzoning and the construction of 10,456 housing units in Burbank over the next eight years. The commenter notes that the Housing Element would result in a 23 percent increase in housing units, and associated population, in eight years, but only identifies two significant unmitigated impacts.

The commenter does not provide substantial evidence to support their comment that more Project impacts would be considered significant and unmitigable or the need for new analysis or conclusions in the EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary. The comment will be provided to the City’s decisionmakers for their consideration. No further response is required.

Response I-2.3
The commenter states that expanding sewer treatment capacity by 57 percent would represent a substantial impact.

Refer to Response I-1.4 regarding the revised wastewater analysis under the Recirculated Draft EIR.

The full text of the Recirculated Draft EIR is available on the City’s website at the following link:
https://www.burbankhousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Burbank-Housing-and- Safety-Element-Update-Recirculated-DEIR.pdf
Response I-2.4
The commenter states that the Draft EIR’s analysis of direct impacts to public services and utilities lacks needed quantification and accurate conclusions. The commenter also states that the Draft EIR needs to include quantification of the increase in demand for water, other utilities, and public services and needs to compare those numbers to existing and planned capacity.

The Housing Element is a policy document and does not directly result in the development of housing projects. The Draft EIR is a programmatic EIR which used a conservative approach to the analysis by evaluating impacts of the development of housing required under the City’s regional housing need as well as from housing developed on sites identified in the Housing Element site inventory. Individual development projects accommodated under the Housing Element Update would require project-level CEQA review, which would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with water supply, utilities and service systems, and public services. In addition, the Draft EIR included quantified analysis at a programmatic level for impacts associated with air quality, GHG emissions, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems.

2-262
ATTACHMENT 12-277
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response I-2.5
The commenter states that the Draft EIR has failed to comply with CEQA’s requirement to address indirect impacts resulting from the project, such as the impacts of the construction and operation of additional sewage facilities.

As discussed under Impact UTIL-1 in Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 would require a sewer service constraints analysis by PWD to identify a wastewater connection fee for the recovery of the City’s costs of future upgrades that are proportional to the individual projects’ impacts to the City’s wastewater system. The potential indirect impacts associated with sewage facilities are unknown at this time because the sewer service constraints analysis has not been completed. Therefore, the direct and indirect Project impacts associated with new or expanded wastewater conveyance are significant and unavoidable.

At the project level, future individual projects accommodated under the Housing Element Update would require project-level CEQA review, which would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific impacts associated with the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities.

Also, refer to Response I-1.4 regarding the revised wastewater analysis under the Recirculated Draft EIR. The full text of the Recirculated Draft EIR is available on the City’s website at the following link:
https://www.burbankhousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Burbank-Housing-and- Safety-Element-Update-Recirculated-DEIR.pdf
Response I-2.6
The commenter states that the cumulative impact analysis needs to address the impact of the City’s projected housing increase in combination with the projected housing increases in neighboring jurisdictions, such as the City of Los Angeles. The commenter questions how this cumulative development in combination with the proposed Project impact public services and utilities in the Burbank area. The commenter also questions how assumptions regarding water availability be justified given the massive upzoning of California and states that impacts to water and other service availability was not adequately addressed in the Draft EIR.

The cumulative impacts section included for each environmental issue area in the Draft EIR takes into consideration future housing development accommodated under the Housing Element Update, as well as cumulative development citywide and at the regional level. The Housing Element is a policy document and does not directly result in the development of housing projects. The Draft EIR is a programmatic EIR which used a conservative approach to the analysis by evaluating impacts of the development of housing required under the City’s regional housing need as well as from housing developed on sites identified in the Housing Element site inventory; however, the Housing Element Update does not directly result in development of housing on the identified sites. Individual development projects accommodated under the Housing Element Update would require project- level CEQA review, which would identify and require mitigation for any potential site-specific and cumulative impacts associated with water supply, utilities and service systems, and public services. 2-263
ATTACHMENT 12-278
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response I-2.7
The commenter states that in the cumulative impact analysis the Draft EIR must address the impact of the Project in combination with the RHNA targets for the greater Los Angeles area, SB 9, SB 10, SB 35, and similar legislation not accounted for in recent housing element updates.

Refer to Response I-2.6 regarding the cumulative impact analysis and Response I-1.8 regarding SB 9, SB 10, and SB 35.

Response I-2.8
The commenter states that it is important for the Draft EIR to accurately disclose the impacts of mandates imposed on the City through recent State legislation and the projected harmful effect of those mandates on the quality of life in Burbank and the City’s ability to provide basic public services and functioning infrastructure. The commenter also states that one of the key purposes of CEQA is to disclose the environmental values of elected officials to the public and that it is important for the Draft EIR to disclose the impacts which the State legislature has chosen to impose on the City via legislative mandates to the public. Lastly, the commenter states that the Draft EIR must be rewritten to acknowledge additional significant project and cumulative impacts, and recirculated for additional public review and comment before any action can be taken to certify the EIR or approve the Project.

The scope of the EIR is to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of reasonably foreseeable development accommodated under the Housing Element Update. Refer to Response I-1.8 regarding SB 9 and SB 10.

As described in Section 15002 of the CEQA Guidelines, the basic purposes of CEQA are to inform governmental decision makers and the public about potential, significant environmental effects of the Project; identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible; and disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the Project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved. Refer to Response I-2.6 regarding cumulative impacts. Significant impacts at a programmatic level have been disclosed which will be assessed by the decisionmakers. Any potential impacts at a project level will require further CEQA analysis.

Response I-2.9
The commenter thanks the City in advance for their consideration and for correcting the fatal EIR flaws and more accurately disclosing to Burbank residents the impacts of the Project and cumulative law changes.

Individual responses to each comment have been provided above. 2-264
ATTACHMENT 12-279
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Planning Commission
Public Comment Meeting March 14, 2022
Comment P-1
COMMENTER: Christopher Rizzotti, Planning Board (Chair) Response P-1.1
The commenter noted that the Draft EIR analysis was thin and added that traffic counts and intersection impacts were not detailed like in previous EIR documents.

SB 743 introduced changes that include the elimination of auto delay, level of service, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as the basis for determining significant CEQA impacts for land use projects and plans in California. For the purpose of this land use plan, the City applies a VMT methodology to assess the transportation impacts, which is consistent with the technical guidance provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. In addition, refer to Response I-1.26 regarding the Draft EIR.

Response P-1.2
The commenter noted that the Draft EIR did not include discussion of electric vehicles which will have an impact on emissions through 2029. The commenter questioned if the electrical grid would have the ability to withstand the increase in electric vehicles through 2029 and how homeowners living in apartments would be able to charge their electric vehicles.

Refer to Response I-1.11 regarding electric vehicles.

Response P-1.3
The commenter noted that the Draft EIR did not include discussion on the impacts of SB 9 and 10 and stated that this discussion should be included in the EIR.

Refer to Response I-1.8 regarding SB 9 and 10.

Response P-1.4
The commenter noted that water and sewer impacts are a huge topic.

Refer to Impacts UTIL-1 and UTIL-2 for impacts associated with water supply and Impacts UTIL-1 and UTIL-3 for impacts associated with sewers in Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft EIR. As discussed under Impact UTIL-3, sewer impacts would be significant and unavoidable as the Project would generate approximately 6.3 mgd of wastewater which would exceed BWRP’s wastewater treatment capacity of 4 mgd and no feasible mitigation measure has been identified at the plan level to reduce impacts.

Refer to Response I-1.4 regarding the revised wastewater analysis under the Recirculated Draft EIR.

The full text of the Recirculated Draft EIR is available on the City’s website at the following link:
https://www.burbankhousingelement.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Burbank-Housing-and- Safety-Element-Update-Recirculated-DEIR.pdf
2-265
ATTACHMENT 12-280
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response P-1.5
The commenter noted that the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) was not analyzed in the Draft EIR and stated that discussion on the BRT should be included. The commenter questioned if the BRT would induce growth since it would upzone all properties within 0.5-mile of the BRT.

The BRT is not part of the Project Description for the Housing Element Update; therefore, it is not analyzed in the EIR. However, as discussed under Impact 3.1-2 in Section 3.1, Transportation, of the Draft EIR for the North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project, VMT is forecast to decrease during project operation due to the increased use of transit with implementation of the BRT in comparison to the Existing 2017 and 2042 Baseline scenarios. The BRT is expected to attract new transit riders which would encourage a shift from automobile use to public transit as well as providing improved regional connectivity and local transit access to corridor destinations.

Response P-1.6
The commenter noted that the city’s population is decreasing rather than increasing and that the city has a current vacancy rate of 6.7 percent. The commenter questioned how to reconcile the difference between the RHNA and SCAG forecasts.

Refer to Response I-1.5 regarding the city’s population forecast and Response I-1.7 regarding the vacancy rate.

Response P-1.7
The commenter questioned what agency determined the RHNA allocation and what factors went into the 6th Cycle RHNA housing allocation.

As discussed in SCAG’s Final RHNA Allocation Methodology published March 5, 2020, SCAG is required to develop a final RHNA methodology to distribute existing and projected housing need for the 6th cycle RHNA for each jurisdiction, which will cover the planning period October 2021 through October 2029. Factors for determining the 6th Cycle RHNA housing allocation included a jurisdiction’s household growth between 2020-2030, future vacancy need, replacement need, and transit and job accessibility.

Response P-1.8
The commenter noted that the 15 percent housing buffer is large and questioned how this buffer was determined. The commenter also questioned if the City could develop their own buffer or if this was a State mandate.

Refer to Response I-1.8 regarding the RHNA buffer.

Response P-1.9
The commenter questioned how the Project could have less than significant impacts when there would be an increase in population and growth. The commenter noted that there would be potential impacts related to electricity, traffic/congestion, air quality, jobs, sewer, and wastewater.

Refer to Response I-1.26 relating to Project impacts.
2-266
ATTACHMENT 12-281
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response P-1.10
The commenter questioned why Table 2.2 in the Draft EIR included very-low- and low-income ADUs and stated that the City does not have requirements for ADUs to be very-low or low in terms of pricing, so was unsure what the table was referring to.

In December 2020, SCAG released a “Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis.” SCAG conducted this analysis to “provide local governments in the region with assumptions for ADU affordability that can be used to assign ADUs to income categories for the purpose of Sixth Cycle Housing Elements.” Table 1-22 in the Housing Element presents SCAG’s affordability assumptions for ADUs in Los Angeles County’s inland jurisdictions, providing the basis for assigning affordability to projected ADUs in Burbank’s Housing Element Update. As shown, 15 percent of ADUs are estimated by SCAG to be affordable to extremely low-income households (0-30 percent AMI), 9 percent affordable to very low-income households (31-50 percent AMI), and 45 percent affordable to low income households (51-80 percent AMI). Consistent with this analysis, a February 2020 rent survey conducted of 50 ADUs in and around Burbank documented a median rent of $1,500, providing an affordable rental option for many one- and two-person lower income households.

Response P-1.11
The commenter questioned how the City Council could adopt the EIR since there are significant, unmitigable impacts related to sewers and stated that this needed further explanation.

As required under CEQA, the significant and unavoidable impact to sewers would be further considered by the City Council. If the City Council determines that the Project generally meets the City’s objectives for the Housing Element, a Finding of Overriding Consideration will be made.

Potential benefits that may outweigh the significant and unavoidable impact include: meeting the City’s fair share, plus a reasonable buffer, of the regional housing need to accommodate projected population growth within the city and region: providing housing sites that accommodate a range of housing types to meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents; and promoting non- discrimination and fair and equal housing opportunities for all persons.

Response P-1.12
The commenter raised questions related to the Safety Element and Environmental Justice Updates, including whether soft story apartments and condominiums were considered and what environmental justice would mean for overcrowding and congestion.

Refer to Response I-1.27 regarding soft story housing. Regarding environmental justice, in accordance with SB 1000, the nature of the policies is to prioritize public improvements in disadvantage communities, improve public health from environmental pollution like improving air quality, and improving the accessibility of City communication and do not directly address overcrowding and congestions.
2-267
ATTACHMENT 12-282
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment P-2
COMMENTER: Bob Monaco, Planning Board
Response P-2.1
The commenter raised concerns regarding the Project’s impacts on traffic/congestion, infrastructure, water, and electricity due to the resulting population increase. The commenter also stated that infrastructure will be needed to support the additional housing and population resulting from the Project.

Refer to Response P-1.1 regarding impacts related to traffic/congestion and Response I-1.26 regarding Project impacts.
2-268
ATTACHMENT 12-283
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Comment S-1
COMMENTER: Sean Mann
Response S-1
The commenter noted that he is a member of the SWRCC and offered an introduction to the labor union. The commenter offered a case that using local labor for projects implemented under the Housing Element Update would support reduced GHG emissions and VMT.

Refer to Response O-1.2 regarding skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies and associated GHG emissions.

Comment S-2
COMMENTER: Michael McCarron
Response S-2
The commenter noted that he is a member of Carpenters Local 661 and offered an introduction to the labor union. The commenter requested that labor standards and/or policies are included in the Housing Element Update and that future projects under the Housing Element Update require family supporting wages, skills training, and job access to community members.

Refer to Response for Letters O-2 through O-132 regarding the request for labor standards and/or policies.

Comment S-3
COMMENTER: Jerred Langford
Response S-3
The commenter noted that he is a member of Carpenters Local 661 and offered an introduction to the labor union. The commenter stated that a rapid underground economy is taking control of construction workers. The commenter requested that labor standards and protection are included in the Housing Element Update and that future projects under the Housing Element Update require family supporting wages, skills training, and job access to community members.

Refer to Response for Letters O-2 through O-132 regarding the request for labor standards and/or policies.
2-269
ATTACHMENT 12-284
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report

This page intentionally left blank.
2-270
ATTACHMENT 12-285
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
3 Responses to Comments on the
Recirculated Draft EIR
This section includes comments received during the circulation of the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update (hereafter referred to as the “Housing and Safety Element Update” or “Project”).

The Recirculated Draft EIR was circulated for a 47-day public review period that began on July 22, 2022, and ended on September 6, 2022. The City of Burbank received 45 comment letters on the Recirculated Draft EIR. The commenters and the page number on which each commenter’s letter appear are listed below.

The comments are typically presented chronologically based on the date received. However, among the letters received by Organizations, two commenters (Letters O-1 and O-2) raised specific concerns regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR whereas the remaining commenters raise non- CEQA issues pertaining solely to the proposed Project and/or other topics unrelated to the Draft EIR.

Therefore, these letters are addressed first to maintain the focus on the Draft EIR prepared for the proposed Project, all other comments are addressed in the order received by date. The exhibits to Letter O-1 are included as Appendix H of this EIR
Responses to oral comments received during the Planning Board meeting held on August 22, 2022, are provided under the Speaker (S) sections as identified below.

Table 3-1 List of Commenters on the Recirculated Draft EIR Letter No. and Commenter Page No.

Agencies (A)
A-1 Alan Lin, P.E., Transportation Engineer, California Department of Transportation (August 18, 2022)
3-4
A-2 Dr
. Erik Frost, California Geological Survey, Department of Conservation 3-6 Organizations (O)
O-1 Mitche ll M. Tsai, on behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (August 22,2022)
3-8
O-2 Jer
red Langford, on behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (August 24, 2022 and September 22, 2022)
3-15
O-3 Shaun Mieure, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 22, 2022) 3-18 O-4 Wesley Ricker, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-19 O-5 Fernando Castaneda Gutierrez, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-20 O-6 Josh Strickler, on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-21 O-7 Oscar Nunez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-22 O-8 Allen Cruz on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-23 O-9 Hilario Garcia on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-24 O-10 Horacio Gutierrez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-25 O-11 Francisco Garcia on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-26 O-12 Arnulfo Castellanos on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-27 3-1
ATTACHMENT 12-286
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter No. and Commenter Page No.

O-13 Javier Rang el on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-28 O-14 Fernando López on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-29 O-15 Maury Garzon on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-30 O-16 Leonel Serrano on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-31 O-17 Darren Pineda on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-32 O-18 Rolando Bravo on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-33 O-19 Alberto Ramirez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-34 O-20 Aurelio Peralta on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-35 O-21 Gilbert Ayon on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-36 O-22 Jesus Gonzalez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-37 O-23 Enrique Sanchez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-38 O-24 Ian Lyle on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-39 O-25 Cesar Santos on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-40 O-26 Osbaldo Flores on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-41 O-27 Marcial Gallegos on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-42 O-28 Victor Alcala on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-43 O-29 Leo Garcia on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-44 O-30 Vinny Graciano on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-45 O-31 Jared Matlock on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-46 O-32 Cole Myerly on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-47 O-33 Hector Chavez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-48 O-34 Emmanuel Gonzalez on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-49 O-35 Dylan Gage on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-50 O-36 Josh Michel on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-51 O-37 Noah Iglesias on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-52 O-38 Cole Myerly on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-53 O-39 Brenden Cates on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-54 O-40 Javier Vera on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-55 O-41 Juan Max on behalf of Carpenters Local 661 (August 30, 2022) 3-56 Individuals (I)
I-1 Emily Gab el-Luddy 3-58
I-2 Sus
an O’Carroll 3-90
Planning Board Meeting – August 22, 2022
(P) Planning Board Member
(S) Public Speaker
S-1 Joshua Ch ristensen, Union Representative, on behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
3-133
S-2 Jarr
ed Langford, Union Member, on behalf of behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
3-134
S-3 Chuck Powell, Union Member, on behalf of behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
3-134
3-2
ATTACHMENT 12-287
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter No. and Commenter Page No.

S-4 Jarred L angford, Union Member, on behalf of behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
3-135
The comment letters and responses follow. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number.

The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response A-1.1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in Comment Letter A-1).
3-3
ATTACHMENT 12-288
From: Lin, Alan S@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 2:39 PM
To: Rajesh, Shipra <[email protected]>
Cc: OPR State Clearinghouse <[email protected]> Subject: Burbank Housing Element Update and Associated General Plan Updates CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Ms. Rajesh,
Based on the phone conversation and the environmental document received, Caltrans has no further comment other than the comment letter on March 16, 2022, see attached.

Thank you for the opportunity to review this project!
Alan Lin, P.E.

Transportation Engineer, Civil
LDR, Division of Planning
State of California
Department of Transportation
Mail Station 16
100 South Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213-269-1124 Mobile
Letter A-1
3-4
ATTACHMENT 12-289
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter A-1
COMMENTER: Alan Lin, P.E., Transportation Engineer, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
DATE: August 18, 2022
Response A-1.1
The commenter sent an email stating that Caltrans has no further comment other than the comment letter on March 16, 2022 for the Draft EIR.

See Section 2, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, for the full response to Caltrans’ comments that were submitted for the Draft EIR.

3-5
ATTACHMENT 12-290
1 Susanne Huerta
From: Frost, Erik@DOC <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:31 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: OLRA@DOC; OPR State Clearinghouse; Susanne Huerta
Subject: [EXT] Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update (SCH 2021020393) - CGS comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Hello Shipra Rajesh,

The California Geological Survey (CGS) has received the Notice of Availability of a Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Burbank’s Housing and Safety Element Update. This email conveys the following recommendations from CGS concerning geologic issues related to the subject area:

1. Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards
The DEIR appears to accurately display the extent of earthquake zones of required investigation (ZORI) for liquefaction and landsliding within the City as mapped by the CGS. However, the source of these liquefaction and landslide hazard zones and their regulatory impact are not specified. The City should consider revising the DEIR text and figures to note that the liquefaction and landslide hazard zones in Exhibits S-5 and S-6 are taken from the Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Burbank quadrangle, and that cities affected by ZORI must regulate certain development projects within them. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (1990) also requires sellers of real property (and their agents) to disclose at the time of sale that the property lies within such a zone. Additional information is available at the links below:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps

If you have any additional comments or questions, please feel free to call or email.

Erik

Dr. Erik Frost
Senior Engineering Geologist | Seismic Hazards Program
California Geological Survey
715 P Street, MS 1901, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 205-8255
[email protected]

Letter A-2
1 3-6
ATTACHMENT 12-291
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter A-2
COMMENTER: Dr. Erik Frost, Senior Engineering Geologist, California Geological Survey, Department of Conservation
DATE: September 6, 2022
Response A-2.1
The commenter notes that the Recirculated Draft EIR accurately displays the extent of earthquake zones of required investigation (ZORI) for liquefaction and landsliding within the city as mapped by the California Geological Survey. However, the commenter also states that the regulatory impacts of these issues are not clearly stated. The commenter suggests that the Recirculated Draft EIR should note that the liquefaction and landslide hazard zones are taken from the Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Burbank quadrangle, and that cities must regulate certain development projects within them.

The Housing Element is a policy document and does not directly result in the development of housing projects. The Draft EIR is a programmatic EIR which used a conservative approach to the analysis by evaluating impacts of the development of housing required under the City’s regional housing need as well as from housing developed on sites identified in the Housing Element site inventory. However, portions of each housing opportunity site districts fall within areas mapped as susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction. For individual housing projects that fall within a zone of required investigation for liquefaction, a site-specific investigation by a qualified engineering geologist and/or civil engineer may be required before development on the site will be permitted per the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Neither housing opportunity site districts occur in areas susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides. Thus, no additional assessment for landslide risks is required.

Based on this comment, Figure S-5, Liquefaction Zones, and Figure S-6, Earthquake-Induced Landslide Zones, have been added to pages 7-20 and 7-21 of the Safety Element Update.

Additionally, the regulatory requirements for development within liquefaction and landslide zones of required investigation have been added to Section 7, Geology and Soils, in Appendix B, Initial Study, of the Draft EIR. Refer to Section 4, Errata to the Draft EIR, to see what changes have been made to the document.
3-7
ATTACHMENT 12-292
P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
August 22, 2022
Shipra Rajesh, Associate Planner
City of Burbank
275 East Olive Avenue, P.O. Box 6459
Burbank, CA 91510-6459
Em: [email protected]
Zizette Mullins, City Clerk
City of Burbank
275 East Olive Avenue, P.O. Box 6459
Burbank, CA 91510-6459
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Burbank’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (SCH#:
2021020393).

Dear Shipra Rajesh and Zizette Mullins,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Carpenter” or “SWRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments for the City of Burbank’s (“City”) August 22, 2022 Planning Board Meeting for its draft 2021-2029 update to the City’s General Plan Housing Element (“Project”).

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

Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.

SWRCC expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens Letter O-1
3-8
ATTACHMENT 12-293
City of Burbank – 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
August 22, 2022

Page 2 of 5 ends

for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.

SWRCC incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

Moreover, SWRCC requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

The City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.

Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the 3-9
ATTACHMENT 12-294
City of Burbank – 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
August 22, 2022

Page 3 of 5 ends

reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Consid
erations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.

Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that
yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
. . . labor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and i
nvestments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to deliverin g emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.
1 Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant envir
onmental benefits since they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.2
Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requ
irements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help

1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10 2 cont.
3 4
3-10
ATTACHMENT 12-295
City of Burbank – 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
August 22, 2022

Page 4 of 5 ends

achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”3
In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into i
ts Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. .

As the C
alifornia Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same juri sdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.
6 In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to red
uce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.
7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and

3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca. gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf. 4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.go v/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.
4 cont.
5 3-11
ATTACHMENT 12-296
City of Burbank – 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
August 22, 2022

Page 5 of 5 ends

trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:

In nearly built -out B erkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local re sidents, especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.

The City should consider utilizing sk
illed and trained workforce policies and
requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts.

Sincerely,

______________________
Mitch
ell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attached:

March 8, 2021 SWAP
E Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). 5 cont.
6 3-12
ATTACHMENT 12-297
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter O-1
COMMENTER: Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney, on behalf of Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (SWRCC)
DATE: August 22, 2022
Response O-1.1
The commenter offers an introduction to the labor union that is submitting the comment and notes the legal precedents for commenting on an EIR under CEQA during the approval process. The commenter requests that the City of Burbank send all notices referring or related to the Project to SWRCC.

SWRCC has been added to the Project mailing list. Individual responses to each comment are provided below.

Response O-1.2
The commenter states that the City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment. The commenter provides supporting statements and notes that local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements would assist with reducing environmental impacts and improving the Project’s economic impact as the length of vendor trips would likely be reduced due to workers residing within 10 miles or less of the project sites, resulting in a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well as localized economic benefits.

Implementation of the requirement to use a local skilled and trained workforce is beyond the scope of the Draft EIR since labor and employment is not a required topic under CEQA. Nonetheless, the commenter’s recommendations are noted for review and consideration by the City’s decision- makers. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, the Project’s impacts to GHG emissions would be less than significant because 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.

Response O-1.3
The commenter quotes statements from the GHG technical report attached to the letter and notes that skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant environmental benefits as they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated GHG emissions.

Refer to Response O-1.2 regarding skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies and associated GHG emissions.

Please note, the reports attached as appendices to Letter O-1 are includes as Appendix H of this EIR.

3-13
ATTACHMENT 12-298
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response O-1.4
The commenter notes that cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes and provides the City of Hayward as an example.

The comment is noted but does not raise specific concerns that pertain to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The comment will be provided to the City’s decisionmakers for their consideration. No further response is required.

Response O-1.5
The commenter provides supporting statements and notes that local hire mandates and skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce VMT and that placing jobs near housing is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents. The commenter also provides supporting statements and notes that some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues.

Refer to Response O-1.2 regarding skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies and associated GHG emissions.

Response O-1.6
The commenter states that the City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate GHG, air quality, and transportation impacts.

Refer to Response O-1.2 regarding skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies and associated GHG emissions.

3-14
ATTACHMENT 12-299
From: Jerred Langford <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 8:50 AM
To: Rajesh, Shipra <[email protected]>
Cc: Jerred Langford <[email protected]>
Subject: Burbank Housing Element Update
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click link s or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning Shipra,
My name is Jerred Langford with the Carpenters Union.

I wanted to send over the language change that we proposed at the Burbank Planning Commission Meeng.

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

Review of eﬀecv eness of exisng Housing El ement
Assessment of exisng and projected housing needs
Idenﬁc aon of r esources – ﬁnancial, land, administrav e Evaluaon of constraints to the development of housing
Housing Plan – goals, policies, and programs including Programs 10 and 11 that provide for updates to local density bonus and inclusionary housing regulaons, tha t require an economic feasibility analysis to evaluate the potenal impact of adding workforce training and prevailing wage requirements to new housing development, and the implementaon of a local hire, apprenceship policy t o have the skilled construcon w orkforce necessary to produce an ample supply of mixed-income and aﬀordable housing units, and ensure equitable, sustainable and livable communies.

Jerred Langford
Lead Representative – Local 661
P: 818.364.9303
M: 213.808.2417
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
swcarpenters.org
Download our app:

Google Play | iTunes App Store
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Letter O-2
3-15
ATTACHMENT 12-300
Housing Plan – goals, policies, and programs including Programs 10 and 11 that provide for updates to local density bonus and inclusionary housing regulaons, that require an economic feasibility analysis to evaluate the potenal impact of adding workforce training and prevailing wage requirements to new housing development, and the implementaon of a local hire, apprenceship policy t o have the skilled construcon w orkforce necessary to produce an ample supply of mixed-income and aﬀordable housing units, and ensure equitable, sustainable and livable communies .

Jerred Langford
Lead Representative – Local 661
P: 818.364.9303
M: 213.808.2417
Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters
swcarpenters.org
Download our app:

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter O-2
COMMENTER: Jarred Langford (Southwest Regional Board of Carpenters) DATE: August 24, 2022
Response O-2
The commenter suggests a revision to Section 2.5.1. The commenter suggest the following to the section:

Housing Plan – goal s, policies, and programs including Programs 10 and 11 that provide for updates to local density bonus and inclusionary housing regulations, that require an economic feasibility analysis to evaluate the potential impact of adding workforce training and prevailing wage requirements to new housing development, and the implementation of a local hire, apprenticeship policy to have the skilled construction workforce necessary to produce an ample supply of mixed-income and affordable housing units, and ensure equitable, sustainable and livable communities.

The commenters’ requests for changes Sectio n 2.5.1 of the Housing Element Update are noted but does not raise issues with the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR is not intended or required to provide justification for the Project. Rather, the EIR is an informational document that is intended to provide public agencies and the public with detailed information about the effect that the Project is likely to have on the environment. This EIR also identifies ways in which the significant effects of the Project might be minimized and identifies alternatives to the Project. The City is not required to consider such comments or requests to change the Project in its CEQA analysis absent a commenter providing substantial evidence that the proposed change would feasibly reduce one or more significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR. Requests for changes to the Project may be addressed through the planning process outside of the CEQA process.

3-17
ATTACHMENT 12-302
From: Wesley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:30 PM
Cc: Housing Element Update 2021 <[email protected]>; Rajesh, Shipra <[email protected]>
Subject: Burbank housing element
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click link s or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is Wesley Ricker, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporng w ages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must parcipa te in a state-approved apprenceship pr ogram, and local hire as a condion of appr oval for this project.

Speciﬁcally:

The construcon w orkforce should require;
-Full family health plans
-All contractors must either parcipa te in a state-approved apprenceship pr ogram or request dispatch of apprences fr om a program
-Paid sick leave. Pension, and vacaon-holida y pay.

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construcon performance;
-Construcon c ontractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business pracces.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construcon cr a work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovav e economic soluon tha t puts them on the path to build be er careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member,
-Wesley ricker
Letter O-3
3-18
ATTACHMENT 12-303
From: Shaun M <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 1:45 PM
To: Rajesh, Shipra <[email protected]>; City Clerks <[email protected]> Subject: Burbank Housing Element-item No. 2
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click link s or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is Shaun Mieure, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporng w ages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must parcipa te in a state-approved apprenceship pr ogram, and local hire as a condion of appr oval for this project.

Speciﬁcally:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovav e economic soluon tha t puts them on the path to build be er careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member,
Shaun Mieure
Letter O-4
3-19
ATTACHMENT 12-304
From: Fernando Castaneda <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:55:37 PM
To: Rajesh, Shipra <[email protected] v>
Subject: Burbank housing element
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is Fernando , I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family suppor ng wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must par cipate in a state-approved appren ceship program, and local hire as a condi on of approval for this project.

Speciﬁcally:

The constru c on workforce should require;
-Full family health plans
-All contractors must either parcipa te in a state-approved apprenceship pr ogram or request dispatch of apprences fr om a program
-Paid sick leave. Pension, and vacaon-holida y pay.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovav e economic soluon tha t puts them on the path to build be er careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member,
Fernando Castañeda Guerr ez
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-5
3-20
ATTACHMENT 12-305
From: Josh Strickler <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:09:54 PM
To: Rajesh, Shipra <[email protected] v>
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Josh Strickler, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work,

and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family suppor ng wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must par cipate in a state-approved appren ceship program, and local hire as a condi on of approval for this project.

Speciﬁcally:

The constru cion workforce should require;
-Full family health plans
-All contractors must either parcipa te in a state-approved apprenceship pr ogram or request dispatch of apprences fr om a program
-Paid sick leave. Pension, and vacaon-holida y pay.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovav e economic soluon tha t puts them on the path to build be er careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Joshua Strickler
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-6
3-21
ATTACHMENT 12-306
-----Original Message-----
From: Oscar Nunez <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:31 PM
To: Rajesh, Shipra <[email protected]>
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh, CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organiza on. Do not click links or open a achments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Oscar Nunez , I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family suppor ng wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must par cipate in a state-approved appren ceship program, and local hire as a condi on of approval for this project.

Speciﬁcally:

The construc on workforce should require; -Full family health plans -All contractors must either par cipate in a state-approved appren ceship program or request dispatch of appren ces from a program -Paid sick leave. Pension, and vaca on-holiday pay.

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construc on performance; -Construc on contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business prac ces.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construc on cra work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innova ve economic solu on that puts them on the path to build be er careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Oscar Nunez
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-7
3-22
ATTACHMENT 12-307
From: Allen Cruz
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank housing element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:28:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Sent from IPhone
Hi, my name is Allen Cruz, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661.

Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state-approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

The construction workforce should require;
-Full family health plans
-All contractors must either participate in a state-approved apprenticeship program or request dispatch of apprentices from a program
-Paid sick leave. Pension, and vacation-holiday pay.

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance;
-Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member,
Allen Cruz

Letter O-8
3-23
ATTACHMENT 12-308
From: hilario garcia
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Subject: Burbank Housing Element-
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:27:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is Hilario Garcia , I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member,
Hilario Garcia
Letter O-9
3-24
ATTACHMENT 12-309
From: Horacio Gutietrez
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank housing element association planer Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:26:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Horacio gutierrez , I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Horacio gutierrez
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-10
3-25
ATTACHMENT 12-310
From: Francisco Solis
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:32:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is Francisco Solis Garcia, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Francisco Solis Garcia Letter O-11
3-26
ATTACHMENT 12-311
From: Arnulfo Castellanos
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element-Associate Planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:32:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Arnulfo Castellanos _, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

Specifically:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Your name here
Letter O-12
3-27
ATTACHMENT 12-312
From: Javier Rangel
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank housing element association planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:33:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Javier Rangel, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Javier Rangel
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-13
3-28
ATTACHMENT 12-313
From: Fernando Lopez
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:35:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Ariel López, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Your name here
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-14
3-29
ATTACHMENT 12-314
From: maurygarzon13
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank housing element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:35:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Mauricio Garzon, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661.

Specifically:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Unionmember , Mauricio Garzon
Enviado desde mi Galaxy
Letter O-15
3-30
ATTACHMENT 12-315
From: Leonel Serrano
Subject: Burbank Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:36:59 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is Leonel, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state-approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Leonel Serrano
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-16
3-31
ATTACHMENT 12-316
From: Darren Pineda
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:38:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is Darren Pineda , I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Darren Pineda
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-17
3-32
ATTACHMENT 12-317
From: Rolando Bravo
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh, Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:38:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Email: [email protected]
Subject: Burbank Housing Element-
Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is rolando, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Your name here
Letter O-18
3-33
ATTACHMENT 12-318
From: xX_RED1952_Xx
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:40:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Alberto Ramirez, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661.

Specifically:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member,
Alberto Ramirez
Letter O-19
3-34
ATTACHMENT 12-319
From: Aurelio Peralta
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:52:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is Aurelio Peralta, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Aurelio Peralta
Letter O-20
3-35
ATTACHMENT 12-320
From: Gilbert Salcedo
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:52:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is Gilberto Angel Salcedo Ayon , I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member,
Gilberto ángel salcedo Ayón
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-21
3-36
ATTACHMENT 12-321
From: Jesus Gonzalez
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:53:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Jesus gonzalez , I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Jesus gonzalez
Letter O-22
3-37
ATTACHMENT 12-322
From: Kike Sanchez
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:53:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Enrique Sanchez, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Enrique Sanchez
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-23
3-38
ATTACHMENT 12-323
From: Ian
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:53:37 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Ian Lyle, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Ian Lyle
Letter O-24
3-39
ATTACHMENT 12-324
From: cesar santos
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:54:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is Cesar Santos, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member,
Cesar Santos
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-25
3-40
ATTACHMENT 12-325
From: Osbaldo Flores
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:54:06 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is Osbaldo Flores I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661.

Specifically:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters,
Osbaldo Rene Flores
Letter O-26
3-41
ATTACHMENT 12-326
From: Alex
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:56:50 PM
Attachments: image0.jpeg
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Letter O-27
3-42
ATTACHMENT 12-327
From: victor alcala
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: : Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh, Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:56:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is victor alcala, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Your name here
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-28
3-43
ATTACHMENT 12-328
From: Leo Garcia
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:56:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is leo Garcia I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661.

Specifically:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Sincerely Leo Garcia Letter O-29
3-44
ATTACHMENT 12-329
From: Vinny Graciano
To: Rajesh, Shipra; Housing Element Update 2021
Subject: Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:57:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Vinny Graciano, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661.

Specifically:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Vinny Graciano
Letter O-30
3-45
ATTACHMENT 12-330
From: Jared Matlock
To: Housing Element Update 2021; Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:58:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Jared Matlock I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661.

Specifically:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Your name here
Letter O-31
3-46
ATTACHMENT 12-331
From: COle MYerly
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:05:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is ____________, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Cole Myerly
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-32
3-47
ATTACHMENT 12-332
From: Hector Chavez
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:06:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is hector Chavez , I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Your name here
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-33
3-48
ATTACHMENT 12-333
From: Rudy
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh, Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:06:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Rudy Emmanuel Gonzalez, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this The construction workforce should require;
-Full family health plans
-All contractors must either participate in a state-approved apprenticeship program or request dispatch of apprentices from a program
-Paid sick leave. Pension, and vacation-holiday pay.

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, rudy Emmanuel gonzalez Letter O-34
3-49
ATTACHMENT 12-334
From: Dylan Gage
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:07:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Dylan Gage, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state-approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Dylan Gage
Letter O-35
3-50
ATTACHMENT 12-335
From: Josh Michel
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Cc: Housing Element Update 2021
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:07:38 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Joshua I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state-approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Your name here Sent from my iPhone Letter O-36
3-51
ATTACHMENT 12-336
From: Noah Iglesias
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:08:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is Noah Iglesias, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661.

Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area.

We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state-approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Noah Iglesias
Letter O-37
3-52
ATTACHMENT 12-337
From: COle MYerly
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:09:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Cole Myerly, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state- approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Cole Myerly
Sent from my iPhone
Letter O-38
3-53
ATTACHMENT 12-338
From: Brenden Cates
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:09:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Associate Planner Rajesh,
Hi, my name is Brenden , I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 213. Carpenters Local 213 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state-approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

High quality responsible bidder standards should be established to ensure high quality construction performance; -Construction contractors at every level comply with labor law and have no history of fraudulent or grossly negligent business practices.
- General Contractors should be required to self perform a Minimum of 5% of all construction craft work for which they are responsible.

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 213 Carpenters Union Member, Brenden Cates
Letter O-39
3-54
ATTACHMENT 12-339
From: javier vera
To: Rajesh, Shipra
Subject: Burbank Housing Element- Associate Planner Rajesh Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:10:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi, my name is Javier Vera, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661.

Specifically:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Javier Vera
Letter O-40
3-55
ATTACHMENT 12-340
From: Juan Max
To: Rajesh, Shipra; Housing Element Update 2021
Subject: Burbank Housing Element-Associate Planner Rajesh, Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:52:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Burbank Housing Element-Associate Planner Rajesh, Hi my name is Juan M Max, I am a local union carpenter out of Carpenters Local 661. Carpenters Local 661 represents over 5,000 working families in the area which include members that live, work, and make us of the businesses in and around the Burbank area. We would like to see Labor Standards and or policy included in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. In future projects under this plan, the city of Burbank should explicitly incorporate language requiring family supporting wages, healthcare for workers, and all contractors must participate in a state-approved apprenticeship program, and local hire as a condition of approval for this project.

Specifically:

We believe all Burbank locals deserve an innovative economic solution that puts them on the path to build better careers, increase access to family healthcare, and enrich the community at large.

Local 661 Carpenters Union Member, Your name her
Letter O-41
3-56
ATTACHMENT 12-341
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letters O-3 through O-41
COMMENTER: Refer to individuals O-3 through O-41 listed in Table 3-1.

DATE: August 22, 2022 – September 6, 2022
Response for Letters O-3 through O-7
The comment notes membership with Carpenters Local 661 and offers an introduction to the labor union. The comment requests that labor standards and/or policies are included in the Housing Element Update and that future projects under the Housing Element Update require family supporting wages, skills training, and job access to community members. The comment also specifically notes that the construction workforce for future projects should require family health plans, skilled workforce standards, paid sick leave, pension, vacation-holiday pay, and high-quality bidder standards to ensure that contractors comply with labor laws.

The commenters’ requests for changes to the Housing Element Update are noted, but does not raise issues with the adequacy of the analysis or conclusions in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR is not intended or required to provide justification for the Project. Rather, the EIR is an informational document that is intended to provide public agencies and the public with detailed information about the effect that the Project is likely to have on the environment. This EIR also identifies ways in which the significant effects of the Project might be minimized and identifies alternatives to the Project. The City is not required to consider such comments or requests to change the Project in its CEQA analysis absent a commenter providing substantial evidence that the proposed change would feasibly reduce one or more significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR. Requests for changes to the Project may be addressed through the planning process outside of the CEQA process. 3-57
ATTACHMENT 12-342
September 3, 2022
Shipra Rajesh

Project Manager

Community Development Department Burbank, CA 91502

via Email
RE: Comments:
1) Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update,
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, July 2022; 2) 2nd Revised Draft Housing Element, 2021-2029, November 2021; and 3) Suggested revisions to the Draft Housing/Safety Element 2022 for consideration by the City Council
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the July 2022 Recirculated Draft EIR (“RDEIR”) for the November 21, 2021 and August 2022 Revised Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element (“Project”), covering planning years 2021 to 2029. The substance of the RDEIR constitutes an improvement to impact areas identiﬁed in the previous DEIR, but signiﬁcant areas remain unaddressed. These are identiﬁed in Part I, below.

Part 2 of this letter restates all of my March 31, 2022 comments to the previous DEIR because these comments have not yet been responded to.

Part 3 of this letter contains recommendations for changes to the Draft Housing Element (HE) itself (and Safety Element). I expect that these will be forwarded to the City Planning Board and City Council for their consideration as decision makers in the approval process.

Part 1: Comments to the July 22, 2022 RDEIR
This document covers mitigation in a more thorough way than the previous DEIR for the categories of Biological Resources and Utilities/Service Systems. There remain, however, signiﬁcant deﬁciencies in proposed mitigation measures. And the discussion of water and power supply need to be updated to 2021-2022 circumstances.

One opportunity the City has is to amend the zone code and adopt Objective Standards that otherwise cannot be applied to individual projects declared exempt from CEQA by the State. The environment is the environment, impacts on it are not limited to whether or not a project is exempt from CEQA (see discussion below on biological resources).
“Reasonably Foreseeable Development” only a term of art 1 2
Letter I-1
3-58
ATTACHMENT 12-343
Comment: The RDEIR repeatedly makes use of the phrase, “reasonably foreseeable development” yet, there appears to be no deﬁnition of this vague phrase. Does foreseeable mean 2, 5 or 9 years? Does reasonable account for inﬂ ation, construction
materials availability, interest rates, service/public infrastructure availability? If sta ﬀ has
prepared an analysis of the term and its application in the DEIR/RDEIR, then that information should clearly indicate how the phrase supports conclusions reached in the RDEIR acr
oss all impact areas and the RDEIR should clearly explain diﬀerences in development levels between the proposed Project and “reasonably for eseeable
development.”
The term needs to be deﬁned. If it is deﬁned, that deﬁnition is useful only if the reader can easily ﬁnd it. If, instead, it is not deﬁned, then an analysis of it and its application is required and that should be transparent to the r
eader. Ultimately, of course, CEQA
requires analysis of the Project as proposed, not based on a “reasonably foreseeable development.”
Finally, if the phrase is deﬁned, the deﬁnition of reasonableness has relevance to Water and Power Supply discussions. Can Burbank reasonably expect that water supply will become more scarce with a commensurate loss of hydr
oelectric energy generation?
Figure 2-4, Cal Enviroscreen is incomplete
Comment: Figure 2-4, p. 2-14, “Calenviroscreen - Disadvantaged Communities.” The legend does not explain the meaning of the dot pattern overlay.

Impact BIO-1, Introduction discussion, no explanation of how “Development… prioritized inﬁll sites in urbanized areas” is eﬀectuated Comment: Impact BIO-1, p. 4.2-5, asserts “Development would be prioritized on inﬁll sites in urbanized areas (emphasis added) of the City….” Is there a map or deﬁ nition of
“urbanized areas.” Developers are going to propose development wher e they are going
to propose development, as proven by development project proposals at the intersection of Alameda and Olive; in Toluca Lake; and Pickwick Project. None of these are located in the “urban downtown region” of Burbank, or near the Hollywood Burbank Airport (is it the proposed Golden Street Speciﬁc Plan area?).

How are the sites prioritized for just the “urbanized areas” of the City? On the other hand, where are the “non-urbanized areas” of the City. Media City? Rancho? easterly neighborhoods of Burbank? Toluca Lake in Burbank? Any analysis and impact determinations based on the assumption that development disproportionately occurs on inﬁll sites in “urbanized areas” are thus suspect.

Mitigation Measure, BIO-1 is inadequate
Comment: Mitigation Measure BIO-1, Biological Resources Avoidance. Page 2 2 Cont.
3 4
5 3-59
ATTACHMENT 12-344
The Mitigation Measures are better (p. 4.2-6). However, one addition is required to apply to all development projects exempted from CEQA by State law mandates like SB35, SB 9, SB10 and now, SB2011. These mandates speciﬁcally exclude CEQA, but birds of prey/nesting birds don’
t know any of this.

Equal protection can be achieved codifying the measures as Objective Standards incorporated into the Zone Code to ensure resource protection occurs across project types (CEQA and State-mandated CEQA exempt projects) for the ultimate beneﬁt of these important biological resources. Unless the measures ar e codiﬁed as separate
Objective Standards with an enforcement mechanism, the proposed Mitigation Measur
es over-estimate their eﬀectiveness for biological resources in the case of projects like SB35, SB9, SB10 and SB2011, and post-mitigation biological resources impacts ar
e understated.

Recommendation:

ADD Mitigation Measure: “The BIO-1 Mitigation Measures for direct/indirect impacts to biological resources through vegetation removal and construction activities also shall be codiﬁed as Objective Standards in the Zone Code so that they apply to all projects that may be exempt from CEQA due to State-mandated housing developments pursuant to SB35, SB9, SB10, SB2011.”
Water Supply (pp. 4.12-4 to 4.12-6), the Water Update Discussion needs to go to 2022
By now it is clear that Burbank is facing not just drought conditions but an historic shift to water scarcity as a permanent way of life. While the Base Year for the RDEIR is 2021, it is irresponsible to fail to include a discussion in the “Update” section for post-2016. The magnitude of scarcity must not be overlooked particularly since it is reasonably foreseeable that this condition is the new normal. Didn’t Governor Brown’s 25% water reduction mandate expire in February 2016? (p. 4.12-6). Since then additional actions have taken place, including Governor Newsom’s order for voluntary reduction in water use, signiﬁcant cuts to Burbank from the State Water Project (restricted to 5% of supply for the MWD service areas), additional cuts by the MWD and imposition of reduced outdoor watering or
dered by Burbank Water and Power.

This document owes the community and the decision-makers straight talk about emerging conditions.

And that straight talk needs to also address potential power scarcity due to loss in the Colorado River system, the very real possibility that Lake Mead will be unable to provide the water needed for hydroelectric energy generation and the reasonable expectation that states dependent on water from the Colorado River Basin will be unable to reach a mutual allocation accord, forcing the Federal Government to step in.

Proponents of additional housing are faced with this emerging reality as well.

The Water Update Section needs to be revised to account for the sweeping changes to reduce water demand because we are in a third year of dr ought. Page 3
5 Cont.
6 3-60
ATTACHMENT 12-345
On June 1, 2022 MWD issued new outdoor watering restrictions (1x/week) for 6 million customers, and BWP may follow (limit outdoor watering from 2x/ to 1x/week) outdoor restrictions. Water allocation from the Delta has been reduced, and Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders in April, May, July and October 2021 on conservation goals — further modiﬁed by a March 2022 Executive Order N-7-22 — pivot to the likelihood of emergency regulations demanding BWP start working on a contingency plans in the face of continuing shortages.

We have experienced the driest two decades in 1200 years. It appears not very likely to change.

Energy Supply Discussion (pp.26-28). The discussion is inadequate The discussion is incomplete and fails to recognize the very challenge to energy reliability and aﬀordability. BWP is a magniﬁcent municipal utility faced with unprecedented challenges, brought on by a hotter drier climate. If only data regar ding
energy are limited to the Base Year 2021, then more recent 2022 information regarding on-going impacts on energy resources will be left out of the discussion about energy availability to support the proposed Project.

California was unable to avoid rolling blackouts in 2020. Evidence of the unreliability of energy was one of the reasons the State legislature voted to extend the operation of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant- the State’s largest source of energy - for ﬁve more years to 2030.

Just two weeks after the Governor introduced draft legislation to continue the operation of the State’s nuclear power plant, the State legislators voted in agreement on August 28, 2022 (SB846). Permission to extend the life of the plant will now require approval by the federal government.

Page 4 ends

achieve its renewable energy source goals. Ener
gy reliability and cost are the most two
critical issues that need to be examined in this RDEIR.

The City staﬀ owe the community and Council a full discussion regarding the 2021/22 state of aﬀairs impacting our utility, highlighting the recent scramble to secure additional power, due to extreme heat. On Thursday, September 1, 2022, BWP was for
ced to buy high cost power just keep the lights on in our City. The Magnolia Power Plant was operating at peak capacity, however, that apparently was insuﬃcient and additional, expensive resources had to be secured. These costs WILL be passed onto the ratepayer; and while costs ar
e not the subject of an environmental impact report,
the City Council must discuss how the utility will maintain reliability and aﬀordability.

This RDEIR needs to revise the section on power that identiﬁed impacts on power as “less than signiﬁcant.” The costs will be extremely burdensome on lower income households (families, but also on elderly single women, vulnerable in Page 4 6 7
3-61
ATTACHMENT 12-346
health and income, who constitute a high percentage of individuals in poverty in Burbank, according to the HE).

A new Mitigation Measure needs to be added requiring the City to conduct a Risk Assessment sooner than later and potentially in stages, to achieve Burbank’s clean energy goals that would speciﬁcally address all of these measures listed in the RDEIR:
• Rate Design: Design time-varying rates that encourage customers to shift their consumption away from higher cost periods to lower cost periods

• Demand Response (DR). Consider cost-eﬀective BWP customer DR programs

• Beneﬁcial Electriﬁcation. Enhance and extend BWP eﬀorts to encourage growth in beneﬁcial

electriﬁcation that reduces GHG emissions, including electric vehicles.

• Disadvantaged Communities. Develop and implement a program to target disadvantaged communities with selected BWP energy eﬃciency, demand response, and beneﬁcial electri
ﬁcation programs.

• IPP Coal Replacement. Work with LADWP and other IPP participants to determine resources that will r
eplace the IPP coal plant when it is retired in
2025.

• Transmission Delivery for Renewables. Identify options and costs for transmission delivery of large quantities of renewable energy r esulting from SB
100.

• Solar Over-Generation. Work to mitigate the impact of solar generation (including morning and afternoon ramping, overgeneration, and instantaneous intermittency) such that reliability and aﬀordability are maintained.

• Resource Positioning. Position BWP’s resources to balance supply and demand on the grid ad increased renewable energy sources come online, thereby minimizing costs and maximizing energy reliability for Burbank. In this connection, evaluate further improvement in the operational ﬂexibility of the Magnolia Power Project.

Without a clear Risk Assessment Mitigation Measure, the RDEIR is inadequate. It needs to be added. Page 5

7 Cont.
8 3-62
ATTACHMENT 12-347
Sewer Service Constraints Analysis should be revised to account for development projects brought forward pursuant to SB35, SB9, SB10; and SB2011.

These kinds of projects continue to ﬂy under the radar of the RDEIR, leading to a continuing understatement if the impacts of the Project (HE). The impacts of over SB35 700 units appear to be unaccounted for in the Project because they are exempt fr om
CEQA. However, the units are not phantom housing units, they are real with demands on City services and infrastructure. Therefore the constraints analysis must clearly incorporate the impacts of these projects. The cumulative impacts of ADU’s or duplexes also need to be accounted for.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-3 is inadequate.

It identiﬁes potentially signiﬁcant impacts that could occur on a project-speciﬁc basis and indicates that the City’s wastewater treatment capacity is able to treat an additional up to 4 million gallons per day (mgd) associated with new development.

Because the Pr
oject will exceed that additional amount, a new RDEIR Mitigation Measure requires the Public Works Director and Department to conduct a sewer service constraints analysis. However, the Mitigation Measure fails to take into consideration the years it takes to analyze, design, secure approval, fund, bid and build an expanded sewer treatment facility. Anyone familiar with the sewage spills from L.A.’s Hyperion Treatment Plant prior to its expansion in the 1990’s will know these are complicated, expensive and long propositions. The current City Councilmembers may not be on the City Council. There is no long term plan in this Mitigation Measure, no one knows what mitigation is needed, mitigation is once again deferred to an unknown date.

Therefore, the Mitigation Measure needs to be revised or a new one evaluated and prepared to establish benchmarks for an eﬀective result. For example, what happens when pending building permits or entitlements exceed the treatment plan capacity? Does the Council impose a moratorium, can the City stop issuing permits or accepting applications for new entitlements? Who will get notiﬁcation, how will an exceedance e
ﬀect individual residential and commercial development projects? The City should at a minimum show it is thinking about how to ﬁx the capacity constraint before the problem arises. Therefore, a benchmark should be called for in a new Mitigation Measur
e to address wastewater treatment capacity expansion before exceedances occur (90%, 70% of available capacity?). There must be a benchmark or objective standard the aﬀords a rational period of time to analyze, design, secure approval, fund and build an expanded sewer treatment facility. The Mitigation Measure states “Nonetheless impacts would r
emain signiﬁcant and unavoidable until plans and
upgrades are implement.”
Part 2 - Comments from prior submittal which remain unaddressed. The following comments were submitted to the DEIR March 31, 2022 and require a response.

Page 6 ends

9 10
11 3-63
ATTACHMENT 12-348

COMMENTS TO THE DEIR/ELEMENT

According to the 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.

The DEIR is amazing and concerning. The data sets are incongruous. The DEIR contains very diﬀerent housing unit numbers (SCAG, RHNA and DOF) that beg to be reconciled in a rational manner, for the non-professional

who does not understand the sea of acronyms coming at them. The Element is built around a State-mandated housing number, but that conﬂicts with forecasts by the local regional agency. The DEIR housing numbers from DOF con
ﬂict with the housing
numbers from DOF in the Housing Element itself.

Nonetheless, here are both comments to the DEIR and the Element. Hopefully, the Element charts a better path in light of these comments.

Finally, the data for Burbank are derived from very big numbers generated, I understand, by an algorithm(s). An algorithm cannot possibly account for local nuances, activities, historic growth patterns, infrastructure, its non- proﬁts etc.

DEIR Comments

1. Unmitigated Impacts, Sewer. This should concern everyone. The proposed Project, Housing Element, 2nd Revised Draft causes impacts on the City’s wastewater treatment capacity that are signiﬁcant and unavoidable:
“...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-speciﬁ
c bases with no feasible mitigation at the current
plan
level. Therefore, impacts would be signiﬁcant an unavoidable.”

Page ES-24
And also:

Wastewater generation for full buildout of the proposed Housing Element Update is estimated to be up to approximately 6.3 mgd, which is not within the City’s currently available treatment capacity of 4 mgd. Therefore, impacts would be, signiﬁcant and unavoidable due to constraints within the sewer system and development under the proposed Project would contribute to a cumulatively signiﬁ cant
impact associated with wastewater generation. Cumulative Impacts 4.12-39 The DEIR identiﬁes an elaborate uncharted approach that Public Works will take over time. But the overall impact is unmistakable. Page 7 11 Cont.
12 13
3-64
ATTACHMENT 12-349
How will Council to make a Finding of Overriding Considerations for sewer impacts? What is the beneﬁt that outweighs this?
What is maximum amount of housing units permitted before the signiﬁcant and unavoidable sewer impacts are reached?
How much does the proposed Project need to be modiﬁed to reduce impacts to less than signiﬁcant?

2. There are signiﬁcant inconsistencies between RHNA, the SCAG (Burbank/ regional forecasts), and existing numbers oﬀ
ered by the State Department of
Finance 2021. The City is required to plan for the RHNA number, but neither SCAG nor DOF o
ﬀer any kind of data that would conﬁrm even modest support of the State- mandated number (as distributed by SCAG).

Here is how it looks:

HCD Requirement by 2029 = 10,456 housing units (RHNA)
SCAG Forecast by 2030 = 4,650 housing units (Table 4.8-2) over the 8-Year proposed Project (2021-2029), the added number of required units above the forecast is:
= 5,806 MORE units The discrepancies need a full explanation.

A recent State audit has revealed problems with the RHNA numbers in some districts.

Unfortunately, a similar audit has not been conducted over the RHNA number for the SCAG region. The numbers for Burbank make no sense.

The City should demand an audit of the SCAG RHNA numbers before it approves the proposed Project which contains signiﬁcant unmitigated impacts, including sewage.

In plain language, the discrepancies must be explained: if the forecast is for modest growth, why is RHNA 2x forecast?

3. SCAG 2020 estimates fewer residents, jobs and housing in the region by 2040:

“Based on an evaluation of the 2016 RTP/SCS and the 2020 RTP/SCS demographic projections, the 2020 RTP/ SCS projects fewer r
esidents, 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 Page 8 13 Cont.
14 15
3-65
ATTACHMENT 12-350
greater growth than is currently anticipated. The impact analysis throughout this EIR uses the demographic data provided in the 2020 RTP/SCS." p. 4.1-10 With the regional forecasts in mind (and the 2020 forecast by SCAG is signiﬁcantly less aggressive than SCAG’s 2016 projections), how ar
e these numbers reconciled with the
RHNA for Burbank?

4. The residential vacancy rate is 6%. The Department of Finance (DOF) identiﬁes 45,069 housing units in the city, of which 2,787 are vacant. This is a 6% vacancy rate, considered a “healthy” vacancy rate by HCD. Rather than showing a critical shortage of housing units, the statistics show an appr
opriate vacancy rate.

1. The disparity among these housing unit numbers needs to be reconciled (SCAG, RHNA and DOF).

2. If the vacancy rate is already 6% (2% more than HCD has used in the past as a maximum rate) how is an increase to 10,456 new housing units in the 6th Cycle justiﬁable?
(FYI, the DOF ﬁgure in the Housing Element is diﬀerent: 44,978 Housing Units. Table 1-13)

5. A 15% added housing unit buﬀer raises the total number of units that the city must accommodate to 10,456. Given all the other numbers (SCAG, RHNA, DOF — 2 numbers—) what is the justiﬁcation for a further 15%?
The EIR should study the resulting impacts from an elimination of the 15%; will that reduce sewer impacts?

1. What statute requires this buﬀer?

2. Is it a State mandate?

3. Why is there no discussion in the Alternative
sections about this impact?

4. What is the justiﬁcation for a 15% buﬀer with
advent of SB35, 9 and 10?

6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Air Quality. What factors are being used to quantify reductions in green house gas emissions for the 6th Cycle Housing Element?

A. Didn’t the Biden Administration re-instate California’s waiver of the CAA and restore its ability to set its own clean air standards? The Chapter currently states:
“However
, as a result of the SAFE Vehicles Rule discussed above, California’s waiver of Clean Air Act preemption was revoked, thereby r
escinding the CARB’s authority to
implement the Advanced Clean Cars program.” 4.5-6 Page 9 15 Cont.
16 17
18 3-66
ATTACHMENT 12-351
It would seem the GHG will be reduced more.

B “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),
• Achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 (EO B-55-18 target year).”

Page 4 ends

Burbank should be pr
oud of its past record of GHG reductions.

C. To clarify the GHG Chapter, what assumptions are made for the growing aggressive use of electric vehicles? For mobile sources, where is the discussion and assumptions about electric vehicles by 2029?
D. Air Quality Policies: where is the policy to upgrade existing homes to greater energy eﬃciency? p. 4.1-26
E. Please answer where the threshold of a 400,000 car intersection comes from. What is Five Points compared with a 400,000 car intersection? "The city does not have any intersections that would foreseeably experience daily 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 standar
ds.” p. 4.1-32/33
Five Points at Victory and Burbank, is unique: cars idle for many minutes at a time waiting their turn. Will the future forecast of 67,000 daily trips generate CO equal to 400,000 (or even 100,000) cars because the idle times ar e long at that unique
intersection?
Where is there a 400,000 car intersection in the State of California? Where does this come from and where is it justiﬁed?

family residential and mixed-use residential of adequate density to meet State- required housing production and aﬀordability targets as discussed below.” p. 2-14 Occurring “anywhere in the City” is certainly unplanned these days. As an example, the DEIR fails to discuss the impacts of SB9 (replace one home with 4) and SB10 (up zone to 10 units without CEQA requirements). These State mandates result in an unknowable number of new units in unknowable locations. Housing units may occur anywhere in the city zoned for residential, a net increase of 2 to 4 new units where one used to be. But we don’t know where. And the Housing Element indeed induces direct (population, housing) and indirect (services, quality of life infrastructure) growth it by its implementation of State mandates.

Assess impacts on VMT-

growth inducing impact not addressed need to look at j/h balance in Burbank area whether it increases growth of jobs?

and how j/h aﬀects VMT impact

8. Loss of housing units to Short Term Rentals. This impact is not assessed in the DEIR. Loss of these homes — even if no more than 500 — exacerbates the housing shortage.... by 500 units. Requiring these homes become available for long term rent or sales will help the city make more progress on its RHNA numbers for all income categories. And help people ﬁnd homes to live in.

This factor should be discussed in Housing/Population. How many units? How much displacement? It would seem the State housing crisis demands every unit be available.

9. Paradigm shift of work/commute patterns should be discussed either in GHG, Transportation or Housing Chapter of the DEIR. Work-commute patterns have new implications for VMT, GHG and RHNA. Historically, longer commute times created more greenhouse emissions, as recognized by HCD. However, the pandemic has brought about a paradigm shift to work-travel patterns, the split oﬃce/work from home schedule; on-line learning and on- line job training.

This new work pattern is not available to employees who work with their hands, provide services.

How are the impacts of any of these foundational shifts accounted for in the DEIR?

Page 11 ends

23 Cont.
24 25
26 3-68
ATTACHMENT 12-353

10. Inadequate discussion of impacts on water supply. Water utilities routinely state that they will provide water to new development. However, the DEIR needs to discuss the contemporary drought more completely given the signiﬁant loss of snowpack and the Governor’s latest order to local water agencies to develop their own plans for the dr
ought. This will aﬀect Burbank Water and Power. and all of its users.

The Chapter on water needs to more clearly state where the snow pack is estimated to be in 2029, by using an interpolation or some other method. Water availability and its management have huge implications for Burbank. See Page 4.5-3

11. Deﬁcient cumulative impact analysis. Cumulative impacts analyses are deﬁcient because neither SB35, SB9 and SB10 ar
e assessed nor identiﬁed as part of the
pr
oposed Project.

A.Water. First, there is a housing demand on the overall availability of water for the city.

What is actually required to reach the water conservation levels needs to provide water to the 10,456 housing units?
B. Loss of yards/green space/increase in urban heat island. One of the beneﬁts peoples have in these neighborhoods are yards with plants, shade and natural cooling.

Once the yards ar
e cumulatively eliminated, that will reduce a natural cooling eﬀect.

What will be the cumulative eﬀect of additional development and a commensurate loss of open space? What is the eﬀect on urban heat island? Therefore, what is the eﬀect on climate change?
C. State housing mandate aﬀects the entire MWD service area and not just Burbank. Signiﬁcantly, Burbank is not unique among MWD customers required by the State to substantially up zone their city. This is widely-based, service area impact because all cities are mandated to incr
ease housing units.

Without a service area-wide cumulative analysis,

how will the demand on water supplies be assessed? We are not an island, our needs are connected to all the cities securing water supplies through MWD.

Given current drought, what level of water conservation will be required to be meet water supply for 10,456 additional dwelling units in Burbank and is it feasible? Given water conservation, what will be the impacts on landscaping and resulting heat island eﬀect? A quantitative analysis is required under cumulative impacts for water because Burbank is not the only city in the key services area required to zone in this manner
.

There needs to be a quantitative analysis. Page 12 27 28
29 30
31 3-69
ATTACHMENT 12-354
D. Cumulative Impacts fails to address:

direct and indirect impacts, loss of greenery, infrastructure construction to increase provision of recycled water to neighborhoods, impacts of new piping to provide recycled water.

Why is there no cumulative analysis of what infrastructure is required to be upgraded to accommodate these new housing units?

12. The Alternatives are inadequate. The purpose of the Alternatives Section is to provide decision makers with information about how the Project would need to be modiﬁed, and to what degree, in order to reduce impacts to a level that is less than signiﬁcant.

This is a disclosure, even if decision makers do not choose it.

This alternative- one where there are no signiﬁcant and unavoidable impacts — (like the proposed Project) should realistically addr
ess the potential for impacts to
wastewater, water and other infrastructure systems associated with level of proposed development. An Alternative like this needs to be included.

Two added Alternatives should be assessed:

1. An Alternative without the 15% buﬀer;

2. An Alternative that reduces all infrastructure impacts to

a level of insigniﬁcance.

Unlike current zoning that allows the city to plan in a measured way for development and its density, allowing housing any where in the city, does not aﬀord the city to reasonably plan for the increase in locational and cumulative infrastructure demands.

proposed Project; therefore, potential infrastructure improvements associated with these utilities and service systems would not contribute to growth in the City.

Page 13 ends

32 33
34 35
3-70
ATTACHMENT 12-355
to the sewer conveyance and treatment system will be based on the projected population, and therefore, would not result in unplanned population growth.” Page 5-5 CEQA requires analysis of the impacts of the proposed Project, not “reasonably foreseeable development.”
Part 3: Previously Submitted Comments on the Safety and Housing Elements Safety Element

Is there a policy recommendation to armor soft story housing in the face of inevitable earth quakes?
Public Review of Housing Element Move this Section to the Appendices

Goal 2, Adequate Housing Sites

Revise Policy 2.4

engage proactive code enforcement to retur
n unauthorized short-term rentals to the
city’s housing market
Goal 3 Aﬀordable Housing

ADD new policy

Establish a Task Force of Burbank Senior Board and Burbank Committee on Disabilities to determine state-of the-art housing development examples for housing of person with disabilities; and incorporate these objective standar ds into all density
bonus and inclusionary zoning projects. SB35, 9 and 10
Goal 5 Equal Housing Opportunity

ADD new policy:

Establish a pre-qualiﬁcation program with the Burbank Housing Corporation for elderly renter households in the extremely low income category and large family households in the low income category; and support their r
elocation to stabilized extremely low/low
income homes.

Neighborhood Revitalization, Page 33

This paragraph should include the day care and job search centers and the after- school center that is in BHC but serves the entire neighborhood.

Map of Focus Neighborhoods page 1-34 Map needs correction Deﬁnitions:

Aﬀordable Unit: could be tied to % of area median Burbank Housing Corporation: It is more inclusive than housing: after school learning centers for neighborhood, child care facilities.

By-right development: doesn’t require public hearings
Grants: Page 14
35 Cont.
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 3-71
ATTACHMENT 12-356
List all available State and Federal Grants and describe

Conditional Use Permit: identify as quasi-judicial Density Bonus: need simpler deﬁnition Dissimilarity Index: needs a clear deﬁnition Homeless: include unsheltered who live in vehicles.

In closing, thank you for the opportunity to comment. City staﬀ are under a lot pressure by State-imposed mandates to produce housing. That is clearly reﬂ ected in the
multiple revisions to the 2021-2029 HE in response to comments by HCD regar ding the
HE. We are all proponents of housing, in the right place, with proper disclosures. This is balance. Indeed HE’s have for years required a balance of water and sewer.

Unfortunately recent laws mandated by the legislature notably carry no obligation by the State to help fund the increased demand on Staﬀ resources and pressure on Staﬀ will likely remain. The State has yet to help fund the costs of upgrading services and infrastructure. Those burdens have been passed on to Burbank and its households and ratepayers.

Thank you,
Emily

Emily Gabel-Luddy, FASLA
46 Cont.
47-49
50 3-72
ATTACHMENT 12-357

Page 15 ends

3-73
ATTACHMENT 12-358
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter I-1
COMMENTER: Emily Gabel-Luddy
DATE: September 3, 2022
Response I-1.1
The commenter describes the comment letter, demonstrating how the letter has been broken into three sections. The first section addresses the Recirculated Draft EIR, the second section addresses comments that concern the previously circulated Draft EIR, and the third section addresses comments regarding the Housing Element and Safety Element directly.

Individual responses to each comment are provided below. This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the analysis in the Draft EIR or Recirculated Draft EIR. No further response is required and no revisions to the Recirculated Draft EIR are necessary.

Response I-1.2
The commenter states that there is no clear meaning defined in the Draft EIR for the phrase “reasonably foreseeable development.” The commenter asks if “reasonable,” in this context, accounts for inflation, construction materials availability, interest rates, and infrastructure availability. The commenter states that if “reasonable” can be defined then additional consideration to water supply and its use for hydroelectric power should be given.

The term “reasonably foreseeable” is not specifically defined in the CEQA statutes or Guidelines.

Rather, it is framed more broadly by what it is not: “An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064).

As stated in Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, only two percent of energy produced by Burbank Water and Power is produced by hydroelectric sources. Impact UTIL-2 discusses water supply availability into the future. Metropolitan projects that water supply will be equal to water demand under all climatic conditions considered, such that water supply reliability is 100 percent through the year 2045 (BWP 2021a). This is partly due to the effectiveness of conservation programs implemented throughout the planning period. The projections for imported surface water supply availability from Metropolitan indicate that sufficient supplies are available to the City to meet projected demands. These projections are based upon the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) which reflects population growth associated with the Housing Element Update, as well as additional supplies associated with expansion of the City’s current water supply portfolio through increased conservation and conjunctive use management efforts. Since BWP water demands are accounted for in the supply availability projections identified above, and with consideration to BWP’s access to local groundwater supplies and recycled water supplies, both of which are expected to increase over time, it is reasonably anticipated that sufficient water supply is available for the proposed Project demands and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The section considers climatic variations and takes into consideration both potable and non-potable uses. Beyond the projections offered in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, making predictions or assumptions on water supply for hydroelectric power would be considered

3-74
ATTACHMENT 12-359
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
speculative and thus, would not be “reasonably foreseeable.” No edits to the Recirculated Draft EIR are required.

Response I-1.3
The commenter states that on Figure 2-4, page 2-14, the dot pattern overlay on the graphic is not clearly mentioned in the map legend.

The dotted overlay in Figure 2-4 is meant to represent a land use type other than residential. The dotted area could include commercial, office, industrial, mixed-use etc. The purpose of the figure is to demonstrate where disadvantaged communities (DACs) exist within the city, and land use type distinction is inconsequential since census tracts lie over varying land use types. DACs can exist within census tracts regardless of the mixed land uses within those tracts since the variables taken into consideration are based on various factors including, but not limited to, exposure to particulate matter, drinking water quality, pesticide use, exposure to hazardous waste, and different socioeconomic factors.

Response I-1.4
The commenter asks if there is a map of, or definition of, “urbanized areas.” The commenter asks how sites are prioritized for “urbanized areas” of the city, and where “non-urbanized” areas of Burbank are within the city. The commenter states that any analysis and impact determinations based on the assumption that development disproportionately occurs on infill sites in “urbanized areas” are suspect.

According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15387, “urbanized area” means “a central city or a group of contiguous cities with a population of 50,000 or more, together with adjacent densely populated areas having a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile.” According to the U.S.

Census Bureau, the City of Burbank has a population of 107,563 people. 1 The U.S. Census Bureau
also determined that the City has a population density of 6,198.7 persons per square mile, well over the threshold of 1,000 persons per square mile to be considered an urbanized area in accordance with CEQA. Per this definition, the entire City would be considered an urbanized area.

Section 2, Project Description, contains Figure 2-3, Specific Plan and Housing Opportunity Locations.

As shown in the figure, there are two main areas, the Downtown District and Golden State Specific Plan District, that the Housing Element Update is proposing as the primary areas for future housing development under the proposed Project. When compared to the City of Burbank Zoning Map, both of the housing opportunity districts line up with areas that are zoned as, but not limited to, General Industrial (M-2), Planned Development (PD), Burbank Center Commercial Manufacturing (BCCM), Burbank Center Limited Business (BCLB), Low Density Residential (R-2), Medium Density Residential (R-3), and High Density Residential (R-4). Many of the zones within the proposed housing districts have existing built-up land or urban uses. Thus, housing occurring in these areas would be considered infill development as it does not extend beyond the city boundary, or propose housing in areas where development does not already exist or isn’t already planned.

The City’s zoning map is available online with the link below:
https://www.burbankca.gov/documents/173607/0/20210101_Zoning_Map.pdf/c8bc55ed-98cf- 505d-3892-7e1657bca8f1?t=1618866483006

1 U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Quick Facts – Burbank City. Available online at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/burbankcitycalifornia,CA/PST045221 3-75
ATTACHMENT 12-360
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response I-1.5
The commenter states that while the mitigation measures presented under Impact BIO-1 have improved, one addition is necessary. The commenter states that equal protection should be given to birds of prey/nesting birds. The commenter states that equal protection may be achieved by codifying the measures as Objective Standards incorporated into the Zone Code to ensure resource protection occurs across all project types, including CEQA and State-mandated CEQA exempt projects.

As discussed in Section 4.2, Biological Resources, under Impact BIO-1, 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). For those reasons, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will be implemented for all projects under the Housing Element where construction will include disturbance of vegetation, trees, structures, or other areas where biological resources could be present.

For all projects that apply, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a pre-construction survey by a qualified biologist, avoidance of nesting species through the establishment of buffers, and a survey report prepared by the qualified biologist to submit to the City. The qualified biologist will serve as a construction monitor during periods when construction activities would occur near active nest areas to ensure no inadvertent impacts on these nests would occur. This mitigation would be compliant with protections granted under the CFGC and MBTA.

In regard to codifying the mitigation measure as an objective standard incorporated into the Zoning Code, this comment does not pertain to the analysis in the Recirculated Draft EIR and instead proposes additional regulations to be written and enforced by the City. The comment has been noted and passed onto decision makers.

Response I-1.6
The commenter states that the discussion on current water supply conditions is insufficient and the discussion of water scarcity should also include an evaluation of potential power scarcity due to loss in the Colorado River Basin and Lake Mead. The commenter states that the Water Update section should be revised to account for sweeping changes to reduce water demands.

Refer to response I-1.2 for a discussion on reasonably foreseeable impacts to water supply. Impact UTIL-2 concluded that growth under the Project is accounted for in the City’s UWMP, as informed by the General Plan, and that sufficient water supplies are available to serve reasonably foreseeable development accommodated under the Housing Element Update during normal (water year), dry- year, and multiple-dry-year (drought) conditions through the year 2045, resulting in less than significant impacts. Nonetheless, individual housing projects facilitated by the Housing Element Update will undergo review to determine the projects’ water demand and its compliance with State and local water requirements. Furthermore, the UWMP conducted by MWD, indicates availability of adequate water supply that includes new regional supplies to meet their total service area water demand until 2040.
3-76
ATTACHMENT 12-361
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response I-1.7
The commenter states that the discussion presented in the Draft EIR regarding energy supply is insufficient and that energy data needed to support future development under the proposed document should be included. The commenter states that energy reliability and cost are two important factors that should be discussed in the Draft EIR. The commenter suggests impacts related to energy that resulted in a less than significant impact should be reevaluated.

Refer to Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, and Section 6, Energy, of the Initial Study (Appendix B of the Draft EIR) for full discussions on energy sources and available supply. The Housing Element Update, in and of itself, does not specifically propose individual housing projects. Individual housing developments would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis to determine their energy demand, if adequate supply exists, and other associated energy impacts. As part of that review, specific energy data from BWP will be utilized to measure a project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. In addition, BWP will have the opportunity to review all projects and environmental analyses prior to public circulation of the documents, which occurred for the proposed Project and Draft EIR.

Regarding reliability and affordability, in order to help the City achieve its renewable energy source goals, BWP may integrate numerous issues including, but not limited to, rate design, demand response, beneficial electrification, DACs, independent power producer (IPP) coal replacement, transmission delivery for renewables, solar over-generation, and resource positioning as a part of their resource planning analysis. As stated on page 4.12-27, BWP will procure resources that meet or exceed State clean energy standards, while maintaining reliability of the grid in a cost-effective manner.

Response I-1.8
The commenter suggests that a new mitigation measure should be added to require the City to conduct risk assessments in order to achieve the City’s clean energy goals. The commenter lists measures that the City should consider. Such measures include, but are not limited to, rate design, demand response, beneficial electrification, consideration for disadvantaged communities, IPP coal replacement, transmission delivery for renewables, solar over-generation, and resource positioning.

Refer to Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, for additional information on the City’s clean energy goals. The Housing Element Update, in and of itself, is a policy document that does not specifically propose individual housing projects. Individual housing projects facilitated by the Housing Element Update will undergo review to determine the projects energy demand and its compliance with Federal, state, and local energy policies and goals. New connections for electrical power and their impacts would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. No additional mitigation is required.

The measures listed by the commenter are noted on page 4.12-27 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. It is stated therein “to help achieve the City’s renewable energy source goals, BWP may integrate the following issues into future resource planning analysis.” As such, these are measures that would need to be performed by BWP rather than the City directly in order to assist the City in reaching its energy goals. No further edits to the Recirculated Draft EIR are required.

Response I-1.9
The commenter states that sewer service constraints need to be to be analyzed to account for projects brought forward pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 35, SB 9, SB 10, and SB 2011. The commenter states that the cumulative impacts of ADU’s and/or duplexes should be discussed in the analysis. 3-77
ATTACHMENT 12-362
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Refer to Response I-1.8 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR. The Draft EIR does not analyze housing development under SB 9 or SB 10 because they are the State’s action that went into effect January 1, 2022. The EIR is required to look at the existing conditions at the time of the distribution of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR, which was March 2021. In addition, the analysis of 10,456 housing units in the Draft EIR is a conservative approach as the Housing Element estimates maximum growth potential.

SB 9 allows a subdivision of single family residential (R-1 and R-1-H) lots into two lots and allows for construction of up to four dwelling units, inclusive if ADU ad JADU, on each lot. Therefore, up to a total of eight residential units (four per each lot) can be created from the one existing single-family zoned property. The City adopted an urgency ordinance for implementing SB 9 on April 5, 2022, to limit the number of residential units yielded from an existing single family zoned property to a maximum of four residential units (two residential units per lot). The City already accounts for a main dwelling with accessory dwelling units (ADU) and Junior ADUs, so potential environmental impacts for the addition of one unit on an existing residential lot would be nominal. The ordinance adopted by the City for implementing SB 9 will significantly reduce the development impacts on the City’s infrastructure and utility services by limiting the maximum number of units per single-family residential lot to four consistent with City’s available infrastructure.

SB 10 allows for cities to zone for smaller housing developments of up to 10 units per lot. However, this is a voluntary effort that the City is not undertaking.

Response I-1.10
The commentor states that Mitigation Measure UTIL-3 is inadequate. The commenter states that there should be a long-term plan in place for how the mitigation measure will be implemented, what the effects are, what the objectives of the mitigation measure are, and how the City plans to address capacity constraints.

Mitigation Measures UTIL-3a and 3b would reduce short-term impacts, and Mitigation Measures UTIL-3c and 3d require the preparation of plans, and the implementation of infrastructure capacity and conveyance expansion and upgrades as needed by the infrastructure plans for long-term solutions. Mitigation Measure UTIL-3c is the only mitigation measure that gives a required completion year of 2023. Impacts are still considered significant and unavoidable due to the lack of a timeframe for Mitigation Measures UTIL-3a, UTIL-3b, and UTIL-3d. Therefore, additional information for these measures are not available at this time.

Response I-1.11
The commenter states that the Draft EIR uses incongruous data sets, such as when discussing housing unit numbers. The commenter notes that all the acronyms are difficult to understand and reconcile in a rational manner. The commenter also states that the housing units listed in the Draft EIR differ from SCAG, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and the California Department of Finance (DOF), and that housing units in the Draft EIR conflict with the DOF housing units listed in the Housing Element.
3-78
ATTACHMENT 12-363
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Refer to Response I-1.2 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The City’s existing housing units in the Housing Element conflict with the number of units in the Draft EIR because at the time the Housing Element was prepared, the most current housing unit estimates available were from 2020 DOF data (44,978 units). When the Draft EIR was prepared, 2021 DOF estimates were available (45,069 units).

The difference in these two estimates is 91 units, or approximately 0.2 percent, which is negligible and does not change the significance determinations presented in the Draft EIR.

The purpose of the Recirculated Draft EIR is to allow the public to see what new and significant information was added or changed in the previous Draft EIR. The purpose of the Final EIR is to respond to comments directly. The comment was adequately addressed in Section 2 and no changes to the Draft EIR were required. As such, no changes to the Recirculated Draft EIR are required. This response applies to all comments that were previously submitted and responded to in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR.

Response I-1.12
The commenter states that the algorithms used to produce data in the analysis cannot account for local nuances, activities, historic growth patterns, infrastructure, non-profits, etc.

Refer to Response I-1.3 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. This comment does not contain a substantive comment on the analysis in the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary; nonetheless, the comment will be provided to the City’s decisionmakers for their consideration.

Response I-1.13
The commenter questions how the City Council will make a Finding of Overriding Consideration for the identified significant and unavoidable impacts to sewers and what benefit would outweigh these impacts. The commenter notes that the Draft EIR identifies an elaborate uncharted approach that Public Works Department’s (PWD) would take over time. The commenter also questions the maximum amount of housing units that would be permitted before reaching significant and unavoidable sewer impacts and how much the Project would need to be modified to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Refer to Response I-1.4 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The citywide analysis of the Housing Element Update was analyzed under a Program EIR, which does not require analysis of each individual project. As such, it is not possible with the current level of information provided to reduce all variables related to sewage capacity to a single number of housing units that can be built before negatively impacting the sewer conveyance system. Please note that for proposed developments with a significant increase in housing units that trigger a sewer capacity analysis, which is any project with a net increase of five or more additional multi-family housing units, developers will be required to upgrade City sewer infrastructure that is directly impacted by the proposed project, and/or contribute their fair share cost of the sewer improvements as determined by the Public Works Director or their designee.

Response I-1.14
The commenter states that there are significant inconsistencies between the RHNA, SCAG’s forecasts for the region and Burbank, and the existing 2021 DOF numbers. The commenter also 3-79
ATTACHMENT 12-364
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
states that the large discrepancy between the RHNA allocation and SCAG’s 2030 housing unit forecast needs a full explanation. Lastly, the commenter states that Burbank’s RHNA allocation does not make sense and that the City should demand an audit of the SCAG RHNA numbers prior to approving the Project.

Refer to Response I-1.5 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. SCAG’s 2020-2030 growth forecast is used as the basis for calculating projected household growth. A jurisdiction's projected housing need is calculated based on this household growth in addition to a calculated future vacancy need and replacement need. The RHNA also includes a jurisdiction's existing housing needs, which includes factors related to access to transit and jobs. For additional information, refer to https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/scag-final-rhna-methodology- 030520.pdf?1602189316.

Response I-1.15
The commenter states that SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS estimates fewer residents, jobs, and housing units by 2040 than under the 2016 RTP/SCS. The commenter questions how the lower numbers for residents, jobs, and ho\using units are reconciled with the RHNA for Burbank.

Refer to Response I-1.5 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, or Response I-1.14 above, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein.

Response I-1.16
The commenter states that the disparity among housing unit numbers in SCAG, RHNA, and DOF forecasts need to be reconciled. The commenter questions how an additional 10,456 housing units in the 6th Cycle Housing Element is justifiable given the current six percent vacancy rate. The commenter also notes that the DOF forecast for housing units in the Housing Element is different from the DOF forecast in the Draft EIR.

Refer to Response I-1.7 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. A vacancy rate measures the overall housing availability in a community and is often a good indicator of how efficiently for-sale and rental housing units are meeting the current demand for housing. A vacancy rate of five percent for rental housing and two percent for ownership housing is generally considered healthy and suggests that there is a balance between the demand and supply of housing. A lower vacancy rate may indicate that households are having difficulty in finding housing that is affordable, leading to overcrowding or households having to pay more than they can afford.

Response I-1.17
The commenter questions what the justification is for the 15 percent housing unit buffer and states that the Draft EIR should study resulting impacts without the 15 percent buffer. The commenter also questions what statute requires this buffer, if the buffer is a State mandate, why there is no discussion in the alternatives section about the buffer’s impacts on sewers, and the justification of the buffer with the arrival of Senate SB 9, SB 10, and SB 35.

Refer to Response I-1.8 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, or Response I-1.9 above, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. 3-80
ATTACHMENT 12-365
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response I-1.18
The commenter questions what factors were used to quantify reductions in GHG emissions and whether the waiver of the Clean Air Act was reinstated. The commenter notes that if this waiver has been reinstated, GHG emissions would likely be lower.

Refer to Response I-1.9 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. On March 9, 2022, the United States Environmental Protection Agency reinstated California’s authority under the Clean Air Act to implement its own GHG emission standards and zero emission vehicle sales mandate. The Draft EIR is required to look at the existing conditions at the time of the distribution of the NOP, which was March 2021.

Therefore, the reinstatement was not in effect when the Draft EIR was circulated for public review in January 2022.

Response I-1.19
The commenter replicates the information provided on page 4.5-10 of Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR and notes that Burbank should be proud of its past record of reductions in GHG emissions.

Refer to Response I-1.10 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. This comment does not address a deficiency in the Draft EIR. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary.

Response I-1.20
The commenter questions what assumptions were made for the growing use of electric vehicles and where the discussion and assumptions about electric vehicles by 2029 for mobile sources are in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR.

Refer to Response I-1.11 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. As described under Methodology in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, fleet mix and vehicle emission rates in CalEEMod are based off CARB’s 2017 Emission Factor (EMFAC2017) model. The EMFAC model uses trends in vehicle sales data to estimate the future mix of vehicles present on California’s roads, as detailed in depth in the EMFAC2017 technical documentation:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017-volume-iii-technical-documentation.pdf.

Mobile source emissions generated by build out of the City’s RHNA allocation would be reduced with implementation of standards under the California Advanced Clean Cars Program, which requires the CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost- effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles,” and SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which leverages technology innovations such as electric vehicles.

Response I-1.21
The commenter questions where the policy to upgrade existing homes to greater energy efficiency is in the air quality section of the Draft EIR.

Refer to Response I-1.12 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The policy referred to in this comment is Policy 3.8 of the Draft Housing Element, which was included under Impact AQ-1 in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of 3-81
ATTACHMENT 12-366
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
the Draft EIR as a policy that would help reduce air pollutant emissions through promoting transportation and land use design factors, resulting in VMT reductions.

Please note, since the Draft EIR was released for public review, the Housing Element has updated this policy and renumbered it as Policy 3.9.

Response I-1.22
The commenter questions the threshold of a 400,000-car intersection and where this threshold is justified. The commenter questions whether the future forecast of 67,000 daily trips will generate carbon monoxide (CO) emissions equal to a 400,000-car intersection due to the additional idling time at the at the Victory Boulevard and Burbank Boulevard five-point intersection.

Refer to Response I-1.13 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The threshold of a 400,000-car intersection is based on the ratio of the most stringent 1-hour carbon monoxide (CO) standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan’s estimated 1-hour CO concentration value of 4.6 ppm at the intersection within the South Coast Air Basin expected to experience the highest CO concentrations. The 1-hour CO standard of 20 ppm would not likely be exceeded at this intersection until the intersection exceeded more than 400,000 vehicle trips per day. In addition, the Burbank Victory Boulevard/Victory Place and Burbank Boulevard intersection, which the commenter is referring to, is the highest volume intersection in Burbank and is estimated to have 67,500 average daily trips with implementation of the Project, which is approximately 17 percent of the threshold of a 400,000-car intersection. Therefore, the Housing Element Update would not have potential to contribute to localized CO concentrations at intersections that exceed State CO standards.

Response I-1.23
The commenter states that the Draft EIR contains contradiction on impacts related to “unplanned growth” and that new housing units occurring “anywhere in the city” is considered unplanned growth. The commenter also states that the Draft EIR fails to discuss the impacts of SB 9 and SB 10, which would result in an unknown number of new housing units in unknown locations and adds that the Housing Element induces direct (population, housing) and indirect (services, quality of life infrastructure) growth.

Refer to Responses I-1.8 and I-1.14 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The Housing Element Update does identify 19 locations as opportunity sites that have the greatest potential to accommodate the RHNA’s housing growth allocated for the city and are shown in Figure 2-3 of the Draft EIR. These sites are underutilized and located in urbanized areas of the city, and they have been previously developed or disturbed. The Housing Element Update is anticipated to satisfy the anticipated population growth in the region in an efficient manner consistent with State, regional and local policies and with the projected growth forecast for Burbank and the surrounding region.

Response I-1.24
The commenter states that impacts on VMT should be assessed and that growth-inducing VMT impacts are not addressed. The commenter also states that the analysis needs to look at the job/housing balance in the Burbank area and whether it would increase growth of jobs and how it would affect VMT impacts.
3-82
ATTACHMENT 12-367
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Please refer to Response I-1.15 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. Impacts associated with growth under the Housing Element Update are disclosed in the Draft EIR. Impact TRA-2 in Section 4.11, Transportation, of the Draft EIR assesses the Project’s VMT impacts and concluded that the Housing Element Update would reduce VMT in the three target populations (per service population, per capita, and per employee); however, it would not reduce VMT by more than the required 15 percent, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Despite the significant impacts associated with VMT, the jobs/housing balance improves by approximately 7 percent from the baseline year, with an average daily VMT of 18.1, to 2029, with an average daily VMT of 16.7, and all VMT metrics improve over the baseline values against which the impacts are assessed. In addition, the proposed Housing Element does not include any new roadway infrastructure or measures that would lead to induced VMT. As discussed under Section 5.3, Growth Inducing Impacts, of the Draft EIR, the City’s existing roadway network would largely accommodate reasonably foreseeable development under the Housing Element Update. In the event that roadway upgrades are required to serve specific future development, such upgrades would likely be minor (e.g., lane reconfiguration or restriping) and would not include the construction of new roads. Therefore, the Project would not result in the extension of infrastructure to undeveloped areas which would remove an obstacle to growth.

Response I-1.25
The commenter states that the loss of housing units to short-term rentals should be discussed and addressed in the population and housing section of the Draft EIR. The commenter adds that loss of these housing units exacerbates the housing shortage and that requiring these homes to become available for long-term rent or sales would assist the City in making more progress towards achieving the RHNA allocation.

Please refer to Response I-1.16 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. Section 4.8, Population and Housing, of the Draft EIR, analyzes the thresholds under CEQA, which include whether the Project would induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure) or displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Economic analysis of issue, such as short-term rentals, is beyond the scope of the EIR.

Response I-1.26
The commenter states that the paradigm shift of work/commute patterns resulting from the pandemic should be discussed in either the GHG Emissions, Population and Housing, or Transportation section of the Draft EIR as work-commute patterns have new implications for VMT, GHG emissions, and RHNA. The commenter questions how the impacts of these shift of work patterns are accounted for in the Draft EIR.

Please refer to Response I-1.17 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The Draft EIR has generally assumed trip assumptions for VMT analysis based on pre-pandemic patterns, and analyzes the ability of implementation of the Housing Element’s goals and policies to reduce VMT from this pre-pandemic level. Travel and trip generation trends since the height of the pandemic indicate that VMT may be returning to pre-pandemic levels. However, even if the pandemic were to cause a permanently- changed level of VMT in the City, increasing housing in Burbank to address the job-housing 3-83
ATTACHMENT 12-368
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
imbalance, and locating much of that housing near transit, as proposed in the Housing Element, will help reduce per employee VMT and GHG emissions due to reduced trip lengths, regardless of whether baseline VMT has been fundamentally changed due to the pandemic.

Response I-1.27
The commenter states that the water supply discussion in Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, needs to discuss the contemporary drought more completely given the significant loss of snowpack and the Governor’s latest order to local water agencies to develop their own plans for the drought. The commenter also states that the water supply discussion needs to clearly state where the snowpack is estimated to be in 2029 by using interpolation or another method.

Refer to Response I-1.18 in
Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. As discussed in Section 4.12, Utilities/Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, citywide water demand has declined compared to the early 1970s due to efficient water use after major droughts in the 1970s, 1990s, and especially in response to the previous significant water shortage and closure of major industries. Additionally, Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, includes discussion on the loss of snowpack and states that future 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. Further, the City of Burbank’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) prepared by BWP includes an assessment of past and future water supplies and demands, evaluation of the future reliability of Burbank’s water supplies over a 20-year planning horizon (2040), discussion of demand management measures and Burbank’s water shortage contingency plan, discussion of the use and planned use of recycled water, and an evaluation of distribution system water losses. Based on the UWMP, BWP has determined that there is sufficient water capacity to serve the City’s increased water demand of 5,605 acre-feet e by 2045 resulting from Project implementation. Additionally, Metropolitan’s UWMP includes 440,092 acre-feet of new supplies for their service area by 2030 from projects currently under development.

An additional 359,000 acre-feet of water is possible from projects within their service area that are at the conceptual level or the CEQA phase. Their UWMP indicates availability of adequate water supply to meet the total service area water demand until 2040.

Response I-1.28
The commenter states that the cumulative impacts analyses are deficient because SB 9, SB 10, and SB 35 are not assessed or identified as part of the Project.

Refer to Response I-1.8 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein.

Response I-1.29
The commenter questions what is required to reach water conservation level needs to provide water to the 10,456 housing units.

Refer to Responses I-1.8 and I-1.20 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. 3-84
ATTACHMENT 12-369
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response I-1.30
The commenter questions what cumulative effects will result from additional development and loss of open space. The commenter also questions the effect on urban heat island and on climate change.

Refe
r to Response I-1.21 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. Impact GHG-1 in Section 4.5, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR concluded that the Housing Element Update would be consistent with all State, regional, and local plans to reduce GHG emissions, resulting in less than significant impacts to GHG emissions and climate change. In addition, the Project would be consistent with the actions under Measure E-1.7 in the Burbank 2035 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan, which include amending the Zoning Ordinance to require installation of two on
-site
shade trees for each new single-fam
ily
residential unit, continuing Burbank Water and Power’s Made in the Shade Program, and updating the Street Tree Plan and Urban Forestry Program.

As dis
cussed under Impact REC-1 in Section 4.10, Recreation, of the Draft EIR, the Open Space and Conservation Element of the Burbank 2035 General Plan establishes a requirement for three acres of new parkland per 1,000 new residents. This requirement applies to large residential developments and would result in parkland dedications, improvements, or in-lieu payments if a project applicant is not able to dedicate land or the land is considered unsuitable for park or recreation use.

Response I-1.31
The commenter notes that Metropolitan’s service area includes other cities and that there should be a quantitative, service area-wide cumulative analysis to assess water supply demands. The commenter questions what level of water conservation would be required to meet water supply for 10,456 additional housing units in the city and if it is feasible. The commenter also questions what impacts landscaping will have on the heat island effect.

Refer to Responses I-1.20, I-1.21, and I-1.22 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The 2020 UWMP indicates the Metropolitan has sufficient water supplies to meet expected service area demands under normal water year, single dry-yeas, and five-year drought conditions.

Response I-1.32
The commenter states that the cumulative impacts fail to address direct and indirect impacts, loss of greenery, infrastructure construction to increase provisions of recycled water to neighborhoods, and impacts of new piping to provide recycled water. The commenter questions why no cumulative analysis has been conducted regarding what infrastructure is required to be upgraded to accommodate these new housing units.

Refer to Response I-1.23 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. Reasonably foreseeable development accommodated under the Housing Element Update would be focused in urban areas that have already been previously developed and contain existing utility connections. Potential construction impacts associated with connecting to existing infrastructure would be temporary. 3-85
ATTACHMENT 12-370
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Response I-1.33
The commenter states that the Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR is inadequate because the analysis should provide an alternative that addresses the significant impacts under the proposed Project. The commenter adds that the alternatives should not have significant and unavoidable impacts and should realistically address the potential for impacts to wastewater, water, and other infrastructure systems associated with the level of proposed development.

Refer to Response I-1.24 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. As discussed in Section 6, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, three potential alternatives were considered but rejected. No other feasible alternatives were identified that would address the Project’s significant impacts. Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that “[a]n EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.” Response I-1.34
The commenter provides two added alternatives that should be assessed. The first alternative includes removing the 15 percent buffer and the second alternative includes reducing all infrastructure impacts to a level of insignificance. The commenter also states that allowing housing anywhere in the city does not afford the City to reasonably plan for the increase in locational and cumulative infrastructure demands.

Refer to Response I-1.25 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, regarding the removal of the 15 percent buffer alternative and I-1.14 in Section 2 regarding potential locations within the city for development accommodated under the Housing Element Update, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. Additionally, refer to Response I-1.20 in Section 2 regarding Burbank Water and Power’s ability to provide sufficient water supply to meet the additional water demand from 12,000 new housing units.

Response I-1.35
The commenter quotes analysis on pages 5-4 to 5-5 of Section 5, Other CEQA Considerations, of the Draft EIR, which relates to wastewater generation, and states that CEQA requires the analysis of Project impacts and not “reasonably foreseeable development” impacts.

Refer to Response I-1.26 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein.

Response I-1.36
The commenter questions if there is a policy recommendation in the Safety Element to armor soft story housing in the face of inevitable earthquakes.

Refer to Response I-1.27 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. Armoring soft story housing is not a specific policy 3-86
ATTACHMENT 12-371
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
included in the Safety Element. However, Policy 5.3 under Goal 5, Seismic Safety, includes enforcement of seismic design provisions of the current California Building Standards Code related to seismic hazards. All housing projects are required to comply with this policy.

Response I-1.37
The commenter requests that the Public Review of the Housing Element section be moved to the appendices.

Refer to Response I-1.28 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The 6th cycle planning requirements place added emphasis on demonstrating sufficient opportunities for public review of the draft Housing Element, summary of key comments received, and how these comments are addressed in the Element. This discussion is thus included in the body of the Housing Element public participation section of the Introduction.

Response I-1.38
The commenter requests revision of Policy 2.4 in the Housing Element to engage proactive code enforcement to return unauthorized short-term rentals to the city’s housing market.

Refer to Response I-1.29 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The City Council has reviewed options for abatement of unauthorized short-term rentals and has decided not to pursue at this time.

Response I-1.39
The commenter requests that a new policy be added under Goal 3 of the Housing Element that establishes a task force comprised of the Burbank Senior Board and Burbank Committee on Disabilities to determine state-of-the-art housing development examples for housing of persons with disabilities; and incorporates these objective standards into all density bonus and inclusionary zoning projects. SB 35, SB 9, and SB 10.

Refer to Response I-1.30 in
Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. Also refer to Response I-1.8 in Section 2, , Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, or Response I-1.9 above, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. As a matter of education and outreach, housing developments have been and can continue to be presented, as appropriate, to boards and commissions citywide with an interest/commitment on housing development.

Response I-1.40
The commenter requests that a new policy be added under Goal 5 of the Housing Element that establishes a pre-qualification program with the Burbank Housing Corporation for elderly renter households in the extremely-low-income category and large family households in the low-income category, and support their relocation to stabilized extremely low/low-income homes.

Refer to Response I-1.31 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. Burbank Housing Corporation (BHC) is a Community Housing Development Organization, a private nonprofit, community-based organization (a separate entity from the City) that develops affordable housing. BHC has received this designation as the City’s partner in the creation of affordable housing utilizing federal HOME funds along with other 3-87
ATTACHMENT 12-372
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
restricted housing funds. The City does not have the authority to dictate policy of this private, nonprofit developer. However, BHC continues to work with the City to serve the needs of the community via financing of housing developments with restricted housing funds.

Response I-1.41
The commenter states that the Neighborhood Revitalization paragraph on page 33 of the Housing Element should include the daycare and job search centers as well as the afterschool center that is in the Burbank Housing Corporation but serves the entire neighborhood.

Refer to Response I-1.32 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The following has been added to the Neighborhood Revitalization paragraph on page 33 of the Housing Element: "and to provide services to residents and the greater neighborhood including day care, after-school programs and job search assistance." Response I-1.42
The commenter notes that the Map of Focus Neighborhoods on page 1-34 of the Housing Element needs correction.

Refer to Response I-1.33 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The Map of Focus Neighborhoods on page 1-34 of the Housing Element has been corrected.

Response I-1.43
The commenter states that the definition for “affordable unit” in the Housing Element could be tied to the percent of area median.

Refer to Response I-1.34 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The definition refers to "income qualified household" because affordability is relative to the specific income level. Table 1-24 in the Housing Element provides affordable rent specific income level thresholds by income level, which is based on percent area median income, and compares with average rents in Burbank.

Response I-1.44
The commenter states that the definition for “Burbank Housing Corporation” in the Housing Element is more inclusive than housing.

Refer to Response I-1.35 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. Per page 1-97 in the Housing Element, the following has been added to the definition: “BHC also provides services to enrich the quality of life for residents, especially for children and youth, and operates four activity centers with after school programs, and two child development centers.”
Response I-1.45
The commenter states that the definition for “by-right development” in the Housing Element doesn’t require public hearings.
3-88
ATTACHMENT 12-373
City of Burbank
Burbank Housing and Safety Element Update Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR

Final Environmental Impact Report
Refer to Response I-1.36 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. This is the definition utilized by HCD and is consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2 (i).

Response I-1.46
The commenter states that the definition for “Grants” in the Housing Element should list and describe all available State and federal grants.

Refer to Response I-1.37 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. Please refer to Table 1-45 in the Housing Element.

Response I-1.47
The commenter states that the definition for “Conditional Use Permit” in the Housing Element should be identified as quasi-judicial.

Refer to Response I-1.38 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The comment is noted, but no revision has been made to the Housing Element.

Response I-1.48
The commenter states that the definition for “Density Bonus” in the Housing Element needs a simpler definition.

Refer to Response I-1.39 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The intent of the definitions included in the Glossary are to provide the lay public a general understanding of terms used in the Housing Element. Refer to page 1-52 to 1-53 for more detail on density bonus incentives.

Response I-1.49
The commenter states that the definition for “Dissimilarity Index” in the Housing Element needs a clear definition.

Refer to Response I-1.40 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The intent of the definitions included in the Glossary are to provide the lay public a general understanding of terms used in the Housing Element. Refer to page B-15 for a detailed discussion of the Dissimilarity Index.

Response I-1.50
The commenter states that the definition for “Homeless” in the Housing Element should include unsheltered who live in vehicles.

Refer to Response I-1.40 in Section 2, Responses to Comments on Draft EIR, as this comment was previously submitted and responded to therein. The following has been added to the definition of homeless on page 1-24 of the Housing Element: "Also includes persons living in a car, van or RV/camper."
3-89
ATTACHMENT 12-374
September 6, 2022
Shipra Rajesh
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
150 North Third Street
Burbank, CA 91502
[email protected]
Subject: Recirculated Draft EIR for the Housing Element Dear City Council and Planning Staff:

The Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (“RDEIR”) for the City’s Housing Element Update (“proposed Project”), while an improvement over the original Draft EIR is still fatally flawed. It stills fails to accurately or completely analyze the impacts of up-zoning and the construction of an additional 10,456 housing units in the City of Burbank in the next 8 years, the Project as defined in the RDEIR. According to the Department of Finance there are currently 45,069 housing units in Burbank.

The Housing Element’s housing construction targets thus represents a 23% increase in housing units, and associated Burbank population in just 8 years. Yet the RDEIR only identifies one significant unmitigated impact in addition to the significant unmitigated VMT impact identified in the DEIR: the Sewage Treatment Capacity impact also identified in the original DEIR. While the RDEIR includes additional mitigation measures for this impact, the RDEIR still illustrates the fact that the State is forcing the City to engage in up-zoning which will result in significant unmitigated impacts to Sewage Treatment Capacity. This is crazy and not something the City Council should allow.

INTRODUCTION
According to the DEIR, the City’s sewer treatment capacity is 4 million gallons per day (mgd).

Meeting the City’s Housing Element targets would result in the generation of 6.3 mgd of sewage.

Sewage generation would thus represent 157% of existing sewage treatment capacity. The need to expand sewage treatment capacity by 57% is not a simple fix and would represent a substantial impact on the City and its residents pending development of the additional capacity. This is something no rational City would wish to approve.

The RDEIR’s analysis of direct impacts to other public services and utilities lacks needed quantification and are not adequately supported by substantial evidence. The DEIR needs to include quantification of the increase in demand for water, other utilities and public services and to compare those numbers to existing and planned capacity.

The RDEIR needs to more completely address the indirect impacts of the project. For example, the project generates the need for additional sewage treatment facilities. What are the impacts of the construction and operation of those facilities, and any other facilities which need to be either expanded or constructed to address project-induced demand? The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that both direct and indirect impacts of a project be addressed in an EIR. The DEIR and RDEIR have failed to adequately comply with this requirement. 3-90
ATTACHMENT 12-375
The absurd changes in Housing Element Law in California over the last few years has resulted in a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the SCAG region of 1,341,827 new housing units. The neighboring City of Los Angeles has a RHNA allocation plus buffer for its Housing Element Update of 456,643 new units for the 2021-2029 Plan period, representing a 30% increase in the City of Los Angeles’ total housing stock. Any cumulative impact analysis needs to address the impact of the City’s Housing Element targets in combination with projected housing increases in neighboring jurisdictions resulting from their Housing Element targets and this analysis needs to be quantitative, not qualitative. How will this cumulative development in combination with the proposed Project impact public services and utilities in the Burbank area? Given the massive up-zoning of the entire State, how can assumptions regarding water availability be justified? They can’t without an actual quantification of changing water demand and how it will affect water availability from each of the City’s water sources? If additional water conservation is required as a result of the proposed project, what is the required reduction in water consumption required, and is this level of water conservation actually feasible? Given the extreme amount of growth being required by the State legislature, how will water and other service availability be impacted? This has not been adequately addressed in the DEIR or RDEIR.

In addition to changes in H ousing Element law, with the consequent requirements for up- zoning, the legislature has separately engaged in substantial additional mandated up-zoning which is not accounted for in either the Housing Element Update or the DEIR or RDEIR. The RDEIR must address, as part of the cumulative impact analysis, the impact of the proposed Project in combination with not only RHNA targets for the greater Los Angeles area, but also the impacts of SB9, SB10, SB35 and similar legislation which is not accounted for in recent housing element updates.

In general, the RDEIR does a terrible job of supporting its conclusions with substantial evidence.

It fails to footnote sources or provide links to key documents. It provides a broad largely narrative analysis without the needed supporting data.

The RDEIR, like the DEIR also fails to provide an adequate cumulative impact analysis. It therefore fails as an informational document for City leaders that will need to cope with these unfunded State mandates.

It is important that the DEIR and RDEIR accurate ly disclose to the City’s decision-makers and the public the impacts of mandates imposed on the City through recent State legislation, and the projected harmful effect of those mandates on the quality of life in Burbank and the City’s ability to provide basic public services and functioning infrastructure. One of the key purposes of CEQA is to disclose to the public the environmental values of elected officials so the public can take appropriate action come election day. It is very important that this DEIR and RDEIR disclose to the public the impacts which the State legislature has chosen to impose on the City via legislative mandates, so that the public can judge whether recent changes in State housing-related laws are acceptable to Burbank residents and, if not, take appropriate action at the State-level come election day. The DEIR and RDEIR fail to accomplish this basic purpose and must be rewritten to acknowledge additional significant project and cumulative impacts, and recirculated for additional public review and comment before any action can be taken to either certify the EIR or approve the project.
3-91
ATTACHMENT 12-376

SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Introduction
The RDEIR needs to include a revised Impact Summary Table which incorporates the findings of the supplemental analysis. The Impact Summary Table is a very important tool for both decision-makers and the public when it comes to understanding the impacts of a projects and the mitigation measures required.

Page 1 ends

Burbank City CouncilSeptember 27, 2022

Burbank City Council
September 27, 2022